GRI 306: Waste 2020 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 306-5
Waste directed to disposal
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
30 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how much waste it sends to disposal, rather than to recovery or reuse. In practice, the reporting should cover the organisation’s waste flows in a way that is consistent and complete for the reporting period, so readers can see the scale of waste that ends up being disposed of.
The practical focus is on the organisation’s full operations, not just a few selected sites or flagship locations, unless the reporting boundary is clearly defined that way. The aim is to show where waste is going, so the organisation can present a clear picture of disposal across its activities and avoid giving a misleading impression based on partial coverage.
* This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
| Datapoint | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total disposal weight | The full weight of waste sent for disposal in the reporting period, before splitting by waste type or disposal route. | Waste register, contractor summaries, transfer notes, and period-end consolidation used for the disposal total. | Environment / Waste management |
| Waste composition category | The waste composition group used to classify the disposal data, such as the business’s internal waste category for the stream. | Waste classification list, site waste logs, and the reporting template mapping from source categories. | Environment / Waste management |
| Disposal waste weight | The weight of waste sent for disposal, reported as a narrative item where the disclosure asks for the disposal amount by waste type. | Consolidated disposal records, weighbridge tickets, and contractor statements supporting the reported amount. | Environment / Waste management |
| Hazardous disposal total | The total weight of hazardous waste sent for disposal across all disposal routes in the period. | Hazardous waste manifest records, contractor invoices, and the hazardous waste disposal summary. | Environment / Waste management |
| Hazardous energy recovery | The weight of hazardous waste disposed of by incineration where energy is recovered, in tonnes. | Treatment certificates, contractor route descriptions, and hazardous waste disposal logs showing the disposal route. | Environment / Waste management |
| Hazardous incineration no recovery | The weight of hazardous waste disposed of by incineration without energy recovery, in tonnes. | Contractor treatment records, manifests, and site waste tracking showing the exact disposal method used. | Environment / Waste management |
| Hazardous landfill weight | The weight of hazardous waste sent to landfill, in tonnes. | Landfill receipts, waste transfer notes, and contractor summaries for hazardous landfill movements. | Environment / Waste management |
| Hazardous other disposal | The weight of hazardous waste sent for disposal through routes other than incineration or landfill, in tonnes. | Contractor route codes, disposal certificates, and the waste classification table for non-standard disposal routes. | Environment / Waste management |
| Non-hazardous disposal total | The total weight of non-hazardous waste sent for disposal across all disposal routes in the period. | Non-hazardous waste register, contractor statements, and period consolidation for disposal tonnage. | Environment / Waste management |
| Non-hazardous energy recovery | The weight of non-hazardous waste disposed of by incineration where energy is recovered, in tonnes. | Treatment certificates, contractor route descriptions, and non-hazardous disposal logs. | Environment / Waste management |
| Non-hazardous incineration no recovery | The weight of non-hazardous waste disposed of by incineration without energy recovery, in tonnes. | Contractor invoices, disposal certificates, and waste tracking records showing the exact incineration route. | Environment / Waste management |
| Non-hazardous landfill weight | The weight of non-hazardous waste sent to landfill, in tonnes. | Landfill tickets, transfer notes, and the non-hazardous waste disposal summary. | Environment / Waste management |
| Non-hazardous other disposal | The weight of non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through routes other than incineration or landfill, in tonnes. | Contractor route codes, disposal certificates, and the waste register for non-standard disposal routes. | Environment / Waste management |
| Onsite hazardous energy recovery | The hazardous waste disposed of onsite by incineration with energy recovery, in tonnes. | Onsite treatment logs, plant operating records, and internal waste tracking for the onsite route. | Operations / Environment |
| Onsite hazardous incineration | The hazardous waste disposed of onsite by incineration without energy recovery, in tonnes. | Onsite treatment records, plant logs, and waste tracking sheets showing the disposal route and location. | Operations / Environment |
| Onsite hazardous landfill | The hazardous waste disposed of onsite by landfill, in tonnes. | Onsite disposal records, site waste logs, and any internal landfill documentation for the period. | Operations / Environment |
| Onsite hazardous other | The hazardous waste disposed of onsite through other disposal routes, in tonnes. | Onsite waste records, route codes, and internal treatment documentation for non-standard disposal. | Operations / Environment |
| Onsite non-hazardous energy recovery | The non-hazardous waste disposed of onsite by incineration with energy recovery, in tonnes. | Onsite plant records, waste logs, and internal route coding for non-hazardous disposal. | Operations / Environment |
| Onsite non-hazardous incineration | The non-hazardous waste disposed of onsite by incineration without energy recovery, in tonnes. | Onsite disposal logs, plant records, and route descriptions for the non-hazardous stream. | Operations / Environment |
| Onsite non-hazardous landfill | The non-hazardous waste disposed of onsite by landfill, in tonnes. | Onsite waste logs, landfill records, and internal site disposal summaries. | Operations / Environment |
| Onsite non-hazardous other | The non-hazardous waste disposed of onsite through other disposal routes, in tonnes. | Onsite waste records, route codes, and internal treatment documentation for other disposal routes. | Operations / Environment |
| Offsite hazardous energy recovery | The hazardous waste disposed of offsite by incineration with energy recovery, in tonnes. | Contractor certificates, manifests, and offsite treatment summaries showing the disposal location and route. | Environment / Waste management |
| Offsite hazardous incineration | The hazardous waste disposed of offsite by incineration without energy recovery, in tonnes. | Contractor treatment records, manifests, and route coding for the offsite hazardous stream. | Environment / Waste management |
| Offsite hazardous landfill | The hazardous waste disposed of offsite by landfill, in tonnes. | Landfill receipts, contractor invoices, and waste transfer notes for hazardous offsite disposal. | Environment / Waste management |
| Offsite hazardous other | The hazardous waste disposed of offsite through other disposal routes, in tonnes. | Contractor route codes, disposal certificates, and the hazardous waste register for non-standard routes. | Environment / Waste management |
| Offsite non-hazardous energy recovery | The non-hazardous waste disposed of offsite by incineration with energy recovery, in tonnes. | Contractor certificates, manifests, and offsite disposal summaries for the non-hazardous stream. | Environment / Waste management |
| Offsite non-hazardous incineration | The non-hazardous waste disposed of offsite by incineration without energy recovery, in tonnes. | Contractor treatment records, manifests, and route descriptions for offsite non-hazardous disposal. | Environment / Waste management |
| Offsite non-hazardous landfill | The non-hazardous waste disposed of offsite by landfill, in tonnes. | Landfill tickets, contractor summaries, and waste transfer notes for offsite non-hazardous landfill. | Environment / Waste management |
| Offsite non-hazardous other | The non-hazardous waste disposed of offsite through other disposal routes, in tonnes. | Contractor route codes, disposal certificates, and the non-hazardous waste register for other routes. | Environment / Waste management |
| Waste reporting notes | Any notes needed to explain how the waste figures were built, including the category structure used, the way onsite and offsite amounts were separated, and any table layout changes made for the report. | Reporting methodology note, source-to-report mapping, process flow diagrams, and the final disclosure table used in the report. | Environment / Reporting |
Show GRI 306-5 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Split the waste total into the composition groups you use, and show each group separately.
- Add the supporting context needed to read the figures and understand how they were put together.
- State the amount of hazardous waste sent for disposal in total.
- State the amount of non-hazardous waste sent for disposal in total.
- State the overall amount of waste sent for disposal.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through energy-recovering incineration at offsite facilities.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through incineration without energy recovery.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through incineration without energy recovery at offsite facilities.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through incineration without energy recovery at onsite facilities.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through landfilling.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through landfilling at offsite facilities.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through landfilling at onsite facilities.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through other disposal routes.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through other disposal routes at offsite facilities.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through other disposal routes at onsite facilities.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through energy-recovering incineration.
- Show the hazardous waste sent for disposal through energy-recovering incineration at onsite facilities.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through energy-recovering incineration.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through energy-recovering incineration at offsite facilities.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through energy-recovering incineration at onsite facilities.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through incineration without energy recovery.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through incineration without energy recovery at offsite facilities.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through incineration without energy recovery at onsite facilities.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through landfilling.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through landfilling at offsite facilities.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through landfilling at onsite facilities.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through other disposal routes.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through other disposal routes at offsite facilities.
- Show the non-hazardous waste sent for disposal through other disposal routes at onsite facilities.
- Show the total waste sent for disposal.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which sites, activities and waste streams are in scope, then keep that boundary consistent across the whole disclosure.
- Agree your waste categories and disposal routes before you start counting, so everyone classifies material in the same way for hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and for each disposal method used.
- Gather source records that support the numbers: weighbridge tickets, contractor returns, internal logs, and any other evidence that shows how much waste went to disposal and where it went.
- Build the disclosure from the source data into the required totals and breakdowns, including the split between hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and the separate on-site and off-site figures where needed.
- Record any exclusions, estimation methods, reclassifications or year-on-year changes so a reviewer can see how the figures were compiled and why any comparatives may not line up exactly.
- Check the finished disclosure against the official source and the table layout, making sure every required line is covered, units are shown where needed, and the narrative explains the data clearly.
Request waste disposal data from EHS / site operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What waste did we send for disposal in the reporting period, split by waste type, treatment route, and whether it was handled on site or by a third party?
Use your own site, waste and contractor terms first, then map them to the reporting categories. Keep the request in the language your team already uses for bins, skips, manifests, consignment notes, contractor pickups and plant waste streams; only translate into the reporting labels at the end. Check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the data for the waste disposal disclosure, including the categories and totals.
Why it fails: This is too close to reporting language and does not tell the owner what they need to pull from their own systems. It leaves out the period, boundary, source records, internal labels, treatment routes, and the on-site / off-site split, so the response is likely to be incomplete or hard to reconcile.
Better request
Please send the waste sent for final treatment in [period] for [sites in scope], using your normal waste register / contractor terms. For each line, include the internal waste label, whether it is classed as hazardous or not, the final treatment route, whether it was handled on site or by an external facility, the tonnes, the source record, and any assumptions used to convert to tonnes. We will map your labels to the reporting categories after receipt.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for waste disposal data for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name/team],\n\nCould you please send the waste disposal data for [reporting period] for [sites / business units in scope]? We need the figures broken down using your normal operational labels first, then we will map them to the reporting categories.\n\nPlease include:\n- the period covered\n- the sites / operations included\n- the source system or file used\n- the waste type labels you use internally\n- the hazardous / non-hazardous split\n- the treatment route for each load or total\n- whether each amount was handled on site or sent out\n- the unit used and any conversion method to tonnes\n- the evidence file or record reference for each line\n- any assumptions, estimates, exclusions or data quality notes\n\nIf helpful, you can return it in the attached table format. Please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.\n\nMany thanks,\n[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the waste disposal figures for [period] for [sites in scope]? Please use your usual site / contractor labels, and include the treatment route, on-site vs off-site split, tonnes, and the source record for each line. I’ll map it to the reporting categories afterwards. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A factory has scrap, packaging waste, solvent waste and mixed general waste recorded in a site waste log and contractor statements.
Adapted request. Please extract the waste sent for final treatment from the plant waste log for [period]. Use the site labels for scrap, packaging, solvent waste and general waste, and show the treatment route, on-site or off-site handling, tonnes, and the consignment note or contractor reference for each line.
Example response. Returned table: Scrap metal | non-hazardous | other disposal route | off-site | 12.4 tonnes | CN-1042; Solvent waste | hazardous | incineration without energy recovery | off-site | 3.1 tonnes | CN-1088; General waste | non-hazardous | landfill | off-site | 8.7 tonnes | contractor statement 77.
Healthcare
Context. A hospital tracks clinical waste, offensive waste and sharps through a waste contractor portal and ward-level logs.
Adapted request. Please provide the waste sent for final treatment from the hospital waste records for [period]. Keep the ward and contractor labels, and include the treatment route, whether the waste was handled on site or sent off site, tonnes, and the supporting manifest or contractor report for each line.
Example response. Returned table: Clinical waste | hazardous | incineration with energy recovery | off-site | 5.6 tonnes | manifest pack A12; Offensive waste | non-hazardous | landfill | off-site | 9.2 tonnes | contractor report Q4; Sharps | hazardous | incineration without energy recovery | off-site | 1.1 tonnes | manifest pack A18.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
State which waste streams are included in the disposal figures, how hazardous and non-hazardous material are distinguished, and whether the numbers cover only the reporting period and the organisation’s own operations or also any onsite treatment.
Context note
Explain that these figures show the amount of waste the organisation sent for final disposal, with separate totals for hazardous and non-hazardous material and a breakdown by disposal route to show how the waste was managed.
Fluctuation statement
If the mix or total changes materially, link the movement to operational drivers such as changes in waste generation, sorting, treatment route, or the amount handled onsite versus sent elsewhere.
Content index entry
GRI 306-5 Waste directed to disposal — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 306-5. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We compiled the coverage figure from our own waste records for the reporting period, then checked that the total only includes material we classified as going to final disposal and not any recovery routes. | An assurer may question whether the total is complete, whether any diverted material was wrongly included, and whether the period and boundary were applied consistently. | Waste register extracts, site returns, consolidation workbook, boundary and period notes, classification rules used to separate disposal from recovery, and review sign-off on the final total. |
| We grouped the disclosed amounts using the waste categories we applied in our internal reporting, and we kept the mapping from source records to each category so the split can be traced. | An assurer may probe whether the category split is arbitrary, whether items were double-counted or omitted, and whether the mapping from source data to the published categories is reliable. | Category mapping schedule, source waste descriptions, coding guidance, reconciliation between source lines and published categories, and evidence of management review of the categorisation. |
| We prepared the disposal figures by summing the underlying weights from the relevant records, then checked that the subtotal and total lines reconcile across the table. | An assurer may test arithmetic accuracy, completeness of the roll-up, and whether the published totals agree with the supporting detail. | Calculation workbook, formula checks, source-to-report reconciliation, control totals, and evidence of independent review of the calculations. |
| For the hazardous portion, we used the waste classification assigned in our records and kept supporting documents showing why each item was treated as hazardous. | An assurer may challenge the hazardous/non-hazardous split, the basis for classification, and whether the supporting evidence is sufficient and current. | Hazardous waste classifications, safety data sheets or equivalent classification support, contractor descriptions, internal approval of the classification basis, and exception logs for disputed items. |
| We separated the hazardous disposal amounts into the different treatment routes using the disposal method shown on the source documents, and we checked that each item sat in only one route. | An assurer may look for misclassification between treatment routes, overlap between categories, and unsupported assumptions about the final treatment method. | Carrier and treatment facility records, invoices or transfer notes, route coding guidance, exception review notes, and a reconciliation showing each item allocated once only. |
| Where the waste was handled on our own premises, we relied on operational logs and internal records to distinguish the treatment route from material sent elsewhere. | An assurer may question whether onsite amounts were properly identified, whether the same waste was also counted offsite, and whether the operational logs are complete. | Plant logs, internal movement records, weighbridge or meter data where available, site process notes, and reconciliation between onsite and offsite records. |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
Common reporting gaps
- Figures are stated without the supporting narrative, or narrative without figures.
- Scope is inconsistent between the text and the numbers.
- The reporting boundary is left undefined.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Estimates and measured values are not distinguished.
- Source records for the figures are not identified.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner asked
The request goes to a team that handles general waste contracts, while the figures actually sit with site operations, facilities, or the waste contractor.
- Framework language used too early
People ask for data in reporting jargon instead of the organisation’s own labels, so the source team cannot map bins, skips, manifests, or invoices to the request.
- Scope not pinned down
The collector never states which sites, activities, or waste streams are in scope, so different teams send different slices of the same material.
- Period basis mixed up
One source gives calendar-month movements while another gives the reporting year, and the two are combined without a clean cut-off.
- Counting basis mixed together
Weights from different measurement methods are merged without separating estimated, weighed, or contractor-reported figures, so the totals are not built on one consistent basis.
- Source labels stripped away
The original waste codes, route names, and site tags are removed during consolidation, making it impossible to trace each line back to the first record.
- Hazardous and non-hazardous pooled
The collector adds together waste that should stay in separate groups, which hides the split needed for the disposal breakdown.
- Onsite and offsite not separated
Material handled at the organisation’s own premises is blended with material sent away, so the disposal route split cannot be checked properly.
- Evidence metadata missing
The file arrives without date, source, unit, or version details, so reviewers cannot tell what the number came from or whether it is current.
- No sign-off trail
The final dataset is circulated without a named reviewer or approval record, leaving no clear trail for who checked the figures before they were used.
Where judgement is often needed
- Set the reporting perimeter after acquisitions and disposals
Use the same cut-off date and inclusion rule across all waste streams, and explain any bought-in or sold-on sites that are partly included so the totals match the period covered.
- Choose one country rule where local labels differ
Where national waste labels or treatment categories do not line up neatly, map each site’s records to one internal classification and disclose the mapping rule used.
- Decide how to treat sites or teams near the boundary
State whether shared facilities, contractors, joint ventures, or remote operations are counted in full, partly, or not at all, and keep that approach consistent across the table.
- Fix the timing basis for when waste is counted
Explain whether amounts are booked when waste leaves the site, when a carrier collects it, or when the final treatment record arrives, and apply the same timing to all entries.
- Separate measured amounts from estimates
If some figures come from weighbridge tickets and others from calculated or sampled data, say which lines are direct and which are estimated, including the method used for the estimate.
- Handle mixed waste streams with a clear split rule
When one load contains more than one material type or treatment route, disclose the allocation method used so the hazardous and non-hazardous totals can still be traced.
- Decide how to classify borderline treatment routes
If a disposal route could reasonably sit in more than one bucket, state the internal rule used to place it under incineration, landfill, or the catch-all category.
- Round figures without breaking the totals
Set and disclose a rounding approach that keeps the line items, sub-totals, and grand totals internally consistent, even where small differences arise from rounding.
- Aggregate enough to protect sensitive site data
If site-level waste figures could reveal confidential operational details, present them at a higher level of grouping and explain the aggregation choice.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food processing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows how to present disposal volumes as a stacked quantitative table, with hazardous and non-hazardous streams broken down by treatment route. It is illustrative only and should be adapted to the reporter’s own waste records.
| Waste stream / treatment route | Incineration with energy recovery | Incineration without energy recovery | Landfilling | Other disposal operations | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazardous waste | 12 | 8 | 20 | 5 | 45 |
| Non-hazardous waste | 30 | 15 | 40 | 10 | 95 |
Synthetic example only: we report the waste we sent for final treatment during the year, split between hazardous and non-hazardous material and by treatment route. The figures below are internally consistent and show the mix of disposal routes used, including a small onsite energy-recovery incineration amount within the hazardous stream.
Pharmaceutical manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example demonstrates a second plausible presentation of the same quantitative disclosure, using a different sector and different values. It remains illustrative and should be replaced with the company’s own measured data.
| Waste stream / treatment route | Incineration with energy recovery | Incineration without energy recovery | Landfilling | Other disposal operations | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazardous waste | 6 | 4 | 18 | 2 | 30 |
| Non-hazardous waste | 22 | 11 | 35 | 7 | 75 |
Synthetic example only: we summarise the waste we directed to disposal, with separate totals for hazardous and non-hazardous material and a route split for each. The table is internally consistent and includes a small onsite energy-recovery incineration figure within the hazardous category.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. The charts below are drawn from the illustrative figures above — swap in your own data.
Other views you could build
- Overall waste sent for disposal by waste type — stacked bar: How the total amount sent to disposal is split between hazardous and non-hazardous waste, using the category breakdown provided.
- Disposal routes for hazardous waste — stacked bar: How hazardous waste sent to disposal is distributed across incineration with energy recovery, incineration without energy recovery, landfilling and other disposal routes, including the onsite incineration figure where relevant.
- Disposal routes for non-hazardous waste — stacked bar: How non-hazardous waste sent to disposal is divided across the same disposal routes, so readers can compare the mix of treatment methods.
- Hazardous waste sent to disposal: total versus onsite incineration — bar: A comparison between the total hazardous waste sent to disposal and the portion treated onsite by incineration with energy recovery.
- Waste composition feeding disposal totals — table: The waste composition categories alongside the weight sent to disposal, to help readers see which material streams contribute to the reported total.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We sent 1,200 tonnes of waste to disposal.
Better
We sent 1,200 tonnes of waste to disposal, split between 300 tonnes of hazardous waste and 900 tonnes of non-hazardous waste, with most going to landfill.
Best
For the year ended 31 December 2025, we sent 1,200 tonnes of waste to disposal, comprising 300 tonnes of hazardous waste and 900 tonnes of non-hazardous waste, mainly through offsite landfill and incineration, and the rise from last year reflects higher production scrap and a maintenance shutdown that created extra material for disposal.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 306-5 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Grupo Cibest S.A. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Colombia | 2025 | Partial | p. 46 →p. 47 →p. 304 → | Management Report 2025 → | PwC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Grupo Cibest S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Grupo Cibest S.A.'s 2025 Management Report provides several specific waste-related data points, including the reporting of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) such as computer parts and televisions linked to SDG 12.5 on page 302, and a quantified non-hazardous waste total of 0.45 tonnes with 0.25 tonnes disposed of by other means on page 48. Additionally, page 306 notes a waste-related figure of 201.2, though the context is less clear. However, the report lacks detailed weight values for various waste categories (b-i to b-iii, c-ii to c-iv) and does not provide narrative explanations or methodology for some waste weight values, leaving some aspects of waste management unclear.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd. | Semiconductors · Taiwan | 2024 | Partial | p. 261 →p. 234 →p. 153 → | 2024 CSR Report → | Deloitte | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd.'s 2024 CSR Report provides numeric data on waste recycling rates, showing a total recycled and reused rate increasing from 82% to 93% over recent years (p.241), and a non-hazardous waste recycling rate of 90% to 97% (p.104). The report also details hazardous waste management, including incineration with energy recycling and composting of general waste (p.142), and references total general and hazardous waste quantities (p.241). However, specific weight values for recycled or reused hazardous waste without incineration and other detailed waste weight categories are either partially covered or not found, and narrative explanations or methodologies for these figures are unclear or missing.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Bangkok Dusit Medical Services Public Company Limited | Healthcare Providers, Services and Technology · Thailand | 2025 | Partial | p. 41 →p. 266 →p. 275 → | Sustainability Report 2025 → | — | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Bangkok Dusit Medical Services Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Bangkok Dusit Medical Services Public Company Limited's Sustainability Report 2025 provides specific numeric data on waste management, including the total weight of hazardous waste directed to disposal reported as 5,258.22 tons on page 275, and zero tons for non-hazardous waste directed to disposal on page 276. The report also includes total greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1 and 2) data on page 220 and some contextual information on waste composition by type on page 236, though no headline values for non-hazardous waste breakdown are given. Notably, narrative explanations or detailed weight values for various waste categories and disposal methods are missing or unclear throughout the report.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A manufacturing site sends 18 tonnes of hazardous residues offsite for treatment, split across 5 tonnes for energy-recovering incineration, 7 tonnes for non-energy incineration, 4 tonnes to landfill and 2 tonnes to another disposal route. The waste register also shows 12 tonnes of non-hazardous waste sent offsite, split across 3 tonnes, 2 tonnes, 5 tonnes and 2 tonnes in the same four routes.How should the preparer decide what to enter for the disposal breakdown, and what check is needed before sign-off?
Model answer. The preparer should record the total amount sent to disposal for each waste class, then show how that total is split across the four disposal routes. The route figures must add back to the class total, so the hazardous subtotal should be 18 tonnes and the non-hazardous subtotal 12 tonnes; if they do not reconcile, the source records need fixing before the disclosure is finalised.
Why this matters. The breakdown must reconcile to the overall amount for each waste class.
A site manager has one spreadsheet showing 9 tonnes of hazardous waste sent to disposal, but the supporting invoices only identify 6 tonnes as offsite and 3 tonnes as handled in an onsite unit. The preparer is unsure whether to combine them or separate them in the disclosure.What is the right way to present the figures when disposal happens both on the site and elsewhere?
Model answer. The preparer should split the figures between onsite and offsite handling, because the disclosure asks for both the overall amount and the location of the disposal route. In this case, the 9 tonnes should be shown as 3 tonnes onsite and 6 tonnes offsite, with each part then allocated to the relevant disposal route so the totals remain consistent.
Why this matters. Where disposal happens in more than one place, the location split should be shown clearly and consistently.
A warehouse sends 14 tonnes of non-hazardous waste to disposal. Of this, 8 tonnes go to landfill, 4 tonnes to incineration without energy recovery and 2 tonnes to another disposal route; none goes to energy-recovering incineration.Should the preparer still show the zero amount for the unused route, or leave it out because there was no activity?
Model answer. The preparer should keep the route structure complete and show zero where a route was not used, rather than dropping that line. That makes it clear that the full set of disposal routes was considered and helps readers see that the 14-tonne total is fully explained by the route split.
Why this matters. Use the full route breakdown even when one route has no waste in it.
A preparer has 11 tonnes of hazardous waste sent to disposal, all offsite: 2 tonnes to energy-recovering incineration, 3 tonnes to non-energy incineration, 4 tonnes to landfill and 2 tonnes to another disposal route. The same waste is also described in the notes as ‘mixed industrial waste’ without any further category detail.What should the preparer do about the waste composition description and the supporting evidence before the disclosure is signed off?
Model answer. The preparer should include a plain description of the waste mix used for the figure and keep evidence that supports both the total and the route split. If the category description is too vague to explain what the 11 tonnes covers, it should be clarified so the reader can understand how the data was compiled and what the numbers relate to.
Why this matters. A clear waste category description and supporting records are needed to make the figures understandable.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 306-5 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS E5
Resource Use and Circular Economy — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
For GRI 306-5 Waste, what data do I need to pull together before I start drafting the disclosure?
The page lists the datapoints to prepare, including total disposal weight, waste composition category, disposal waste weight, and the split between hazardous and non-hazardous disposal routes. It also includes onsite and offsite treatment categories plus waste reporting notes, so you can build the disclosure from a complete data set rather than a single total. ↑ section
How should I set the scope for GRI 306-5 Waste so the numbers are consistent?
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation section to define the reporting boundary before collecting figures, then keep the same scope across total disposal weight, hazardous and non-hazardous totals, and the onsite/offsite breakdowns. The page is designed to help you avoid mixing different scopes in one draft. ↑ section
What is the easiest way to organise the waste data owner’s inputs for GRI 306-5 Waste?
The page is set up around a clear list of datapoints, so a data owner can work through the totals, category splits, treatment routes, and notes in a structured way. That makes it easier to assign each line to the right source and avoid missing a required field in the draft. ↑ section
What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 306-5 Waste if I want to be assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack for assurance readiness, with five items to assemble alongside the disclosure draft. Use it to keep the underlying records, calculations, and supporting notes together so a reviewer can trace the reported figures back to source. ↑ section
What are the six assurance claims on the GRI 306-5 Waste page and how do I use them?
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk, and evidence prompt. Use them as a checklist to test whether the disclosure is complete, internally consistent, and supported by documentation before it goes to review. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes to watch for in GRI 306-5 Waste?
The page includes a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, which is there to help you spot missing totals, incomplete splits, or weak supporting notes before publication. It is useful as a final quality check against the datapoints and the evidence pack. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 306-5 Waste?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to help you organise the disclosure inputs and assurance checks. Use it to capture the datapoints, track evidence, and turn raw data into a draft more efficiently. ↑ section
What can I do with the printable Library Card for GRI 306-5 Waste?
The Download Centre also provides a printable Library Card in .pdf format. It is a practical companion for keeping the disclosure checklist, key datapoints, and review points in one place while you work through the draft. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 306-5 Waste data into a draft disclosure?
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a starting point for turning the collected data into a readable draft and a simple index entry for the report. ↑ section
Can I use the GRI 306-5 Waste page to compare my data with ESRS E5?
Yes, the page notes ESRS E5 (Resource Use and Circular Economy) as the closest correspondence, so the data you collect here may be reusable across both reporting processes. The page does not say the requirements are identical, so treat it as a practical data-reuse check rather than a one-to-one mapping. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 306-5 Waste datapoints checklist for total disposal weight and treatment splits
- How to collect hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal data for GRI 306-5
- What onsite and offsite waste treatment categories are needed for GRI 306-5 Waste?
- How to document waste reporting notes for GRI 306-5 Waste
- GRI 306-5 Waste assurance evidence pack checklist
- How to use the GRI 306-5 Prep & Assurance workbook
- GRI 306-5 Waste common mistakes and reporting gaps
- How to write a draft narrative for GRI 306-5 Waste
- GRI 306-5 Waste visualisation ideas for a report draft
- GRI 306-5 Waste content index line example
- ESRS E5 and GRI 306-5 Waste data reuse
- Where to find real company report examples for GRI 306-5 Waste
✓ LRA AI Assistant · human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
