GRI 308: Supplier Environmental Assessment 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 308-2
Negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and actions taken
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
6 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain whether it has identified significant negative environmental impacts in its supply chain, and what it has done in response. In practice, the focus is on the impacts themselves, the parts of the supply chain where they occur, and the actions taken to address them, rather than on general sustainability activity or only on the organisation’s own operations.
The practical question is how far the organisation’s review reaches across its supply chain and how it decides what to include. A narrow approach might only cover a few high-risk suppliers or flagship products, while a broader approach would look across relevant tiers, categories, or geographies where the organisation’s purchasing could be linked to environmental harm. The report should make clear the scope covered, the main issues found, and the response taken.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppliers reviewed | The count of suppliers that were actually reviewed for environmental impact issues in the reporting period. | Supplier review log, assessment tracker, procurement or ESG due diligence records showing the supplier list and completed reviews. | Procurement / Sustainability |
| Suppliers with major impacts | The count of suppliers found to have material actual or possible negative environmental impacts from the review. | Assessment outcomes, risk ratings, audit findings, issue registers, and supplier due diligence records showing which suppliers met the materiality threshold. | Procurement / Sustainability |
| Supply chain impact themes | A short description of the main actual and possible negative environmental impacts found across the supply chain. | Consolidated assessment summary, audit reports, corrective action logs, and issue themes from supplier reviews. | Sustainability / Procurement |
| Agreed supplier fixes | The share of identified suppliers for whom improvement actions were agreed after the review. | Corrective action plans, supplier meeting notes, remediation trackers, and signed follow-up actions linked to the assessed suppliers. | Procurement / Supplier management |
| Supplier exits rate | The share of identified suppliers for whom the business ended the relationship after the review. | Termination notices, supplier exit approvals, procurement records, and the assessment file showing which identified suppliers were exited. | Procurement / Legal |
| Exit reasons | The reasons the business ended supplier relationships after the review, for the suppliers that were exited. | Termination letters, procurement decision papers, supplier case notes, and governance approvals explaining each exit decision. | Procurement / Legal |
Show GRI 308-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Count how many suppliers you reviewed for environmental effects.
- Count how many suppliers were found to have material current or possible harmful environmental effects.
- Work out the share of those suppliers where improvement actions were agreed after the review.
- Work out the share of those suppliers where the business ended the relationship after the review.
- Record why supplier relationships were ended because of the review.
- List the material current and possible harmful environmental effects found across the supply chain.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which supplier relationships you will include in the review, and make that scope clear before you start counting or describing impacts.
- Agree your working definitions for the assessment: specify what you will treat as an environmental impact, what counts as a significant issue, and how you will recognise an actual problem versus a possible one.
- Gather the underlying evidence for each supplier in scope, so you can support the count of suppliers reviewed, the count flagged for significant environmental harm, and the impact topics you identify.
- Compile the reported outputs from the assessment into the required figures and narrative: the number reviewed, the number flagged, the impact description, the share where improvements were agreed, and the share where the relationship ended, plus the reasons for any exits.
- Record any exclusions, changes in scope, or methodological choices that affect the numbers or wording, so a reviewer can see why a supplier was included, left out, or treated differently.
- Check the final disclosure back against the official source and your evidence pack, confirming the figures, percentages, and explanations are internally consistent and match the underlying assessment records.
Request supplier impact assessment and follow-up actions data
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which suppliers were reviewed for environmental issues, which ones were flagged as material, and what follow-up action was agreed or taken?
Use your own supplier-management language first, then map it to the reporting fields. For example, if your team talks about vendors, contractors, approved suppliers, or category lists, use those terms in the request and only translate them into the reporting labels when you compile the response. Keep the ask in the way your team already tracks supplier reviews, corrective actions, and exits.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 308-2 data for the year, including the number of suppliers assessed, the number with significant actual and potential negative environmental impacts, the impacts identified, the percentage with improvements agreed, the percentage terminated, and the reasons for termination.
Why it fails: This uses reporting jargon that many operational teams do not track day to day, so it is harder to answer quickly and accurately. It also does not say which supplier set, system, method, or internal labels to use, so the result may be incomplete or inconsistent.
Better request
Please pull the supplier review extract for [period] from [system/process]. We need the count of suppliers reviewed for environmental issues, the count flagged as material, the issue types found, the share with agreed follow-up, the share where the supplier relationship ended, and the reasons for any exits. Include the supplier scope, the review method, and any internal notes so we can map your terms into the reporting fields.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for supplier environmental review data for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name/team],\n\nI’m pulling together the supplier review information for [reporting period] and need your help with the data from [system/process name].\n\nPlease send the following for the supplier set you cover:\n- how many suppliers were reviewed for environmental issues\n- how many were flagged as material on environmental grounds\n- the main issue types identified\n- the share of flagged suppliers where an improvement plan or other follow-up was agreed\n- the share of flagged suppliers where the relationship ended after the review\n- the reasons for any exits\n\nPlease also include the period covered, the supplier population used, the method or source used to review them, and any notes needed to explain the figures. If you use different internal terms, please keep those in your extract and add a short mapping note.\n\nA possible LRA training template is attached below for reference only; please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.\n\nThanks,\n[Your name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the supplier review data for [period]? I need: suppliers reviewed, suppliers flagged for material environmental issues, the main issue types, the share with agreed follow-up, the share exited, and exit reasons. Please include the source, scope, and any internal notes. Use your team’s own terms if easier, then we can map them. Thanks.
Industry examples
Food manufacturing
Context. The procurement team tracks approved ingredient suppliers, audit findings, and corrective action plans.
Adapted request. Please share the approved-supplier audit data for [period]: how many ingredient suppliers were reviewed for environmental issues, how many were marked as material, what the main findings were, how many had corrective actions agreed, how many were removed from the approved list, and why. Include the audit source, supplier list used, and any category-specific notes.
Example response. Reviewed: 84 approved ingredient suppliers. Flagged as material: 11. Main findings: wastewater handling, packaging waste, and chemical storage. Improvement agreed: 8 of 11. Removed from approved list: 2 of 11. Exit reasons: repeated audit failures and refusal to close out actions.
Construction
Context. The commercial and procurement teams manage subcontractor prequalification, site compliance checks, and supplier exits.
Adapted request. Please provide the subcontractor environmental review summary for [period]: number of subcontractors checked, number flagged for material environmental issues, the issue types, the share with agreed remediation, the share removed from the supply chain, and the reasons for removal. Use the prequalification and site-compliance records as the source, and note the package or trade category for each supplier.
Example response. Reviewed: 37 subcontractors. Flagged as material: 6. Main findings: dust control, waste segregation, and fuel spill controls. Improvement agreed: 5 of 6. Removed from supply chain: 1 of 6. Exit reason: repeated failure to meet site environmental controls.
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
Explain which suppliers were included in the review, how environmental harm was defined for the assessment, and whether the figures cover the full reporting period or only completed checks.
Context note
Set out what the numbers show about the supply base: how broad the review was, how many suppliers raised concern, what kinds of environmental problems were found, and how often the response was to agree improvements or end the relationship.
Fluctuation statement
If the figures moved materially from the prior period, link the change to shifts in supplier coverage, changes in the assessment approach, the severity of issues found, or a different balance between remediation and termination decisions.
Content index entry
GRI 308-2 Negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and actions taken — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 308-2. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We based the coverage figure on the suppliers we actually reviewed in the reporting period, using the same inclusion rules throughout and excluding any suppliers outside the agreed boundary. | An assurer will test whether the population counted matches the stated boundary, whether any exclusions were justified, and whether the count was calculated consistently rather than adjusted to fit the narrative. | Supplier universe extract; boundary and inclusion criteria; assessment list; period cut-off rules; working papers showing how the final count was derived; sign-off from the report owner. |
| We counted only suppliers for which our review found material environmental concerns, and we kept a clear audit trail showing how each supplier moved from screening to the final tally. | An assurer will probe whether the classification of suppliers as material was supported by evidence, applied consistently, and free from double counting or subjective re-labelling. | Assessment records; scoring or ranking outputs; reviewer notes; issue logs; evidence of approval for each supplier included in the count; reconciliation between screening results and reported number. |
| We documented the main environmental issues we found in the supply chain and linked each one back to source evidence, rather than relying on summary statements alone. | An assurer will check whether the reported issues are supported by underlying records, whether the description is complete for the chosen scope, and whether any important findings were omitted. | Supplier assessments; site visit notes; audit reports; correspondence; incident records; issue register; mapping from each reported issue to source documents. |
| Where we say follow-up actions were agreed, we can show the specific supplier discussions, the agreed actions, and the basis for including each case in the percentage. | An assurer will test whether the numerator is accurate, whether the agreements were real and timely, and whether the calculation uses the correct base of affected suppliers. | Action plans; meeting minutes; email confirmations; supplier acknowledgements; calculation workbook; list of affected suppliers used as the denominator; review and approval evidence. |
| Where we say relationships ended, we have records showing the decision, the timing, and the link between the assessment outcome and the exit from the supplier relationship. | An assurer will probe whether terminations were genuinely driven by the assessment outcome, whether the number is complete, and whether the timing aligns with the reported period. | Termination notices; procurement or contract records; decision papers; internal approvals; chronology of assessment and exit; supplier master data; reconciliation to the reported percentage. |
| For any supplier exits we reported, we kept the reasons on file and can distinguish between performance issues, unresolved concerns, and other commercial decisions. | An assurer will check whether the stated reasons are supported, whether they are specific enough, and whether the report avoids overstating the link to the assessment where other factors were involved. | Exit rationale documents; correspondence with suppliers; internal case notes; contract review papers; procurement approvals; evidence showing how each reason was categorised for reporting. |
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
- A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).
- The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.
- Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.
- One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.
- Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.
- Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner for the data pull
The request goes to the sustainability team alone, even though the supplier assessment, corrective action and exit records sit with procurement, category managers or supplier risk teams.
- Using framework language instead of business terms
People ask for the data in disclosure wording rather than the organisation’s own supplier, audit, issue and exit labels, so the right records are missed.
- No clear boundary for which suppliers count
The team starts collecting from an undefined supplier population, so direct suppliers, indirect suppliers, or only assessed suppliers get mixed together without a clear rule.
- Wrong time basis for the figures
The numbers are pulled from a different reporting period or from the date the issue was found rather than the period used for the report.
- Mixing different counting methods
One file counts supplier entities while another counts sites, contracts or assessments, which makes the totals for assessed suppliers and affected suppliers incompatible.
- Losing the original source labels
The team copies figures into a summary sheet but drops the source system IDs, case numbers or document names needed to trace each number back.
- Combining separate populations
Suppliers with issues, suppliers with agreed improvements and suppliers whose relationship ended are merged into one list, so the percentage fields can no longer be built correctly.
- Missing evidence details
The dataset is saved without the audit trail, date stamp, owner name or supporting note that shows where each figure came from and how it was checked.
- No sign-off trail
The final numbers are circulated without a named reviewer or approval record, so nobody can show who confirmed the counts before disclosure drafting started.
Where judgement is often needed
- Set the supplier universe before counting
State which buying entities, sites and supplier tiers sit inside the review period, and explain any additions or removals from takeovers, disposals or reorganisations so the counts can be read on a like-for-like basis.
- Choose one rule where local definitions differ
If countries or business units use different environmental thresholds or labels, pick a single internal rule for identifying material harm, describe it, and note where local practice was normalised to that rule.
- Decide how to treat borderline suppliers
Explain whether suppliers just inside or just outside the review scope were included, and set out the practical cut-off used for shared services, agents, distributors or other near-boundary parties.
- Fix the timing basis for the assessment
Say whether the figures reflect a point-in-time review, a full-year roll-up or another cut-off, and disclose how late findings, reopened cases or post-period updates were handled.
- Separate measured findings from informed estimates
Where direct checks were not possible, identify which figures came from site evidence, audits or other direct sources and which were estimated, and explain the method used to keep the totals consistent.
- Explain how grouped reporting affects the numbers
If supplier data were combined for privacy or commercial reasons, disclose the aggregation level used and confirm that the published counts still show the same overall picture without exposing individual suppliers.
- Keep percentages aligned to the same base
Use the same supplier set for the assessment count, the improvement share and the exit share, and explain any exclusions so the percentages can be traced back to the underlying population.
- State how you handled mixed outcomes
If one supplier had both improvement actions and a decision to end the relationship, describe the rule used to classify it and explain how it was counted in the relevant percentage.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic example only. It shows how a company might describe the scope of supplier checks, the number of suppliers with material environmental concerns, the main issues found, the share of flagged suppliers where corrective action was agreed, and the share where the relationship ended, with reasons.
| Issue / outcome | Suppliers |
|---|---|
| Suppliers reviewed | 42 |
| Suppliers with material environmental concerns | 9 |
| Wastewater handling issues | 4 |
| Packaging waste issues | 3 |
| Energy use issues | 2 |
| Other environmental issues | 0 |
We reviewed 42 suppliers for environmental risk, and 9 were flagged for material issues. The main concerns were wastewater handling, packaging waste, and energy use; we agreed improvement plans with 78% of the flagged suppliers and ended 22% of those relationships, mainly where repeated non-compliance and refusal to act left no credible route to improvement.
Apparel retail · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic example only. It shows how a company might report the number of suppliers checked, the number with material environmental concerns, the main issues identified, the share where improvement actions were agreed, and the share where relationships were ended, including the reasons.
| Issue / outcome | Suppliers |
|---|---|
| Suppliers reviewed | 60 |
| Suppliers with material environmental concerns | 15 |
| Chemical management issues | 6 |
| Water use issues | 5 |
| Waste control issues | 4 |
| Other environmental issues | 0 |
We assessed 60 suppliers and identified 15 with material environmental concerns. The issues were chemical management, water use, and poor waste controls; we agreed improvement actions with 80% of the affected suppliers and ended 20% of those relationships because the suppliers would not commit to a remediation plan or had repeated breaches.
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
- Supplier review coverage — bar: How many suppliers were reviewed for environmental effects, compared with the number that were not yet reviewed if that figure is available from the dataset.
- Suppliers with material environmental concerns — bar: The count of suppliers found to have material current or possible adverse environmental effects, alongside the wider pool of suppliers assessed.
- Types of environmental issues found — stacked bar: The different kinds of adverse environmental effects identified in the supply chain, split by issue type to show the mix of findings.
- Agreed improvement actions — donut: The share of suppliers with material environmental concerns where corrective steps were agreed, versus those without agreed actions.
- Supplier relationship outcomes — donut: The share of suppliers with material environmental concerns where the business ended the relationship, versus those retained.
- Reasons for ending supplier relationships — table: The stated reasons for ending supplier relationships after the review, grouped by supplier or issue category if the data supports it.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We reviewed 40 suppliers and found 6 with serious environmental issues.
Better
We reviewed 40 suppliers, identified 6 with serious environmental issues, agreed fixes with 67% of those suppliers, and ended ties with 33%.
Best
This year we reviewed 40 suppliers, identified 6 with serious environmental issues, agreed improvement plans with 67% and ended ties with 33%, with exits driven by repeated failure to meet our environmental expectations.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 308-2 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Engie Brasil Energia S.A. | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil | 2025 | Partial | p. 95 →p. 105 →p. 106 → | ENGIE Brasil Sustainability Report 2025 → | ey | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Engie Brasil Energia S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Engie Brasil Energia S.A.'s 2025 sustainability report provides numeric data on suppliers with long-term contracts, those undergoing Tier 1 Due Diligence, and Major Suppliers on page 105, alongside a description of actual and potential significant negative social and environmental impacts identified in the supply chain on page 170. The report also notes that suppliers responsible for over 90% of the company’s supply chain emissions were considered in GHG inventories (p.87), and mentions an assessment conducted by EcoVadis for Major Suppliers (p.106). However, no specific percentage values related to these assessments or impacts were found in 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited | Retailing · India | 2025 | Partial | p. 43 →p. 106 →p. 83 → | Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 → | Bureau Veritas | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited’s Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 includes several datapoints related to supplier environmental and social assessments, such as the number of garments with sustainable attributes and suppliers assessed with ESG parameters (p.43), and identification of 38 suppliers with significant actual or potential negative impacts in the supply chain (p.101). The report also discusses negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and related actions (p.106). However, the report does not provide percentage values or detailed narrative explanations regarding the extent or outcomes of these assessments.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd. | Pharmaceuticals / Biotech / Life Sciences · China | 2024 | Partial | p. 106 →p. 91 →p. 108 → | Environmental, Social and Governance Report 2024 → | — | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd.'s Environmental, Social and Governance Report 2024 provides numeric data on the number of suppliers and their geographical distribution (p.91, p.85), as well as details on supplier engagement practices such as implementing a CAPA 15 program and providing training for suppliers with improvement potential (p.44). The report also includes narrative information on procurement practices and management of material topics related to sustainable supply chains (p.102). However, the report does not provide percentage values related to supplier engagement or other specific sustainability metrics, and some narrative details on these topics are 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A procurement team has reviewed 40 suppliers this year using site visits, questionnaires and audit reports. The review found 6 suppliers with serious environmental issues, and the team agreed improvement plans with 4 of them while ending the relationship with 2.How should you decide what to include in the disclosure so the figures and narrative line up with the review outcome?
Model answer. Report the number of suppliers reviewed, the number found to have serious actual or possible environmental harm, the issues identified, the share of those suppliers where improvement actions were agreed, and the share where the relationship ended. If any relationships were ended, also explain the reasons for that decision. The percentages should be calculated from the 6 suppliers identified as having significant issues, not from the full 40 reviewed.
Why this matters. Use the assessed group as the base for the follow-up percentages, and explain both the harm found and the action taken.
A supplier screening exercise covers 18 direct suppliers. Three are flagged for high water use and waste discharge, but only two have signed corrective action plans; the third is still under review and no decision has been made on the relationship.What should you do when reporting the follow-up actions if one case is unresolved at the reporting date?
Model answer. Include the 18 suppliers assessed and the 3 identified with significant environmental concerns. State that improvement steps were agreed with 2 of those suppliers, and do not count the unresolved case as either an agreed improvement or a terminated relationship until a decision is actually made. The narrative should make clear that the third case is still open at the reporting date.
Why this matters. Only count actions that have actually been agreed or completed by the reporting date.
A business has identified 5 suppliers with serious land and pollution impacts. It ended contracts with 1 supplier because repeated breaches continued after warnings, and it agreed improvement plans with the other 4.How should the reasons for ending the relationship be described so the disclosure is complete without overstating the case?
Model answer. Explain the termination reason in plain business terms, such as repeated failure to address the environmental breach after assessment and follow-up. Keep the explanation tied to the assessment outcome and the supplier’s conduct, and do not present the termination as a general policy choice if it was driven by the specific findings. The percentage terminated should be 1 out of 5, which is 20%.
Why this matters. When a relationship ends, link the reason to the assessment findings and the supplier’s response.
A reporting pack shows that 25 suppliers were assessed, 7 were found to have significant environmental harm, and improvement plans were agreed with 5. The draft narrative mentions the 7 suppliers and the 5 plans, but leaves out the number assessed and the two suppliers whose contracts were ended.What needs to be added or corrected before sign-off so the disclosure gives a full picture of the assessment and response?
Model answer. Add the total number of suppliers assessed, because the disclosure needs the size of the review as well as the outcome. Also include the two terminated relationships and explain why they ended, so the response to the findings is complete. The figures should remain internally consistent: 7 identified, 5 with agreed improvements, and 2 ended relationships.
Why this matters. A complete disclosure shows the review scope, the issues found, and every follow-up outcome that resulted from the assessment.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 308-2 — 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.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
For GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?
The page says to prepare six datapoints: suppliers reviewed, suppliers with major impacts, supply chain impact themes, agreed supplier fixes, supplier exits rate, and exit reasons. Use the step-by-step preparation section to turn those into a scoped draft and keep the evidence pack ready for review. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
Use it as a working sequence for scoping, collecting the listed datapoints, and checking the disclosure against the page’s assurance claims and evidence pack. It is designed to help you move from raw data to a draft that is easier to review and assure. ↑ section
What should I include in the evidence pack for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Build it around the datapoints, the assurance claims, and the supporting records you used to prepare the draft so a reviewer can trace the numbers and narrative back to source. ↑ section
What are the six assurance claims I need to check for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The page flags six claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence prompt. Use them to test whether the disclosure is supported, consistent and complete before it goes into a report pack. ↑ section
How do I decide the scope and methodology for the GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment datapoints?
The page gives a plain-language explainer, a preparation sequence and the datapoints to prepare, which together help you define what is being counted and how. Keep the scope and method consistent across the table, narrative and evidence pack so the draft is internally aligned. ↑ section
Who should own the data for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment in practice?
The page is written for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person or team that can evidence the supplier data and explain the method. The workbook and evidence pack are there to help that owner coordinate inputs and keep a clear audit trail. ↑ section
How can I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The workbook is the main download for preparing the disclosure and checking assurance readiness. Use it to organise the six datapoints, capture supporting evidence, and work through the claims before drafting the final text. ↑ section
What does the printable Library Card add for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The printable Library Card is a quick-reference download alongside the workbook. It is useful when you want a compact reminder of the page’s explainer, datapoints, assurance checks and draft-output prompts. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment data into a draft disclosure?
The page includes a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. Use those prompts to convert the prepared datapoints into a short narrative and a structured draft that matches the evidence you have collected. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes to avoid in GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to watch for, so use that section as a final quality check. It is especially helpful for spotting missing datapoints, weak evidence, or a draft that does not match the preparation notes. ↑ section
Are there example disclosures I can use as a model for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
Yes. The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, which you can use as a formatting and drafting reference rather than as real-world evidence. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment datapoints checklist for drafting
- How to evidence suppliers reviewed and suppliers with major impacts for GRI 308-2
- What counts as supply chain impact themes in the GRI 308-2 page guidance
- How to record agreed supplier fixes for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment
- How to calculate supplier exits rate for GRI 308-2 Supplier Environmental Assessment
- How to explain exit reasons in a GRI 308-2 draft disclosure
- GRI 308-2 assurance-ready evidence pack contents
- GRI 308-2 common mistakes and reporting gaps
- How to use the GRI 308-2 workbook download
- How to use the GRI 308-2 Library Card PDF
- GRI 308-2 narrative starters for a draft disclosure
- GRI 308-2 content index line example from the page
✓ 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.
