GRI 405: Diversity and Equal Opportunity 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 405-1
Diversity of governance bodies and employees
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
7 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how diverse its governance body and employee population are, using the categories it has chosen to report. In practice, it is about showing the make-up of these groups rather than making a general statement about commitment to diversity. The organisation should present the information clearly enough for readers to understand who is represented and where any gaps or imbalances may be.
The practical focus is on coverage and consistency: the reporting should reflect the organisation’s relevant operations and workforce, not just a few well-known sites or a single business unit. For governance bodies, the emphasis is on the main decision-making group; for employees, it is on the wider workforce picture. The key question is whether the reported data gives a fair view of diversity across the organisation as a whole.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender split | The wording used to describe how people are grouped by gender for this disclosure, using the organisation’s chosen categories. | HR or people data extract; diversity reporting definitions; any employee self-identification fields and category mapping. | People / HR |
| Age bands | The age group labels used to present people in this disclosure, with the organisation’s own banding approach. | HRIS age field; reporting dictionary showing band cut-offs; payroll or personnel records used to derive age. | People / HR |
| Other diversity markers | Any additional diversity characteristics the organisation chooses to report here, beyond gender and age, stated in plain business terms. | Diversity and inclusion reporting pack; HR data definitions; employee survey outputs if used to populate the field. | People / HR |
| Governing group | The name of the organisation’s top decision-making group used for this disclosure, including the body being counted. | Governance structure chart; board or committee register; annual report governance section. | Company Secretariat / Governance |
| Governance share | The share of people in the organisation’s governing group, expressed as a percentage and based on the agreed population for that body. | Board or committee membership list; headcount basis used for the calculation; calculation workbook showing numerator and denominator. | Company Secretariat / Governance |
| Worker groups | The employee group names used by the organisation for this disclosure, such as the internal categories used in HR reporting. | HRIS employee classification table; payroll grouping rules; organisation chart or workforce reporting definitions. | People / HR |
| Workforce mix | The percentage of employees in each employee group, using the organisation’s agreed category definitions and the same workforce population throughout. | HRIS headcount extract; payroll reconciliation; calculation file showing each category total and overall employee total. | People / HR |
Show GRI 405-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Use age bands to group people for reporting.
- Use staff job-group labels for reporting.
- Use gender groupings for reporting.
- Use the board and its committees for reporting.
- Use any other diversity markers that are relevant for reporting.
- Show each staff group as a share of all employees.
- Show each governance group as a share of all people in the organisation’s governing bodies.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first. Decide which governance groups and which employee groupings are in scope, and keep that boundary consistent across the whole disclosure.
- Define the categories you will use before you start counting. Use one clear label for gender, one for age bands, one for any other diversity markers you are reporting, plus the employee categories and the governance group structure you will apply.
- Gather source records that can support each figure or statement. For the governance side, collect the headcount basis and the total number of people covered; for the workforce side, collect the headcount basis for each employee category.
- Calculate the shares and prepare the narrative. Show the proportion of people in each governance group and the proportion of employees in each employee category, and explain any diversity indicators you are using beyond gender and age.
- Record any exclusions, assumptions, or changes in method. If a group is left out, or if the way you classify people has changed since the last report, note that clearly so the reader can understand the figures.
- Check the draft against the source material before sign-off. Confirm that every required item is covered, the percentages are internally consistent, and the wording matches the underlying records without adding anything unsupported.
Request the diversity split data from HR / People Analytics
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How are our board-level groups and employee groups split by gender, age band and any other diversity markers we track, and what share sits in each internal category?
Use your organisation’s own people-data labels first, then map them to the reporting categories. For example, ask for the board, committee members, employee groups and any diversity fields already held in your HR or governance systems, rather than using framework wording in the request.
Weak request
Please send the diversity data for governance bodies and employees in line with the disclosure.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the owner may not know which internal populations, systems or labels to pull from. It also leaves out the period, boundary, counting basis and the specific fields needed to build the extract.
Better request
Please send the extract from your people or board systems for [period], using our internal group names. Include the board and any committees we report on, employee categories, gender, age band and any other diversity fields already held, plus the basis used, the source system, and any exclusions.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for people and board diversity data for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], Could you please share a data extract for [reporting period] covering the groups we include in our sustainability reporting boundary? Please use our internal labels for the relevant populations first, then we can map them for reporting. We need: - the board and any committees or similar groups we include - employee groups by our internal category names - the diversity fields already held in your system for those groups, including gender, age band and any other diversity markers we track - the basis used for the counts or percentages - the source system and extract date Please also include a short note on any exclusions, such as contractors or other people not included in the extract. If helpful, you can return this in a table using the fields below. Please check the source data before sign-off and let me know if anything is unclear. Thanks, [preparer name] [team] [contact details]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send the people/board diversity extract for [period]? Please use our internal group names first, then we’ll map them for reporting. We need the board/committee groups, employee categories, gender, age band and any other diversity fields you hold, plus the basis, source system and any exclusions. Thanks.
Industry examples
Financial services
Context. The organisation tracks board membership in the company secretariat tool and employee data in the HR system, with age bands and gender recorded for all staff.
Adapted request. Please provide the board register extract and the employee diversity extract for [period]. Use our internal labels for directors, committee members and employee groups, and include gender, age band and any other diversity fields already held in the HR system, plus the counting basis, source and exclusions.
Example response. Board register with each director and committee member, their internal group label, gender and age band; HR extract with each employee category, headcount, gender split, age-band split and notes on any records excluded from the report boundary.
Manufacturing
Context. The organisation has a factory workforce, office staff and a small executive board. Diversity data is held in payroll and HR records, with some fields missing for legacy employees.
Adapted request. Please send the workforce and board diversity extract for [period], using our site and office group names. Include the board, leadership team and employee categories, with gender, age band and any other diversity fields we already hold, plus a note on missing records and the basis used for the percentages.
Example response. A table by internal group showing headcount and percentage split by gender and age band, plus a separate note listing legacy records with missing diversity fields and confirming the extract came from payroll and HRIS.
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 groups were counted, how each diversity category was defined, and whether the figures cover the full population or only those with recorded data.
Context note
Explain what the percentages say about the make-up of the board and workforce, and note whether the picture suggests broad representation or concentration in a few groups.
Fluctuation statement
If the mix has changed since the prior period, point to the main drivers such as recruitment, departures, promotions or changes in how people chose to self-identify.
Content index entry
GRI 405-1 Diversity of governance bodies and employees — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 405-1. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We prepared the coverage figure from our own records for the reporting period and checked that the population included in the calculation matched the basis we said we used. | An assurer may test whether the population was defined consistently, whether any parts of the business were left out without explanation, and whether the figure could be reproduced from source records. | Population definition note; reporting boundary memo; source extracts from HR or governance records; calculation workbook; reconciliation to the final figure; sign-off showing the basis used was approved before publication. |
| For the split by sex, we used the underlying people data held in our systems and reviewed it for completeness and obvious coding errors before the report went out. | An assurer may probe whether sex data were current, whether missing or ambiguous records were handled consistently, and whether the published split agrees with the source population. | HR master data extract; data dictionary for sex fields; exception log for missing or unclear records; validation checks; final calculation file; review and approval trail. |
| For the age profile, we calculated the figure from date-of-birth information held at the cut-off date and checked that the age bands were applied the same way across the dataset. | An assurer may test whether the cut-off date was applied consistently, whether age was derived correctly, and whether the banding method was changed or applied unevenly. | Source employee or member records; cut-off date instruction; age-band methodology note; calculation workbook; sample re-performance of age derivation; reviewer sign-off. |
| Where we included other diversity markers, we relied on the fields we had available and documented any gaps, proxies, or exclusions so the reader can see how the figure was built. | An assurer may ask whether the additional markers were defined clearly, whether proxies were used without disclosure, and whether missing data could distort the result. | Method note for each additional marker; source-system fields used; gap analysis; explanation of any proxy or exclusion; evidence of management review of the chosen approach. |
| For the board-level figure, we used the list of current directors and checked the membership against corporate records before finalising the disclosure. | An assurer may examine whether the board population was complete, whether appointments or resignations were captured at the right date, and whether committee members were included or excluded consistently with the stated basis. | Board and committee register; company secretariat records; effective-date listing; reconciliation between governance records and the reported population; approval from the company secretary or equivalent. |
| When we calculated the share for the board, we matched the relevant people count to the agreed total and confirmed the arithmetic before publication. | An assurer may test the denominator, the numerator, rounding, and whether the percentage can be traced back to the underlying count without mismatch. | Calculation sheet showing numerator and denominator; rounding policy; cross-check to the board register; independent arithmetic review; final proof copy. |
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 data owner
Chasing the board secretary for staff headcount, or HR for director data, leaves the figures split across teams that do not hold the same records.
- Framework language used in the request
Asking for the data in disclosure terms instead of the organisation’s own job, committee, and workforce labels makes the source team unsure what to pull.
- Scope not pinned down
Collecting numbers without stating which parts of the business, which entities, or which people are in scope leads to a set that cannot be reconciled later.
- Wrong period basis
Mixing a year-end snapshot with an average over the period produces figures that are not built on the same timing basis.
- Counting rules mixed
Combining full-time equivalents, individual people, and percentage shares in one file makes the totals impossible to check against each other.
- Source labels stripped out
Copying values into a clean spreadsheet without the original team names, category labels, or source codes breaks the link back to the evidence.
- Populations merged too early
Putting directors, committee members, and employees into one pool before separating them by the right group hides which figures belong where.
- Evidence metadata missing
Saving the numbers without the date pulled, file version, owner, or system reference leaves no way to show where each figure came from.
- No review trail
If the draft is passed around without a named checker and sign-off record, no one can show who confirmed the final data set.
Where judgement is often needed
- Choosing the reporting perimeter after a buy-in or sale
If a business has been bought, sold, or restructured, set out which parts of the group are counted for the year-end snapshot and explain any cut-off date used so readers can see why the headcount mix changed.
- Using local labels versus one group-wide people map
Where countries use different job grades or staff groupings, map them to a single internal set of people categories, explain the mapping, and note any places where a local label does not fit neatly.
- Deciding who counts as part of the board set
Be explicit about whether you include only directors or also committee members and similar appointees, and explain any exclusions for people who attend but do not hold a formal seat.
- Handling workers on the boundary of employee status
State the rule used for people such as fixed-term staff, agency workers, interns, or secondees, and explain whether they sit inside the employee population or are left out.
- Selecting the point-in-time basis for percentages
Use one clear date or period-end basis for the percentages, explain that choice, and keep it consistent across the board and workforce figures unless a change is clearly described.
- Mixing system data with estimates
If some diversity attributes are not held in HR or board records, say where estimates or self-declared information were used, describe the method briefly, and flag any material gaps.
- Rounding small populations without distorting the picture
Round percentages in a way that does not mislead when the underlying group is small, and explain any cases where rounding means the displayed figures do not add neatly to 100%.
- Protecting privacy in small or sensitive groups
When a category is so small that individuals could be identified, combine or suppress the split as needed, explain the aggregation rule, and make clear that this was done to avoid exposing personal data.
- Defining the extra diversity markers beyond gender and age
For any other diversity markers you choose to report, state the internal definition used for each one and explain why that measure is the one the organisation relies on across its people data.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Retail banking · synthetic · written by LRA
Use this disclosure to show how the organisation’s leadership group and workforce are distributed across the requested diversity dimensions, with percentages calculated from the relevant headcount base.
| Category | Women | Men | Non-binary / other | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Board and board committees | 8 | 5 | 1 | 14 |
| Senior leadership group | 14 | 10 | 2 | 26 |
| Management | 62 | 48 | 6 | 116 |
| Professional staff | 210 | 165 | 25 | 400 |
| Operational staff | 180 | 120 | 20 | 320 |
Synthetic example only: we show the make-up of our board and senior committees, plus our workforce split by job level. The figures below are illustrative and internally consistent.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
Use this disclosure to present the diversity profile of the top governance group and its committees, and to break down employees by category with a percentage for each category based on the total workforce.
| Category | Women | Men | Prefer not to say / other | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top governance group and committees | 6 | 7 | 1 | 14 |
| Executives | 9 | 11 | 0 | 20 |
| Middle management | 34 | 26 | 4 | 64 |
| Skilled production | 96 | 84 | 10 | 190 |
| Support functions | 58 | 42 | 8 | 108 |
Synthetic example only: we present the composition of our governing group and committees, together with our employee mix by grade. The numbers are illustrative and each percentage is rounded from the headcount shown.
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
- Board and workforce diversity snapshot — table: A side-by-side summary of the diversity measures collected for the board and for staff, using the available categories such as gender, age bands and any other diversity markers recorded.
- Board composition by diversity marker — stacked bar: How the board is split across the recorded diversity categories, so readers can see the make-up of the governing group at a glance.
- Workforce mix by employee group — stacked bar: The share of staff in each employee group, with the diversity fields used to show how those groups are distributed across the workforce.
- Gender profile across decision-makers and staff — bar: A comparison of the gender split for the governing group and for employees, helping show whether the two populations look similar or different.
- Age profile across governance and employees — bar: The age-band distribution for the board and for staff, making it easier to compare the age mix between leadership and the wider workforce.
- Other diversity indicators by population — table: Any additional diversity measures the organisation has chosen to collect, shown separately for the governing group and for employees so the basis of reporting is clear.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
Our board is 40% women and our workforce is 55% women.
Better
At year-end, our board was 40% women and 60% men, while our staff mix was 55% women and 45% men, split across our three employee groups.
Best
At year-end, our board was 40% women and 60% men, our staff was 55% women and 45% men across three employee groups, and the shift from last year mainly reflected hiring in operations and a board appointment change.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 405-1 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
MOEVE, S.A. | Oil and Gas · Spain | 2025 | Partial | p. 117 →p. 122 →p. 151 → | Consolidated Management Report 2025 → | EY; BSI | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in MOEVE, S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Moeve, S.A.'s 2025 Consolidated Management Report provides detailed data on gender distribution across various employee categories and age groups, with specific percentages and headcounts reported on pages 117 and 121. The report includes diversity metrics for governance bodies and employees, highlighting gender representation in management committees and overall workforce composition (p.117, p.151). However, there is no clear narrative or qualitative discussion on diversity and inclusion policies or outcomes beyond these figures, and some sections lack explicit commentary on the implications of the data presented.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Temenos AG | Software and Services · Switzerland | 2025 | Partial | p. 83 →p. 91 →p. 98 → | Sustainability Report 2025 → | PwC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Temenos AG’s reportWhat the report shows Temenos AG's Sustainability Report 2025 provides detailed data on gender diversity, reporting a consistent 35% female representation in the total headcount for 2023 through 2025, with targets to exceed 35% by 2026 and reach 40% by 2030 (p.56). The report also includes age group distributions and governance framework details related to sustainability governance and diversity dashboards (pp.39, 55, 92). However, there is no clear information on turnover rates or other diversity metrics beyond gender and ethnicity representation in the US, and some expected narrative items are not 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil | 2024 | Partial | p. 16 →p. 260 →p. 261 → | Integrated Report 2024 → | ey | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL’s reportWhat the report shows Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL's 2024 Integrated Report provides detailed gender distribution data, showing men constitute a majority across various categories, such as 86.0% to 94.1% in one breakdown on page 260 and 78.1% overall on page 261. The report also references governance structures related to diversity, including a Diversity Committee and personnel admission processes on page 259, and governance body roles on page 305. However, there is no clear information on other diversity dimensions beyond gender and age, and some narrative elements lack specific data or are not 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A listed group has a board of 10 people and two board committees. The draft note gives the board split by gender and age, but it leaves out the extra diversity factors the company uses in its own reporting framework.Should the note stop at gender and age, or also include the other diversity factors the organisation has chosen to report for the board and its committees?
Model answer. It should include the additional diversity factors as well, because the disclosure is not limited to gender and age. The preparer should describe the board and its committees, then present the chosen diversity indicators for that governance group in a way that is clear and consistent with the organisation’s own approach.
Why this matters. For the top governance group, cover gender, age and any other diversity indicators the organisation uses, not just one or two of them.
A company has three employee bands in its HR system: senior leaders, managers and all other staff. The draft table shows headcount percentages for senior leaders and managers, but the ‘all other staff’ band is missing because the team thought it was too broad.Can the employee section be left incomplete if one category is hard to summarise neatly?
Model answer. No. The employee part should show the categories the organisation uses and the share of employees in each one, so the picture is complete. If a category is broad, it still needs to be included if it is part of the organisation’s own employee grouping for this disclosure.
Why this matters. Employee breakdowns need to be complete across the organisation’s chosen staff categories.
A preparer has a draft for the board showing 4 women and 6 men out of 10 directors, and a separate line saying the average age is 52. The team is unsure whether the percentages should be shown for the board as a whole or only for the women and men sub-groups.How should the percentage information be framed so it matches the disclosure intent?
Model answer. The percentage should describe the share of individuals in the governance body itself, not only the split within sub-groups. In this case, the board total is 10 people, so the gender split can be shown as 40% women and 60% men, alongside the age information and any other diversity indicators the organisation reports for that body.
Why this matters. Present the share of people in the governance group itself, with the relevant diversity breakdowns alongside it.
An organisation has a small executive committee of 5 people and a wider workforce of 200 employees. The draft report uses one combined table for both groups, but the labels do not make it clear which percentages belong to the committee and which belong to employee bands.Is it acceptable to combine the two sets of figures in one table if the labels are not very explicit?
Model answer. No. The information needs to be clearly tied to the governance group and to the employee categories so a reader can tell what each percentage refers to. A combined table can work, but only if the structure makes the two populations unmistakable and the percentages are shown against the correct group.
Why this matters. Clarity matters: separate or label governance and employee figures so each percentage is unmistakably linked to the right population.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 405-1 — 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 S1
Own Workforce — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
How do I prepare a GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity disclosure using this page without missing the key datapoints?
Start with the page’s plain-language explainer and the step-by-step preparation section, then work through the listed datapoints: gender split, age bands, other diversity markers, governing group, governance share, worker groups and workforce mix. The page is set up to help you turn those inputs into a draft disclosure rather than leaving you with a blank template. ↑ section
What data do I need to collect for GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity before I start drafting?
The page points you to seven datapoint areas: gender split, age bands, other diversity markers, governing group, governance share, worker groups and workforce mix. Use those as your collection checklist so you can gather the right source data before writing the narrative. ↑ section
How should I decide the scope and methodology for the GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity data on this page?
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation guidance to define what population you are covering and how each datapoint will be counted. The page is designed to help you make those choices consistently before you build the disclosure. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity disclosure process in practice?
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership can sit with whichever of those roles coordinates the data and sign-off. The key is to assign someone who can pull the source data, check the evidence pack, and keep the draft aligned to the page’s structure. ↑ section
What should I put in the evidence pack for GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity to be assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and a separate set of six assurance claims to verify. Use those together so you can show the claim, the risk, and the supporting evidence in a way that is ready for review. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes to watch for in a GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity draft?
The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is meant to help you spot issues before you finalise the disclosure. A practical use is to compare your draft against the listed datapoints, evidence pack and assurance claims to catch omissions early. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is there to help you organise the disclosure work and evidence. Use it alongside the page’s preparation steps, assurance claims and evidence pack to build a cleaner draft. ↑ section
What is the printable Library Card PDF for GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity for?
The Download Centre also includes a printable Library Card in .pdf format, which you can use as a quick reference while preparing the disclosure. It sits alongside the workbook and the page content, so it is useful for checking the key points without reopening the full page. ↑ section
Can I use the synthetic example on the GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity page as a model for my own disclosure?
Yes, the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show what a draft can look like. Treat them as examples only and adapt them to your own data so the numbers and narrative stay internally consistent. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity data into a draft narrative and content index line?
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. Use those prompts to convert your collected data into a readable draft and a simple index entry for the disclosure. ↑ section
How can I reuse my GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity data for ESRS S1 (Own Workforce)?
The page says ESRS S1 (Own Workforce) is the closest correspondence, so the same underlying data may be reusable across both reporting exercises. The page does not say the requirements are identical, so use it as a cross-check rather than assuming a one-to-one match. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity checklist for HR data owners
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity evidence pack template
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity assurance claims and risks
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity workbook download
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity common mistakes
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity example disclosure table
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity narrative starters
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity content index line
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity scope and methodology
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity governing group and workforce mix
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity age bands and gender split
- GRI 405-1 Diversity and Equal Opportunity ESRS S1 data reuse
✓ 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.
