GRI 413: Local Communities 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 413-1
Operations with local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs
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
1 datapoints ↓
5 claims to verify ↓
6 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how far it has put in place structured engagement with local communities, assessed the impacts of its operations on those communities, and supported community development through programmes or initiatives. The focus is on whether these practices are actually embedded in the way the organisation operates, rather than being occasional or limited to a few visible projects.
In practice, the key question is coverage: does this apply across the organisation’s operations, or only at flagship sites, major facilities, or selected locations? A useful response should make clear the scope of operations included, the types of engagement, assessment and development activities used, and whether these are applied consistently or only in certain parts of the business.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community programme coverage | Capture the share of operating sites or activities that have put in place local community engagement, impact review, and/or community development programmes during the reporting period. State the numerator and denominator used, and keep the basis for counting operations consistent across the organisation. | Programme registers, site/community plans, impact assessment records, and a workings file showing how the percentage was calculated. | Sustainability / community relations |
Show GRI 413-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Check which sites have put in place local community engagement arrangements.
- Check which sites have carried out impact assessments for nearby communities.
- Check which sites have put in place community development programmes.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which sites, business units, joint arrangements, or other operations will be included in the calculation, and keep that scope consistent with the period you are reporting.
- Agree what counts as an included operation for this metric, so you can identify which parts of the business have local community engagement, impact review work, and/or community development activity in place.
- Gather support for each included operation, using internal records, project files, approvals, monitoring outputs, or other evidence that shows the relevant activity is actually in place.
- Calculate the share of operations covered by the relevant activity, then present the result as a percentage and make sure the numerator and denominator are built from the same scope.
- Record any exclusions, boundary changes, or methodology updates, including why an operation was left out or newly brought in, so the figure can be traced and compared over time.
- Check the draft against the official source before sign-off, confirming that the scope, definition of included operations, evidence trail, and percentage all match the underlying requirement.
Request the site-level evidence from Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which sites or operating units have put in place local community engagement, impact review, or community development activity during the reporting period, and what share of the total does that represent?
Use your organisation’s own site, asset, branch, project, or operating-unit terms first, then map them to the reporting question. Keep the ask in business language that your teams already use, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the operations with local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs data for GRI 413-1.
Why it fails: It uses framework wording, does not say which internal units to pull from, and does not specify the period, boundary, source, or how to count the sites. That makes it hard for the owner to answer quickly or consistently.
Better request
Please send the site or operating-unit list for [period] and mark which ones had any local community engagement, local impact review, or community development activity in place. Use your own internal labels, include the source record, and confirm the total number of sites in scope so we can calculate the share covered.
Formal email template
Subject: Data request for site-level community activity evidence Hi [name], I’m pulling together the reporting pack for [period] and need your help with the site-level evidence from [business area / region]. Please send a list of the sites or operating units in scope and flag which ones had any of the following in place during the period, using your own internal terms: - local community engagement activity - a local impact review or assessment - a community development or local benefit programme For each site, please include the source record and the person who owns the record. If you already track this in a register or dashboard, a download is fine. Please also confirm the total number of sites in scope so we can calculate the share covered. Suggested fields are in the attached template. Please adapt this to your organisation’s language and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the site list for [period] and mark which sites had local community engagement, an impact review, or a community programme in place? Please use your own internal terms, include the source record, and confirm the total sites in scope. A spreadsheet export is fine. Thanks.
Industry examples
Mining / Extractives
Context. A company tracks pit sites, processing plants, and exploration camps separately, with community liaison logs held by regional operations.
Adapted request. Please share the list of pits, plants, and camps in scope for [period] and mark which locations had community liaison activity, a local impact review, or a community support programme in place. Use your site register terms, include the evidence reference, and confirm the total locations in scope.
Example response. 12 locations in scope; 9 had community liaison activity; 7 had a local impact review; 5 had a community support programme; source: regional site register and community log.
Retail / Distribution
Context. A retailer tracks stores, fulfilment centres, and depots, with local engagement notes held by regional operations managers.
Adapted request. Please send the store, depot, and fulfilment-centre list for [period] and flag which locations had neighbourhood engagement, a local impact check, or a community initiative in place. Use your own operational terms, include the source file, and confirm the total locations in scope.
Example response. 84 locations in scope; 31 had neighbourhood engagement; 18 had a local impact check; 22 had a community initiative; source: regional operations dashboard and store files.
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 how you defined an operation, what counted as community engagement, impact review, or development activity, and whether the figure reflects all operations or only those with complete records.
Context note
Set out what the percentage says about how widely community-related practices are embedded across the business, rather than how intensive or effective those activities are.
Fluctuation statement
If the figure moved from the prior period, note whether that was driven by more sites adopting these practices, changes in the number of operations included, or improved record-keeping.
Content index entry
GRI 413-1 Operations with local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 413-1. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We calculated the coverage figure from our own operational records and used a consistent method across the reporting period. | The assurer will check whether the calculation basis was applied consistently and whether any changes in method could distort the result. | Calculation workbook, methodology note, prior-period comparison, and sign-off showing the same approach was used throughout the period. |
| We defined which sites and activities were included before we prepared the figure, and we kept that scope decision on file. | The assurer will probe whether the boundary was set deliberately, applied consistently, and not adjusted to improve the outcome. | Scope memo, inclusion/exclusion list, organisational boundary map, and approval from the responsible owner. |
| We relied on source data from the teams that run the disclosed operations, then checked it against supporting records before publication. | The assurer will look for weak source data, missing support, or a gap between the reported figure and underlying records. | Source extracts, site returns, supporting logs, and reconciliation to the final reported number. |
| Where estimates or judgement were needed, we documented the basis and kept evidence showing how we reached the figure. | The assurer will test whether estimates were reasonable, transparent, and backed by enough evidence. | Assumption log, estimation method, working papers, and any review notes explaining the judgement used. |
| Before we published, we carried out internal checks on the figure, the scope, and the wording to make sure they matched the underlying evidence. | The assurer will examine whether pre-publication review was robust enough to catch errors, inconsistencies, or unsupported statements. | Review checklist, management approval, draft-to-final change log, and evidence of any corrections made before release. |
Evidence pack to prepare
- A site register of the operations or sites in scope
- The stakeholder-engagement log evidencing consultations and feedback
- The impact-assessment record behind the reported impacts
- The programme register listing the initiatives in scope
- The coverage workbook deriving the figure from a clear numerator and denominator
- A reporting-boundary note documenting any scope exclusions or omissions
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
The request goes to a team that does not hold the site-level records, so the count is built from second-hand estimates instead of the people who run the local programmes.
- Framework language only
The data call is written in reporting jargon rather than the organisation’s own site, project, or community terms, so teams cannot map it cleanly to their records.
- Scope left vague
No one defines which operations are in or out, so different teams include different sites and the final percentage is not based on the same boundary.
- Wrong time basis
The collection period is not fixed up front, so some sites report current activity while others use older records and the figures do not line up.
- Mixed counting method
Some teams count sites, others count projects or events, which makes the numerator and denominator incompatible before the disclosure is even drafted.
- Source labels lost
Original file names, site codes, or local programme labels are stripped away during consolidation, so the team cannot trace each figure back to its source record.
- Populations merged
Community engagement work, impact review records, and development activity are blended together without keeping separate source lists, so overlaps and gaps are hidden.
- Missing evidence trail
The dataset is assembled without keeping the underlying files, dates, and reviewer notes together, so there is no clear audit trail for later checking.
- No sign-off trail
The final numbers are circulated without a named reviewer and approval record, so nobody can show who checked the data before it moved into reporting.
Where judgement is often needed
- Set the reporting boundary after acquisitions or disposals
Use the same cut-off date and boundary logic as the rest of your reporting period, then explain which sites were added or removed and whether the percentage was recalculated or left on the prior basis.
- Choose one working definition where local terms differ by country
If site teams use different labels or thresholds for community work, impact reviews, or development activity, map them to one internal definition for the percentage and note the mapping used.
- Decide how to treat sites on the edge of the operational perimeter
For shared sites, temporary locations, or assets with mixed control, set a consistent inclusion rule, apply it across the portfolio, and disclose the rule where judgement was needed.
- Align the count with the period you are reporting on
If programmes start, end, or change during the year, state whether you counted only active sites at period end or used another consistent timing basis, and keep the approach stable year to year unless you explain the change.
- State when you used estimates instead of direct records
Where site-level evidence is incomplete, use a documented estimate method, identify the main assumptions, and separate estimated from directly verified coverage if that affects the result.
- Round the percentage without obscuring the underlying count
Round the final figure to a sensible level, but keep the unrounded numerator and denominator available internally so the reported percentage can be traced back and reproduced.
- Aggregate carefully where privacy limits site-level detail
If naming individual communities or projects could expose personal or sensitive information, group the data at a higher level, explain the aggregation rule, and show that the reported percentage still covers the full population in scope.
- Handle mixed-purpose programmes consistently
When one initiative combines community engagement, impact review, and development support, count the operation as covered if your internal rule treats any one of those elements as sufficient, and describe that rule clearly.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · synthetic · written by LRA
For a high direct-impact business, the disclosure should show near-total operational coverage and make any gaps explicit. Keep the narrative first-person and tie the figures to the organisation’s direct footprint.
This is a synthetic, illustrative example, not a real company. In this illustrative reporting year, we engaged 61 communities across 9 countries, and our community engagement covered 38 of 42 operations, representing 90% coverage. We also carried out 35 impact assessments and supported 27 development programmes, reflecting our deep direct local footprint and the fact that any excluded operations would need a clear explanation.
Commercial banking · synthetic · written by LRA
For a business with partial indirect impact, it is appropriate that only a subset of sites is covered. The narrative should make clear that partial coverage is inherent to the operating model, not the result of omission.
This is a synthetic, illustrative example, not a real company. In this illustrative reporting year, we engaged 9 communities across 4 countries, and our community engagement covered 6 of 16 operations, representing 38% coverage. We also carried out 4 impact assessments and supported 3 development programmes, which reflects a footprint concentrated in a minority of sites rather than a gap in reporting.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.
Suggested visuals
- Coverage of community-facing practices across operations — bar: The share of sites or business units that have put in place local community engagement, impact review, and/or community development activity.
- Operations with each type of community practice — stacked bar: A split of operations showing which have engagement processes, which have impact reviews, which have development programmes, and which have more than one of these in place.
- Overall implementation rate — donut: The proportion of operations with at least one community-related practice in place versus those without any recorded activity.
- Implementation by location — map: Where operations with community engagement, impact review, or development activity are concentrated across countries, regions, or other reporting geographies.
- Recorded community practice by business area — table: A site-by-site or unit-by-unit listing showing which operations have one or more community-related practices in place and which do not.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We reported 68% of our sites had local community engagement, impact checks, or development programmes in place.
Better
We reported that 68% of our sites had local community engagement, impact checks, or development programmes in place, based on 17 of 25 sites.
Best
We reported that 68% of our sites had local community engagement, impact checks, or development programmes in place across 17 of 25 sites this year, and the share was lower than last year because two sites were added late and had not yet started the programme.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 413-1 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Abertis | Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · Spain | 2024 | Partial | p. 203 →p. 256 →p. 257 → | Abertis Annual Report 2024 → | KPMG | ||||||
Evidence in Abertis’s reportWhat the report shows Abertis’ 2024 Annual Report includes coverage of local community engagement, referencing GRI standards 413-1 and 413-2 related to positive social and environmental criteria and social responsibility in the value chain (p.257). The report also discusses dialogue with local community actors and types of engagement (p.220), as well as impact, risk, and opportunity management concerning adjacent communities (p.175). However, specific quantitative data or detailed outcomes related to these disclosures are not clearly presented or elaborated beyond these references, leaving some aspects 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
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited | Chemicals · Thailand | 2024 | Partial | p. 85 →p. 58 →p. 56 → | Sustainability Report 2024 → | EY; BSI; TÜV; TUV | ||||||
Evidence in Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited’s Sustainability Report 2024 includes data related to local community engagement, specifically referencing the Global CSR Data Standard Requirements and GRI 413-1 on page 85. The report provides figures on the number of local community consultation committees and operations with implemented work councils, showing an increase to 27 in 2024 (p.85). However, the report does not clearly specify the percentage value for local community engagement or provide detailed qualitative descriptions of the engagement processes.
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. 14 →p. 208 →p. 210 → | 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 a covered datapoint showing 100% impact assessments related to local community development programs tailored to local needs (p.210). The report also discusses social and environmental challenges linked to the Copel GeT projects and details these in an Impact Study (p.212). However, the report does not clearly specify the extent of negative impacts on communities or provide detailed quantitative data on stakeholder engagement outcomes beyond these points.
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 group has 12 operating sites. At 9 sites, the business has put in place a local community engagement process; at 7 sites, it has carried out impact reviews; and at 5 sites, it runs community development activities. Three sites have none of these in place.For this disclosure, how should the preparer decide which sites count in the numerator, and what should be checked before turning that into a percentage?
Model answer. Count each operating site once if it has at least one of the three types of action in place: community engagement, impact review, or development activity. In this example, 9 sites have engagement, 7 have impact reviews, and 5 have development activities, but the numerator is the number of sites with any one of those measures, not the sum of the three figures. The percentage is then that count divided by the total number of operating sites, with the evidence file showing how each site was assessed and why it was included or excluded.
Why this matters. Use a site-level count of operations with at least one relevant local-community measure in place, then divide by all operations.
A preparer has data from 20 sites, but 4 are newly opened and have not yet been screened for local community effects. The team is tempted to leave those 4 out because no action has started there yet.Should those 4 sites be excluded from the calculation, or does the preparer need to resolve their status first?
Model answer. Their status needs to be resolved first. The calculation should cover the full set of operations in scope for the reporting period, so a site cannot be left out simply because no community process, impact review, or development activity has begun. The preparer should confirm whether each of the 4 sites is in scope and then record whether any of the three measures is in place there before calculating the percentage.
Why this matters. Do not drop sites from the denominator just because implementation has not started; first confirm whether they belong in scope.
A business has one large processing plant and eight small depots. The plant has a formal community programme and an impact review, while two depots have only informal meetings with neighbours and no documented assessment or development activity.Can the informal meetings at the depots be counted as local community engagement for this disclosure?
Model answer. Only if the business can show that those meetings are a real, implemented engagement process rather than ad hoc contact. For this disclosure, the preparer should count a site only when there is evidence of an actual local-community engagement arrangement, an impact review, or a development activity in place. If the depot meetings are not documented as an implemented process, they should not be counted on that basis alone.
Why this matters. Count implemented practice, not casual contact, and keep evidence that shows the action is actually in place.
A company has 15 operations. It has a community engagement process at 6 sites, impact reviews at 6 sites, and development activities at 6 sites, but 3 of those sites have all three measures and 9 sites have none.How should the preparer avoid overstating the result when the same sites appear in more than one internal list?
Model answer. The preparer should remove duplicates and count each operation only once, even if it appears in more than one internal list. In this example, the numerator is 9 sites with at least one of the three measures in place, not 18. The percentage is therefore 9 out of 15, and the working papers should show the de-duplication logic clearly.
Why this matters. When a site has more than one relevant measure, count it once only and document the de-duplication.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 413-1 — 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 S3
Affected Communities — 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 GRI 413-1 Local Communities using this page without missing the key datapoint?
Start with the plain-language explainer and the single datapoint to prepare: community programme coverage. Then use the step-by-step preparation section to turn that into a draft and check it against the common gaps before you finalise anything. ↑ section
What does 'community programme coverage' mean for GRI 413-1 on this page, and how should I use it in my draft?
The page points you to community programme coverage as the datapoint to prepare, so use it as the core input for your disclosure draft. The page does not add a formal definition, so keep the wording aligned to the explainer and your own evidence pack. ↑ section
What data do I need to collect for GRI 413-1 Local Communities before I can write the disclosure?
Collect the community programme coverage data first, then gather the evidence pack items so you can support the claim and the methodology. The page also suggests using the workbook to organise the data before drafting. ↑ section
How should I set the scope and methodology for GRI 413-1 using this page?
Use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section to decide what is in scope and how you will describe the coverage data. The page is designed to help you make the method clear enough for assurance and to avoid the common reporting gaps listed on the page. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 413-1 Local Communities data and evidence pack in practice?
The page is aimed at sustainability and ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with whoever can collect the coverage data and maintain the evidence pack. Use the workbook to assign and track those responsibilities internally. ↑ section
What evidence pack do I need to make a GRI 413-1 disclosure assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with six items for assurance readiness, so use that as your checklist before sign-off. Pair it with the five assurance claims to verify so you can link each claim to a risk and supporting evidence. ↑ section
What are the five assurance claims I should verify for GRI 413-1 Local Communities?
The page says there are five assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence prompt. Use them to test whether your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is complete enough for review. ↑ section
What are the common mistakes or reporting gaps on the GRI 413-1 page, and how do I avoid them?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a pre-submission check. A practical approach is to compare your draft, your coverage data and your evidence pack against those gaps before you export anything. ↑ section
How do I use the workbook and printable library card for GRI 413-1 Local Communities?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise preparation and evidence, and the library card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing. ↑ section
Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on the GRI 413-1 page as a template for my own draft?
Yes, but only as a synthetic illustration of how a disclosure might look, not as a model requirement. The page also includes a quantitative table in the example, so you can see how the data may be presented consistently in a draft. ↑ section
How does the ESRS S3 (Affected Communities) reference help me with GRI 413-1 Local Communities?
The page says ESRS S3 (Affected Communities) is the closest correspondence, so it can help you think about cross-framework reuse of data. Treat it as a practical reference point only; the page does not say the requirements are identical. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 413-1 Local Communities workbook download: what should I fill in first?
- GRI 413-1 evidence pack checklist for assurance readiness
- How to draft GRI 413-1 Local Communities from the page’s narrative starters
- GRI 413-1 common reporting mistakes and gaps to check before submission
- What is the GRI 413-1 community programme coverage datapoint and how do I collect it?
- GRI 413-1 Local Communities step-by-step preparation guide
- How to assign ownership for GRI 413-1 Local Communities data and evidence
- GRI 413-1 assurance claims claim risk evidence explained
- GRI 413-1 draft output ideas: visualisation, narrative and content index line
- Can I reuse GRI 413-1 data for ESRS S3 Affected Communities?
- GRI 413-1 Local Communities plain-language explainer for practitioners
- How to use the from company reports table on the GRI 413-1 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.
