GRI 2-13 — Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts

Disclosure focus

This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how responsibility for managing its significant impacts is delegated and who is accountable for it in practice. The focus is on the real management setup: which roles, committees or senior leaders are responsible, what they oversee, and how responsibility is distributed across the organisation rather than left only at group level or with one central function.

In practical terms, the report should show whether this delegation covers the whole business or only selected parts, such as certain regions, business units or flagship sites. It should help a reader understand where impact management sits in the organisation, how far it reaches through operations and value chain oversight, and whether the arrangement is clear enough to support effective follow-through.

Before you start

A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.

Have you settled whether the board has passed impact-management responsibility to named senior leaders, or to other staff, and which parts of the business that covers?
Before drafting, do you know if the reporting line back to the board is from executives, from other employees, or from both?
Have you fixed how often those updates go back to the board, and what process is used to send them?
Can you point to a source for each delegation and reporting arrangement, so the wording matches what is actually in place?
Have you agreed the scope of impacts you are describing — business effects on the economy, the environment, and people — and the organisation terms you will use for those roles and groups?

Preparation

Key datapoints to prepare

Datapoint	What to capture	Evidence hint	Owner
Senior responsibility assigned	Capture how the board passes day-to-day responsibility for managing the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts, and whether any named senior leaders hold that remit.	Board papers, governance charts, role descriptions, delegated authority matrix, committee terms of reference, executive appointment letters.	Company Secretariat / Governance
Other staff delegation	Capture whether responsibility for managing the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts has been passed to employees other than senior executives, and who those people are.	Delegation matrix, organisation chart, job descriptions, committee minutes, internal policy assigning responsibilities.	Company Secretariat / Governance
Board reporting cadence	Capture how often, and by what route, senior leaders or other staff update the board on how the organisation is managing its economic, environmental and social impacts.	Board and committee packs, reporting calendar, management reporting templates, minutes showing update frequency.	Company Secretariat / Governance

Show GRI 2-13 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

Set out how the board passes day-to-day responsibility for managing the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts, including whether any senior leader has been given that role.
Set out how the board passes day-to-day responsibility for managing the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts, including whether that responsibility has been given to other staff.
Explain the reporting route and how often senior leaders or other staff update the board on how the organisation is managing its economic, environmental and social impacts.

LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source

How to prepare

Set the reporting boundary first: identify which governing tier you are describing, and make sure the answer covers how responsibility for managing the organisation’s impacts is assigned within that structure.
Check whether the board-level group has passed impact-management duties to named senior leaders, and note that point clearly if such appointments exist.
Check whether those duties have instead been passed to other staff members, and capture that arrangement separately if it applies.
Map the reporting line back up to the board: set out how often the relevant senior leaders or other staff update the top governance group, and through what process those updates happen.
Assemble the response as a short narrative, using plain language that explains the delegation chain and the reporting rhythm without adding extra claims.
Before finalising, compare the draft with the source material to confirm you have covered all required points, and record any exclusions, changes in responsibility, or wording choices that affect interpretation.

Request the board delegation and reporting trail

Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.

How has the board passed responsibility for impact management to executives or other staff, and how do those people report back to the board?

Use your organisation’s own governance terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. For example, refer to the board, committees, executive leads, and reporting packs in the language your organisation already uses; avoid framework wording in the request itself.

Weak request

Please provide the GRI 2-13 evidence showing delegation of responsibility for managing impacts and the reporting process to the highest governance body.

Why it fails: It uses framework language that many internal owners will not recognise, and it does not say which board papers, role assignments, reporting packs, or dates are needed. It is too abstract to help the owner pull the right records.

Better request

Please send the board or committee records for [period] that show who was given responsibility for impact management, whether any executives or other staff were named, and how often they report back to the board or its committees. Include the document titles, dates, named roles, and the usual reporting route.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for governance evidence on delegation and reporting lines

Dear [Name],

I’m preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need a short evidence set on how responsibility for impact management is assigned and how updates flow back to the board for [reporting period].

Please share, for [entity / boundary]:
- the names of the board or committee papers, minutes, or other records showing who was given responsibility;
- whether any senior leaders were assigned this work, and if so, who they are and what they cover;
- whether any other staff were given this responsibility, and if so, who they are and what they cover;
- the usual route and timing for those people to report back to the board or its committees;
- any changes during the period that affect the above.

If the evidence sits in different places, a short index with document names, dates, and owners would be helpful. Please use your organisation’s own terms and attach the source records where possible. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.

Many thanks,
[Your name]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [Name] — could you send the board/committee evidence for who was assigned responsibility for impact management in [period], plus how often they report back and through which papers or meetings? Please include any senior leads, other staff, and any changes in the year. Use your usual internal terms and attach the source docs if you can. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A plant-led group with a board sustainability committee and site operations directors.

Adapted request. Please share the board and committee papers for [period] that show which executive or site leaders were given responsibility for managing environmental, social, and business impact issues, plus the schedule for their updates back to the board sustainability committee. Include any changes to site leadership or reporting lines.

Example response. Board paper dated [date] names the operations director and EHS lead as responsible for site impact management; committee pack shows quarterly updates from those roles to the board sustainability committee; a mid-year memo records one site leadership change.

Financial services

Context. A regulated group with a risk committee, executive management committee, and business-line heads.

Adapted request. Please provide the committee papers and role assignments for [period] showing which executives or business heads were tasked with overseeing impact-related matters, and how they report back to the board or risk committee. Include the reporting cadence and any changes to the named roles.

Example response. Risk committee terms of reference assign oversight to the chief risk officer and business-line heads; monthly executive committee updates feed into quarterly board risk papers; one role change is noted in the second half of the year.

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

We have described responsibility based on the roles and reporting arrangements recorded in our governance records, using the organisation’s own internal definitions of who oversees impact management and how updates are escalated.

Context note

These figures show how oversight of the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts is organised in practice, including whether responsibility sits with the board, is assigned to senior leaders, or is carried by other employees.

Fluctuation statement

Any change from the prior period is explained by updates to governance roles, changes in who has been assigned responsibility, or a revised schedule for reporting back to the board.

Content index entry

GRI 2-13 Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-13. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.

XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints + per-datapoint risk, evidence to check, owner & evidence pack XLSData-request packLegal / Company Secretariat request — email & message templates, response form, sign-off & industry examples PDFLibrary CardPrintable summary (PDF)

Assurance readiness

For each claim, check the evidence

Claim	Risk	Evidence to check
The information reported for this disclosure reconciles to the underlying source records.	What is reported cannot be traced back to the systems or documents it was drawn from, or does not tie out to them.	calculation_workbook reconciling the reported value to source_system_export
The information reported for this disclosure is current as at the reporting date.	The disclosure reflects a different period, a cut-off before the reporting date, or stale data carried over from a prior period.	approval_record showing the data cut-off date and the period covered
The scope behind the information reported for this disclosure is applied consistently.	Parts of the organisation are silently in or out of scope, or the scope differs from the prior period without that change being explained.	methodology defining the scope and a site_register of what it covers
Everything in scope is included in the information reported for this disclosure — nothing material is left out.	Parts of the population that should be reported are omitted, understating or overstating the disclosure.	site_register of the full population vs the calculation_workbook of what was actually included

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

The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.

Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data

Wrong owner identified
The data request goes to the wrong person or team, so the answer describes a role that does not actually hold the delegated responsibility in the organisation.
Framework language used in the ask
The collection note uses reporting-framework terms instead of the organisation’s own job titles and committee names, which leads people to answer the wrong question.
Scope not pinned down
The team fails to state which parts of the business, which impact areas, and which roles are in scope, so different contributors supply incompatible information.
Wrong time basis
The evidence is pulled for the wrong reporting period or at the wrong cut-off date, so the final dataset does not match the period being reported.
Counting basis mixed up
One source counts named people, another counts roles or meetings, and the collector combines them without separating the basis, which makes the figures and narrative inconsistent.
Source labels stripped out
The original file names, version tags, or system labels are removed during collation, so the team cannot trace which record each statement came from.
Separate groups merged
Information about board-level delegation, executive delegation, and other staff responsibilities is merged into one pool, even though each needs to stay distinct for drafting.
Evidence trail missing
The pack contains the answer but not the supporting note, email, minutes extract, or sign-off record, so reviewers cannot see who confirmed it and when.

Where judgement is often needed

Acquisition or disposal changes the reporting perimeter
If a business is bought, sold, or otherwise leaves the group during the period, explain which entities are covered in the description and make clear the cut-off date used for the delegation and reporting lines.
Different country titles for the same role
Where local job titles vary, map them to the actual decision-maker or reporting route used in practice and note any country-specific differences so readers can see who carries the responsibility.
People close to the boundary of responsibility
If some teams sit partly inside and partly outside the area covered by the disclosure, state the rule used to include or exclude them and explain any material grey areas.
Board-level oversight versus day-to-day management
When the board keeps oversight while executives or staff handle the operational work, describe both layers separately and show how the handover between them works.
Reporting cadence set by the business calendar
If updates go to the board on a monthly, quarterly, or event-driven basis, state the timing actually used and explain whether that timing changed during the period.
Measured information versus management estimates
Where the description relies on internal records, judgement, or estimates rather than direct measurement, say so and explain the basis used to prepare the account.
Rounding and presentation of counts or dates
If you round numbers or simplify dates for readability, keep the method consistent and make sure the rounded presentation does not obscure who is responsible or how often updates are given.
Privacy limits on naming individuals
If naming a person would create a privacy issue, use a role-based description instead and explain the level of detail withheld while still showing the reporting chain.

Examples

Illustrative examples

Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.

Consumer goods manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA

Synthetic illustration only. Our board has assigned day-to-day oversight of our economic, environmental and social impacts to the chief sustainability officer, who also chairs a cross-functional impact committee. Operational ownership sits with 14 managers across manufacturing, procurement, logistics and people teams, and the board receives a written update every quarter plus an in-person review twice a year.
- The board keeps ultimate oversight, while the chief sustainability officer coordinates the work and reports on progress.
- Specific managers in the business units carry out the actions, with 14 people holding named responsibilities.
- Reporting back follows a set rhythm: quarterly papers and two deeper board sessions each year.

This example shows one way to explain who carries the work, who coordinates it, and how often the board hears back, without using the standard’s wording.

Commercial property services · synthetic · written by LRA

Synthetic illustration only. Our directors have given the executive committee responsibility for managing our business, environmental and workforce impacts, and one executive director leads that agenda across the group. In addition, 9 site and function leads are authorised to manage local delivery, and the executive committee sends a short monthly dashboard to the board with a fuller review every second month.
- The board has placed overall responsibility with the executive committee and named one executive director to lead the topic.
- Local responsibility also sits with 9 other employees who run site-level and functional actions.
- Back-reporting is regular: a monthly summary, plus a more detailed discussion every other month.

This example illustrates a second reporting pattern, showing both senior leadership ownership and wider employee delegation, together with a clear reporting cadence.

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

Who holds responsibility for impact management — table: A simple listing of the board, any named senior leaders, and any other staff given day-to-day responsibility for managing the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts.
How responsibility is split across roles — stacked bar: A breakdown of responsibility between the board, senior executives, and other employees where duties are shared across more than one level.
Reporting line back to the board — line: The regularity of updates from senior leaders or other staff to the board, showing how often information is passed upwards over time or across reporting periods.
Named senior roles with impact oversight — bar: The number or presence of senior executives assigned responsibility for managing the organisation’s impacts, compared with other delegated roles.
Delegation route by governance level — donut: The proportion of responsibility held directly by the board versus passed to senior management or other employees.

From a number to a disclosure

What separates a figure from a disclosure.

Basic

I have named one senior leader to oversee our impact management and to report back to the board.

Better

I have assigned impact oversight to one executive and two other staff leads, with quarterly updates to the board.

Best

I have given impact oversight to one executive and two staff leads across our economic, environmental and social effects, with quarterly board reporting and a fuller year-end review; the extra year-end detail reflects a recent expansion in our impact work.

From company reports

Real published reports Compare side by side →Get it free

Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-13 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.

Company

Sector · Country

Year

Match

Page

Report

Assurance

Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.

Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Colombia

2024

ISA Integrated Management Report 2024 →

ey

Evidence in Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.’s report

What the report shows

Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.'s ISA Integrated Management Report 2024 does not provide quotable evidence or clear narrative information related to the specified disclosure, as no relevant data points or findings are present in the report. The report lacks coverage for narrative items (a-i), (a-ii), and (b), with no pages or extracts available to assess. Consequently, the report's content on this disclosure remains unclear and unaddressed.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

Datapoint	Status	Page
Senior responsibility assignedNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Other staff delegationNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Board reporting cadenceNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—

TS Financial Holding Co., Ltd.

Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Taiwan

2024

Exact

p. 171 →p. 175 →p. 76 →

2024 CSR Report →

EY

Evidence in TS Financial Holding Co., Ltd.’s report

What the report shows

TS Financial Holding Co., Ltd.'s 2024 CSR Report provides a covered datapoint on the remuneration of senior executives, noting there are 30 senior executives and referencing policies and decision-making processes related to their remuneration on page 171. The report includes governance-related content across several pages, such as sustainability governance (p.43), corporate governance and risk management (p.50), and sustainability strategy (p.34), but these do not explicitly detail remuneration policies. Notably, there is no clear or quotable evidence found regarding the methodology or narrative for remuneration disclosures (items a-i and a-ii), leaving those aspects unclear.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

Datapoint	Status	Page
Senior responsibility assignedNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Other staff delegationNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Board reporting cadenceA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 171

Source trail

p. 171Senior Executives 30 For details on the policies and decisionmaking process for the remuneration of the highest governance
p. 43Governance 41 Taishin Holdings 2024 Sustainability Report | CH2 | Sustainability Governance About this report Message from the Chairman
p. 50Governance ▸2.1 Corporate Governance ▸2.2 Business Integrity ▸2.3 Risk Management and Internal Control ▸2.4 Information and Transaction
p. 34Governance ▸1.2 Sustainability Core Strategy ▸1.3 Impact Valuation and Measurement 2 Sustainability Governance 3 Climate Strategy
p. 38Governance Issues Sustainability topics Assessment and Goals Key Performance Indicator Achievement in 2024 2025 2027 2030 Corporate Governance
p. 171highest governance body 2.1.2 Composition and Functionality of the Board of Directors 42 2-11 Chair
p. 29Governance 1.2 Sustainability Core Strategy 1.3 Impact Valuation and Measurement 1 Sustainability Strategy 27 Taishin Holdings 2024 Sustainability

Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation., Ltd.

Food Production — Agricultural · Thailand

2024

Exact

p. 206 →p. 207 →p. 53 →

Sustainability Report 2024 →

SGS

Evidence in Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation., Ltd.’s report

What the report shows

Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation’s Sustainability Report 2024 provides some coverage on governance, including details about the highest governance body and its chair on page 207, as well as the board composition requiring between five and twelve members on page 41. The report also references processes related to remuneration and risk management on page 207, alongside mentions of stakeholder engagement and sustainable development strategy. However, narrative items (a-i) and (a-ii) lack clear quotable evidence, and there is no detailed methodology or narrative found for these sections.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

Datapoint	Status	Page
Senior responsibility assignedNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Other staff delegationNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Board reporting cadenceA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 207

Source trail

p. 207highest governance body 26, 40-42 2-11 Chair of the highest governance
p. 207Process to determine remuneration 100 2-21 Annual total compensation ratio - Confidentiality constraints 2-22 Statement on sustainable development strategy
p. 13Governance and Economic Awards • CAC Change Agent Award 2024 • Second-term CAC certification at the CAC Certification Ceremony
p. 208governance, control, and risk management 23, Link 207-3 Stakeholder engagement and management of concerns related to tax 23, Link
p. 2Governance Dimension 004 Vision and Philosophy 006 Message from the Chairman of Mitr Phol Group 008 Key Sustainability
p. 41governance. The Group requires the Board to consist of a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 members
p. 38Governance Dimension Performance About Mitr Phol Group 040 Corporate Governance and Business Ethics 050 Risk Management
p. 210unavailable/ incomplete 13.14.4 Corporate Governance Dimension Performance Social Dimension Performance Environmental Dimension Performance Appendix About Mitr Phol Group
p. 27Senior executives also participate in the review process. Scoping the Report on Material Sustainability Issues • Mitr Phol defines the scope

Check your understanding

A group has a board-level sustainability committee, and the board has also named the chief operating officer to oversee day-to-day action on the group’s economic, environmental and social impacts. The reporting pack mentions the committee and the COO, but it does not say whether any other managers have been given this role.Have you clearly set out who the board has passed impact-management responsibility to, including any senior executive named for that job, and whether any other staff members also carry that responsibility?

Model answer. The disclosure should explain the board’s handover of responsibility in practical terms. It should name any senior executive who has been given oversight of impact management, and it should also say if that responsibility has been passed to other employees as well. If the organisation has only one named executive and no other staff with that role, that should be made clear rather than left implied.

Why this matters. Readers need a plain account of who carries the work after the board delegates it, not just a title list.

A company says its board oversees sustainability matters, and a risk director prepares monthly updates for the audit committee. The draft does not say whether the risk director is actually responsible for managing impacts, or only for reporting on them.Do you need to distinguish between the person who manages the impacts and the person who simply reports on them?

Model answer. Yes. The narrative should separate management responsibility from reporting lines. If a senior executive or another employee is responsible for managing the organisation’s impacts, that should be stated. If someone only feeds information up to the board or a committee, that role should be described as reporting rather than management unless the person also has the management remit.

Why this matters. Do not blur operational responsibility with upward reporting; they are different parts of the governance chain.

An organisation has given responsibility for environmental and social programmes to several department heads, while the board keeps oversight through quarterly papers. The draft says the board “monitors progress” but does not explain how often those managers report back or what the reporting route is.Have you described both the route and the timing for updates from the people managing impacts back to the board?

Model answer. The disclosure should explain how information moves back to the top governance group and how often that happens. A clear answer would say which senior executives or other employees report back, through what process or forum, and at what frequency. If the updates are quarterly, monthly, or on another cycle, that should be stated plainly.

Why this matters. The board’s oversight is only clear when the reporting path and cadence are described.

A parent company board delegates impact management to a group sustainability lead, but the draft only says the board has “delegated responsibility” without saying whether that person is a senior executive or whether any operational managers also hold delegated duties. The same wording is repeated for all impact areas without any detail.Is a general statement of delegation enough, or do you need to spell out who has the role and whether others in the business also share it?

Model answer. A general statement is not enough on its own. The account should identify whether the board has appointed any senior executive to manage impacts and whether any other employees have been given that responsibility too. The wording should be specific enough for a reader to understand who is accountable in practice, not just that delegation exists.

Why this matters. Delegation should be described in a way that shows who actually holds the responsibility inside the organisation.

Analyse this disclosure across real reports

See how companies actually report GRI 2-13 — 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.

Compare across reports → Open in the Cabinet → What is LRA Community? →

Related framework references

How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.

GRIPrimary

GRI 2-13

within GRI 2: General Disclosures

Open official source →

Related & explore

Organizational details Guide ✓Nomination and selection of the highest g… Guide ✓Chair of the highest governance body Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in ov… Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in su… Guide ✓Conflicts of interest Guide ✓Communication of critical concerns Guide ✓Collective knowledge of the highest gover… Guide ✓Evaluation of the performance of the high… Guide ✓Remuneration policies Guide ✓Entities included in the organization’s s… Guide ✓Process to determine remuneration Guide ✓Annual total compensation ratio Guide ✓Statement on sustainable development stra… Guide ✓Policy commitments Guide ✓Embedding policy commitments Guide ✓Processes to remediate negative impacts Guide ✓Mechanisms for seeking advice and raising… Guide ✓Compliance with laws and regulations Guide ✓Membership associations Guide ✓Approach to stakeholder engagement Guide ✓Reporting period, frequency and contact p… Guide ✓Collective bargaining agreements Guide ✓Restatements of information Guide ✓External assurance Guide ✓Activities, value chain and other busines… Guide ✓Employees Guide ✓Workers who are not employees Guide ✓Governance structure and composition Guide ✓

More in GRI 2 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →

Questions this page answers

For GRI 2-13, what data do I need to collect before I draft the disclosure?

The page says to prepare three datapoints: who has senior responsibility, whether any other staff are delegated, and how often the board is reported to. It also gives a step-by-step preparation section to help you turn that into a draft. ↑ section

How do I decide who counts as the senior responsibility owner for GRI 2-13?

Use the page’s plain-language explainer and preparation steps to identify the person or role that holds senior responsibility in practice. Keep the ownership clear in your evidence pack so the draft can be supported later. ↑ section

What should I include if other staff are delegated under GRI 2-13?

Capture whether delegation exists and, if it does, who is involved and what they do. The page treats this as one of the key datapoints to prepare, so it should be explicit in the draft and backed by evidence. ↑ section

How do I evidence the board reporting cadence for GRI 2-13?

The page asks you to prepare the board reporting cadence as a datapoint, so you should be able to show how often reporting happens and where that is evidenced. The assurance-ready evidence pack is there to help you assemble that support. ↑ section

What does the step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section help me do for GRI 2-13?

It is there to move you from the disclosure topic to a workable draft by guiding preparation, data collection and checking. Use it alongside the workbook if you need a structured way to gather the information. ↑ section

What are the four assurance claims I need to check for GRI 2-13?

The page says there are four assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence prompt. Use that section to test whether your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is complete enough for review. ↑ section

What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 2-13 assurance readiness?

The page provides an evidence pack with five items to help you get assurance-ready. Use it to gather the documents or records that support the ownership, delegation and board reporting information in the disclosure. ↑ section

What are the common mistakes people make when drafting GRI 2-13?

The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful for a final check before sign-off. In practice, use it to spot missing ownership detail, weak evidence or unclear reporting cadence. ↑ section

How can I use the synthetic example disclosure for GRI 2-13?

The example is there to show what a finished disclosure can look like, including a quantitative table where relevant. Treat it as a model for structure and clarity, not as a real company benchmark. ↑ section

What can I download to help prepare GRI 2-13?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise the disclosure work and the PDF as a quick reference. ↑ section

Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts

Get in touch