ESRS 2 — Role of the Administrative, Management and…

Q: What should I collect first for GOV-1 (ESRS 2: General Disclosures) before I start drafting the disclosure?

Start with the page’s datapoints to prepare and work through the step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section. That will help you gather the right board, oversight, strategy, risk and target information before you turn anything into draft wording.

Q: How do I use the GOV-1 page to set the scope and methodology for the disclosure?

Use the page’s plain-language explainer, the datapoints list, and the ‘how to prepare’ steps to define what you are covering and how you will describe it. The page is designed to help you set a practical approach rather than copy official wording.

Q: Which GOV-1 data points should I ask the board secretary, HR, or ESG data owner for?

The page points you to board composition, worker voice, ESG expertise, ESG training, oversight lead and remit, board topics, strategy links, risk process links, trade-off handling, and target review/tracking. Those are the items you would typically need to source from different owners before drafting.

Q: How do I evidence board independence, gender mix, worker voice and other diversity factors for GOV-1?

The page tells you to prepare the relevant board composition datapoints, including independent member share, gender mix, worker voice and other diversity factors. Use the evidence pack and assurance claims to support what you report and to show where the underlying records came from.

Q: What counts as ESG expertise for GOV-1 and how should I describe it in the draft?

The page asks you to prepare both the presence of ESG expertise and the details behind it, so you should be ready to explain who has the expertise and how it is evidenced. The draft-output section can help you turn that into a short narrative once the underlying data is confirmed.

Q: How do I write the board oversight section for GOV-1 without overclaiming?

Use the page’s oversight lead, oversight remit and board oversight topics datapoints, then keep the wording tied to what the board actually does. The common reporting gaps section is there to help you avoid vague statements or claims that are not backed by evidence.

Q: What evidence should go into the GOV-1 assurance pack?

The page includes an evidence pack with five items and also lists six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence focus. Together these are meant to help you build an assurance-ready file before the disclosure is finalised.

Q: How do I use the GOV-1 workbook and printable Library Card?

The Download Centre provides a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use them to organise the preparation work, capture evidence, and keep the disclosure draft aligned with the page’s guidance.

Q: What are the most common mistakes to avoid when preparing GOV-1?

The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, which is intended to help you spot weak or incomplete disclosures early. In practice, that means checking that your draft is supported by the datapoints, evidence pack and assurance claims rather than relying on generic wording.

Q: How do I turn the GOV-1 data into a draft disclosure?

Use the draft-output section, which includes visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That gives you a practical way to move from collected data to a first draft that is easier to review and assure.

Disclosure focus

The practical focus is on the organisation’s governance coverage as a whole, not just a few flagship sites or isolated initiatives. Report on the main bodies and their roles across the business, including how responsibilities are assigned, how oversight works in practice, and whether the approach applies consistently across operations and entities where relevant.

This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official European Commission source.

Request the data

Request board governance evidence and oversight details

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

How do the board and its committees oversee sustainability matters, and what evidence supports the reported governance narrative?

Use your organisation’s own names for the board, committees, roles, policies and reporting packs first; then map them to the reporting fields below. Keep the request in internal business language rather than framework wording, and check the source material before sign-off.

Weak request

Please provide the ESRS 2 GOV-1 information on the administrative, management and supervisory bodies, including composition, expertise, oversight, target monitoring, strategy integration and trade-offs.

Why it fails: It uses framework language that many internal owners will not recognise, and it does not tell them which records to pull, which internal names to use, or what source documents should back the answer. It is also too abstract to work as a practical evidence request.

Better request

Please pull the board and committee pack for [period] showing: who sits on the board and relevant committees; any diversity information held in the board register; whether there is sustainability-related expertise and how it is maintained; who owns oversight and what sits in that remit; how targets are reviewed and progress tracked; and examples where sustainability was part of strategy, risk, major decisions or trade-off discussions. Use our internal names for the bodies and attach the source documents or links.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for board governance evidence for sustainability reporting

Dear [Name],

We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help to pull together the board and committee evidence for [reporting period]. Please share the materials and a short summary covering:
- the current board/committee composition and any relevant diversity information;
- whether the board has members with sustainability-related expertise, and how that capability is built or refreshed;
- which person or group carries responsibility for oversight, what sits within that remit, and which matters are handled directly by the board;
- how targets are reviewed and how progress is tracked;
- how sustainability is built into strategy, risk discussions, major decisions and any trade-off discussions.

Please use your normal internal terms and attach the supporting documents or links to the source systems. If any item is not held centrally, please say where it can be found and who owns it.

Please return by [date]. This is a draft training request for internal use; we will adapt it to our organisation and check the source material before sign-off.

Many thanks,
[Your name]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [Name] — could you send over the board/committee evidence for [period]?

We need the current composition details, any sustainability expertise and training notes, who owns oversight, how targets are monitored, and examples of strategy/risk/major decision discussions. Please use your usual internal terms and share the source docs or links by [date]. Thanks.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A group with a board, audit committee and operations risk forum, where sustainability topics are discussed alongside capital spend and plant performance.

Adapted request. Please share the board and committee evidence for [period] covering composition, any sustainability expertise, the named owner for oversight, target tracking, and examples from capital approval, risk and operational review papers where sustainability affected decisions or trade-offs. Use our board pack, committee minutes and risk dashboard terminology.

Example response. Board register, committee minutes, director training log, risk dashboard extract, and a short note confirming which forum owns each topic and where the latest evidence sits.

Financial services

Context. A regulated group with a board, risk committee and remuneration committee, where sustainability is linked to strategy, risk appetite and incentive discussions.

Adapted request. Please provide the board and committee materials for [period] showing board composition, any sustainability capability, who oversees the topic, how progress against targets is monitored, and examples from strategy, risk appetite and remuneration papers where sustainability influenced decisions or trade-offs. Use our governance calendar and committee pack names.

Example response. Board composition report, committee agendas and minutes, training attendance record, risk appetite paper, remuneration committee extract, and a summary of the oversight route and monitoring cadence.

Draft your disclosure

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.

Method note

Explain how each governance metric was defined and compiled, including the basis used to classify independence, diversity, expertise, oversight responsibilities and strategy integration.

Context note

Set out what the figures say about how the board is structured, what knowledge it has available, how oversight is assigned, and how sustainability is embedded in decision-making.

Fluctuation statement

If any figures changed from the prior period, describe the main reason in plain terms, such as changes in board membership, committee coverage, training activity, oversight arrangements or the way strategy was applied.

Content index entry

GOV-1 Role of the Administrative, Management and Supervisory Bodies — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Preparation tools & forms

Download preparation tools for GOV-1 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.

Free · Email access

01XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints, risks, evidence to check, owner and evidence pack.Get it free ↧ 02XLSData-request packRequest email, message template, response fields and sign-off structure.Get it free ↧ 03PDFLibrary CardPrintable one-page summary of this disclosure card.Get it free ↧

Check

For each claim, check the evidence

I checked the board register and calculated the share of members who are independent for the reporting date.
Risk Assurer may test whether the headcount basis, date cut-off and independence assessment were applied consistently, and whether any exclusions or reclassifications changed the result.
Evidence to check Board composition schedule; independence assessments or declarations; calculation workbook showing numerator, denominator and reporting date; minutes approving the figure; reconciliation to the final report table.
I worked out the board’s gender split from the underlying member list and used the agreed averaging method for the female-to-male ratio.
Risk Assurer may probe whether the method was applied correctly, whether the same population was used throughout, and whether the reported percentages reconcile to source records.
Evidence to check Board member list with gender coding; method note for the ratio calculation; spreadsheet formulas; source documents supporting gender classification where held; review sign-off and final published figure.
I compiled the count of employee and other worker representatives from the governance records and checked who was in post at the reporting date.
Risk Assurer may challenge whether the population of representatives was complete, whether worker categories were applied consistently, and whether appointments or departures were captured on time.
Evidence to check Committee or board membership records; appointment letters or election results; HR or workforce representation records; dated list of office holders; reconciliation between source records and the disclosure.
I grouped the board members by the other diversity factors we chose to report and converted each group into a percentage from the same underlying population.
Risk Assurer may ask whether the chosen diversity factors were applied consistently, whether the percentages use the same denominator, and whether the underlying classifications are supportable.
Evidence to check Internal diversity data extract; definitions used for each factor; calculation sheet for each percentage; source evidence for classifications where available; review notes confirming the final set of factors disclosed.
I summarised the sustainability knowledge and experience held by the board from CVs, training logs and committee records, and noted whether we rely on existing capability or planned development.
Risk Assurer may test whether the description is evidence-based, whether the skills claimed are current and relevant, and whether the statement about availability or development is supported by records.
Evidence to check Director CVs or biographies; training attendance records; skills matrix; board or committee papers on capability gaps or development plans; internal review of the wording before publication.
I prepared the skills narrative from the board’s own records and checked that the wording matched the evidence we had for each member’s background and training.
Risk Assurer may probe whether the narrative overstates expertise, whether evidence exists for each named skill area, and whether the same source set was used for all members.
Evidence to check Source pack for each member; skills matrix or competency assessment; training and development records; drafting notes showing how the narrative was built; approval trail for the final text.

Evidence pack to prepare

The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosureA methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and preparedSource-system exports the figures or facts were drawn fromThe internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publicationMinutes 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.

Where drafts go wrong

Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed

The left column is what preparers get wrong while collecting; the right column is where you will have to make and explain a judgement.

Mistakes to avoid

Ask the wrong ownerThe request goes to a governance secretary or report writer instead of the board lead, committee chair, or the manager who actually holds the underlying records.
Use framework language instead of internal termsPeople answer with ESRS-style labels rather than the organisation’s own job titles, committee names, and process names, so the source evidence cannot be traced cleanly.
Leave the boundary vagueThe team does not state which board, committee, or legal entity is in scope, so different contributors pull data from different populations.
Use the wrong reporting period basisSome inputs are taken from a different cut-off date, meeting cycle, or year-end than the one used for the disclosure pack.
Mix counting methodsOne source counts seats, another counts people, and a third counts meetings, which makes the figures and descriptions impossible to reconcile.
Strip off source labelsOriginal file names, register references, or meeting identifiers are removed during consolidation, so the team cannot show where each answer came from.
Merge groups that should stay separateBoard members, committee members, and employee representatives are blended into one pool even though the data points need them kept distinct.
Lose the evidence trailThe working file captures the answer but not the supporting note, date, owner, or approval step, so there is no clear sign-off path.
Collect narrative before the facts are fixedThe team starts drafting the disclosure text before the underlying governance data are checked, which leads to later rework when the source records change.

＋ Show 5 more

Judgement needed

Board oversight split across committeesIf different committees handle parts of the oversight picture, name the lead group and explain how the work is divided so readers can see who covers strategy, risk, targets and performance follow-up.
Mixed board structures in different countriesWhere local entities use different governance setups, describe the equivalent decision-makers in each case and explain the basis used to map them into one group-wide narrative.
Newly acquired or sold businesses during the yearIf the reporting perimeter changed because of a deal, state which parts of the year include the new or exited business and explain how that affected the governance description and any examples given.
People on the boundary of board representationWhen worker voice is indirect, partial or only present in some entities, explain who is counted as employee representation and why any near-miss cases were included or left out.
Diversity factors beyond gender and independenceIf you consider other diversity dimensions, say which ones matter in your organisation and explain the practical basis for choosing them, especially where local practice or legal context differs.
ESG know-how held by directors versus advisersIf the relevant knowledge sits with directors, committee members or external advisers, explain where the capability actually sits and whether it is permanent, shared or brought in for specific topics.
Training and development counted by attendance or completionChoose one basis for describing learning activity, such as sessions offered, sessions attended or modules completed, and explain that basis consistently so the reader can compare year to year.
Direct oversight versus delegated managementIf the board sets direction but day-to-day handling sits elsewhere, distinguish clearly between what the board itself oversees and what is managed below it, and explain any delegation limits.
Targets and progress tracked by estimate or measured resultWhere exact figures are not available, use a clear estimate only if that is the best available basis, label it as such, and explain any material assumptions or changes in method.
Aggregation needed to protect personal dataIf naming or splitting results would risk identifying individuals, combine the information to a safer level and explain the aggregation approach so the reader understands the loss of detail.

＋ Show 6 more

Examples

How it reads on the page

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

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing

We report that 8 of our 10 directors are independent, with 4 women and 6 men on the board; 2 directors are employee-elected, and we also consider age range, nationality and professional background when looking at balance. - ESG know-how is available on the board: yes; it comes from directors with audit, climate-risk and people-management experience, and we keep that capability current through induction, annual refreshers and topic briefings. - Oversight sits with the board chair, supported by the audit and sustainability committees; they cover strategy, risk, targets, policy changes and major capital choices, while management tracks delivery through quarterly dashboards and a formal year-end review. - Sustainability is built into our strategy work, and recent board decisions included approving a lower-carbon packaging programme and a supplier due-diligence upgrade.

Synthetic, internally consistent example for practitioner training only. It shows how to describe board composition, ESG capability, oversight arrangements, monitoring and strategy linkage without naming the organisation.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Utilities

Our board has 7 members, 5 of whom are independent; the group includes 3 women and 4 men, 1 employee representative, and we also take account of skills mix, international experience and disability when reviewing balance. - The board does have ESG capability: yes; it is drawn from directors with energy-transition, compliance and stakeholder-engagement experience, and we maintain it through external courses, peer learning and periodic updates from management. - Responsibility for this area sits with the board and its risk committee, which oversee climate, safety, ethics, workforce matters and long-term planning; management reports progress each quarter and escalates exceptions between meetings. - Our strategy process already includes these matters, and recent board choices covered a grid-resilience investment and a revised supplier code.

Synthetic, internally consistent example for practitioner training only. It demonstrates a different plausible sector and a different governance set-up while covering the same disclosure points.

Quality ladder

Basic
I report that our board has 40% independent members, with 30% women, one employee representative and other diversity factors also considered.
Better
I report that our board has 40% independent members, 30% women and one employee representative, and we also consider other diversity factors when making appointments.
Best
I report that, for the year ended 31 December 2025, our board and committee members had 40% independent members, 30% women and one employee representative, with other diversity factors also taken into account; we reviewed this mix at each appointment round, and the balance shifted because two new directors were added after a planned succession process.

Check your understanding

Scenarios to work through

A group has a nine-person board and two committees. The reporting team has draft wording saying the board oversees sustainability matters, but it has not yet checked which committee handles targets, which body reviews progress, or whether the board itself keeps direct oversight of any topics.

QHow should the preparer decide what to include about who oversees what, so the description matches the actual governance setup?

Reveal model answer →

The board has six members, including two who are independent, three women and three men, and one employee-elected director. The draft report also mentions that the board considered age mix and international experience, but the team is unsure whether those extra factors should be included.

QWhat should the preparer do when presenting the board’s make-up and the diversity factors considered?

Reveal model answer →

A company says its directors have sustainability knowledge because one member previously led an environmental project and another has finance experience. Training on climate, labour and ethics topics is planned for later in the year, but no session has happened yet.

QHow should the preparer judge whether to say the board has relevant sustainability expertise and how to describe development plans?

Reveal model answer →

The board reviews the annual plan, the main risk register and a set of sustainability targets at the same meeting. Management also asks whether the report should say the board weighed growth plans against emissions reduction and workforce impacts when approving a new investment.

QWhat is the right way to explain how strategy, risk and trade-offs are handled in the governance narrative?

Reveal model answer →

✓ Knowledge Hub AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Get practical answers for your reporting context.

Try How do I prepare GOV-1? What data do I need to collect? What mistakes should I avoid?

Framework references

Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures

ESRS

GOV-1

within ESRS 2: General Disclosures

Open official source →

Guides that settle this question

ESRS 2 General Disclosures: basis of preparation, governance, strategy, business model, stakeholders, material IROs, content index and GDR →

Related & explore

General Basis for Preparation of Sustainability Statements → Card Disclosures in Relation to Specific Circumstances → Card Actions and Resources in Relation to Material Sustainability Matters → Card Metrics in Relation to Material Sustainability Matters → Card Policies Adopted to Manage Material Sustainability Matters → Card Browse all disclosures →

More in ESRS 2 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →

FAQ

Questions this page answers

What should I collect first for GOV-1 (ESRS 2: General Disclosures) before I start drafting the disclosure?+

How do I use the GOV-1 page to set the scope and methodology for the disclosure?+

Which GOV-1 data points should I ask the board secretary, HR, or ESG data owner for?+

How do I evidence board independence, gender mix, worker voice and other diversity factors for GOV-1?+

What counts as ESG expertise for GOV-1 and how should I describe it in the draft?+

How do I write the board oversight section for GOV-1 without overclaiming?+

What evidence should go into the GOV-1 assurance pack?+

How do I use the GOV-1 workbook and printable Library Card?+

What are the most common mistakes to avoid when preparing GOV-1?+

How do I turn the GOV-1 data into a draft disclosure?+

	Report A	Report B	Report C
Datapoint 1	✓ p.213	unclear	✓ p.87
Datapoint 2	✓ p.214	—	✓ p.90

Role of the Administrative, Management and Supervisory Bodies

What to collect before drafting

Independent member share

Gender mix on board

Worker voice on board

Other diversity factors

ESG expertise present

ESG expertise details

ESG training approach

Oversight lead

Oversight remit

Board oversight topics

Target review process

Target tracking process

Strategy link

Strategic decision examples

Risk process link

Trade-off handling

How to prepare it

Request board governance evidence and oversight details

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

Preparation tools & forms

For each claim, check the evidence

I checked the board register and calculated the share of members who are independent for the reporting date.

I worked out the board’s gender split from the underlying member list and used the agreed averaging method for the female-to-male ratio.

I compiled the count of employee and other worker representatives from the governance records and checked who was in post at the reporting date.

I grouped the board members by the other diversity factors we chose to report and converted each group into a percentage from the same underlying population.

I summarised the sustainability knowledge and experience held by the board from CVs, training logs and committee records, and noted whether we rely on existing capability or planned development.

I prepared the skills narrative from the board’s own records and checked that the wording matched the evidence we had for each member’s background and training.

Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed

Mistakes to avoid

Judgement needed

How it reads on the page

Scenarios to work through

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Check your text

Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures

Questions this page answers

Secure your enrolment

Role of the Administrative, Management and Supervisory Bodies

What to collect before drafting

Independent member share

Gender mix on board

Worker voice on board

Other diversity factors

ESG expertise present

ESG expertise details

ESG training approach

Oversight lead

Oversight remit

Board oversight topics

Target review process

Target tracking process

Strategy link

Strategic decision examples

Risk process link

Trade-off handling

How to prepare it

Request board governance evidence and oversight details

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

Preparation tools & forms

For each claim, check the evidence

I checked the board register and calculated the share of members who are independent for the reporting date.

I worked out the board’s gender split from the underlying member list and used the agreed averaging method for the female-to-male ratio.

I compiled the count of employee and other worker representatives from the governance records and checked who was in post at the reporting date.

I grouped the board members by the other diversity factors we chose to report and converted each group into a percentage from the same underlying population.

I summarised the sustainability knowledge and experience held by the board from CVs, training logs and committee records, and noted whether we rely on existing capability or planned development.

I prepared the skills narrative from the board’s own records and checked that the wording matched the evidence we had for each member’s background and training.

Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed

Mistakes to avoid

Judgement needed

How it reads on the page

Scenarios to work through

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Check your text

Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures

Questions this page answers

Get in touch