Disclosure focus
The disclosure is based on impact materiality. It does not determine topics according to their financial importance to the organization, their effect on enterprise value, or their popularity among stakeholders. A double-materiality assessment can support GRI reporting only where the impact-materiality component is assessed separately and GRI material topics are selected solely according to the significance of the organization’s impacts.
The organization must explain how it identified actual and potential, negative and positive impacts across its activities and business relationships. This includes negative impacts the organization causes or contributes to through its activities and impacts directly linked to its operations, products, or services through business relationships.
The organization should describe the methods, sources, and evidence used to identify impacts. These can include economic, environmental, social and human rights impact assessments, due diligence, grievance mechanisms, audits, incident records, stakeholder information, government sources, civil-society reports, trade-union information, research and expert input.
The organization should explain the scope of its impact identification, including short- and long-term impacts and any limitations or exclusions. Where a complex value chain prevents immediate assessment of every relationship, the organization can conduct an initial scoping exercise to identify areas where negative impacts are most likely and significant. This should not be treated as a permanent boundary based only on direct control or first-tier relationships.
The organization is required to use the applicable GRI Sector Standards when determining its material topics. It must consider each topic and impact described in the applicable Sector Standards. If a Sector Standard topic is determined not material, the organization must list it in the GRI content index and explain why. Where no Sector Standard applies, the organization should explain how it considered impacts commonly associated with its sectors, products, and geographic locations.
The organization must explain how it prioritised impacts for reporting based on their significance. The significance of an actual negative impact is determined by its severity. The significance of a potential negative impact is determined by severity and likelihood. Severity comprises scale, scope, and irremediable character. For potential negative human rights impacts, severity takes precedence over likelihood.
The significance of an actual positive impact is determined by its scale and scope. The significance of a potential positive impact is determined by scale, scope, and likelihood. Positive and negative impacts should be prioritised separately, and positive impacts must not be used to offset negative impacts.
The organization should arrange its impacts from most to least significant, define and document a threshold or cut-off, and group prioritised impacts into topics. The significance of impacts is the sole criterion for determining whether a topic is material under GRI. Reporting difficulty, lack of data, absence of an existing policy, or inability to formulate a target must not be used to exclude a significant topic.
The organization must specify the stakeholders and experts whose views informed the process. Stakeholder views can help identify and assess impacts, but stakeholder concern or voting results do not replace an assessment of impact significance. The organization can identify stakeholders and experts by category and does not need to name every individual participant.
The organization should test its selected material topics against the applicable GRI Sector Standards and with potential information users and experts. It should explain significant changes made following testing or internal approval. Governance review and approval of material topics should be cross-referenced to Disclosure 2-14.
Disclosure 3-1 reports the process used to determine material topics. The final list of material topics and changes compared with the previous reporting period are reported under Disclosure 3-2.
Reasons for omission are not permitted for Disclosure 3-1. An organization reporting in accordance with the GRI Standards must report all required information under this disclosure.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official Global Reporting Initiative source.
Prepare
What to collect before drafting
Tick each field as the evidence lands. Owners are the teams that usually hold the source files.
-
Materiality process
Sustainability reportingDescribe the ongoing process, methods, sources, evidence, scope, limitations and use of applicable GRI Sector Standards.
Evidence Impact-identification methodology, due-diligence records, Sector Standard assessment, source register and process narrative.
Watch for The published response for materiality process is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Impact identification method
Sustainability reportingExplain how impacts on the economy, environment and people, including human rights, were identified across activities and business relationships.
Evidence Impact register, due-diligence and impact assessments, grievance and incident records, value-chain mapping and external-source review.
Watch for The published response for impact identification method is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Impact ranking basis
Sustainability reportingExplain the criteria used for each impact type, the ordering of impacts, the threshold or cut-off and the grouping of prioritised impacts into topics.
Evidence Impact-assessment matrix, severity and likelihood criteria, threshold paper, prioritisation workshop record and topic-grouping bridge.
Watch for The published response for impact ranking basis is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Input sources
Stakeholder Engagement / Sustainability reportingSpecify the stakeholder and expert categories whose views informed impact identification, assessment and testing.
Evidence Stakeholder and expert register, engagement records, feedback analysis, testing record and documented treatment of conflicting views.
Watch for The published response for input sources is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
Before you start
- Identify impacts across the organisation's activities and business relationships, including directly linked impacts beyond the first tier; do not use control, financial significance or stakeholder popularity as the reporting boundary.
- Use every applicable GRI Sector Standard. List Sector Standard topics determined not material separately in the GRI content index with an explanation.
- Have the supporting records and the final response been reconciled?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the disclosure evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Provide the impact-identification methodology and source register, activities and business-relationship scope, applicable Sector Standard assessment, significance criteria, prioritisation and threshold evidence, stakeholder and expert input, testing record and process approval trail.
Use the organisation's own role and document names, but preserve the defined GRI terms and the scope described above.
Better request
Provide the impact-identification methodology and source register, activities and business-relationship scope, applicable Sector Standard assessment, significance criteria, prioritisation and threshold evidence, stakeholder and expert input, testing record and process approval trail.
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
Assess actual negative impacts by severity; potential negative impacts by severity and likelihood; actual positive impacts by scale and scope; and potential positive impacts by scale, scope and likelihood. Prioritise positive and negative impacts separately and do not offset them.
Context note
Disclosure 3-1 reports the process. Report the final material-topic list and period-on-period changes under GRI 3-2 and cross-reference governance review and approval to GRI 2-14.
Content index entry
Report every requirement of GRI 3-1. Reasons for omission are not permitted.Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for GRI 3-1 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
Materiality process is reported accurately and completely.
Risk The response omits, misclassifies or overstates materiality process.
Evidence to check Impact-identification methodology, due-diligence records, Sector Standard assessment, source register and process narrative.
Impact identification method is reported accurately and completely.
Risk The response omits, misclassifies or overstates impact identification method.
Evidence to check Impact register, due-diligence and impact assessments, grievance and incident records, value-chain mapping and external-source review.
Impact ranking basis is reported accurately and completely.
Risk The response omits, misclassifies or overstates impact ranking basis.
Evidence to check Impact-assessment matrix, severity and likelihood criteria, threshold paper, prioritisation workshop record and topic-grouping bridge.
Input sources is reported accurately and completely.
Risk The response omits, misclassifies or overstates input sources.
Evidence to check Stakeholder and expert register, engagement records, feedback analysis, testing record and documented treatment of conflicting views.
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
- Defining material topics by business importance, enterprise value or stakeholder popularity.
- Using one generic scale-likelihood matrix for every impact type.
- Limiting business relationships to controlled entities, key suppliers or the first tier.
- Omitting applicable GRI Sector Standards or silently dropping their non-material topics.
- Allowing reporting difficulty, data availability or management maturity to affect topic selection.
- Treating stakeholder concern as a substitute for impact-significance assessment.
Real reports
How 3 companies report it
Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.
Partial
PharmaEssentia Corporation
Exact
GeelongPort
Partial| Field | Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P. | PharmaEssentia Corporation | GeelongPort |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality process | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Impact identification method | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Impact ranking basis | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Input sources | Not found | Not found | Not found |
Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context.
Check your text
Paste one or two paragraphs. The fragment is used for this check only and is not stored in your conversation.
Peer comparison uses examples on this card, not prevalence in the report corpus.
Advice, not assurance
Framework references
Relevant GRI requirements and related disclosures
GRI
GRI 3-1
within GRI 3: Material Topics
Guides that settle this question
Related & explore
More in GRI 3 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →