Skip to the disclosure focus
Courses

GRI Training Partner GRI 413 · Local Communities · Disclosure GRI 413-2

Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities

GRI 413-2 · mandatory · narrative disclosure

This disclosure requires the organization to identify operations with significant actual or potential negative impacts on local communities.

Legal status

GRI 413: Local Communities 2016 remains the applicable published GRI Topic Standard and is effective for reports or other materials published on or after 1 July 2018.

Start preparing ↓ Official Global Reporting Initiative source ↗ Compare 3 real reports

Disclosure focus

For each relevant operation, report:

its location; and

the significant actual and potential negative impacts associated with it.

The disclosure covers significant economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts on local communities and their rights. It is not limited to nearby residents, environmental incidents or formal complaints.

GRI 413-2 does not require a percentage or coverage figure.

GRI recommends providing additional information on community vulnerability, exposure through shared resources and the intensity or severity, likely duration, reversibility and scale of each significant impact.

Community investment, donations and programme expenditure do not answer this disclosure unless they are relevant to explaining the identified negative impacts.

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.

  • Relevant operation

    Operations / Sustainability

    Operation meeting the significant-impact threshold.

    Evidence Operation register, impact-identification records and management review.

    Watch for The published response for relevant operation is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Operation location

    Operations / Property

    Sufficient geographical information to identify where the operation is located.

    Evidence Site, asset or project register, maps and legal records.

    Watch for The published response for operation location is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Local community

    Community Relations / Human Rights

    Community affected or potentially affected by the operation.

    Evidence Stakeholder mapping, impact assessment and community records.

    Watch for The published response for local community is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Impact status

    Risk / Operations

    Actual, potential or both.

    Evidence Incident records, monitoring data, project plans and risk assessments.

    Watch for The published response for impact status is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Impact category

    Relevant topic owner

    Economic, social, cultural, environmental or human-rights impact.

    Evidence Topic-specific assessments and source-system evidence.

    Watch for The published response for impact category is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Significant impact description

    Sustainability / Risk

    Nature of each significant negative impact.

    Evidence Impact assessment, complaints, investigations and monitoring records.

    Watch for The published response for significant impact description is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Vulnerability factors — recommended

    Social Performance

    Isolation, socioeconomic development, infrastructure, proximity, social organization and institutional governance.

    Evidence Community baseline and social-impact data.

    Watch for The published response for vulnerability factors — recommended is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Exposure factors — recommended

    Environment / Operations

    Hazardous substances, pollution, employer dependency, land conversion, resettlement and natural-resource consumption.

    Evidence Operational and community-impact evidence.

    Watch for The published response for exposure factors — recommended is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Impact characteristics — recommended

    Sustainability / Risk

    Intensity or severity, likely duration, reversibility and scale.

    Evidence Impact-assessment methodology and analysis.

    Watch for The published response for impact characteristics — recommended is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Evidence and review

    Sustainability Reporting

    Source references, assessment date and approver.

    Evidence Evidence register and sign-off.

    Watch for The published response for evidence and review is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

Before you start

  • What operating unit is used to identify an operation?
  • Which operations have significant actual negative impacts?
  • Which operations have significant potential negative impacts?
  • Which local communities are affected or could be affected?
  • What is the location of each relevant operation?
  • What economic, social, cultural or environmental impacts are associated with each operation?
  • Is each impact actual, potential or both?
  • What evidence supports the significance conclusion?
  • Have formal complaints been considered without treating them as the only source?
  • Have communities located at a distance but affected by the activity been considered?
  • Have differentiated impacts on vulnerable groups been considered?
  • Have community vulnerability and exposure factors been assessed?
  • Can intensity or severity, duration, reversibility and scale be described?
  • Are operations and individual incidents being kept as separate units?
  • Can every operation-impact-location combination be traced to supporting evidence?
  • Is sensitive information aggregated without removing the required substance?
＋ Show GRI 413-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

How to prepare it

Define the operating unit used for the disclosure.
Identify local communities affected or potentially affected by the organization’s operations.
Consolidate actual-impact information from performance data, grievances, incidents, monitoring and assessments.
Consolidate potential-impact information from investment plans, expansion plans, risk assessments and impact assessments.
Assess which impacts are significant.
Identify the operations associated with those significant impacts.
Record the location of each operation.
Describe actual and potential impacts separately.
Classify impacts as economic, social, cultural, environmental and/or human-rights impacts.
Assess differentiated impacts on vulnerable or disadvantaged groups.
Add the recommended community-vulnerability factors.
Add the recommended shared-resource exposure factors.
Describe severity, duration, reversibility and scale.
Retain source references for every operation and impact.
Aggregate sensitive information only where the required location and impact information remain understandable.
Verify the final disclosure against GRI 413-2(a)(i)–(ii).

Request the data

Request the disclosure evidence

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

Please provide the GRI 413-2 operation-impact register for [reporting period]. For each relevant operation, include: operation name and internal ID; operation type; location; affected or potentially affected local community; impact category; description of the impact; whether the impact is actual, potential or both; evidence supporting the impact; basis for determining significance; intensity or severity; likely duration; reversibility; scale; relevant community-vulnerability factors; and source owner and assessment date.

Use the organisation's own role and document names, but preserve the defined GRI terms and the scope described above.

Better request

Please provide the GRI 413-2 operation-impact register for [reporting period]. For each relevant operation, include: operation name and internal ID; operation type; location; affected or potentially affected local community; impact category; description of the impact; whether the impact is actual, potential or both; evidence supporting the impact; basis for determining significance; intensity or severity; likely duration; reversibility; scale; relevant community-vulnerability factors; and source owner and assessment date.

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

Operations were identified through [impact-identification process]. Significant actual and potential negative impacts were assessed using [methodology]. Locations are reported at [site / municipality / regional] level.

Context note

Keep mandatory GRI Requirements, GRI recommendations and additional LRA preparation controls clearly distinguished. Apply a GRI 1 reason for omission where required information cannot be reported.

Download Centre

Preparation tools & forms

Download preparation tools for GRI 413-2 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

  • We identified operations using a documented and consistently applied operating-unit definition.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • We did not calculate or disclose a coverage figure as though it were required by GRI 413-2.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • We considered communities living or working both adjacent to and at a distance from operations where they could be affected.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • We considered significant economic, social, cultural, environmental and human-rights impacts.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • We distinguished actual impacts from potential impacts.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Potential impacts are supported by credible plans, assessments or risk evidence.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Formal complaints were considered but were not used as the only impact-identification source.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Recorded incidents were not classified as significant automatically.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The financial effect on the organization was not used as the sole significance test.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Each disclosed impact is linked to an identified operation.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Each disclosed operation includes sufficient location information.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Each operation-impact combination is linked to an affected or potentially affected local community.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Different impacts at the same operation are recorded separately where appropriate.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The disclosure does not replace significant impacts with grievance or remediation counts.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Where recommendations are applied, community vulnerability and exposure factors are supported by evidence.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Where recommendations are applied, severity, duration, reversibility and scale are assessed impact by impact.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Sensitive location or community information is aggregated without obscuring the required information.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Any unavailable required information is addressed through the applicable GRI reason-for-omission requirements.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The final disclosure can be traced to the underlying operation and impact records.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The no-significant-impact conclusion, where used, is supported by a sufficiently broad assessment.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

Evidence pack to prepare

Common reporting gaps

  • A percentage or coverage figure is disclosed instead of the required operation-level information.
  • The number of grievances is presented as the main GRI 413-2 result.
  • The number of remediation programmes is presented as a required datapoint.
  • Operations with significant impacts are not identified.
  • The operation unit is unclear or inconsistent.
  • Locations are omitted.
  • Legal entities are listed without identifying the affected operations.
  • Impacts are listed without linking them to operations.
  • Operations are listed without describing the significant impacts.
  • Only actual impacts are reported.
  • Only potential risks are reported.
  • Actual and potential impacts are not distinguished.
  • Only environmental impacts are considered.
  • Economic, social, cultural or human-rights impacts are omitted.
  • Only communities immediately adjacent to the site are considered.
  • People working in the affected area are omitted.
  • Vulnerable groups are treated as homogeneous with the broader community.
  • Every complaint is classified as a significant impact.
  • The absence of complaints is treated as evidence of no significant impact.
  • A financial-risk rating is used instead of an impact-significance assessment.
  • Hypothetical future events are reported without credible supporting evidence.
  • Significant impacts are softened into generic community concerns.
  • Positive community programmes are presented instead of negative impacts.
  • Community donations are presented as evidence for GRI 413-2.
  • A no-impact conclusion is based only on an environmental assessment and omits social, cultural or economic impacts.
  • Sensitive information is removed together with all required location information.
  • The disclosure cannot be traced to operation-level evidence.

Examples

How it reads on the page

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

Illustrative example 1

Illustrative synthetic example — Mining
The organization identified significant impacts at three operations:
Operation and location
Actual negative impacts
Potential negative impacts
North Mine, Region A
Dust, traffic and restricted access to agricultural land
Increased water stress from the planned expansion
Central Processing Plant, Region B
Noise and air emissions affecting nearby residents
Community health impacts arising from a potential process failure
Eastern Tailings Facility, Region C
Loss of customary access routes
Land conversion and economic displacement associated with the proposed expansion
The assessment considered affected-community vulnerability and the severity, duration, reversibility and scale of each impact.

Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.

Illustrative example 2

Illustrative synthetic example — Technology hardware
Two operations were identified:
Manufacturing campus, City D: actual night-time noise and traffic impacts on surrounding residential areas; potential water-access impacts associated with the proposed capacity expansion.
Assembly facility, Region E: actual solvent-odour complaints and potential community-health impacts associated with accidental chemical release.
The organization disclosed the location, affected communities and the nature of each actual and potential impact.

Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.

Illustrative example 3

Illustrative synthetic example — No significant impacts identified
The organization assessed economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts across its operations and did not identify operations with significant actual or potential negative impacts on local communities during the reporting period.

Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.

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.

Real published reports

Wistron Corporation

Technology Hardware and Equipment · Taiwan · 2024

Review finding

Wistron provides a direct no-significant-impact response in its 2024 GRI Content Index.

View full reviewHide full review

Assessment

The company states that it assessed the dependence and impacts of its own operations on the local natural environment through the LEAP approach and concluded that there were no significant or potential negative impacts.

LRA review note

The current card should:

  • recognize that page 272 contains a substantive no-impact statement rather than only a reference to the disclosure title
  • remove the claim that items 413-2(a)(i) and 413-2(a)(ii) are missing merely because no operations were listed
  • explain that operation locations and impact descriptions are not applicable if no operation meets the significant-impact threshold
  • assess whether the LEAP-based review covered the full economic, social, cultural, environmental and rights-related scope of GRI 413-2, rather than only natural-environment impacts
  • remove unrelated occupational-hazard references
  • classify the report as a direct no-significant-impact response whose assessment scope requires review

Disclosure gap

Do not classify it automatically as either complete or incomplete solely because the result is zero.

Bottom line

Wistron’s index expressly states its assessment approach and no-significant-impact conclusion.

Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.

Home Building · Japan · 2025

Review finding

Sumitomo Forestry does not substantively report GRI 413-2 in its 2025 GRI Content Index.

View full reviewHide full review

Assessment

The GRI 413-2 row appears on report page 536 and shows a dash in the disclosure-location column.

LRA review note

The current card should:

  • correct the page reference from page 537 to page 536
  • remove the claim that a covered datapoint is provided
  • remove references to forced-labor risk and waste management
  • state that the content index does not identify a substantive disclosure location
  • classify GRI 413-2 as not reported unless a separate substantive source is located

Bottom line

The official content index shows no disclosure location for GRI 413-2.

Hindustan Zinc Limited

Mining — Iron, Aluminum, Other Metals · India · 2025

Review finding

Hindustan Zinc’s Sustainability Report 2024–25 maps GRI 413-2 to an external Impact Assessment Report.

View full reviewHide full review

Disclosure gap

The GRI mapping appears on report page 113. It does not itself identify the affected operations, their locations or their significant actual and potential negative impacts.

Disclosure gap

The Community Engagement and Development section on pages 73–82 mainly describes stakeholder engagement, CSR interventions and positive community programmes. These disclosures support GRI 413-1 and the management approach but do not automatically satisfy GRI 413-2.

LRA review note

The revised card should:

  • correct the principal reference from page 116 to report page 113
  • describe page 113 as a GRI content-index cross-reference rather than substantive impact data
  • follow and assess the linked external Impact Assessment Report
  • verify whether that report identifies operations and locations
  • verify whether it describes significant actual and potential negative impacts, rather than only evaluating the positive effectiveness of CSR programmes
  • remove the page 119 land-and-resource-rights reference as primary GRI 413-2 evidence
  • classify the disclosure as external cross-reference requiring verification until the linked report is assessed

Bottom line

Hindustan Zinc’s index maps GRI 413-2 to an Impact Assessment Report without providing the required operation-impact information in the index row itself.

Full evidence map with quotes and page numbers →

✓ Knowledge Hub AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Dr Ross Kurinko

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Get practical answers for your reporting context.

Try How do I prepare GRI 413-2? What data do I need to collect? Where can I see a real-report example? What mistakes should I avoid?

Framework references

Relevant GRI requirements and related disclosures

GRI

GRI 413-2

within GRI 413: Local Communities

Open official source →

Related & explore

Operations with local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs → CardBrowse all disclosures →

More in GRI 413 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →

How this library is built 1,211 published reports indexed 315,012 pages with page-level citations 272 published cards in the active catalogue
/en/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/gri-413-2/