Short answer
The answer, before the reasoning
LEAP is TNFD’s optional internal due-diligence approach for identifying and assessing nature-related issues. It begins with scoping, then uses four phases - Locate, Evaluate, Assess and Prepare - containing 16 components from L1 to P4.
It should not be treated as a rigid questionnaire. A well-run LEAP project produces controlled outputs at each phase: an assessment boundary and priority-location list; dependency and impact evidence; risk and opportunity pathways and materiality decisions; and a strategy, target, disclosure and presentation plan. Engagement, scenario analysis, data governance and review should run across the process.
ANSWER · EXPLAIN · APPLY · EVIDENCE · CONNECT · PUBLISH
London Reporting Academy · Controlled publication draft · 3 August 2026
Quick orientation
Quick orientation
- Applies to
- Teams designing or reviewing a corporate or financial-institution nature assessment.
- Primary decision
- How to translate LEAP into project scope, data requests, phase deliverables, approval gates and disclosures.
- Key source
- TNFD LEAP guidance v1.1, October 2023.
- Common confusion
- Assuming every component must be completed sequentially or that a screening heatmap is equivalent to a full assessment.
1. LEAP is an assessment approach, not a reporting claim
LEAP supports the internal work needed to identify, assess, manage and disclose nature-related issues. It is not itself a disclosure standard and completion does not create an automatic TNFD alignment claim. The report still needs to address the relevant TNFD recommended disclosures, general requirements and materiality decisions. Conversely, an organisation may prepare TNFD-aligned disclosures using an equivalent nature due-diligence process without formally following LEAP.
The guidance is structured as 16 components because a detailed map helps first-time users. TNFD nevertheless calls it an approach rather than a process with mandatory sequential steps. A corporate with a limited number of sites may work largely from Locate to Prepare. A diversified financial institution may screen portfolio sectors first, iterate between Locate and Assess, and deepen analysis only for priority exposures. The method should fit the decision and retain a transparent record of what was and was not assessed.
Figure 1. LEAP overview. Scoping, engagement, scenarios and review connect the four phases.
2. Scoping: generate a working hypothesis and align resources
Scoping is a quick, high-level scan of internal and external data used to form a working hypothesis about where material DIROs may arise. It protects the project from two opposite failures: an assessment so broad that it cannot be completed and a scope so narrow that significant value-chain or location exposure is excluded before it is screened.
In practice
| Scoping question | Useful inputs | Controlled output |
|---|---|---|
| Where are DIROs likely? | Business model, sectors, geographies, asset register, spend, commodities, products, portfolio exposures, known incidents and environmental data. | Working hypothesis identifying priority sectors, activities, value-chain stages and locations for deeper assessment. |
| What is the objective? | Reporting obligations, voluntary adoption ambition, strategic questions, investor requests, existing nature or climate work. | Written assessment purpose, decision users and intended disclosures. |
| What resources are available? | Skills, budget, data, tools, suppliers, advisers, reporting timetable and governance calendar. | Resourcing plan, owners, timetable, data plan and escalation route. |
| What is the boundary? | Reporting entity, direct operations, upstream/downstream value chain, portfolios, products and time horizons. | Approved assessment boundary, exclusions, reasons and progression plan. |
3. Locate: identify where the organisation interfaces with nature
Locate is not simply an asset-map exercise. The decision is where to evaluate dependencies and impacts in depth. Screening data can direct attention, but it should not be presented as site-level truth without validation. For suppliers, the organisation should distinguish known coordinates from country, region or commodity proxies and create a traceability-improvement plan.
In practice
| Component | Question | Typical work and output |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | What activities, sectors, value chains and direct operations are in scope? | Create a span map covering business lines, activities, assets, commodities, suppliers, customers, financed or insured activities and geographies. |
| L2 | Which are associated with potentially moderate or high dependencies and impacts? | Apply sector and activity screening tools; retain the source, version, assumptions and reason for each screening conclusion. |
| L3 | Where do screened activities interface with realms, biomes and ecosystems? | Link operations and value-chain exposure to coordinates, catchments, landscapes, seascapes or other relevant geographic units. |
| L4 | Which interfaces occur in ecologically sensitive locations? | Identify protected or otherwise important areas, high ecosystem integrity, rapid decline, high physical water risk or areas important for ecosystem-service provision. |
4. Evaluate: identify and measure dependencies and impacts
Evaluation needs environmental and operational expertise. Procurement data may identify a commodity, but ecological evidence is required to understand the nature interface. Compliance records may identify permitted abstraction, but permitted activity is not automatically immaterial. Positive actions should not be netted against negative impacts in the assessment record unless a clearly supported methodology permits that treatment.
In practice
| Component | Question | Controlled deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| E1 | What environmental assets, ecosystem services and impact drivers are associated with the activity and location? | Nature-interface inventory linking activities to relevant assets, services and drivers. |
| E2 | What dependencies and impacts does the organisation have? | Separate dependency and impact records, including positive/negative, actual/potential and direct/indirect characteristics as relevant. |
| E3 | What is the scale and scope of dependencies and impacts, and the severity of negative impacts? | Measurement file with methods, units, baselines, location, data quality, assumptions and limitations. |
| E4 | Which impacts are material under the selected impact-materiality approach? | Documented impact-materiality conclusions and approval, where an impact lens is applied. |
5. Assess: translate nature interfaces into risks and opportunities
The analytical challenge is translation. A dependency or impact is not automatically a financial risk, and a risk score should not be invented merely to make the register look complete. The team should identify the event or change in nature, the transmission channel, the exposed business or financial position, the relevant time horizon and the evidence supporting likelihood and magnitude. Where quantification is not reliable, a structured qualitative assessment can be more faithful than a spurious monetary figure.
In practice
| Component | Question | Controlled deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | What risks and opportunities correspond to the dependencies and impacts? | Causal pathways covering physical, transition and systemic risks and relevant opportunities. |
| A2 | What risk mitigation and opportunity-management processes already exist, and what must change? | Gap assessment against ERM taxonomy, controls, appetite, due diligence and opportunity governance. |
| A3 | Which risks and opportunities should be measured and prioritised? | Scoring or judgement methodology, financial and strategic indicators, prioritised register and rationale. |
| A4 | Which risks and opportunities are material and should be disclosed? | Approved materiality conclusion linked to reporting criteria, evidence and time horizons. |
6. Prepare: turn the assessment into response and reporting
Prepare should not begin only after all analysis is complete. Reporting requirements help define the evidence to retain, and early drafting often reveals missing boundaries, locations or causal links. The draft should nevertheless remain subordinate to evidence: the team should not reverse-engineer the assessment to support a preferred public claim.
Figure 2. Phase deliverables and management gates. Each conclusion should leave a reviewable record.
In practice
| Component | Question | Controlled deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | What strategy, risk-management and resource-allocation decisions follow? | Response plan linked to owners, budgets, capex, procurement, product, portfolio and operational decisions. |
| P2 | What targets and performance measures will be used? | Approved targets, baselines, methods, metrics, milestones, controls and monitoring cadence. |
| P3 | What will be disclosed under the TNFD recommendations? | Disclosure matrix linking evidence to each relevant general requirement and recommended disclosure. |
| P4 | Where and how will the disclosures be presented? | Placement, cross-references, reporting boundary, sign-off, controls, limitations and publication plan. |
7. Teams, data and cross-cutting practices
Engagement with Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and affected stakeholders should be designed across the assessment rather than appended at P3. Scenario analysis can inform Locate, Assess and Prepare. Review and repeat should be built into data refresh, business change, acquisition, new sourcing, incident and reporting-cycle triggers.
In practice
| Role | Main contribution | Evidence or approval |
|---|---|---|
| Executive sponsor / board committee | Objective, resources, strategic decisions and reporting approval. | Mandate, decision papers, minutes and approved targets. |
| Nature/environment specialists | Ecological context, dependencies, impacts, methods and location interpretation. | Data-source register, method notes, expert judgements and limitations. |
| Risk and finance | Risk pathways, prioritisation, scenarios, financial planning and ERM integration. | Risk records, scenario files, financial analyses, appetite and control evidence. |
| Operations and procurement | Asset, process, supplier, commodity and response data. | Asset/source records, supplier evidence, operational controls and action plans. |
| Legal, human rights and engagement teams | Rights-based engagement, claims, regulatory context and sensitive information. | Stakeholder plan, consent/engagement records, legal review and disclosure limitations. |
| Reporting and assurance-readiness | Disclosure map, evidence index, consistency, review and sign-off. | Controlled draft, reconciliations, review notes and management representation. |
In practice
8. How LEAP outputs link to the TNFD disclosures
| LEAP output | Main TNFD disclosure links | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Priority locations and interface map | Strategy D; Strategy A; RIM A(i)/A(ii). | A location screen does not prove materiality or impact. |
| Dependency and impact inventory | Strategy A; RIM A(i)/A(ii), B; M&T B. | Assessment evidence may need aggregation, validation and materiality testing before disclosure. |
| Risk and opportunity register and scenarios | Strategy A-C; RIM A-C; M&T A. | Not every prioritised internal risk is necessarily reportable; apply the stated materiality approach. |
| Response and target plan | Strategy B-C; Governance A-B; M&T C. | Plans and ambitions must be distinguished from approved, funded actions and targets. |
| Disclosure and presentation map | All relevant disclosures and six general requirements. | Completion of the map is not an assurance opinion or alignment certificate. |
Hypothetical scenario
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A packaged-food company scopes three product families and six commodities. L2 screening identifies high potential dependencies and impacts for cocoa, dairy and palm oil. L3 uses supplier country and region data, while L4 identifies two sourcing landscapes requiring deeper validation. Evaluate records pollination and water dependencies, land-use and nutrient impacts, and data limitations. Assess links these findings to supply disruption, price volatility, deforestation regulation and product innovation. Prepare assigns sourcing actions, two landscape targets and disclosure ownership. The team repeats Locate when supplier traceability improves rather than treating the first map as final.
Illustrative only. It shows how the decision is made, not wording that can be copied or relied on.
In practice
9. Common LEAP mistakes
| Mistake | Symptom | Correction |
|---|---|---|
| Treating L1-P4 as a mandatory linear questionnaire | Teams complete boxes even when the order does not fit the business and fail to revisit early assumptions. | Use components flexibly; document sequence, omissions and iterations. |
| Scoping the entire global value chain at full depth | The project stalls or produces shallow, unsupported results. | Use a working hypothesis and tiered screening, then deepen analysis in priority areas. |
| Equating screening with assessment | Sector tools or country scores are disclosed as site facts. | Retain screening as a prioritisation input and validate material locations and pathways. |
| Assessing risks before dependencies and impacts | The risk register repeats generic environmental themes. | Build causal pathways from nature interfaces, location and change in nature. |
| Using a single risk scale without adapting ERM | Nature issues sit in a parallel register and do not affect decisions. | Map terminology, appetite, owners, controls and escalation into enterprise processes. |
| Leaving evidence until reporting | Conclusions cannot be reproduced or reviewed. | Define evidence, owner, method, version and approval fields at project design. |
Rule
MYTH VERSUS REALITY
Myth: Completing every LEAP component proves TNFD compliance. Reality: LEAP is optional internal guidance. A credible public statement depends on the disclosures made, the general requirements applied, the materiality and scope decisions, the evidence retained and the accuracy of the claim wording.
Readiness
10. LEAP implementation checklist
- The assessment objective, users, reporting route and decision questions are written and approved.
- The working hypothesis covers direct operations and relevant upstream and downstream value-chain exposure.
- Each LEAP component used has an owner, data sources, method, output and review control.
- Screening results are labelled as screening and validated where material decisions depend on them.
- Location data records precision, source, date, linkage to the entity and uncertainty.
- Dependencies and impacts are identified before or alongside risk and opportunity translation.
- Risk pathways specify the change in nature, transmission channel, exposed business element and time horizon.
- Stakeholder engagement, scenarios, data governance and review are cross-cutting rather than end-stage tasks.
- LEAP outputs are mapped to TNFD disclosures and to the organisation’s existing governance, ERM and reporting controls.
- Scope, exclusions, unresolved gaps and progression are visible in the final reporting basis.
Questions
Questions people ask
Is the TNFD LEAP approach mandatory?
LEAP is TNFD’s optional internal due-diligence approach for identifying and assessing nature-related issues. It should not be treated as a rigid questionnaire.
What are the 16 LEAP components?
LEAP is TNFD’s optional internal due-diligence approach for identifying and assessing nature-related issues. It begins with scoping, then uses four phases - Locate, Evaluate, Assess and Prepare - containing 16 components from L1 to P4.
What should the Locate phase produce?
It begins with scoping, then uses four phases - Locate, Evaluate, Assess and Prepare - containing 16 components from L1 to P4. It should not be treated as a rigid questionnaire. A well-run LEAP project produces controlled outputs at each phase: an assessment boundary and priority-location list; dependency and impact evidence; risk and opportunity pathways and materiality decisions; and a strategy, target, disclosure and presentation plan.
How does LEAP connect to TNFD disclosures?
LEAP supports the internal work needed to identify, assess, manage and disclose nature-related issues. It is not itself a disclosure standard and completion does not create an automatic TNFD alignment claim. The report still needs to address the relevant TNFD recommended disclosures, general requirements and materiality decisions.
Can LEAP be used non-linearly?
TNFD nevertheless calls it an approach rather than a process with mandatory sequential steps. A diversified financial institution may screen portfolio sectors first, iterate between Locate and Assess, and deepen analysis only for priority exposures. The method should fit the decision and retain a transparent record of what was and was not assessed.
Take it with you
The checklists as a working spreadsheet
Every checklist and table on this page, with empty status, owner and evidence columns for your team to fill in and keep.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Ask about this guide
It answers from this page, and reaches into the linked disclosure cards when your question is about the standard itself. Your first two answers are free without signing in.
Go deeper · TNFD
ESG Reporting Full Stack
There is no standalone LRA course for this framework yet. The Full Stack programme covers the reporting system it sits in — materiality, data, drafting and assurance — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
