TNFD Core Global Disclosure Metrics: Land, Water, Pollution, Resources and Nature Risk

Start with the material issue, not the metric code. Determine where the issue occurs, which activity or value-chain relationship creates the dependency or impact, what evidence is available and which disclosure decision the metric supports. Then use the official TNFD specification to configure the controlled data definition.

The categories below are described in plain language to protect copyright and reduce mechanical copying. The accompanying metric register provides working fields, but the official source remains authoritative.

Figure 1. Core global metrics provide a common structure, but their meaning depends on material pathways, location and boundary.

Total spatial footprint

The total spatial footprint metric creates a baseline view of the area associated with the organisation's activities. A defensible calculation distinguishes owned, leased, managed, operated or otherwise relevant areas; land, freshwater and ocean realms; direct operations and value-chain estimates; and the reporting period.

Common evidence includes GIS polygons, cadastral or lease records, site plans, mine or project boundaries, concession areas, agricultural sourcing footprints and portfolio geospatial data. Point coordinates alone do not measure footprint. The method should explain overlaps, shared sites, linear infrastructure, temporary disturbance, restoration areas and whether the figure represents operational control, physical occupation or another boundary.

Ecosystem-use change, conservation and restoration

The related change metric is not simply the year-end footprint. It should represent conversion or material change in ecosystem use, and where applicable areas conserved, restored or managed sustainably. Positive areas should not be netted against conversion unless the official method and disclosure make the components visible.

Preparers should retain baseline imagery or land-cover evidence, change-detection method, classification rules, expert review and the timing of restoration. A commitment to restore is not the same as a restored ecological outcome. When the value chain is involved, origin confidence and the allocation method should be explained.

Data sources and controls

geospatial asset and sourcing-location registers;

permits, leases, concessions and project plans;

remote-sensing products and extraction dates;

land-cover or habitat classifications;

site surveys and restoration monitoring;

chain-of-custody or traceability evidence;

reconciliation to acquisition, disposal and project populations; and

review of overlaps, double counting and temporary disturbance.

TNFD's pollution-related core indicators cover several different environmental pathways. Combining them into one pollution score would usually obscure material information.

Pollutants released to soil

Identify relevant pollutant types, sources, mass or concentration basis, receiving environment, incidents and remediation. Permits and regulatory reporting are useful evidence but may not cover all material value-chain pollution or cumulative effects. Reconcile the disclosed population to sites, processes, spills, waste handling and contaminated-land records.

Wastewater discharged

Disclose the basis for volume and, where material, pollutant load or quality. Distinguish discharge destination, treatment level, basin context and direct versus indirect discharge. A wastewater volume without quality or receiving-environment context may not represent the impact pathway.

Waste generation and disposal

Define waste categories, hazardous status, treatment routes, reuse or recovery and final disposal. Do not equate diversion from landfill with the absence of nature impact. Reconcile contractor records, weighbridge data, manifests and estimates, and explain whether waste generated in the value chain is included.

Plastic footprint or plastic pollution

The appropriate boundary may include plastic placed on the market, used in operations, lost to the environment, collected or treated. Avoid presenting recycling percentages as a complete measure of plastic pollution. The metric definition should reflect the material pathway and applicable TNFD or sector guidance.

Non-GHG air pollutants

This category is separate from greenhouse gases. Relevant pollutants depend on the sector, process, location and receiving environment. Source evidence may include continuous monitoring, stack tests, fuel and production calculations, permits and emission factors. Explain material exclusions, estimation and differences from regulatory inventories.

Water withdrawal and consumption in areas of water scarcity

The core focus is not simply total group water use. The organisation should identify water-scarce areas, define the scarcity dataset and version, and report the relevant withdrawal and consumption information at an appropriate basin or location level.

Withdrawal and consumption are not interchangeable. Withdrawal is water taken from a source; consumption reflects water not returned to the same catchment or otherwise available for reuse within the relevant system, depending on the applied method. Discharge, quality, seasonal stress and community access may require additional metrics to represent the material issue.

Evidence can include meters, invoices, permits, production data, water balances, source type, discharge data and basin screening. Estimates should be controlled where meters do not cover all sources.

High-risk natural commodities

This indicator supports visibility over natural commodities associated with elevated nature risk. A company should define the commodity population, volume or value basis, risk criteria, origin granularity, traceability and data gaps. Certification can be an evidence input, but it does not automatically prove the absence of material impacts.

The metric should not be reduced to supplier spend. Useful evidence includes bill-of-materials data, purchase volumes, commodity classifications, sourcing regions, supplier declarations, chain-of-custody records, remote sensing, certification scope and origin-confidence grading.

TNFD currently identifies placeholder areas for invasive alien species and state-of-nature measurement. Organisations are encouraged to consider reporting where possible, but the presence of a placeholder is a warning against false precision.

Invasive alien species

A practical disclosure may focus on pathways and controls: ballast water, soil movement, packaging, horticulture, aquaculture, transport, biosecurity and accidental introduction. Record incidents, high-risk vectors, prevention controls, monitoring and remediation. Sector and location context are essential.

Ecosystem condition and species extinction risk

State-of-nature metrics can include ecosystem extent, condition, integrity, species abundance, population trends or extinction-risk measures. No single metric captures all dimensions. Choose metrics connected to the material pathway, describe the reference condition, spatial scale, method, confidence and scientific limitations, and avoid creating a universal composite score without a credible basis.

The five core global risk-and-opportunity indicators provide an organisation-level view. Their calculation should still be connected to underlying issue registers and not treated as a top-down financial label.

Exposure to transition risk

Identify assets, liabilities, revenue or expenses vulnerable to policy, legal, market, technology or reputation changes arising from nature-related issues. Explain the vulnerability criteria, financial statement or management-account basis, time horizon and treatment of uncertainty.

Exposure to physical risk

Identify assets, liabilities, revenue or expenses vulnerable to acute or chronic changes in nature and ecosystem services. The metric should connect location exposure and dependency pathways to business consequences rather than applying a generic country score to the whole organisation.

Fines, penalties and litigation

Record significant nature-related legal and regulatory consequences under a defined significance threshold. Explain the period, boundary, whether amounts are paid, provisioned or subject to appeal, and the relationship to the relevant impact or control failure.

Capital allocation to opportunities

Define which capital expenditure, financing or investment qualifies as directed to nature-related opportunities. Eligibility should be supported by a causal pathway and expected outcome, not merely an environmental label. Keep investment figures separate from demonstrated ecological performance.

Revenue from products and services with positive impacts

The organisation should define “demonstrable positive impact”, product eligibility, revenue boundary, evidence, counterfactual or attribution limitations and safeguards against shifting impacts elsewhere. Revenue alone does not prove a positive outcome.

A core metric decision should pass through a controlled sequence:

Is the underlying dependency, impact, risk or opportunity relevant to the organisation's activities and relationships?

Has it been assessed under the stated materiality approach?

Would the metric represent material information or provide required comparability?

If not relevant or material, is the rationale supported by the scope and issue register?

If relevant and material, can it be measured under a credible method?

If measurement is not currently possible, what limitation, interim evidence and remediation plan will be disclosed?

Figure 2. “Not applicable” and “unable to measure” are different conclusions and require different evidence.

Aggregation is appropriate only when the combined number remains faithful to the material issue. Apply the following tests:

location test: would the total hide a sensitive site, basin, landscape or sourcing region?

method test: are definitions, units, factors and periods consistent?

direction test: are positive and negative changes being netted inappropriately?

boundary test: are direct operations and value-chain estimates mixed without explanation?

materiality test: does the total obscure a material subgroup?

uncertainty test: are measured and highly uncertain modelled values combined transparently?

Where aggregation is retained, disclose the basis and provide material disaggregation. A group total can be accompanied by priority-location information rather than replaced entirely.

An electronics manufacturer operates assembly sites and sources metals, plastics and components from several regions. Its initial dashboard reports total land occupied, water withdrawal, waste recycled and supplier ESG scores. The TNFD assessment shows that water scarcity is concentrated at two supplier clusters, while pollution risk arises from processing steps outside direct operations and physical risk affects several revenue-generating facilities.

The company retains the spatial and waste metrics but strengthens their boundaries. It reports water withdrawal and consumption for material scarce locations, adds high-risk commodity and traceability information, and develops a value-chain pollution metric using supplier and sector evidence. It reports organisation-level exposure to physical and transition risk with an explanation of the underlying locations and assumptions. The supplier ESG score remains an assessment metric and is not presented as a core disclosure metric.

Illustrative scenario only; exact metrics require current TNFD and sector specifications.

Copying metric names without the official method. Build a controlled definition from the current source and sector guidance.

Treating all core metrics as automatically material. Apply comply-or-explain and document the conclusion.

Calling a missing metric not applicable. Use “unable to measure” when the issue is relevant and material but measurement is constrained.

Netting restoration against conversion. Present the components separately unless a credible method explicitly supports netting.

Reporting total water use without scarcity context. identify material basins and distinguish withdrawal from consumption.

Using certification as the metric. Treat certification as evidence and disclose the actual material pathway, coverage and limitations.

Aggregating away sensitive locations. Preserve material disaggregation and explain the aggregation basis.

Calling investment or revenue nature-positive without outcome evidence. Define eligibility, safeguards, attribution and performance evidence.

SRC-01 - TNFD Recommendations v1.0: https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations_of_the_Taskforce_on_Nature-related_Financial_Disclosures_September_2023.pdf

SRC-04 - TNFD metrics resources: https://tnfd.global/metrics/

SRC-06 - TNFD Recommendations and sector guidance: https://tnfd.global/recommendations/

SRC-03 - LEAP approach guidance v1.1: https://tnfd.global/publication/additional-guidance-on-assessment-of-nature-related-issues-the-leap-approach/