Skip to the screening
Courses

Materiality Navigator·Food Production — Agricultural Production

Which topics should you investigate first?

Choose a business model to see the candidate sustainability topics most likely to need investigation, and why. Then refine the shortlist, work through each topic and record a preliminary screening decision.

This is an industry-informed hypothesis. Your task is to test it against the organisation's impacts, dependencies, risks, opportunities and stakeholder evidence. Industry relevance does not make a topic material.

Ripe wheat ready for harvest in a field.
Step 1 Choose the business model you are screening

Candidate topics — Food Production — Agricultural Production

  • Environment
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Management of greenhouse gas emissions and transition costs across crop production, nutrient use, irrigation, machinery, drying, cooling and post-harvest handling.

How it shows up in this industry

Agricultural products producers use synthetic fertilisers, manure-based amendments, tractors, harvesters, sprayers, irrigation pumps, dryers, cold stores, controlled-atmosphere rooms and packing houses. Field crops, rice, fruit, vegetables, sugar crops, coffee, cocoa, cotton and other primary crops can generate soil nitrous oxide, rice methane and fuel-related emissions, while food manufacturers, retailers, feed mills and lenders increasingly request crop-level emissions data.

Why it may be material

Fertiliser, fuel and energy are major operating cost lines and important emissions sources. Customer Scope 3 targets, fertiliser price volatility, climate reporting expectations and lender scrutiny make credible emissions reduction plans material for both market access and operating margin.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach the atmosphere.
  2. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  3. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  4. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  5. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Customers / end-users, Suppliers.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Downstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  5. The topic may affect asset useful lives, impairment assumptions, valuations or stranded-asset exposure.
  6. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Emissions, air-quality and atmospheric-impact records linked to the topic
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Asset valuations, useful-life assumptions, impairment tests and stranded-asset analysis
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Arable and permanent crop farmland, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas
  • Process-map item (assets): Farm machinery such as tractors, planters, sprayers, harvesters, balers and tillage equipment
  • Process-map item (assets): On-farm storage including grain silos, cold stores, drying sheds, barns and controlled-atmosphere rooms
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream or downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Customers / end-users
  • Suppliers

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Management of land conversion, habitat loss, biodiversity impacts, monoculture expansion and land tenure sensitivities associated with crop production areas.

How it shows up in this industry

Agricultural products include soy, cocoa, coffee, palm-linked crops, sugar, cotton, natural rubber, grains, orchards, vineyards and plantation crops grown on owned, leased or supplier-managed land. Expansion, field boundary removal and monoculture can reduce landscape biodiversity and affect Indigenous peoples and local land users.

Why it may be material

For commodities associated with land conversion, failure to prevent or evidence deforestation-free and tenure-sensitive production can block access to EU, retailer and export channels. Biodiversity loss and unresolved land disputes can also create liabilities, financing constraints and reputational damage.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  2. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  3. Potential effects may reach Indigenous peoples.
  4. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  5. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Customers / end-users.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  3. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  4. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  5. The topic may affect asset useful lives, impairment assumptions, valuations or stranded-asset exposure.
  6. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on ecosystems?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Indigenous engagement, consent, grievance and impact records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Asset valuations, useful-life assumptions, impairment tests and stranded-asset analysis
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Arable and permanent crop farmland, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Livestock exclusion fencing, drainage systems, soil conservation structures and field access roads
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (customers): Commodity traders, grain elevators, co-operatives and export merchants aggregating farm output

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Local authorities
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Management of water abstraction, irrigation scheduling, fertigation water use, drainage control, water rights and water-stress exposure across field and protected crops.

How it shows up in this industry

Agricultural products producers rely on rivers, reservoirs, canals, groundwater, recycled water and rainwater harvesting for irrigation, fertigation and cooling. Water abstraction licences, pumps, reservoirs, drip lines and pivots are core assets for irrigated fruit, vegetables, nuts, rice, sugar crops and other water-sensitive commodities.

Why it may be material

Water scarcity directly affects planted area, yield, crop quality and market windows, while abstraction licence limits can constrain production capacity. Irrigation upgrades require capital expenditure but can reduce electricity, pumping and water costs and protect land values in water-stressed basins.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  2. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  3. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  4. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  5. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  6. Potential effects may reach Indigenous peoples.
  7. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Customers / end-users.
  8. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  5. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  6. The topic may affect insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.
  7. The topic may affect asset useful lives, impairment assumptions, valuations or stranded-asset exposure.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on water bodies?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Indigenous engagement, consent, grievance and impact records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Asset valuations, useful-life assumptions, impairment tests and stranded-asset analysis
  • Process-map item (assets): Irrigation infrastructure including boreholes, canals, pumps, reservoirs, drip lines and pivots
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Water scarcity, drought frequency and groundwater abstraction limits in irrigated production regions
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Expansion of pesticide restrictions, residue limits and pollinator protection requirements
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Climate-related crop insurance repricing and reduced cover for hail, flood, wildfire, heat stress and drought-exposed farms

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Local authorities
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Prevention and management of nitrogen and phosphorus losses from crop fields, fertigation and drainage systems into surface water and groundwater.

How it shows up in this industry

Fertiliser application, liming, compost spreading, fertigation, drainage management and nutrient budgeting are central processes in crop production. Nutrient run-off and leaching from fields can move through drains, ditches and groundwater into rivers, lakes, estuaries, aquifers and coastal waters.

Why it may be material

Fertiliser is a major input cost and nutrient pollution is a direct external impact. The topic is material where cropping intensity, drainage, slope, rainfall or irrigation practices mobilise nitrogen and phosphorus into water bodies, especially in catchments with nitrates rules or water quality limits.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  2. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  3. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  4. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  5. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Customers / end-users.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  2. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  5. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on water bodies?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on ecosystems?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (customers): Supermarkets, food service distributors and hospitality buyers procuring fresh and processed agricultural products
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Rising fertiliser price volatility and scrutiny of nitrous oxide emissions from synthetic nitrogen use
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Water scarcity, drought frequency and groundwater abstraction limits in irrigated production regions

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Local authorities
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Management and transition of crop protection systems to prevent spray drift, water contamination, soil impacts and harm to pollinators and other non-target organisms.

How it shows up in this industry

Weed, pest and disease management uses herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, nematicides, rodenticides, fumigants and biological controls across grains, fruit, vegetables, nuts, plantation crops and fibre crops. Sprayers, fumigation chambers and chemical storage create pathways for drift, run-off residues and effects on pollinators, aquatic species, birds and soil organisms.

Why it may be material

Crop protection products are a core input, while active substance withdrawals, residue limits, pollinator protection requirements and retailer specifications can quickly affect viable production practices, yield, export eligibility and liability exposure.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  2. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  3. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  4. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  5. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  6. Potential effects may reach workers.
  7. Potential effects may reach contractors.
  8. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Contractors, Customers / end-users, Employees.
  9. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Downstream.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  2. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  3. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  4. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  5. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on ecosystems?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Contractor working-condition, incident and engagement records
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Arable and permanent crop farmland, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (customers): Animal feed mills purchasing cereals, oilseed meals, pulses and crop by-products
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Tighter rules on deforestation-free supply chains, traceability and geolocation evidence for soy, cocoa, coffee, palm oil and cattle-linked crop systems

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream or downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Contractors
  • Customers / end-users
  • Employees

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Local authorities
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Resilience of crop production, water-delivery infrastructure, storage and logistics assets to drought, heat, flood, hail, storm, wildfire and pest or disease shifts linked to climate change.

How it shows up in this industry

Crop revenues depend directly on yield, quality grade, harvest timing and storage condition. Drought, flood, hail, heat stress, wildfire and storm damage can affect arable fields, orchards, vineyards, plantations, boreholes, reservoirs, drip lines, pivots, cold stores, drying sheds, field access roads and export logistics.

Why it may be material

Physical climate hazards can reduce yields, downgrade crop quality, disrupt harvest windows, raise cooling and climate-adaptation costs and trigger insurance repricing or reduced cover. Land values and borrowing terms can deteriorate where soil fertility, water-delivery reliability or crop climate suitability decline.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  3. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  4. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  5. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Contractors, Customers / end-users, Employees.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Downstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  5. The topic may affect insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.
  6. The topic may affect asset useful lives, impairment assumptions, valuations or stranded-asset exposure.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What scientific evidence or consensus could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Asset valuations, useful-life assumptions, impairment tests and stranded-asset analysis
  • Process-map item (assets): Arable and permanent crop farmland, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas
  • Process-map item (assets): Farm machinery such as tractors, planters, sprayers, harvesters, balers and tillage equipment
  • Process-map item (assets): On-farm storage including grain silos, cold stores, drying sheds, barns and controlled-atmosphere rooms
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream or downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Contractors
  • Customers / end-users
  • Employees

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Protection and restoration of soil structure, fertility, organic matter, salinity balance and long-term productive capacity in crop production systems.

How it shows up in this industry

Land preparation, tillage, bed formation, field drainage, irrigation scheduling, fertiliser application, compost spreading, liming, residue incorporation, field access roads and harvest machinery determine the long-term productivity of arable fields, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas.

Why it may be material

Soil fertility is the productive asset base for crop production and a direct driver of yield, crop quality and input efficiency. Erosion, compaction and salinisation can raise operating costs, require remediation expenditure and impair owned or leased farmland value.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  2. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  3. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  4. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  5. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Customers / end-users, Suppliers.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  5. The topic may affect asset useful lives, impairment assumptions, valuations or stranded-asset exposure.
  6. The topic may affect insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on soil and groundwater?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on ecosystems?
  • What evidence shows that customer demand is changing?

Evidence to collect

  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Asset valuations, useful-life assumptions, impairment tests and stranded-asset analysis
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Process-map item (assets): Livestock exclusion fencing, drainage systems, soil conservation structures and field access roads
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Retailer and food manufacturer demands for regenerative agriculture claims backed by soil carbon, biodiversity and input-use data
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Competition for land from solar energy, urban expansion, conservation set-asides and bioenergy crops

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Customers / end-users
  • Suppliers

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Business-model dependent
  • Moderate industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Prevention, segregation, recovery, recycling and responsible disposal of agricultural plastics, farm input containers, packing materials and non-edible field residues from cultivation, storage and first-stage packing operations.

How it shows up in this industry

Farms and packhouses in agricultural products use plastic mulch films, bale wrap, irrigation tape, seedling trays, fertiliser bags, pesticide containers, crates, cartons, sacks, liners and modified-atmosphere films during planting, irrigation, harvesting, grading, storage and packing. Material return flows also include non-edible crop residues and other field materials generated during cleaning, trimming and handling before products enter retail or food manufacturing supply chains.

Why it may be material

Agricultural plastics and first-stage packing materials are widely used in horticulture, protected cropping, irrigation and commodity handling. Materiality depends on crop type, farm geography and access to recovery infrastructure, but poorly managed materials create direct pathways for plastic fragments and waste residues to accumulate in soils, drainage channels and water bodies.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  2. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  3. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  4. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  5. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Customers / end-users.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Downstream.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  2. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  3. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  4. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  5. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on ecosystems?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on soil and groundwater?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Farm machinery such as tractors, planters, sprayers, harvesters, balers and tillage equipment
  • Process-map item (assets): On-farm storage including grain silos, cold stores, drying sheds, barns and controlled-atmosphere rooms
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Livestock exclusion fencing, drainage systems, soil conservation structures and field access roads
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software

It may be less material when…

  • The organisation's scale, exposure or effects are below the threshold set for further assessment.
  • The relevant business model, activity, asset or product is not present or is not significant.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Local authorities
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Business-model dependent
  • Moderate industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Reduction of avoidable field, grading, storage and cold-chain losses through improved harvest logistics, quality management, secondary markets and by-product use.

How it shows up in this industry

Fresh produce, grains, nuts and plantation crops move through harvesting, cleaning, drying, curing, grading, sorting, waxing, packing, cooling and storage. Harvest timing, moisture monitoring, cold stores, controlled-atmosphere rooms and refrigerated transport determine losses from bruising, mould, sprouting, chilling injury, rancidity and rejected produce.

Why it may be material

Crop loss erodes revenue and working capital, especially for perishables and stored grains. Buyer waste targets, cold-chain data, climate volatility and secondary market development are increasing the financial and reputational materiality of avoidable losses.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach the atmosphere.
  2. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  3. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  4. Potential effects may reach consumers.
  5. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Customers / end-users, Suppliers.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Downstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may affect asset useful lives, impairment assumptions, valuations or stranded-asset exposure.
  5. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on the atmosphere?
  • What evidence shows that customer demand is changing?

Evidence to collect

  • Emissions, air-quality and atmospheric-impact records linked to the topic
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-impact records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Asset valuations, useful-life assumptions, impairment tests and stranded-asset analysis
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Arable and permanent crop farmland, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas
  • Process-map item (assets): On-farm storage including grain silos, cold stores, drying sheds, barns and controlled-atmosphere rooms
  • Process-map item (assets): Post-harvest handling assets such as cleaning lines, grading tables, packing houses, dryers and fumigation chambers
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications

It may be less material when…

  • The organisation's scale, exposure or effects are below the threshold set for further assessment.
  • The relevant business model, activity, asset or product is not present or is not significant.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant downstream pathway.
  • The emerging signal has not yet created a relevant exposure, impact or financial effect for the organisation.

Affected stakeholders

  • Customers / end-users
  • Suppliers

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Environment
  • Business-model dependent
  • Entity-specific validation required
  • Impact materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Management of local air emissions from crop residue burning, dusty harvest and field operations, drying and related farm activities.

How it shows up in this industry

Residue management includes incorporation, baling, composting, grazing, burning where allowed and bioenergy use. Harvesting, field access roads, drying sheds and open burning can generate dust, smoke and particulates that affect neighbouring rural settlements and workers.

Why it may be material

The topic is highly material in regions or crops where residue burning is practised or dry harvest conditions create significant dust. It is more context-dependent than greenhouse gas transition but can produce acute local health and community impacts.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach the atmosphere.
  2. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  3. Potential effects may reach workers.
  4. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  5. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Contractors, Employees.
  6. The source places the pathway in Own operations.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  4. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence shows actual or potential impacts on people or the environment?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on the atmosphere?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on affected communities?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on workers?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Emissions, air-quality and atmospheric-impact records linked to the topic
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Arable and permanent crop farmland, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Livestock exclusion fencing, drainage systems, soil conservation structures and field access roads
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (customers): Supermarkets, food service distributors and hospitality buyers procuring fresh and processed agricultural products

It may be less material when…

  • Entity-specific evidence does not show meaningful scale, exposure or effects.
  • The relevant business model, activity, asset or product is not present or is not significant.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Contractors
  • Employees

Users of the information

  • Local authorities
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Social
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Assurance of crop safety, legality and quality from field inputs, harvest, post-harvest handling, storage, testing, fumigation and shipment.

How it shows up in this industry

Outputs include grains, oilseeds, pulses, fresh produce, nuts, herbs and plantation crops sold for direct consumption, processing, feed and export. On-farm quality testing, drying, curing, grading, sorting, waxing, packing, cooling, storage, fumigation and lot traceability determine whether crops meet Codex, legal, export and customer specifications.

Why it may be material

Primary crops enter food, feed and ingredient supply chains, so contamination can directly harm consumers and downstream users. Food safety failures can lead to rejected shipments, recalls, litigation, insurance claims and loss of retailer or export access.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach consumers.
  2. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  3. Potential effects may reach workers.
  4. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  5. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Business partners, Customers / end-users.
  6. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Downstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  5. The topic may affect insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.
  6. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on consumers?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Arable and permanent crop farmland, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas
  • Process-map item (assets): Post-harvest handling assets such as cleaning lines, grading tables, packing houses, dryers and fumigation chambers
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (customers): Food and beverage manufacturers using grains, oilseeds, fruit, vegetables, nuts, sugar crops, cocoa, coffee or other primary crops

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Business partners
  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Social
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Protection of farm and post-harvest workers from injury, illness and chemical exposure during cultivation, harvesting, spraying, storage, fumigation, drying, cooling, grading and packing.

How it shows up in this industry

Agricultural products operations involve tractors, planters, sprayers, harvesters, balers, silos, dryers, cold stores, fumigation chambers and packing houses. Workers may face machinery collisions, entanglement, falls, heat stress, confined-space hazards, pesticide and fumigant exposure, dust and repetitive manual harvesting or packing work.

Why it may be material

The intensity of seasonal field work, machinery use, chemical handling and post-harvest storage makes worker safety a core impact topic. Serious incidents can disrupt harvest windows, increase insurance costs and affect customer or certification access.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach contractors.
  3. Potential effects may reach supply-chain workers.
  4. Potential effects may reach emergency responders.
  5. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Contractors, Customers / end-users, Employees, Trade unions.
  6. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  2. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  3. The topic may affect insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.
  4. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  5. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on workers?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on contractors?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Contractor working-condition, incident and engagement records
  • Supplier workforce, audit, grievance and remediation records
  • Emergency-response plans, incident logs and responder feedback
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Farm machinery such as tractors, planters, sprayers, harvesters, balers and tillage equipment
  • Process-map item (assets): On-farm storage including grain silos, cold stores, drying sheds, barns and controlled-atmosphere rooms
  • Process-map item (assets): Post-harvest handling assets such as cleaning lines, grading tables, packing houses, dryers and fumigation chambers
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software
  • Process-map item (customers): Commodity traders, grain elevators, co-operatives and export merchants aggregating farm output

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Contractors
  • Customers / end-users
  • Employees
  • Trade unions

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Social
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Respect for labour rights and decent working conditions for permanent, seasonal, migrant and labour-provider workers in field and packing operations.

How it shows up in this industry

Planting, pruning, weeding, spraying, harvesting, grading and packing often rely on seasonal and migrant labour crews, labour providers and on-farm or nearby accommodation. Labour-intensive fruit, vegetable, nut, coffee, cocoa, cotton and plantation crops are especially exposed to recruitment, wage, housing and working-time scrutiny.

Why it may be material

Agricultural labour is a direct human impact channel and an operational constraint during peak harvest. Retailer audits, modern slavery enforcement and media scrutiny increase the materiality of labour brokerage, accommodation and wage practices.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach contractors.
  3. Potential effects may reach supply-chain workers.
  4. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  5. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Contractors, Customers / end-users, Employees, Trade unions, Value chain workers.
  6. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  2. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  3. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  4. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.
  5. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on workers?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Contractor working-condition, incident and engagement records
  • Supplier workforce, audit, grievance and remediation records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Process-map item (assets): Farm machinery such as tractors, planters, sprayers, harvesters, balers and tillage equipment
  • Process-map item (assets): On-farm storage including grain silos, cold stores, drying sheds, barns and controlled-atmosphere rooms
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (customers): Commodity traders, grain elevators, co-operatives and export merchants aggregating farm output

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Contractors
  • Customers / end-users
  • Employees
  • Trade unions
  • Value chain workers

Users of the information

  • Media
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Social
  • Business-model dependent
  • Moderate industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Management of impacts on rural communities, Indigenous peoples and local land users from agricultural land use, water competition, access restrictions, seasonal traffic and local amenity disturbance.

How it shows up in this industry

Crop production uses farmland, leased growing areas, field access roads, drainage systems, irrigation canals and water abstraction licences. Neighbouring communities, Indigenous peoples and local land users can be affected by land conversion, access restrictions, unresolved tenure claims, spray concerns, heavy vehicle movements, road damage and competition for scarce water.

Why it may be material

The topic is material where farms expand, lease land, abstract scarce water or operate near rural settlements. Direct impacts on local people can arise even when crop production is legally permitted, particularly in plantation, irrigated and high-traffic harvest settings.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  2. Potential effects may reach Indigenous peoples.
  3. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  4. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  5. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Customers / end-users.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  2. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.
  3. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  4. The topic may affect asset useful lives, impairment assumptions, valuations or stranded-asset exposure.
  5. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on affected communities?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on Indigenous peoples?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Indigenous engagement, consent, grievance and impact records
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Asset valuations, useful-life assumptions, impairment tests and stranded-asset analysis
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Process-map item (assets): Farm machinery such as tractors, planters, sprayers, harvesters, balers and tillage equipment
  • Process-map item (assets): On-farm storage including grain silos, cold stores, drying sheds, barns and controlled-atmosphere rooms
  • Process-map item (assets): Livestock exclusion fencing, drainage systems, soil conservation structures and field access roads
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications

It may be less material when…

  • The organisation's scale, exposure or effects are below the threshold set for further assessment.
  • The relevant business model, activity, asset or product is not present or is not significant.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • Investors / creditors
  • Local authorities
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Social
  • Business-model dependent
  • Entity-specific validation required
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Management of fair commercial relationships and support for smallholder, tenant and contracted growers within agricultural product supply chains.

How it shows up in this industry

Agricultural products supply chains often include smallholder growers, tenant farmers, co-operatives and contract growers supplying coffee, cocoa, cotton, sugar, fruit, vegetables, soy and other commodities. These growers can be affected by buyer specifications, input credit, volatile commodity prices, certification costs, agronomy requirements and access to extension services.

Why it may be material

Smallholder and tenant farmer impacts are highly material where the business relies on contracted or aggregated production rather than only owned farms. Unfair terms or unsupported compliance requirements can undermine livelihoods, supply stability and certification credibility.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach supply-chain workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  3. Potential effects may reach Indigenous peoples.
  4. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  5. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Customers / end-users, Suppliers, Value chain workers.
  6. The source places the pathway in Upstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  4. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.
  5. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on supply-chain workers?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on affected communities?
  • What evidence shows that customer demand is changing?

Evidence to collect

  • Supplier workforce, audit, grievance and remediation records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Indigenous engagement, consent, grievance and impact records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Retailer and food manufacturer demands for regenerative agriculture claims backed by soil carbon, biodiversity and input-use data
  • Process-map item (financial_channels): Revenue exposure to commodity price cycles, crop yields, quality grades and contract penalties for missed specifications
  • Process-map item (financial_channels): Financing terms affected by climate risk assessments, land values, sustainability covenants and lender requirements for transition plans
  • Process-map item (impact_channels): Farm workers, seasonal pickers, machinery operators, sprayer drivers and packing-house staff exposed to safety, wage and housing conditions

It may be less material when…

  • Entity-specific evidence does not show meaningful scale, exposure or effects.
  • The relevant business model, activity, asset or product is not present or is not significant.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Customers / end-users
  • Suppliers
  • Value chain workers

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • NGOs / civil society

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Governance
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Financial materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Governance of business ethics, anti-corruption, compliance controls, whistleblowing and regulatory record keeping across agricultural production, certification and market access requirements.

How it shows up in this industry

Agricultural products producers operate under food traceability, pesticide, maximum residue level, water abstraction, nitrates, labour, organic production, phytosanitary import-export and deforestation-free requirements. Operations also rely on licences, crop genetics rights, supplier accreditations and certification schemes such as GlobalG.A.P., Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade, Better Cotton, Bonsucro, Round Table on Responsible Soy and Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil where applicable.

Why it may be material

Regulatory and certification compliance is a direct market-access condition for agricultural commodities and fresh produce. Falsified records, bribery in inspections, poor controls or weak whistleblowing can lead to enforcement, rejected shipments, suspended certifications and loss of customer trust.

Impact pathway

  1. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Business partners, Customers / end-users, Employees.
  2. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Downstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  5. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  6. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence shows current or anticipated financial effects on the organisation?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications
  • Process-map item (customers): Food and beverage manufacturers using grains, oilseeds, fruit, vegetables, nuts, sugar crops, cocoa, coffee or other primary crops
  • Process-map item (customers): Supermarkets, food service distributors and hospitality buyers procuring fresh and processed agricultural products
  • Process-map item (customers): Textile and industrial users of cotton, flax, hemp, natural rubber and other non-food crops
  • Process-map item (customers): Public procurement bodies, school meal suppliers and humanitarian food agencies

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream or downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Business partners
  • Customers / end-users
  • Employees

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Governance
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Governance of agricultural traceability systems, certification audits, geolocation data, chain-of-custody records and digital assurance evidence for regulated or high-risk crop commodities.

How it shows up in this industry

Agricultural products move through field blocks, input application records, harvest dates, storage lots, packhouse lines, grading, phytosanitary inspection, customs clearance, port storage and customer shipments. Retailer access, export eligibility, organic programmes, GlobalG.A.P., Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade, Better Cotton, Bonsucro, Round Table on Responsible Soy and Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil schemes often depend on auditable data and certification integrity.

Why it may be material

Traceability failures can block market access, delay shipments, suspend certifications, undermine deforestation-free or organic claims and expose customers to hidden environmental or social harm. Digital assurance capability is becoming a revenue protection tool for high-risk commodities and fresh produce.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  2. Potential effects may reach Indigenous peoples.
  3. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  4. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  5. Potential effects may reach consumers.
  6. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  7. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Business partners, Customers / end-users, Suppliers.
  8. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Downstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  5. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  6. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Indigenous engagement, consent, grievance and impact records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-impact records
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Arable and permanent crop farmland, orchards, vineyards, plantations and leased growing areas
  • Process-map item (assets): Input storage facilities for fertiliser, crop protection chemicals, fuel, seed and plastic mulch
  • Process-map item (assets): Livestock exclusion fencing, drainage systems, soil conservation structures and field access roads
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software
  • Process-map item (assets): Water abstraction licences, land tenure rights, crop genetics licences, supplier accreditations and customer certifications

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream or downstream pathway.
  • The emerging signal has not yet created a relevant exposure, impact or financial effect for the organisation.

Affected stakeholders

  • Business partners
  • Customers / end-users
  • Suppliers

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Governance
  • Business-model dependent
  • Moderate industry signal
  • Financial materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Governance of lobbying, political contributions, trade association alignment and public policy engagement on agricultural regulation and market-access rules.

How it shows up in this industry

Agricultural products companies and producer associations can influence rules on plant protection products, maximum residue levels, water abstraction, nitrates, labour migration schemes, deforestation-free commodities, organic standards, phytosanitary trade and agricultural subsidies. These policy areas directly shape production costs, market access and environmental or social safeguards.

Why it may be material

The sector is highly exposed to regulation and trade policy, and lobbying can materially affect both compliance costs and public trust. Misalignment between policy influence and stated sustainability commitments can trigger customer, investor and civil society scrutiny.

Impact pathway

  1. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Customers / end-users.
  2. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  4. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  5. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence shows current or anticipated financial effects on the organisation?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • Could this topic affect demand, pricing, market access or revenue?
  • Could this topic change operating costs or the cost of controls and remediation?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (customers): Supermarkets, food service distributors and hospitality buyers procuring fresh and processed agricultural products
  • Process-map item (customers): Public procurement bodies, school meal suppliers and humanitarian food agencies
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Retailer and food manufacturer demands for regenerative agriculture claims backed by soil carbon, biodiversity and input-use data
  • Process-map item (regulatory_anchors): GlobalG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance for farm-level good agricultural practice and retailer market access
  • Process-map item (regulatory_anchors): International Labour Organization conventions on forced labour, child labour, freedom of association and occupational safety in agricultural work

It may be less material when…

  • The organisation's scale, exposure or effects are below the threshold set for further assessment.
  • The relevant business model, activity, asset or product is not present or is not significant.

Affected stakeholders

  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Local authorities
  • Media
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

  • Governance
  • Emerging issue
  • Moderate industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Controls over regenerative agriculture and soil carbon claims, including baseline setting, monitoring methods, data quality, third-party assurance and alignment between farm practices and customer-facing sustainability statements.

How it shows up in this industry

Retailers and food manufacturers buying grains, fruit, vegetables, nuts, coffee, cocoa and fibre crops are asking agricultural suppliers to evidence regenerative practices using soil tests, yield maps, input records, satellite imagery, biodiversity indicators and certification audits. These claims often depend on conservation tillage, cover crops, organic amendments, precision application and farm-level digital records.

Why it may be material

Regenerative agriculture is moving from a marketing term to a contracted customer specification, but measurement methods for soil carbon, biodiversity uplift and avoided inputs remain inconsistent and contested. Weak evidence can create greenwashing, audit and customer retention exposure.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  2. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  3. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  4. Potential effects may reach the atmosphere.
  5. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Customers / end-users, Suppliers.
  7. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Upstream, Downstream, Cross value chain.

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may affect demand, pricing, market access or product and service revenue.
  2. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  3. The topic may require capital expenditure to adapt assets, processes or infrastructure.
  4. The topic may affect access to finance, funding terms or the cost of capital.
  5. The topic may affect reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.
  6. The topic may create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which own operations, assets or decisions create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Which products, services, customers or end uses create or concentrate the pathway?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What evidence shows that customer demand is changing?

Evidence to collect

  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Emissions, air-quality and atmospheric-impact records linked to the topic
  • Long-term scenario, cumulative-impact and intergenerational analysis
  • Revenue, demand, pricing and market-access analysis linked to the topic
  • Operating-cost records and budgets linked to the topic
  • Capital plans, asset adaptation budgets and investment approvals
  • Funding terms, lender or investor requirements and cost-of-capital analysis
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Process-map item (assets): Farm machinery such as tractors, planters, sprayers, harvesters, balers and tillage equipment
  • Process-map item (assets): On-farm storage including grain silos, cold stores, drying sheds, barns and controlled-atmosphere rooms
  • Process-map item (assets): Livestock exclusion fencing, drainage systems, soil conservation structures and field access roads
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital agronomy assets including yield maps, soil sensors, weather stations, satellite imagery subscriptions and farm management software
  • Process-map item (customers): Commodity traders, grain elevators, co-operatives and export merchants aggregating farm output

It may be less material when…

  • The organisation's scale, exposure or effects are below the threshold set for further assessment.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream or downstream pathway.
  • The emerging signal has not yet created a relevant exposure, impact or financial effect for the organisation.

Affected stakeholders

  • Customers / end-users
  • Suppliers

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • NGOs / civil society
  • Regulators

Standards to check

See how companies report it →

Your preliminary screening decision

Saved in this browser. Your notes leave it only when you export the screening.

An initial screening — not a materiality assessment

To turn a shortlist into a defensible result, you still need to:

  • engage affected stakeholders
  • assess severity and likelihood
  • evaluate financial effects
  • define thresholds
  • document governance and approval
  • keep an audit trail
Certified Materiality Assessment for ESG Reporters Course →
How this screening is built, and what it is not

Candidate topics come from the LRA materiality topic catalogue (19 topics for this industry that passed quality checks), aligned to GRI sector numbering and the SASB SICS classification.

Topics, rationales, impact and financial channels, stakeholders and standard hints come from the reviewed catalogue. Workcards and activity matches are generated from it by fixed rules; where LRA has written a workcard or a disclosure mapping by hand, it is labelled as curated.

Your selections, decisions and notes stay in this browser. They are sent to LRA only to build an Excel file when you choose to export, and are not stored.

This is an educational screening aid. It is not issued or endorsed by GRI, the IFRS Foundation, EFRAG or SASB, and it is not a materiality assessment of any organisation.

Initial screening summary

Food Production — Agricultural Production

Organisation profile

    Include for further assessment

      More evidence required

        Provisionally lower priority

          Important limitation. These are screening decisions only. They have not been validated through stakeholder engagement, severity assessment, financial-effect analysis or formal approval.

          The link carries only the sub-industry and the activities you ticked — never your decisions or notes.

          An .xlsx file with your screening, the workcards and the sources for the chosen sub-industry.