Skip to the screening
Courses

Materiality Navigator·NGO

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.

A smiling volunteer carries donated parcels through a doorway.
Step 1 Choose the business model you are screening

Candidate topics — NGO

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

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Transition planning and operational controls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel dependence from NGO travel, humanitarian logistics, fleets, generators, cold chains, offices, warehouses, events and procurement while preserving rapid response capability.

How it shows up in this industry

NGO delivery depends on international air travel, emergency deployments, air cargo, sea containers, road convoys, 4x4 fleets, motorcycles, boats, diesel generators, cold chains, warehouses and imported relief supplies. Donors increasingly expect decarbonisation and carbon information without undermining rapid response capacity, principled humanitarian action or last-mile access.

Why it may be material

Fuel, freight and travel can be major operating costs and material grant-budget lines. Donor climate criteria, public scrutiny and fuel volatility can affect grant scoring, corporate partnerships and supporter trust, while cleaner field power, route planning and local procurement can reduce OPEX over time but require CAPEX.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach the atmosphere.
  2. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  3. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  4. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  5. Potential effects may reach workers.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Business partners, 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.

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
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance 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
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Field offices, community centres, clinics, shelters, warehouses and temporary programme sites in host communities
  • Process-map item (assets): Vehicle fleets including 4x4s, motorcycles, ambulances, boats and hired trucks for last-mile programme delivery
  • Process-map item (assets): Relief stock and programme inventories such as tents, hygiene kits, school materials, medical supplies and food parcels
  • Process-map item (assets): Intangible assets including public trust, charitable status, local access agreements, partnerships, brand reputation and technical programme expertise
  • Process-map item (customers): People and households receiving humanitarian aid, social services, advocacy support, legal assistance, health services or development programmes

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 or downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Business partners
  • 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

Adaptation planning for climate-related disruption to NGO assets, supply chains, staff deployment, warehousing, field delivery, cold chains, water access and emergency response capacity.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs operate field offices, community centres, clinics, shelters, warehouses and temporary programme sites in host communities, using fleets, boats, hired trucks and cold-chain logistics for emergency response. Floods, heatwaves, droughts, storms and wildfires can increase humanitarian caseloads while disrupting the assets and supply routes needed to deliver WASH services, medical aid, cash transfers, shelter support and protection services.

Why it may be material

Climate hazards can destroy stock, disrupt cold chains, raise insurance costs, require resilience CAPEX, increase emergency OPEX and undermine grant delivery. Credible adaptation and surge capacity can protect mission continuity and improve eligibility for resilience, anticipatory action and emergency funding.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach contractors.
  3. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  4. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  5. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  6. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  7. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  8. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Contractors, Employees, Suppliers.
  9. 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 insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.
  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.
  7. 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?
  • 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
  • Contractor working-condition, incident and engagement records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • 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
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Asset valuations, useful-life assumptions, impairment tests and stranded-asset analysis
  • 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): Field offices, community centres, clinics, shelters, warehouses and temporary programme sites in host communities
  • Process-map item (customers): People and households receiving humanitarian aid, social services, advocacy support, legal assistance, health services or development programmes
  • Process-map item (customers): Public authorities contracting NGOs to deliver welfare, migration, health, education or disaster response services
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Shrinking civic space, foreign agent laws, protest restrictions and visa barriers limiting advocacy and field operations
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Climate-driven disasters increasing humanitarian caseloads while disrupting NGO offices, supply chains and field access

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 or downstream pathway.
  • The emerging signal has not yet created a relevant exposure, impact or financial effect for the organisation.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Contractors
  • Employees
  • Suppliers

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Local authorities

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

Lifecycle controls over relief and programme goods from quality assurance and stock management through distribution, unused stock recovery and safe disposal of hazardous or residual materials.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs procure, warehouse and distribute food parcels, hygiene kits, tents, tarpaulins, school materials, medical supplies, assistive devices, batteries, protective equipment and electronic devices through international freight, logistics hubs, local transporters and partner procurement. Reverse logistics covers unused stock, expired medicines, damaged equipment, donation returns and accountable disposal in locations that may lack formal hazardous or medical waste infrastructure.

Why it may be material

Poor stock quality, expired medicines, counterfeit goods or unsafe disposal can harm recipients and create contamination, donor disallowance, compensation claims, hazardous disposal costs and reputational harm. Strong stewardship reduces waste OPEX, protects beneficiaries and improves donor confidence in procurement controls.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  2. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  3. Potential effects may reach ecosystems.
  4. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  5. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  6. Potential effects may reach workers.
  7. Potential effects may reach contractors.
  8. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Customers / end-users, Suppliers, Value chain workers.
  9. The source places the pathway in Upstream, 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 reputation, licences to operate, intellectual property or other intangible value.

Questions to test

  • What evidence supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • 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 current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem-impact evidence
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Contractor working-condition, incident and engagement 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
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Relief stock and programme inventories such as tents, hygiene kits, school materials, medical supplies and food parcels
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Pressure to decarbonise international travel, emergency logistics and procurement without undermining rapid response capacity
  • Process-map item (external_impacts): Greenhouse gas emissions from staff air travel, vehicle fleets, generators, cold chains and freight for relief supplies
  • Process-map item (external_impacts): Waste generation from packaging, expired medicines, single-use medical items, tents, tarpaulins, batteries and electronic equipment
  • Process-map item (external_impacts): Water, sanitation and land impacts from camps, temporary shelters, latrines, boreholes and waste pits established during emergencies

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 or downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

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

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • 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
  • Business-model dependent
  • Entity-specific validation required
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Water, sanitation, land and local ecosystem impacts of NGO camps, temporary shelters, clinics, boreholes, latrines, waste pits and other emergency or community infrastructure established during humanitarian and development programmes.

How it shows up in this industry

During emergencies NGOs may establish community centres, clinics, shelters, temporary programme sites, boreholes, latrines, waste pits and small-scale community infrastructure. Water, sanitation and land choices can affect host communities around camps, distribution sites, field offices and disposal areas.

Why it may be material

Emergency site selection, water abstraction, sanitation design and closure practices can affect local water availability, water quality, land disturbance and ecosystems. Poor management can lead to remediation costs, community opposition, permitting delays and donor findings against minimum humanitarian standards.

Impact pathway

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

Financial pathway

  1. The topic may change operating costs through resource use, controls, remediation or ongoing management.
  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 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 water bodies?
  • What scientific evidence or consensus could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • 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
  • 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
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Field offices, community centres, clinics, shelters, warehouses and temporary programme sites in host communities
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Pressure to decarbonise international travel, emergency logistics and procurement without undermining rapid response capacity
  • Process-map item (external_impacts): Waste generation from packaging, expired medicines, single-use medical items, tents, tarpaulins, batteries and electronic equipment
  • Process-map item (external_impacts): Security impacts on host communities where NGO compounds, escorts or movement restrictions alter local power dynamics
  • Process-map item (external_impacts): Water, sanitation and land impacts from camps, temporary shelters, latrines, boreholes and waste pits established during emergencies

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 downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • 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
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Protection of NGO staff, volunteers, consultants, drivers, guards, local mobilisers and partner staff from occupational health and safety, travel, road, security, medical evacuation and field deployment harms.

How it shows up in this industry

NGO personnel cross borders, operate in insecure areas, drive 4x4s and motorcycles, use boats and hired trucks, work in warehouses, clinics and temporary sites, and rely on guards, local transporters and community mobilisers. Security infrastructure, satellite phones, evacuation arrangements and incident reporting systems are essential to maintaining access and meeting duty-of-care expectations.

Why it may be material

Field duty of care affects worker safety, insurance premiums, medical evacuation costs, staff retention, volunteer recruitment and the ability to operate in high-need locations. Serious incidents can halt programmes, breach donor milestones and create employer or trustee liability.

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. Potential effects may reach emergency responders.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Contractors, Employees, Suppliers, Trade unions, Value chain workers.
  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 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 insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.
  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?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on workers?
  • What geopolitical developments 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
  • Emergency-response plans, incident logs and responder feedback
  • 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
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Field offices, community centres, clinics, shelters, warehouses and temporary programme sites in host communities
  • Process-map item (assets): Security infrastructure such as access controls, satellite phones, incident reporting systems and evacuation arrangements
  • Process-map item (customers): People and households receiving humanitarian aid, social services, advocacy support, legal assistance, health services or development programmes
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Shrinking civic space, foreign agent laws, protest restrictions and visa barriers limiting advocacy and field operations
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Climate-driven disasters increasing humanitarian caseloads while disrupting NGO offices, supply chains and field access

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
  • Contractors
  • Employees
  • Suppliers
  • Trade unions
  • Value chain workers

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

Fair, transparent and accountable programme design, targeting, delivery and learning so that NGO assistance and services are effective, inclusive, evidence-based and responsive to affected people.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs design and deliver food distributions, shelter assistance, cash transfers, vouchers, education, livelihoods support, legal aid and community outreach after needs assessments and stakeholder mapping. Restricted grants, milestone payments and donor evaluations depend on whether assistance reaches intended groups, avoids harm and produces credible outcome evidence.

Why it may be material

Poor targeting or weak accountability can exclude marginalised households, create local conflict, distort markets and undermine outcomes. It can also lead to donor clawback, grant non-renewal, reputational damage and operational disruption during distributions or cash-transfer programmes.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  2. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  3. Potential effects may reach consumers.
  4. Potential effects may reach Indigenous peoples.
  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, 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.

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 affected communities?
  • What evidence shows that customer demand is changing?

Evidence to collect

  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-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
  • Process-map item (assets): Field offices, community centres, clinics, shelters, warehouses and temporary programme sites in host communities
  • Process-map item (assets): Vehicle fleets including 4x4s, motorcycles, ambulances, boats and hired trucks for last-mile programme delivery
  • Process-map item (assets): Relief stock and programme inventories such as tents, hygiene kits, school materials, medical supplies and food parcels
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital case-management systems, beneficiary databases, donor relationship management platforms and grant reporting tools
  • Process-map item (assets): Intangible assets including public trust, charitable status, local access agreements, partnerships, brand reputation and technical programme expertise

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
  • 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.

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

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Survivor-centred governance and operational controls that prevent, detect and respond to abuse, exploitation, harassment, bullying, retaliation and unsafe protection practice across NGO staff, volunteers, contractors and implementing partners.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs deliver clinics, shelters, helplines, legal advice, psychosocial support, education sessions, protection services and community outreach through staff, volunteers, consultants and implementing partners. The issue is acute where aid recipients are children, refugees, survivors, patients or people dependent on NGO personnel for access to assistance, referrals, shelter, cash or medical care.

Why it may be material

Safeguarding is a defining social licence and funding condition for NGOs. Failures can cause direct harm to service users and staff, trigger charity regulator and donor scrutiny, create litigation and compensation costs, restrict insurance cover, and sharply reduce public donations and grant eligibility.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach contractors.
  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 supply-chain workers.
  7. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Contractors, Customers / end-users, Employees, Trade unions, Value chain workers.
  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 create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  4. The topic may affect insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.
  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?
  • Where across the value chain is the pathway most significant?
  • 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
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-impact records
  • Supplier workforce, audit, grievance and remediation records
  • 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
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Head office premises used for governance, finance, safeguarding, policy, fundraising and grant management
  • Process-map item (assets): Security infrastructure such as access controls, satellite phones, incident reporting systems and evacuation arrangements
  • Process-map item (customers): Public authorities contracting NGOs to deliver welfare, migration, health, education or disaster response services
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Greater scrutiny of safeguarding failures, sexual exploitation and abuse, bullying, harassment and whistleblower retaliation
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Digital risks from cyber attacks, ransomware, surveillance of human rights defenders and misuse of beneficiary biometric data

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
  • Trade unions
  • Value chain workers

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
  • Moderate industry signal
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Quality, competence and safety of NGO-delivered services and referrals, including clinical care, psychosocial support, shelter, legal aid, helplines, education sessions, assistive devices and other direct support provided to vulnerable people.

How it shows up in this industry

Many NGOs provide direct services through clinics, helplines, shelters, legal advice, education sessions, protection case management and referrals. Quality failures may arise where volunteer-led services are under-supervised, referral pathways are weak, goods are expired or unsuitable, or clinical, legal and psychosocial roles are not matched with appropriate competence.

Why it may be material

Unsafe services can cause physical, psychological, legal or housing harm to people relying on NGO support. Negligent service delivery can also trigger claims, contract termination by public authorities or donors, insurance cost escalation and loss of technical credibility.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  2. Potential effects may reach consumers.
  3. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  4. Potential effects may reach workers.
  5. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Contractors, Customers / end-users, Employees.
  6. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Downstream, 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 create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  4. The topic may affect insurance availability, coverage terms, premiums or claims.
  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?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • What is the scale, scope, likelihood and remediability of effects on downstream users?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-impact records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • 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
  • Insurance coverage, premium, exclusion and claims records
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Vehicle fleets including 4x4s, motorcycles, ambulances, boats and hired trucks for last-mile programme delivery
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital case-management systems, beneficiary databases, donor relationship management platforms and grant reporting tools
  • Process-map item (external_impacts): Cultural and political impacts from advocacy campaigns, research publication, community mobilisation and service delivery choices
  • Process-map item (financial_channels): Compliance costs for safeguarding, data protection, sanctions screening, procurement controls, grant audits and financial reporting
  • Process-map item (financial_channels): Litigation, regulatory fines and compensation arising from safeguarding failures, employment disputes, data breaches or negligent service delivery

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 downstream or upstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

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

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
  • Optional / niche
  • Entity-specific validation required
  • Double materiality
  • Cross-cutting

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Safety and governance controls for moving hazardous, controlled or security-sensitive programme materials through international and last-mile NGO logistics networks.

How it shows up in this industry

NGO logistics may include controlled medicines, medical sharps, oxygen or cold-chain medical goods, fuel for generators and vehicles, batteries, water-treatment chemicals and security-sensitive documents moving by air cargo, sea containers, road convoys, 4x4s, motorcycles, boats and hired trucks. Last-mile delivery often occurs in insecure or infrastructure-poor locations with limited emergency response capacity.

Why it may be material

Hazardous logistics is material for NGOs handling medical, WASH, energy or security-sensitive supplies. Poor controls can injure workers and communities, contaminate land or water, interrupt programmes, invalidate insurance and trigger regulatory or donor findings.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach contractors.
  3. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  4. Potential effects may reach emergency responders.
  5. Potential effects may reach water bodies.
  6. Potential effects may reach soil and groundwater.
  7. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  8. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Business partners, Contractors, Employees, Suppliers.
  9. The source places the pathway in Upstream, Own operations, Downstream, 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 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 upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • 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 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
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Emergency-response plans, incident logs and responder feedback
  • Water withdrawal, discharge, quality and catchment-impact records
  • Soil and groundwater monitoring, incident and remediation records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • 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): Field offices, community centres, clinics, shelters, warehouses and temporary programme sites in host communities
  • Process-map item (assets): Vehicle fleets including 4x4s, motorcycles, ambulances, boats and hired trucks for last-mile programme delivery
  • Process-map item (assets): Relief stock and programme inventories such as tents, hygiene kits, school materials, medical supplies and food parcels
  • Process-map item (assets): Security infrastructure such as access controls, satellite phones, incident reporting systems and evacuation arrangements
  • Process-map item (customers): Supporters, campaign participants and members who consume research, advocacy materials and mobilisation opportunities

It may be less material when…

  • Entity-specific evidence does not show meaningful scale, exposure or effects.
  • The optional or niche activity linked to the topic is not present.
  • The organisation has no meaningful exposure to or influence over the relevant upstream or downstream pathway.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Business partners
  • Contractors
  • Employees
  • Suppliers

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • 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.

  • Governance
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Double materiality
  • Cross-cutting

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Protection of beneficiary, survivor, patient, donor and supporter data against unauthorised access, ransomware, surveillance, discriminatory profiling, unsafe AI use and misuse of images or testimony.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs hold sensitive records in case-management systems, beneficiary databases, donor platforms, referral files, hotline tools, survey platforms, satellite imagery and grant reporting portals. These may include refugee registration details, health information, safeguarding files, images, testimonies, geospatial data and donor histories, making NGOs targets for ransomware, surveillance and misuse by hostile actors.

Why it may be material

Digital systems now mediate eligibility, referral, fundraising and field evidence. Data breaches, ransomware or biased automated tools can expose vulnerable people to retaliation or exclusion while creating GDPR or UK GDPR enforcement, litigation, cyber insurance increases, donor reporting disruption and loss of public trust.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  3. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  4. Potential effects may reach consumers.
  5. Potential effects may reach supply-chain workers.
  6. Potential effects may reach Indigenous peoples.
  7. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  8. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Contractors, Customers / end-users, Employees, Suppliers.
  9. The source places the pathway in Own operations, Downstream, 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 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?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs 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

  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-impact records
  • Supplier workforce, audit, grievance and remediation 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
  • 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): Head office premises used for governance, finance, safeguarding, policy, fundraising and grant management
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital case-management systems, beneficiary databases, donor relationship management platforms and grant reporting tools
  • Process-map item (customers): People and households receiving humanitarian aid, social services, advocacy support, legal assistance, health services or development programmes
  • Process-map item (customers): Corporate partners funding programmes, employee volunteering, sponsorship or cause-related marketing
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Rising donor requirements for measurable outcomes, value for money, localisation and evidence-based impact reporting

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 or upstream pathway.
  • The emerging signal has not yet created a relevant exposure, impact or financial effect for the organisation.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Contractors
  • Customers / end-users
  • Employees
  • 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
  • Industry baseline
  • Strong industry signal
  • Financial materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Governance, board oversight and reporting controls that maintain charitable status, public benefit accountability, lawful trustee conduct, transparent financial reporting and effective internal control in NGOs.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs rely on charitable status, trustee oversight, public benefit legitimacy, audited accounts, reserves management, grant reporting and transparent annual reporting to donors, regulators, members and the public. Head offices typically hold governance, finance, safeguarding, policy, fundraising and grant management responsibilities that determine organisational accountability.

Why it may be material

Weak charity governance can threaten registration, public benefit standing, grant eligibility, donor confidence, banking relationships and trustee liability protection. Strong board oversight and transparent reporting support access to unrestricted income, reserves, emergency readiness and institutional funding.

Impact pathway

  1. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Business partners, 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 (assets): Head office premises used for governance, finance, safeguarding, policy, fundraising and grant management
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital case-management systems, beneficiary databases, donor relationship management platforms and grant reporting tools
  • Process-map item (assets): Intangible assets including public trust, charitable status, local access agreements, partnerships, brand reputation and technical programme expertise
  • Process-map item (assets): Security infrastructure such as access controls, satellite phones, incident reporting systems and evacuation arrangements
  • Process-map item (customers): Public authorities contracting NGOs to deliver welfare, migration, health, education or disaster response services

It may be less material when…

  • Organisation-specific evidence does not support significant scale, severity, likelihood or financial effect.

Affected stakeholders

  • Business partners
  • Customers / end-users

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • Investors / creditors
  • Media
  • 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 charitable funds, restricted grants, cash assistance, relief goods, procurement and subgrants to prevent fraud, bribery, corruption, sanctions breaches, counter-terrorist financing concerns and diversion of aid from intended recipients.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs manage restricted grants, UN contracts, government aid funding, cash transfers, relief inventories, subgrants, onward procurement and payments through banks, mobile money agents, remittance providers and local retailers. Work in conflict zones and high-risk jurisdictions increases exposure to sanctions, counter-terrorist financing, anti-bribery and diversion controls.

Why it may be material

Fiduciary integrity directly affects grant eligibility, milestone payments, audit outcomes, clawback exposure, banking access and legal permission to operate. Weak controls can divert resources from intended recipients and create regulatory, criminal, trustee and reputational consequences.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  2. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  3. Potential effects may reach supply-chain workers.
  4. Potential effects may reach workers.
  5. Potential effects may reach future generations.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Business partners, 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 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 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

  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Supplier workforce, audit, grievance and remediation records
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance 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
  • 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): Head office premises used for governance, finance, safeguarding, policy, fundraising and grant management
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital case-management systems, beneficiary databases, donor relationship management platforms and grant reporting tools
  • Process-map item (assets): Intangible assets including public trust, charitable status, local access agreements, partnerships, brand reputation and technical programme expertise
  • Process-map item (assets): Security infrastructure such as access controls, satellite phones, incident reporting systems and evacuation arrangements
  • Process-map item (customers): People and households receiving humanitarian aid, social services, advocacy support, legal assistance, health services or development programmes

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
  • Business partners
  • Customers / end-users
  • Suppliers

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.

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

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Controls over charitable appeals, donor communications, direct marketing, supporter consent, corporate cause-related marketing, images, testimonies and public claims about programme outcomes or community needs.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs rely on public appeals, regular giving, legacies, philanthropy, corporate partnerships, digital campaigns, events, websites, social media and mailing lists. Public trust is an intangible asset that supports unrestricted donations, emergency appeals, volunteer recruitment and credibility with donors and communities.

Why it may be material

Unethical fundraising, misleading impact claims, exploitative imagery or weak supporter consent can reduce unrestricted income, trigger fundraising regulator action, damage corporate partnerships and increase donor acquisition costs. Transparent and dignified communications can stabilise reserves during donor fatigue and cost-of-living pressure.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  2. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  3. Potential effects may reach consumers.
  4. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Business partners, Customers / end-users.
  5. 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 create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  4. 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 downstream users?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-impact records
  • 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
  • Process-map item (assets): Head office premises used for governance, finance, safeguarding, policy, fundraising and grant management
  • Process-map item (assets): Digital case-management systems, beneficiary databases, donor relationship management platforms and grant reporting tools
  • Process-map item (assets): Communications assets including websites, social media channels, campaign mailing lists, call centres and media production equipment
  • Process-map item (assets): Intangible assets including public trust, charitable status, local access agreements, partnerships, brand reputation and technical programme expertise
  • Process-map item (customers): Individual donors, legacy donors, regular givers and community fundraising groups

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
  • Media
  • 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
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Governance of implementing partners, community-based groups, suppliers and contractors to protect partner staff, supply chain workers and affected communities while supporting locally led action, fair subgrant terms and responsible procurement of goods and services.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs rely on local civil society partners, community-based groups, transporters, accommodation providers, security firms, construction suppliers, caterers, software providers, research contractors and suppliers of uniforms, electronics, food, medical goods and field materials. Donor localisation expectations and Grand Bargain commitments increase scrutiny of whether international head offices retain power, overheads and visibility while transferring delivery risk and compliance workload to under-resourced local organisations.

Why it may be material

Partner and supplier governance affects labour conditions, delivery quality, local civil society resilience, grant compliance and community trust. Poorly designed partnerships can weaken local organisations, undermine programme quality and expose NGOs to criticism for extractive or colonial practices.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach supply-chain workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach workers.
  3. Potential effects may reach contractors.
  4. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  5. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Business partners, Contractors, Customers / end-users, Suppliers, Value chain workers.
  7. The source places the pathway in Upstream, 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 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 supports both the impact and financial materiality pathways?
  • Which upstream activities, suppliers or inputs create or concentrate the pathway?
  • 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 evidence shows that customer demand is changing?

Evidence to collect

  • Supplier workforce, audit, grievance and remediation records
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Contractor working-condition, incident and engagement records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • 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 (assets): Head office premises used for governance, finance, safeguarding, policy, fundraising and grant management
  • Process-map item (assets): Vehicle fleets including 4x4s, motorcycles, ambulances, boats and hired trucks for last-mile programme delivery
  • Process-map item (assets): Intangible assets including public trust, charitable status, local access agreements, partnerships, brand reputation and technical programme expertise
  • Process-map item (customers): People and households receiving humanitarian aid, social services, advocacy support, legal assistance, health services or development programmes
  • Process-map item (customers): Public authorities contracting NGOs to deliver welfare, migration, health, education or disaster response services

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 or downstream pathway.
  • The emerging signal has not yet created a relevant exposure, impact or financial effect for the organisation.

Affected stakeholders

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

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.

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

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Governance of NGO advocacy, campaigning, policy engagement, research and evidence use so that public claims are accurate, independent, transparent, culturally responsible and safe for people and communities represented.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs produce policy briefings, campaign materials, media statements, petitions, parliamentary submissions, strategic litigation support, needs assessments, human rights documentation, monitoring reports and open data products. These outputs influence policymakers, courts, donors and the public, while potentially affecting survivors, activists and communities whose stories, images or testimony are used.

Why it may be material

Advocacy and research are central to many NGO missions and can affect public policy, court processes, community safety and organisational credibility. Weak evidence standards, undisclosed influence, harmful imagery or unsafe publication can create legal claims, donor loss, partner harm and reputational damage.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  2. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  3. Potential effects may reach consumers.
  4. Potential effects may reach workers.
  5. Potential effects may reach Indigenous peoples.
  6. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Business partners, Customers / end-users.
  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 create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  4. 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 affected communities?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Consumer outcome, complaint and product-impact records
  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • 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
  • Provision, claim, penalty, remediation and contingent-liability records
  • Reputation, licence-to-operate, intellectual-property and other intangible-value evidence
  • Process-map item (assets): Head office premises used for governance, finance, safeguarding, policy, fundraising and grant management
  • Process-map item (assets): Communications assets including websites, social media channels, campaign mailing lists, call centres and media production equipment
  • Process-map item (customers): People and households receiving humanitarian aid, social services, advocacy support, legal assistance, health services or development programmes
  • Process-map item (customers): Public authorities contracting NGOs to deliver welfare, migration, health, education or disaster response services
  • Process-map item (customers): Supporters, campaign participants and members who consume research, advocacy materials and mobilisation opportunities

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

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

Users of the information

  • Board / management
  • 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
  • Business-model dependent
  • Entity-specific validation required
  • Double materiality

Workcard generated from the catalogue

What this topic covers

Management of legal, political and administrative conditions that determine whether an NGO can register, receive funds, maintain banking access, deploy staff, publish research, campaign, litigate or deliver services in host communities.

How it shows up in this industry

NGOs depend on charitable registration, host-government approvals, local access agreements, visas, banking channels and permissions to run field offices, clinics, shelters, warehouses, advocacy, research and strategic litigation. Shrinking civic space, foreign agent laws and protest restrictions can constrain both service delivery and campaigning.

Why it may be material

Loss of registration, visa barriers, banking restrictions or operating permissions can strand field assets, prevent grant delivery, force programme closure and reduce advocacy credibility. Legal challenges and access negotiations also increase OPEX and can affect donor confidence in delivery feasibility.

Impact pathway

  1. Potential effects may reach workers.
  2. Potential effects may reach affected communities.
  3. Potential effects may reach downstream users.
  4. Potential effects may reach supply-chain workers.
  5. Affected stakeholder groups identified in the source include Affected communities, Business partners, Employees.
  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 create provisions, penalties, remediation costs, claims or other liabilities.
  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 workers?
  • What current or proposed regulation could change the topic's relevance?

Evidence to collect

  • Workforce, health and safety, engagement and grievance records
  • Community engagement, grievance and impact records
  • Downstream-user outcome, complaint and product-use evidence
  • Supplier workforce, audit, grievance and remediation records
  • 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
  • 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): Intangible assets including public trust, charitable status, local access agreements, partnerships, brand reputation and technical programme expertise
  • Process-map item (assets): Security infrastructure such as access controls, satellite phones, incident reporting systems and evacuation arrangements
  • Process-map item (customers): People and households receiving humanitarian aid, social services, advocacy support, legal assistance, health services or development programmes
  • Process-map item (customers): Supporters, campaign participants and members who consume research, advocacy materials and mobilisation opportunities
  • Process-map item (emerging_pressures): Shrinking civic space, foreign agent laws, protest restrictions and visa barriers limiting advocacy and field operations

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 downstream pathway.
  • The emerging signal has not yet created a relevant exposure, impact or financial effect for the organisation.

Affected stakeholders

  • Affected communities
  • Business partners
  • 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.

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 (16 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

NGO

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.