GRI 2: General Disclosures · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 2-29
Approach to stakeholder engagement
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
4 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it engages with its stakeholders in practice. In plain terms, it is about setting out the main ways you identify relevant stakeholder groups, how you communicate with them, and how you gather and use their views in decision-making and reporting.
The practical focus is on the organisation’s overall approach, not just a few visible or flagship activities. A useful report should show whether stakeholder engagement is embedded across the business, how it varies by location or function where relevant, and how the organisation makes sure the process is systematic rather than ad hoc.
* This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
| Datapoint | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder groups | A plain summary of the stakeholder groups the organisation engages with, using the organisation’s own grouping logic and current scope. | Stakeholder map, engagement plan, materiality or consultation records, governance papers. | Sustainability / stakeholder engagement lead |
| Group identification method | How the organisation decides which stakeholder groups belong in its engagement set, including the basis used to define each group. | Stakeholder mapping methodology, segmentation criteria, consultation framework, internal policy notes. | Sustainability / stakeholder engagement lead |
| Engagement purpose | The reasons the organisation engages stakeholders, stated in practical terms and tied to the actual engagement programme. | Engagement strategy, consultation objectives, meeting agendas, materiality assessment notes. | Sustainability / stakeholder engagement lead |
| Meaningful engagement approach | The steps the organisation uses to make stakeholder engagement effective in practice, including how it supports real participation and response. | Engagement procedures, facilitation guidance, feedback logs, accessibility or inclusion measures, action tracking. | Sustainability / stakeholder engagement lead |
Show GRI 2-29 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out how you engage with stakeholders, and explain how you decide which stakeholder groups to include.
- Set out how you engage with stakeholders, and explain what you do to make the engagement genuinely useful and two-way.
- Set out how you engage with stakeholders, and name the stakeholder groups you work with.
- Set out how you engage with stakeholders, and explain why the engagement takes place.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which parts of the organisation, business units, sites, or activities are covered by this disclosure so the write-up reflects the right scope.
- List the stakeholder groups you actually work with, using your own business categories rather than generic labels, and make sure the list matches the groups covered in the report.
- Record how each group is selected or recognised in practice, so you can explain the basis used to place people or organisations into those categories.
- State why the engagement happens: capture the business purpose for the dialogue, consultation, or other contact with each stakeholder group.
- Gather the material that shows how engagement is made effective in practice, then turn it into a clear narrative that explains the methods, controls, or routines used to support meaningful involvement.
- Check the final wording against the source disclosure and your internal records, then note any exclusions, scope changes, or updates so the published text stays aligned with the official source.
Request the stakeholder engagement summary and supporting evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How do we engage our stakeholders, how are the groups chosen, why do we engage them, and how do we make the process meaningful?
Use your organisation’s own terms first — for example, customer groups, community forums, investor meetings, colleague listening sessions, regulator touchpoints, supplier reviews — then map those terms to the disclosure wording before sign-off. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the source text before finalising.
Weak request
Please provide the stakeholder engagement disclosure for the year.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, gives no clue which teams should respond, and does not ask for the practical records needed to explain who is engaged, why they were chosen, or how the process works in practice.
Better request
Please send the stakeholder engagement summary for [reporting period] covering [business area]. Use the names your team already uses for each audience, explain how each audience is chosen, why you engage them, and what you do to keep the process useful and two-way. Please attach the logs, notes, survey outputs, or trackers that support the summary.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for stakeholder engagement evidence for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name],\n\nI’m pulling together our sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the stakeholder engagement section. Please send the information for [reporting period] covering [business area / entity].\n\nPlease include:\n- the stakeholder groups you work with and the names we use internally\n- how those groups are chosen or prioritised\n- the purpose of each engagement activity\n- how we make sure the engagement is useful and two-way\n- any supporting records, such as logs, meeting notes, survey outputs, action trackers, or summaries\n\nIf there are different channels by audience, please separate them clearly. If anything is held in a system, please include the source and export date.\n\nPlease send this by [date]. If it is easier, I can share a simple table for completion.\n\nThanks,\n[Your name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send the stakeholder engagement details for [reporting period] for [business area]? Please include the groups we engage, how they’re picked, why we engage them, and the records showing how we keep it useful. If you have logs, notes, survey results, or action trackers, please attach them. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant-based business with site-level community and workforce engagement
Adapted request. Please share the engagement summary for [reporting period] covering our sites. Use our internal names for workforce groups, local residents, contractors, suppliers, and regulators. For each one, explain how it is selected, what the engagement is for, and what we do to keep it useful, plus the site logs, meeting notes, and action trackers.
Example response. Workforce forums are selected by site and shift pattern; community panels are selected by proximity to the plant; supplier reviews are selected by spend and risk. Engagement is used for safety, service continuity, local impact, and improvement actions. Evidence includes attendance logs, minutes, survey results, and action trackers.
Financial services
Context. A group with investor, customer, regulator, and colleague listening channels
Adapted request. Please provide the engagement summary for [reporting period] for our customer, investor, regulator, and colleague channels. Use the terms your teams already use, explain how each audience is chosen, the purpose of each channel, and the controls we use to keep the process meaningful. Include meeting records, survey outputs, and follow-up logs.
Example response. Customers are selected by product type and complaint themes; investors are selected by ownership and engagement plan; regulators are selected by supervisory relevance; colleagues are selected by business unit and location. Engagement is used for service design, governance input, and issue resolution. Evidence includes call notes, survey dashboards, and action logs.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain the basis used to define stakeholder groups, how those groups are selected, what the engagement is intended to achieve, and the practical steps used to make the process meaningful.
Context note
Set out what the engagement data shows about who the organisation listens to, how it decides who belongs in scope, and the role engagement plays in its wider decision-making or relationship management.
Fluctuation statement
If the pattern changes from one period to the next, explain whether that reflects a change in the groups involved, the way they were identified, the purpose of engagement, or the methods used to keep it effective.
Content index entry
GRI 2-29 Approach to stakeholder engagement — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-29. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| The information reported for this disclosure reconciles to the underlying source records. | What is reported cannot be traced back to the systems or documents it was drawn from, or does not tie out to them. | calculation_workbook reconciling the reported value to source_system_export |
| The information reported for this disclosure is current as at the reporting date. | The disclosure reflects a different period, a cut-off before the reporting date, or stale data carried over from a prior period. | approval_record showing the data cut-off date and the period covered |
| The scope behind the information reported for this disclosure is applied consistently. | Parts of the organisation are silently in or out of scope, or the scope differs from the prior period without that change being explained. | methodology defining the scope and a site_register of what it covers |
| Everything in scope is included in the information reported for this disclosure — nothing material is left out. | Parts of the population that should be reported are omitted, understating or overstating the disclosure. | site_register of the full population vs the calculation_workbook of what was actually included |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
Common reporting gaps
- The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
- The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
- Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
- Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner, wrong desk
The request goes to a team that runs consultations but does not hold the organisation’s stakeholder map, so the answer comes from the wrong operational owner.
- Framework words instead of business terms
People ask for the data using reporting jargon rather than the organisation’s own labels, and the source team cannot match the request to its records.
- No clear scope for which groups count
The collection brief does not say which stakeholder groups are in scope, so some teams include everyone they contact while others only include formal consultation lists.
- Timing basis left undefined
The team does not fix the period or cut-off for the data pull, so some records reflect the current year and others reflect earlier engagement activity.
- Mixed counting basis in one file
One source counts meetings, another counts participants, and the final dataset blends them together without separating the different bases.
- Source labels stripped out
During consolidation, the original names and tags from the source system are removed, making it impossible to trace each figure back to the record it came from.
- Different populations merged together
Engagement with customers, employees, and community groups is rolled into one total even though the underlying lists were meant to stay separate.
- Evidence details not captured
The file keeps the headline answer but drops the supporting metadata such as date, owner, and source reference, so the evidence trail is incomplete.
- No review trail before handover
The dataset is passed on without a recorded check or sign-off, so no one can show who confirmed the numbers and when.
Where judgement is often needed
- What counts as a stakeholder group
Use your own operating map to decide which external and internal groups sit in scope, then explain the basis for including each group and note any material groups left out.
- How to group people when local labels differ
Where countries or business units use different labels for similar audiences, set out the common grouping you used and explain any local exceptions so readers can see how the categories were aligned.
- Newly bought or sold activities
If a purchase or disposal changes who you engage with, describe the approach used for the period and explain whether the change affected the groups covered or the way they were described.
- People at the boundary of the business
For workers, communities, customers or suppliers that sit close to the edge of your operating footprint, state the rule you used to include or exclude them and explain any judgement made.
- Why you engage each group
Set out the practical reason for engaging each category, using your own business language, and distinguish between groups engaged for risk, service, change, assurance or relationship-building purposes.
- What makes engagement meaningful
Explain the methods, frequency, access routes and feedback loops you use to make engagement effective, and disclose any limits where some groups can only be reached indirectly or with safeguards.
- Using estimates where records are incomplete
If you cannot evidence every engagement activity from source records, use a clearly explained estimate or proxy, state the method, and keep it consistent from period to period unless you explain a change.
- Rounding and small-number protection
When summarising counts or participation levels, round in a way that does not distort the picture and avoid publishing small slices that could identify individuals or sensitive groups.
- Protecting privacy in the write-up
If naming a group or describing a channel could expose personal data or sensitive local issues, aggregate the information further and explain that the presentation has been adjusted for privacy.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows a simple narrative approach: who is engaged, how those groups are chosen, why the engagement happens, and what is done to make it effective.
Synthetic illustration only. We map our engagement to the issues most likely to affect our business and stakeholders, then use different channels for employees, suppliers, customers, local communities and investors. We identify those groups through a materiality review, risk screening and feedback from site teams, and we use the engagement to test priorities, gather concerns and shape decisions on policies, targets and actions.
- To keep the process useful, we set the audience, topic and timing for each engagement round in advance.
- We also check participation levels and follow up on unresolved points so that quieter voices are not lost.
Regional banking · synthetic · written by LRA
This example demonstrates a second, distinct reporter with a different stakeholder mix and a different way of explaining how engagement is selected and made effective.
Synthetic illustration only. Our group engages with customers, colleagues, regulators, community partners and investors through surveys, meetings, workshops and formal consultations. We decide which groups to involve by looking at where our activities create the greatest impact, where decisions may change outcomes, and where we need direct input from affected parties; the aim is to inform strategy, manage risk and improve services. To support meaningful dialogue, we provide clear background information, use accessible formats, allow enough time for responses and record how feedback is considered.
- We review each channel after use to see whether it reached the intended audience and whether the discussion was balanced.
- Where needed, we adapt the format so that participation is practical for the people involved.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.
Suggested visuals
- Stakeholder groups engaged — table: A simple list of the stakeholder groups the organisation engages with, so readers can see the scope of its engagement base.
- How stakeholder groups are identified — bar: A breakdown of the ways the organisation determines which groups to engage, showing the main identification routes side by side.
- Why engagement takes place — stacked bar: The main purposes of engagement, with each stakeholder group or engagement channel split by purpose to show the mix of objectives.
- Approach to meaningful engagement — table: The practical steps the organisation uses to make engagement effective, presented as a concise process summary.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We engage with four stakeholder groups.
Better
We engage with four stakeholder groups, identified through a materiality review, to gather views on our priorities and decisions.
Best
We engage with four stakeholder groups, identified through our annual materiality review, to inform our priorities and decisions and to keep the process meaningful through planned meetings, feedback follow-up and issue tracking; the group count was unchanged from last year because our stakeholder map stayed stable.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-29 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Enel Américas S.A. | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Chile | 2024 | Partial | p. 11 →p. 104 →p. 12 → | ESG Supplement 2024 - Enel Américas → | ey | |||||||||||||||
Evidence in Enel Américas S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Enel Américas’ 2024 ESG Supplement includes coverage of stakeholder identification and prioritization, detailing the collection of their requirements throughout the value chain (p.70) and listing the identified stakeholders for 2024 (p.12). The report also references a Limited Assurance Engagement related to the ESG Supplement (p.102). However, while there is supporting context on stakeholder engagement and feedback processes (p.11), no specific headline values or detailed metrics on stakeholder outcomes are provided.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Godrej Properties Limited | Real Estate · India | 2025 | Partial | p. 32 →p. 31 →p. 150 → | Integrated Report 2024-25 → | KPMG | |||||||||||||||
Evidence in Godrej Properties Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Godrej Properties Limited’s Integrated Report 2024-25 covers stakeholder engagement processes, including consultation between stakeholders and the Board, with specific reference to capacity building, health, and safety on page 145. The report also outlines its approach to engaging external stakeholders and assessing financial performance, climate impact, and ESG exposures as per GRI Universal Standards 2021 on page 31. However, the report provides only partial detail on stakeholder identification and prioritisation (p.32), and there is no clear methodology or narrative explaining the overall stakeholder engagement approach.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
REN - Redes Energéticas Nacionais, SGPS, S.A. | Water Utilities · Portugal | 2025 | Exact | p. 649 →p. 638 →p. 133 → | REN Integrated Report 2025 → | bsi | |||||||||||||||
Evidence in REN - Redes Energéticas Nacionais, SGPS, S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows REN’s 2025 Integrated Report covers its approach to stakeholder engagement comprehensively, highlighting engagement with affected stakeholders throughout due diligence processes (p.144) and detailing specific engagement with employees and suppliers (p.649). The report also references a tailored stakeholder engagement process aimed at ensuring business continuity and sustainability, with some supporting context provided on page 133, though without headline values. However, the methodology or narrative explaining the overall stakeholder engagement approach remains unclear, as no quotable evidence was found beyond these points.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A preparer has drafted a short note saying the organisation talks to employees, local residents and suppliers, but the draft does not explain how those groups were chosen. The engagement team says the list came from a mix of risk mapping and past feedback, but that is not yet written down.What should be added so the description covers both the groups involved and the way those groups were selected?
Model answer. The note should name the main stakeholder groups the organisation engages with and explain the method used to decide that those groups matter, such as a documented review of impacts, risks, dependencies or prior feedback. The explanation should be specific enough for a reader to see why those groups were included, not just that they were consulted.
Why this matters. A useful description names the stakeholder groups and shows how the organisation decided they were the right ones to engage.
A business has meetings with community representatives, customers and regulators, but the draft only says it “listens to stakeholders to build trust.” The team has not stated what the engagement is for, and different departments are using the meetings for different reasons.How should the purpose of the engagement be described so the disclosure is complete?
Model answer. The draft should explain the practical reason for the engagement, such as gathering views to inform decisions, understanding concerns, improving services or managing impacts. It should make clear what the organisation is trying to achieve through the dialogue, rather than leaving the purpose implied or generic.
Why this matters. The reader should be able to see why the organisation engages, not just who it speaks to.
A preparer has listed several engagement channels, including surveys, site visits and a stakeholder forum, but the team has not explained how it checks whether those methods are accessible or allow people to contribute properly. One group has low attendance because meetings are held only during working hours.What should the organisation say about how it seeks to make engagement meaningful?
Model answer. It should describe the steps it takes to make participation effective in practice, such as choosing suitable channels, adjusting timing or format, providing accessible information, and removing barriers that would stop people from taking part. If some groups face obstacles, the explanation should show how the organisation responds to those obstacles.
Why this matters. Meaningful engagement is about the quality and accessibility of the process, not only the fact that contact happened.
A company has a long list of consultations across the year, but the draft report only says the organisation “engages widely with stakeholders.” The sustainability lead is unsure whether the narrative should focus on the overall method or on every individual meeting.What level of detail should be used when describing the engagement approach?
Model answer. The disclosure should give a clear overview of the organisation’s engagement method: which stakeholder groups it works with, how those groups are identified, why the engagement happens, and how the process is designed to be effective. It does not need a meeting-by-meeting log, but it should be detailed enough for a reader to understand the organisation’s general approach.
Why this matters. Give a clear summary of the engagement system, not a diary of every interaction.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 2-29 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Related & explore
Organizational details Guide ✓Nomination and selection of the highest g… Guide ✓Chair of the highest governance body Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in ov… Guide ✓Delegation of responsibility for managing… Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in su… Guide ✓Conflicts of interest Guide ✓Communication of critical concerns Guide ✓Collective knowledge of the highest gover… Guide ✓Evaluation of the performance of the high… Guide ✓Remuneration policies Guide ✓Entities included in the organization’s s… Guide ✓Process to determine remuneration Guide ✓Annual total compensation ratio Guide ✓Statement on sustainable development stra… Guide ✓Policy commitments Guide ✓Embedding policy commitments Guide ✓Processes to remediate negative impacts Guide ✓Mechanisms for seeking advice and raising… Guide ✓Compliance with laws and regulations Guide ✓Membership associations Guide ✓Reporting period, frequency and contact p… Guide ✓Collective bargaining agreements Guide ✓Restatements of information Guide ✓External assurance Guide ✓Activities, value chain and other busines… Guide ✓Employees Guide ✓Workers who are not employees Guide ✓Governance structure and composition Guide ✓
Questions this page answers
For GRI 2-29, what data points do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?
The page says to prepare four core datapoints: stakeholder groups, the method used to identify them, the purpose of engagement, and the approach used to make engagement meaningful. Use those as the starting checklist before you draft anything. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 2-29 in practice?
Use it as a working sequence: confirm the disclosure topic, collect the four datapoints, then shape the narrative and supporting evidence. The page is designed to help you move from raw inputs to a draft disclosure. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 2-29 inputs in my organisation: ESG, HR, or the business team?
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can explain the stakeholder groups, the identification method, and the engagement process. The key is to assign clear responsibility for each input and its evidence. ↑ section
What evidence should I keep for GRI 2-29 so I am assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness, alongside four claims to verify. Build your file around those items so you can show the claim, the risk, and the evidence behind each part of the disclosure. ↑ section
What are the four assurance claims I need to check for GRI 2-29?
The page says there are four claims to verify, each with a claim, risk, and evidence angle. Use that structure to test whether your disclosure is complete, accurate, and backed by records before it goes into a report. ↑ section
What are the most common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 2-29?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful for checking whether your draft is missing a required datapoint or is too vague. A practical use is to compare your draft against the gap list before sign-off. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 2-29 data into a draft disclosure?
The page includes draft-output support with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. Use the example wording and structure to turn your collected data into a clear first draft. ↑ section
Is there a worked example I can copy for GRI 2-29?
Yes, the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table where relevant. Treat these as examples of format and structure only, and make sure any numbers in your own draft are internally consistent. ↑ section
How should I use the GRI 2-29 workbook download?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise preparation and evidence, and the PDF as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing. ↑ section
Can I use the 'From company reports' table to find real examples of GRI 2-29 disclosure wording?
Yes, the page links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed. It is there to help you see how others present the topic in practice, not to replace your own organisation’s data and judgement. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 2-29 stakeholder groups: what should I collect before drafting the disclosure?
- GRI 2-29 group identification method: how do I describe it clearly in a draft?
- GRI 2-29 engagement purpose: how do I turn this into a concise narrative?
- GRI 2-29 meaningful engagement approach: what evidence would support it?
- GRI 2-29 evidence pack: what should go in the file for review?
- GRI 2-29 assurance-ready checklist: how do I test the disclosure before sign-off?
- GRI 2-29 common mistakes: what gaps should I look for in my draft?
- GRI 2-29 workbook download: how do I use the .xlsx file to prepare the disclosure?
- GRI 2-29 printable library card: when should I use the PDF version?
- GRI 2-29 draft output: what narrative starters does the page provide?
- GRI 2-29 content index line: how do I build one from the page?
- GRI 2-29 company report examples: how do I use the linked reports without copying them?
✓ LRA AI Assistant · human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
