GRI 3: Material Topics · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 3-1
Process to determine material topics
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 worked out which sustainability topics matter most for its reporting. In practice, that means setting out the process used to identify, assess and prioritise topics, rather than simply listing the final topics themselves. The focus is on showing that the organisation has a clear, reasoned approach to deciding what is material for its business and stakeholders.
The practical emphasis is on the scope and consistency of that process across the organisation. A good explanation should make clear whether the assessment covered the whole business, relevant subsidiaries, operations and value chain, or only selected sites or functions, and why that scope was chosen. It should also help a reader understand how the organisation reached its conclusions, so the material topics are seen as the result of a structured process rather than a one-off judgement.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality process | A plain account of the steps used to decide which sustainability topics matter for reporting, including the main stages, criteria used, and how the conclusion was reached. | Materiality assessment paper, workshop notes, scoring model, decision log, reporting committee papers. | Sustainability reporting |
| Impact identification method | How the organisation looked for both current and possible future effects, good and bad, on the economy, environment and people, including human rights effects, across its own operations and wider business links. | Impact mapping, risk and opportunity registers, due diligence outputs, value chain reviews, human rights assessments. | Sustainability / Human rights / Risk |
| Impact ranking basis | The rule or method used to decide which impacts were treated as more important for the report, and the factors used to rank them. | Scoring criteria, prioritisation matrix, materiality workshop outputs, governance approval papers. | Sustainability reporting |
| Input sources | The groups and specialists whose views fed into the material topic assessment, named clearly enough to show who was consulted and in what capacity. | Stakeholder engagement log, interview list, consultation records, expert adviser list, workshop attendance sheets. | Sustainability reporting / Stakeholder engagement |
Show GRI 3-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out the steps used to decide which topics matter most.
- Explain how it found both actual and possible upsides and downsides for the business, the natural world and people, including human-rights effects, across its own operations and wider business links.
- Show how it ranked those impacts for reporting, using their importance as the basis.
- Name the stakeholders and subject-matter specialists whose input shaped the topic-selection process.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set out the method you used to decide which topics matter for the report, so the reader can see the overall approach rather than just the end result.
- Map where the organisation may cause or contribute to good or bad effects, including those that are already happening and those that could happen, across its own operations and wider business links.
- Cover effects on the economy, the environment and people, and make sure any human-rights-related effects are included in that review.
- Rank the topics for reporting using your significance assessment, and keep enough working papers or notes to show why some issues were placed ahead of others.
- List the outside voices that shaped the assessment, naming the stakeholder groups and any subject-matter specialists whose input informed the process.
- Before finalising, check the wording and evidence against the official source so the narrative matches the underlying assessment and nothing required has been left out.
Request the materiality assessment evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What process did we use to decide which sustainability topics matter most for reporting, and who helped shape that view?
Use your organisation’s own language first, then map it to the reporting terms. For example, if you talk about a risk review, impact scan, stakeholder listening exercise, or topic ranking, use those internal labels in the request and evidence pack rather than framework wording. This is a training template only; adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please send the GRI 3-1 material topics process and stakeholder evidence.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the owner may not know which internal files to pull. It also does not say what period, scope, topic-ranking method, or evidence types are needed, so the response is likely to be incomplete.
Better request
Please send the files from our topic-ranking exercise for [period], including the steps used to identify and rank the issues we treat as most important, the scoring or judgement used to place them higher or lower, and the stakeholder and expert inputs that informed the exercise. Include the final topic list, scope, owner, and approval date.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for materiality assessment evidence for [reporting period]\n\nDear [name/team],\n\nWe are preparing the sustainability report for [reporting period] and need the evidence pack for the topic-ranking exercise. Please share the materials that show:\n- the steps we followed to identify the topics we treat as most important for reporting;\n- how we looked at both downside and upside effects, including effects on people, the environment, the economy, and human rights, across our own operations and wider business links;\n- how we decided which topics were placed higher or lower in the final list; and\n- which stakeholder groups and subject-matter experts informed the process.\n\nPlease include the source files, any scoring or ranking sheets, workshop notes, survey outputs, and the final topic list, together with the period covered, the business areas in scope, the owner, and the date of approval.\n\nIf helpful, you can return the information in the table below. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms and check the official source before sign-off.\n\nMany thanks,\n[preparer name]\n[team]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send over the materiality / topic-ranking evidence for [period]? We need the files showing how topics were identified, scored and prioritised, plus which stakeholders and experts fed into the process. Please include the final topic list, source notes, and the scope covered. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant-based group uses a quarterly risk and impact review with operations, HSE, procurement, and site leadership.
Adapted request. Please share the evidence pack from the quarterly issue review for [period], including the workshop notes, scorecards, and final ranked list showing how we identified the issues most important for reporting across our sites and supply chain, and which employee, supplier, and technical voices informed it.
Example response. Attached: Q4 issue review deck, site workshop notes, supplier survey summary, ranked topic matrix, and approval email. Scope: UK plants and tier-1 suppliers. Consulted: site managers, HSE leads, procurement, two supplier panels, and an external technical adviser.
Financial services
Context. A regulated group uses a governance-led annual review with risk, compliance, investor relations, and customer teams.
Adapted request. Please provide the annual issue-prioritisation pack for [period], including the method used to identify and rank the topics we report on, the basis for the ranking, and the investor, customer, employee, and specialist input that shaped the outcome.
Example response. Attached: annual prioritisation paper, risk register extract, customer feedback summary, investor meeting notes, and committee minutes. Scope: group operations and key business relationships. Consulted: customer insight team, investor relations, compliance, and an external policy adviser.
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 practical steps used to decide which topics matter most, including how impacts were identified, assessed and ranked, and which stakeholder groups and subject-matter experts contributed to the process.
Context note
Set out what the figures and summaries show about the organisation’s most important issues, including the kinds of effects considered and how the final shortlist reflects the areas judged most significant.
Fluctuation statement
If the shortlist or ranking changed from the prior period, explain whether that was driven by new evidence, different stakeholder input, changes in operations or business relationships, or a revised view of significance.
Content index entry
GRI 3-1 Process to determine material topics — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 3-1. 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
The request goes to the wrong team or person, so the process is described by someone who did not actually run the topic review or gather the input.
- Framework language instead of business terms
The data is collected using sustainability-framework labels rather than the organisation’s own operational names, which makes the process hard to trace back to how work is really done.
- Scope left vague
No one pins down which activities and business relationships are included, so the materiality work ends up covering some parts of the business while missing others.
- Timing basis not fixed
The team mixes information from different reporting periods or cut-off dates, so the process description does not match one clear time basis.
- Mixed counting basis
Inputs are combined using different ways of counting or grouping, which makes the underlying evidence inconsistent and the prioritisation hard to defend.
- Source labels lost
Original file names, interview tags, workshop notes, or other source markers are stripped away, so the team cannot show where each input came from.
- Separate groups merged
Views from different stakeholder groups or expert groups are rolled together when they should stay distinct, which hides who said what and weakens the trail.
- Evidence metadata missing
The team keeps the content but drops the date, owner, version, or similar context, so the evidence cannot be checked properly later.
- No sign-off trail
The final process summary is used without a clear review and approval record, so nobody can show who checked the inputs before publication.
Where judgement is often needed
- Acquisitions and disposals during the year
State the cut-off you used for bringing newly bought or sold businesses into the impact review, and explain whether you used opening, closing, or average scope for the period.
- Different local definitions for the same issue
If countries or business units use different labels or thresholds, explain the common rule you applied to compare them and how you handled any local exceptions.
- Operations near the boundary of control or influence
Explain how you treated sites, joint arrangements, agents, contractors, and other linked parties that sit close to your direct control, and why they were included or left out.
- Choosing the timing basis for the review
Disclose whether the assessment was built on year-end data, a rolling view, or another date basis, and note any material events that were brought in or left out because of that choice.
- Measured figures versus estimates
Where direct counts were not available, say which figures were estimated, what method was used, and which parts of the review still rely on measured data.
- Rounding and small differences
Explain the rounding rule used in the summary and confirm that any rounded figures still reconcile to the underlying totals within a sensible tolerance.
- Protecting personal data in stakeholder input
If feedback from workers, communities, or other groups was combined to avoid identifying individuals, say how the information was grouped and whether that aggregation affected the conclusions.
- Using internal teams and outside specialists
List the functions, committees, advisers, or other specialists whose views shaped the topic review, and make clear what role each played in the judgement.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food processing · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only. Shows a plain-language account of the steps used to decide what matters most, the sources used to spot effects across operations and business partners, the basis for ranking them, and the stakeholder/expert input that informed the review.
We ran a materiality review for this synthetic example by mapping our own operations and key suppliers, then screening 18 possible topics through site data, incident logs, customer feedback and a short external scan. We then ranked the topics by the scale, likelihood and reach of their effects, giving priority to the 7 matters with the most significant current or likely effects on our economic, environmental and social impact, including human-rights-related issues in our workforce and supply chain.
- Views from 42 people shaped the process: 12 employees, 8 supplier representatives, 6 customers, 4 community members, 4 investors, 2 trade union representatives, 2 NGO specialists, 2 academic advisers and 2 legal experts.
- In total, 26 actual or possible effects were logged: 15 negative and 11 positive; 9 related to people and rights, 8 to the environment and 9 to economic outcomes, with 17 arising in our own sites and 9 linked to business partners.
Business services · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only. Demonstrates a different plausible reporter using a similar materiality approach, with distinct inputs, a clear ranking basis, and explicit identification of the groups and specialists whose views informed the outcome.
For this synthetic example, we combined a desk review of contracts, complaints, project records and risk registers with workshops across our offices and a check of partner activities to build the longlist of topics. We then narrowed the list to 5 priority matters by comparing the size, chance and persistence of each effect, including both harmful and beneficial outcomes for the business, the environment and people, and any rights-related consequences in our service chain.
- The process drew on 31 voices: 10 staff, 5 client representatives, 4 subcontractor contacts, 3 community organisations, 3 investors, 2 human-rights advisers, 2 environmental consultants and 2 sector specialists.
- We recorded 20 effects overall, split between 12 negative and 8 positive; 10 concerned people and rights, 5 concerned the environment and 5 concerned economic performance, with 13 traced to our own activities and 7 to relationships with other parties.
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
- How the materiality process was carried out — table: A step-by-step summary of the approach used to identify the topics judged most important for reporting.
- Sources of input used in the assessment — table: The stakeholders, specialists and other contributors whose views informed the topic-selection process.
- Impacts considered across the business — stacked bar: The range of positive and negative effects reviewed across operations and business relationships, split by economic, environmental and social impact.
- Impact significance ranking — bar: How the assessed effects were prioritised for reporting according to their relative importance.
- Coverage of actual and possible effects — stacked bar: A comparison of current and potential impacts, showing both beneficial and harmful effects considered in the review.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We used a materiality review to pick our key topics.
Better
We used a materiality review across our operations and supply chain to identify the main positive and negative effects on people, the planet and the business, and then ranked them by significance for reporting.
Best
We completed our 2025 materiality review across our own operations and business relationships, using input from employees, customers, suppliers and external specialists to identify positive and negative effects on people, the environment and the business, and we prioritised the topics for reporting by significance; the main shift was that labour issues moved up because supplier findings showed a higher-than-expected risk level.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 3-1 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P. | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Colombia | 2024 | Partial | p. 144 →p. 143 →p. 49 → | ISA Integrated Management Report 2024 → | ey | |||||||||||||||
Evidence in Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.’s reportWhat the report shows Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.'s 2024 Integrated Management Report includes a materiality analysis relevant to the disclosure, with specific values reported on page 56 and references to human rights and business guidelines on page 59. The report highlights material topics such as energy transmission reliability and capacity building, indicating a focus on stakeholder impact and sustainable development goals (p.59, p.71, p.75). However, there is no quotable evidence found for narrative items (a-ii) and (b), suggesting some aspects of the disclosure remain unaddressed or unclear in the report.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
PharmaEssentia Corporation | Pharmaceuticals / Biotech / Life Sciences · Taiwan | 2024 | Exact | p. 18 →p. 136 →p. 17 → | 2024 Sustainability Report → | — | |||||||||||||||
Evidence in PharmaEssentia Corporation’s reportWhat the report shows PharmaEssentia Corporation’s 2024 Sustainability Report covers the identification of material topics, highlighting stakeholder perspectives and human rights impacts from corporate operations as significant factors in determining these topics (p.17). The report details the process of assessing impacts on organizational operations and stakeholder concerns, with references to materiality assessments and management approaches (p.17, p.19). However, the report lacks explicit evidence on certain narrative elements such as item (a-ii) and item (b), which are not found in the document.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
GeelongPort | Water Transportation — Ports and Services · Australia | 2025 | Partial | p. 84 →p. 85 →p. 17 → | Sustainability Report 2025 → | — | |||||||||||||||
Evidence in GeelongPort’s reportWhat the report shows GeelongPort’s Sustainability Report 2025 includes a materiality assessment where impacts on sustainability topics are ranked by stakeholder importance, with eight topics identified and ranked from 1 to 8 (p.17). The report also addresses management of material topics, including potential negative impacts on local communities and cybersecurity, referencing GRI 3: Material Topic 2021 (p.17, p.88). However, no specific information was found regarding narrative item (b), indicating a gap or lack of clarity in that area.
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 group has run a double-materiality workshop, but the draft report only lists the final topics and a short note that management reviewed them. The team also has interview notes from suppliers, workers and an external labour-rights adviser, plus a scoring sheet for impacts.What extra explanation should the report include so a reader can see how the topic list was built?
Model answer. It should briefly set out the steps used to reach the topic list, not just the end result. That means explaining how the organisation looked for actual and possible upsides and downsides across its own operations and wider business links, how it judged which matters were more significant for reporting, and which stakeholder groups and outside specialists helped shape the process.
Why this matters. A reader needs the method, the impact screening, the prioritisation logic and the voices that informed it, not only the final list.
A manufacturer has mapped environmental and labour issues in its factories, but it has not considered distributors, contract logistics providers or outsourced maintenance teams. The draft materiality note says the review covered “our operations” and stops there.Is that enough, or does the explanation need to go wider?
Model answer. It needs to go wider. The process description should show that the organisation considered impacts linked to both its own activities and its business relationships, because material issues can arise beyond sites it directly controls. If those wider links were not part of the assessment, the report would not fully explain how the topic list was determined.
Why this matters. Material-topic screening should cover the organisation’s wider value chain, not only what happens inside its own sites.
A retailer has ranked topics using a scoring model that combines severity and likelihood, but the draft only says the team “used a risk matrix”. The board wants the report to mention every workshop attendee, including junior staff who only joined one session.What should the report actually make clear about prioritisation and the people consulted?
Model answer. It should explain, in plain terms, how the organisation decided which impacts mattered most for reporting, based on their significance, and it should name the stakeholder groups and experts whose views informed that process. It does not need to list every individual attendee if the report can clearly identify the relevant groups and specialists that shaped the assessment.
Why this matters. The disclosure is about the basis for ranking impacts and the sources of input, not a roll-call of everyone in the room.
A services company has identified both negative and positive effects on workers and communities, but the draft report only discusses harms. It also mentions that an external consultant helped, but does not say whether employees, customers or community representatives were consulted.How should the preparer adjust the narrative before sign-off?
Model answer. The narrative should cover both sides of the assessment: adverse and beneficial effects, and both actual and possible ones, across economic, environmental and people-related matters, including human-rights aspects where relevant. It should also identify the stakeholder groups and experts that informed the process, so the reader can see whose perspectives shaped the material-topic decision.
Why this matters. A complete explanation covers upsides and downsides, present and future effects, and the voices that informed the judgement.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 3-1 — 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
Questions this page answers
For GRI 3-1 Material Topics, what should I have ready before I start drafting the disclosure on this page?
The page says to prepare four things: your materiality process, how you identify impacts, the basis you use to rank impacts, and the input sources you rely on. It also has a step-by-step preparation section you can use to turn that into a draft. ↑ section
How do I use the GRI 3-1 Material Topics page to turn my materiality assessment into a disclosure draft?
Use the page’s plain-language explainer, the preparation steps, and the draft-output section together. The page also gives narrative starters, visualisation ideas, and a GRI content-index line to help you move from inputs to a written draft. ↑ section
What evidence should I collect for GRI 3-1 Material Topics so the file is assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and four assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk, and evidence. That gives you a practical checklist for building an assurance-ready file rather than just a narrative. ↑ section
What are the four assurance claims I need to check for GRI 3-1 Material Topics?
The page says there are four assurance claims to verify, and each one is set out with the related risk and evidence needed. Use that section to test whether your disclosure is supported before you finalise it. ↑ section
What common mistakes does the GRI 3-1 Material Topics page warn about?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can spot weak points before submission. It is useful as a pre-review checklist when you are checking whether the materiality process, inputs, and ranking basis are clearly explained. ↑ section
How should I describe the impact identification method for GRI 3-1 Material Topics in a way that is usable for reporting?
The page tells you to prepare the impact identification method as one of the core datapoints. In practice, that means documenting how impacts were identified and then using the page’s step-by-step guidance to explain it clearly in the draft. ↑ section
What does the page mean by the impact ranking basis for GRI 3-1 Material Topics, and how do I use it?
The page asks you to prepare the basis used to rank impacts, so you can show how priorities were set. Use that information in the draft-output section to support the narrative and any table or visual you include. ↑ section
Who should own the data for GRI 3-1 Material Topics, and how do I assign responsibilities?
The page is designed for practitioners such as sustainability or ESG managers, HR, data owners, and assurance reviewers, but it does not set a formal ownership model. Use the workbook and preparation steps to allocate the materiality process, inputs, and evidence to the right internal owners. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 3-1 Material Topics?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use it alongside the page’s evidence pack, assurance claims, and common gaps sections to organise your draft and supporting files. ↑ section
What can I use the printable Library Card PDF for on the GRI 3-1 Material Topics page?
The Download Centre includes a printable Library Card in PDF format, which is there as a practical companion to the page. It can help you keep the key preparation points, evidence needs, and draft-output prompts in one place while you work. ↑ section
Are there example disclosures for GRI 3-1 Material Topics on the page that I can use as a model?
Yes. The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, so you can see how a draft might look without treating it as a real company example. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- What inputs do I need to gather for GRI 3-1 Material Topics before I write the disclosure?
- How do I document the materiality process for GRI 3-1 Material Topics in my evidence pack?
- What should I include in the GRI 3-1 Material Topics evidence pack for assurance review?
- How do I use the step-by-step how-to-prepare section for GRI 3-1 Material Topics?
- What narrative starters does the GRI 3-1 Material Topics page give for drafting the disclosure?
- What visualisation ideas are suggested for GRI 3-1 Material Topics draft output?
- How do I write the GRI content-index line for GRI 3-1 Material Topics using this page?
- What are the most common reporting gaps in GRI 3-1 Material Topics and how do I avoid them?
- How do I use the from company reports table on the GRI 3-1 Material Topics page?
- Can I use the synthetic quantitative example on the GRI 3-1 Material Topics page as a template for my own data?
- Does the GRI 3-1 Material Topics page give an exact ESRS, CSRD or ISSB mapping?
- How do I make GRI 3-1 Material Topics assurance-ready using the workbook and evidence pack?
✓ 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.
