Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain which parts of its operations have, or could have, significant negative effects on nearby communities. The focus is not on every site in the business, but on identifying the operations where the risk or impact is material and describing them clearly.
In practice, the organisation should think about coverage across its footprint, not just headline or flagship locations. It should show where the significant impacts are concentrated, what kinds of operations are involved, and how it has determined that those impacts are significant for local communities.
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
＋ Show GRI 413-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
List where the organisation carries out its operations.
Identify operations that have, or could have, material adverse effects on nearby communities.
Set out the material actual and possible adverse effects arising from operations.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first: decide which sites, projects, or activities you will assess for this disclosure, and keep that scope consistent with the period you are reporting on.
2Define what you will treat as a material community harm: use a clear internal test for when an operation may create, or has created, a meaningful adverse effect on nearby people or places.
3Gather location-based support for each included operation: map where it sits, then pull together the records, assessments, incident logs, complaints, or other source material that show why it is in scope.
4For every included operation, compile the substance of the issue: describe the adverse effects you identified, covering both harms that have already happened and those that could reasonably arise.
5Record any omissions or changes in approach: note excluded operations, explain why they were left out, and flag any changes in method, boundary, or judgement from the prior reporting cycle.
6Check the final draft against the source material: confirm the list of operations, their locations, and the impact descriptions are supported by evidence and align with the official reporting source before sign-off.
Request the data
Request the site list and impact notes from Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which sites or activities have had, or could have, material adverse effects on nearby communities, and where are they located?
Use your own site, asset, project, incident and community-impact terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. Keep the request in the language your operations teams already use, rather than using framework wording.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 413-2 data on operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities, including the location of operations and the significant actual and potential negative impacts.
Why it fails: This uses framework language that many operational teams will not recognise, so it is harder to action. It also does not say which internal records to pull, what location detail is needed, how to judge significance, or how to separate actual issues from risks in the organisation’s own terms.
Better request
Please send the list of sites, projects or activities in scope for [reporting period], plus any community-impact issues or risks that your team has treated as material. For each item, include the site or asset name, internal ID, location, issue category, whether it is an actual issue or a credible risk, the source record, and the reason it was escalated. Use your normal operational language first, then add a short mapping note so we can align it to the reporting disclosure.
Industry examples
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain how the organisation decided which sites to include, what it treated as a community-related impact, and whether the figures cover confirmed harm, possible harm, or both.
Context note
Set out what the figures indicate about where the organisation’s activities are affecting local communities and whether the issue is concentrated in a few sites or spread more widely.
Fluctuation statement
If the numbers moved materially, note whether that was driven by new sites, closures, better identification of issues, or changes in the severity or type of community impact recorded.
Content index entry
GRI 413-2 Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 413-2 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
Evidence pack to prepare
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.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong owner
The team asks a community-relations lead for site impact data when the operational manager, H&S team, or local site contact holds the source records.
Framework language used too early
People request the information using disclosure labels instead of the business terms the site teams use, so they cannot map the request to their own records.
Scope not pinned down
The collector does not define which sites, projects, or activities are in scope, so some relevant operations are left out and others are pulled in by mistake.
Boundary set inconsistently
Different teams use different cut-offs for which locations count, so the final list mixes sites that should be included with sites that should not.
Wrong period basis
The data is pulled from a different reporting window than the one used for the rest of the report, which makes the site list and impact notes impossible to reconcile.
Counting rules mixed
One source counts individual incidents while another counts affected locations, and the collector combines them as if they were the same measure.
Source labels lost
The original site names, project codes, or incident references are stripped out during consolidation, so no one can trace each entry back to the first record.
Separate groups merged
Operations with different kinds of local impact are bundled into one line, which hides which locations have actual harm and which only have a possible risk.
Evidence trail incomplete
The file pack is missing the supporting notes, dates, and approver names, so the reviewer cannot see who checked the data or when.
Where judgement is often needed
Set the reporting perimeter after acquisitions and disposals
Use the same cut-off date and consolidation logic across the year, and explain any sites added or removed because ownership or control changed.
Handle country-by-country community labels consistently
Where local terms for nearby residents or affected groups differ, map them to one internal definition and note the translation or interpretation used.
Decide how to treat sites on the boundary of the affected area
If a location sits near the edge of the community area, apply a documented rule for inclusion or exclusion and describe that rule in the disclosure.
Choose one basis for judging significance and keep it stable
If you use incident counts, severity, complaints, or another internal test, apply the same basis across comparable sites and explain any change in method.
State when estimates are used instead of direct measurement
Where site-level evidence is incomplete, use a clearly described estimate method, label it as such, and say which locations were estimated rather than measured.
Round figures without losing the overall picture
Round individual site counts or summaries in a consistent way, and make sure the rounded figures still reconcile to the total set of affected operations.
Aggregate sensitive location details where needed
If naming a site would expose personal or security-sensitive information, group locations at a higher level and explain the level of aggregation used.
Separate current impacts from likely future impacts
Distinguish between harm already occurring and harm that could arise later, and describe both where they are material to the site list.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Mining — Iron, Aluminum, Other Metals
This is a synthetic, illustrative example, not a real company. In this illustrative reporting period, we identified significant negative impacts at 11 of our 42 operations, and we recorded 23 grievances raised and 18 grievances resolved. We also had 7 remediation programmes in place to address the impacts identified.
This example shows how to describe the organisation’s own identification of significant negative impacts, alongside grievance handling and remediation, using only the supplied figures.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Technology Hardware and Equipment
This is a synthetic, illustrative example, not a real company. In this illustrative reporting period, we identified significant negative impacts at 2 of our 16 operations, and we recorded 5 grievances raised and 4 grievances resolved. We also had 2 remediation programmes in place to respond to the impacts identified.
This example shows a concise first-person disclosure focused on where significant negative impacts were identified and how grievances and remediation were handled, without promotional language.
How companies report GRI 413-2
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Wistron Corporation
Technology Hardware and Equipment · Taiwan · 2024
Wistron Corporation’s 2024 Sustainability Report includes a specific reference to operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities, noted on page 272. However, the report does not provide quotable evidence for more detailed narrative items (a-i) and (a-ii). Additional mentions related to potential impacts on natural capital (p.96), high-risk ecosystems (p.92), and occupational hazards (p.170) are present but do not directly address the detailed disclosure requirements.
Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.
Home Building · Japan · 2025
Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.'s Sustainability Report 2025 includes a covered datapoint on operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities, referenced on page 537. However, the report does not provide quotable evidence for the more detailed narrative items (a-i) and (a-ii). Other related topics such as forced or compulsory labour risks and waste management are mentioned on pages 536 and 533 respectively, but these do not directly address the specific disclosure narrative items.
Hindustan Zinc Limited
Mining — Iron, Aluminum, Other Metals · India · 2025
Hindustan Zinc Limited’s Sustainability Report 2024-25 provides data on operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts, specifically referencing this on page 116. The report also addresses management of material topics related to land and resource rights, as noted on page 119. However, there is no quotable evidence found for narrative item (a-ii), indicating a gap in coverage for that specific disclosure element.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context. Your first two answers are free — join LRA Community for free to continue without a limit.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 413-2?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
2 free answers
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A quarry sits beside two villages and a school. The site team has logged dust complaints, truck traffic concerns, and a planned expansion that could increase noise and access issues.
QShould this site be treated as one of the places where the business has meaningful harmful effects, and should you capture where it is and what the current and possible future harm is?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Yes. This is the kind of location that should be picked out because the business can point to a real harmful effect already happening, and a likely future one as well. The write-up should identify the site location and describe both the harm already seen and the harm that could arise if the expansion goes ahead.
Why this matters · Use the site’s place and the nature of the harm together, not one without the other.
A distribution depot is in an industrial estate, but residents from a nearby housing area have raised repeated concerns about night-time vehicle movements and light spill. The team has not linked this to any formal incident record yet.
QDo you include this depot in the disclosure even though the issue is based on complaints and a foreseeable risk rather than a recorded incident?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Yes. A site can belong in the disclosure where there is a credible harmful effect on nearby people, whether that effect has already happened or is reasonably expected. The absence of a formal incident log does not remove the need to describe the location and the nature of the concern.
Why this matters · A documented incident is not the only trigger; credible present or future harm can be enough.
A processing plant has one boundary shared with farmland and another with a small settlement. The environmental team has evidence of odour complaints from the settlement and a risk assessment showing that an equipment failure could affect local water use.
QHow should you decide what to report for this plant: only the complaint issue, only the risk issue, or both?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Both should be covered if each is a meaningful negative effect or a meaningful possible one. The disclosure should not be limited to one type of harm when the same operation creates more than one relevant issue for nearby communities. The location should be named, and the actual and possible harms should be described clearly and separately.
Why this matters · Where one operation creates more than one significant community impact, report the full picture.
A wind farm has no current complaints, but the project team has identified a likely future issue during maintenance works because access roads will pass close to homes. The team is unsure whether a future-only concern belongs in the disclosure.
QShould a likely future harm be included even if no community has been affected yet?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Yes. The disclosure is not limited to harm that has already happened. If the operation presents a meaningful risk of negative impact on local people, that future risk belongs in the narrative alongside the site location.
Why this matters · Potential harm counts when it is significant and tied to a specific operation.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
What do I need to gather before drafting GRI 413-2 Local Communities on this page?+−
Start with the three datapoints listed on the page: affected operations, operation locations, and a community impact summary. The page also gives a step-by-step preparation section to help you turn those inputs into a draft.
How should I define the scope for GRI 413-2 Local Communities when I use this page?+−
Use the page’s preparation guidance to identify which operations are affected and where they are located, then link that to the community impact summary. The page is designed to help you set scope in a practical way before drafting.
What evidence should I collect for assurance on GRI 413-2 Local Communities?+−
The page says there are four assurance claims to verify and an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness. Use those sections to build a file that shows the claim, the risk, and the supporting evidence.
How do I use the assurance claims section for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?+−
The page breaks assurance into claim, risk, and evidence, so you can check each point systematically. That makes it easier to see what needs support before review or assurance.
What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?+−
The page says the evidence pack contains five items and is meant to support assurance readiness. Use it alongside the assurance claims so your draft is backed by the right source material.
What are the common mistakes to avoid when reporting GRI 413-2 Local Communities?+−
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is worth checking your draft against that list before sign-off. This is especially useful for spotting missing scope, weak evidence, or unclear narrative.
How can I turn the GRI 413-2 Local Communities data into a draft report section?+−
The page includes draft-output support with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. Use those to move from raw inputs to a report-ready draft without starting from scratch.
Where can I download the workbook for GRI 413-2 Local Communities and what is it for?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. The workbook is there to help you prepare the disclosure and get assurance-ready.
Can I use the GRI 413-2 Local Communities page to support an ESRS S3 affected communities data pack?+−
The page notes ESRS S3 (Affected Communities) as the closest correspondence, so the same data may be reusable across both. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you should still check the other framework separately.
What does the synthetic example on GRI 413-2 Local Communities show me?+−
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table where relevant. You can use them as a model for structure and presentation, but they are examples only and not real company data.
More questions this page can help with
GRI 413-2 Local Communities checklist: what data points does this page say I need?How do I prepare a GRI 413-2 Local Communities disclosure using the step-by-step section?What is the best way to assign ownership for GRI 413-2 Local Communities data collection?How do I build an assurance-ready evidence pack for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?What are the four assurance claims to verify for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?What are the most common reporting gaps in GRI 413-2 Local Communities drafts?How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?What should a draft GRI 413-2 Local Communities narrative include according to this page?How do I write the GRI content-index line for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?Where can I find real company report examples for GRI 413-2 Local Communities on this page?Is the GRI 413-2 Local Communities data reusable for ESRS S3 affected communities reporting?What does the Library Card PDF include for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 413-2 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →