Disclosure LibraryPractitioner guidance for every reporting disclosure
All disclosures Courses
Home→ Disclosure Library→ GRI→ GRI 2→ GRI 2-10
GRI 2: General Disclosures
Disclosure GRI 2-10

Nomination and selection of the highest governance body

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.

Dr Ross Kurinko, GRI Certified Trainer
Reviewed by Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer LRA educational guidance · Not issued or endorsed by GRI
To prepare this disclosure
Disclosure focus

This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how people are nominated for, assessed for, and chosen to sit on the highest governance body, and what criteria are used in that process. The focus is on the actual selection approach: who can put names forward, what skills, experience, independence or other qualities are considered, and whether the process is formal and consistently applied.

In practice, the report should help a reader understand how the organisation builds the make-up of its top governing body, rather than just naming the members. It is useful to describe whether the process covers the whole organisation and all relevant governance appointments, or only certain entities, regions, or flagship sites, and to make clear any differences in approach across the group.

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
Board and committee selection A plain account of how people are proposed, screened, and chosen for the board and its committees, including the main steps, decision-makers, and any formal approval route. Nomination committee papers, board appointment policy, committee terms of reference, meeting minutes, and appointment letters. Company secretariat / governance
Stakeholder views in selection The criteria used when choosing board members, and whether views from stakeholders, including shareholders, are part of that decision. Nomination policy, board or committee papers, consultation records, AGM feedback, and shareholder engagement notes. Company secretariat / investor relations
Stakeholder input process The criteria used when choosing board members, and how stakeholder views, including shareholder views, are actually fed into the selection process and weighed. Nomination committee minutes, consultation summaries, engagement logs, decision papers showing how feedback affected shortlisting or appointments. Company secretariat / nomination committee
Diversity in selection The criteria used when choosing board members, and whether diversity is one of the factors checked in that process. Board diversity policy, nomination criteria, committee papers, and appointment documentation. Company secretariat / governance
Diversity decision process The criteria used when choosing board members, and how diversity is built into the selection process in practice, including any steps, checks, or balancing considerations. Nomination committee papers, candidate shortlists, diversity objectives, and board appointment records. Company secretariat / nomination committee
Independence in selection The criteria used when choosing board members, and whether independence is one of the factors checked in that process. Board independence policy, nomination criteria, conflict declarations, and committee papers. Company secretariat / governance
Independence decision process The criteria used when choosing board members, and how independence is assessed and used in the selection process, including any checks or judgments applied. Nomination committee minutes, independence assessments, conflict registers, and appointment recommendations. Company secretariat / nomination committee
Impact skills in selection The criteria used when choosing board members, and whether skills linked to the organisation’s impacts are part of that assessment. Board skills matrix, nomination criteria, committee papers, and role profiles. Company secretariat / governance
Impact skills process The criteria used when choosing board members, and how skills relevant to the organisation’s impacts are taken into account in the selection process. Nomination committee papers, board skills matrix, candidate assessments, and appointment recommendations. Company secretariat / nomination committee
＋ Show GRI 2-10 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

How to prepare it

1Set the reporting boundary first: decide which board-level group and which committees sit within the scope of this disclosure, so the write-up covers the right decision-makers and no others.
2List the selection rules you actually use for appointing those people, then separate them into the four required themes: input from stakeholders, diversity, independence, and skills linked to the organisation’s impacts.
3For each theme, capture both the fact that it is considered and the way it is considered. If a theme is not used, make sure the record still shows that clearly rather than leaving a gap.
4Gather the source material that supports the account, such as nomination papers, committee minutes, policy documents, skills matrices, and any records showing stakeholder input or other evidence behind the decision process.
5Draft the disclosure in plain language, covering the process for the board and its committees, then explain the criteria used for member selection and how each of the four themes is taken into account.
6Before finalising, check the wording against the official source to confirm you have covered every required point, and note any exclusions, changes in process, or scope decisions so the published text is complete and traceable.
Request the data

Request board nomination and selection evidence

Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.

How do we choose directors and committee members, and what criteria do we use when making those decisions?

Use your organisation’s own terms first (for example, board, directors, committee chairs, committee members, appointment process, skills matrix, independence checks, stakeholder input). Then map those terms to the disclosure wording for reporting. Keep the request in the language your governance team actually uses.

Weak request

Please provide the disclosure for nomination and selection of the highest governance body, including the criteria and whether stakeholder views, diversity, independence and competencies were considered.

Why it fails: This uses framework language that may not match how the organisation stores or discusses the evidence. It also asks for a disclosure rather than the underlying records, so the owner may not know which documents, systems or decision points to pull together.

Better request

Please send the board and committee appointment papers for [period], plus the notes, scorecards or minutes that show how candidates were assessed against your usual criteria, including stakeholder input, diversity, independence and relevant skills. Use your internal terms, and tell us where each item sits so we can map it for reporting.

Formal email template
Subject: Request for board appointment and selection evidence for [reporting period]

Hi [name/team],

We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need a short evidence set on how [board/directors/committee members] are identified, assessed and appointed for [reporting period].

Please share, in your team’s own wording where possible:
- a plain description of the appointment process for the board and its committees;
- the criteria used when considering candidates, including how you handle stakeholder input, diversity, independence and relevant capability;
- the documents that show how those criteria were applied in practice during the period;
- any updates to the process or criteria during the year.

Please include the source document names, dates, and the owner for each item. If something sits in a different system or team, please point us to it.

A possible LRA training template is attached below for reference only; please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.

Thanks,
[preparer name]
[team]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send over the board/committee appointment process and the criteria used for selecting members for [period], plus any minutes, scorecards or papers showing how those criteria were applied? Please use your team’s own terms. We’ll map them for reporting and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks.
Industry examples
Financial services

Context. A regulated group with a nomination committee and formal independence checks

Adapted request. Please share the nomination committee papers for [period], including the director skills matrix, independence assessments, candidate shortlists, interview notes and board approval minutes. We need the process description and the criteria used in your own governance language, including how shareholder input, diversity, independence and role-relevant expertise were handled.

Example response. Attached: nomination committee terms of reference; FY2025 skills matrix; two candidate assessment packs; committee minutes dated [date]; board approval extract; summary note explaining how shareholder feedback was considered and how independence was tested.

Manufacturing

Context. A privately held group with a family board and advisory committee

Adapted request. Please provide the board appointment process note, the criteria used for choosing directors and advisory committee members, and any papers showing how those criteria were applied during [period]. Please include how you considered outside views, mix of backgrounds, independence from management, and experience relevant to our operations and impacts.

Example response. Returned: governance handbook extract; director appointment memo; advisory committee succession plan; meeting note showing candidate comparison; updated criteria list; explanation that external stakeholder input was gathered through customer and workforce feedback rather than a formal shareholder process.

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

We have described the process used to identify, assess and appoint members of the board and its committees, and we explain the criteria used, including how we consider stakeholder views, diversity, independence and skills linked to the organisation’s impacts.

Context note

These disclosures show how leadership appointments are shaped, not just who was selected, so readers can see the checks used to support balanced and relevant governance decisions.

Fluctuation statement

If the approach changed during the period, we explain whether that reflected a revised appointment process, a different mix of candidates, or a change in the factors given weight in selection.

Content index entry
GRI 2-10 Nomination and selection of the highest governance body — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre

Preparation tools & forms

Professional preparation tools for GRI 2-10 — 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
01XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints, risks, evidence to check, owner and evidence pack.Get it free ↧ 02XLSData-request packRequest email, message template, response fields and sign-off structure.Get it free ↧ 03PDFLibrary CardPrintable one-page summary of this disclosure card.Get it free ↧
Assurance readiness

For each claim, check the evidence

ClaimRiskEvidence 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

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 request goes to the company secretary or board support team when the real source sits with nominations, HR, or the chair’s office, so the evidence never covers the full appointment process.
Framework language only
People ask for data using GRI-style labels instead of the organisation’s own terms, and the source team cannot map the request to its actual committee papers or policy names.
No scope set
The collector does not define whether the board only, the board plus sub-committees, or all appointment routes are in scope, so different teams send different slices of the story.
Wrong period basis
The team pulls material from the wrong reporting window or mixes current-year practice with older appointment decisions, so the evidence does not match the period being reported.
Mixed counting basis
One file counts every nomination discussion while another counts only completed appointments, which makes the dataset impossible to reconcile.
Source labels lost
Minutes, policy drafts, and tracker extracts are copied into a summary without their original file names, dates, or version tags, so no one can trace each point back to the source.
Separate groups merged
Criteria for directors, committee members, and external appointees are blended into one pool even though they are handled differently in practice, which hides important distinctions.
Missing evidence trail
The collector keeps the narrative but drops the supporting metadata, such as who provided it, when it was captured, and which document it came from, so review cannot be completed cleanly.
No sign-off record
Draft data is circulated without a named reviewer or approval step, so there is no clear trail showing that the source owner checked the facts before disclosure drafting starts.

Where judgement is often needed

Group changes during the year
If a business is bought or sold, decide whether the explanation covers the board and committees in the opening, closing, or average group, and say which population you used and why.
Different local meanings for the same criterion
Where country teams use different labels or tests for the same idea, translate them into one house view, explain the mapping, and note any local exceptions.
People close to the boundary
For directors, committee members, or candidates who sit partly inside and partly outside the scope, set a clear inclusion rule and disclose how you treated those borderline cases.
Choosing the time basis
State whether the description reflects the position at period end, the full year, or the latest nomination cycle, and keep that basis consistent or explain any change.
Stakeholder input: direct or indirect
If views from investors or other stakeholders reach the process through surveys, meetings, or intermediaries, explain whether you treat that as direct input or as filtered feedback and describe the route used.
Diversity and independence: measured or assessed
When the process uses formal scores, policy checks, or qualitative judgement, say whether the account is based on documented measures or management assessment and note any estimates.
Competence coverage across the group
If the board and committees are assessed against skills linked to the organisation’s impacts, explain whether you look at each person, the group as a whole, or both, and how gaps are identified.
Privacy limits on personal detail
Where naming or describing individuals would breach privacy rules, aggregate the information, explain the level of grouping used, and make clear what has been withheld.
Rounding and small-number effects
If you summarise counts or proportions, state the rounding basis and check that rounded figures still align with the underlying totals, especially where small numbers could distort the picture.
Examples

Illustrative examples

Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Renewable energy developer

This is a synthetic example only. Our board and committee appointments are led by the nominations committee, with the full board approving final selections and committee memberships. - We use a skills-and-experience matrix, review independence status, and check whether candidates bring knowledge relevant to our climate, safety, project delivery, finance, and stakeholder impacts. - Stakeholder input, including from shareholders, is gathered through investor meetings and periodic engagement with employee and community representatives; it informs the shortlist and final recommendation, but does not replace board judgement. - Diversity is considered through gender, nationality, age, professional background, and sector experience, with the committee explaining how each appointment helps maintain a balanced mix across the board and its committees.

Synthetic illustration for practitioner review. It shows how a reporter might describe the process used to appoint directors and committee members, and how it explains the role of stakeholder views, diversity, independence, and impact-related skills in those decisions.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food manufacturing

This is a synthetic example only. Our directors are proposed by the nominations panel, assessed by the board chair and independent non-executive directors, and then confirmed by the full board; committee seats are assigned through the same route. - Selection is based on a competency map covering food safety, supply chain resilience, labour practices, digital controls, and financial oversight, so the board has experience aligned to the company’s main impacts. - We take account of shareholder feedback from the annual meeting process and wider stakeholder views from workforce and supplier engagement, using that input to shape the candidate list and the final recommendation. - Independence is checked against our policy and applied in practice when deciding whether a candidate can serve on the board or a committee, while diversity is considered through the mix of gender, ethnicity, age, geography, and career background across the group.

Synthetic illustration for practitioner review. It demonstrates one way to explain how appointments are made, and how the company says it weighs stakeholder views, diversity, independence, and relevant capability when choosing directors and committee members.

Company reports

How companies report GRI 2-10

Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.

Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Colombia · 2024
Open report →
Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.'s 2024 Integrated Management Report provides partial information on the policy and practice of requesting external verification, mentioning this context on page 131 but without presenting a clear headline value. There is no quotable evidence found regarding the methodology or narrative for other aspects of the disclosure. Overall, the report offers limited coverage with several narrative items remaining unclear or missing.
Cogna Educação S.A.
Education Services · Brazil · 2024
Open report →
Cogna Educação S.A.’s 2024 Relato Integrado report provides coverage on the nomination and selection of the highest governance body, referencing criteria aligned with Novo Mercado listing rules on page 135. Additional mentions of governance structures and oversight appear on pages 114, 119, 153, and 161, including references to board oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities. However, there is no clear or quotable narrative detailing the methodology or further specifics of governance processes beyond these points.
LIXIL Corporation
Building Products · Japan · 2025
Open report →
LIXIL Corporation’s 2025 report provides some coverage on the nomination and selection of its highest governance body, specifically detailed on page 211 under "Composition of the Board." Additional governance-related information appears on pages 212, 215, 231, and 62, touching on governance reform, compliance mechanisms, governance performance data, and support for international initiatives, though these are not explicitly linked to the disclosure narrative. However, there is no clear or quotable evidence found regarding the methodology or narrative for the disclosure, with multiple narrative items marked as unclear and lacking page references.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Dr Ross Kurinko
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.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 2-10?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
1 free answer
Check your understanding

Scenarios to work through

A company is drafting its sustainability report and has a short note saying the board is appointed by shareholders, but nothing is said about how board candidates are screened or how committee members are chosen. The nomination committee keeps a separate paper trail, but it has not been summarised for reporting.

QWhat should the preparer include so the report covers the appointment process for the board and the committees beneath it?
Reveal model answer →

The board uses a skills matrix and also asks major investors for views before filling vacancies. The draft report mentions the skills matrix, but leaves out the investor input because the team is unsure whether to mention it as a factor or as a consultation step.

QHow should the preparer present the criteria used when outside views are part of the nomination process?
Reveal model answer →

A group says it seeks a balanced board and has a policy on independence, but the report only states that the board is 'diverse and independent' without explaining what those ideas mean in practice. The nomination committee has different rules for executive and non-executive candidates, but these are not described.

QWhat level of detail is needed on diversity and independence in the selection criteria?
Reveal model answer →

A manufacturer has a board member with deep sector knowledge, but the draft report only says candidates are chosen for 'experience and leadership'. The business has significant environmental and workforce impacts, yet the report does not explain whether those impacts shape the skills sought for board appointments.

QHow should the preparer deal with skills and experience that relate to the organisation’s main impacts?
Reveal model answer →
Framework references

Related framework references

How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.

GRI
GRI 2-10
within GRI 2: General Disclosures
Open official source →
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ

Questions this page answers

For GRI 2-10, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?+
How do I scope GRI 2-10 so I know which board and committee selection details to include?+
What should I ask HR, the company secretary or the board team for when collecting GRI 2-10 data?+
How do I document stakeholder views and stakeholder input for GRI 2-10 in a way that is usable in the disclosure?+
What evidence should go into the GRI 2-10 assurance pack?+
What are the common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 2-10?+
How do I use the GRI 2-10 workbook download to prepare the disclosure?+
What can I do with the synthetic example disclosures for GRI 2-10?+
How do I turn GRI 2-10 data into a draft narrative and content-index line?+
Is there a printable GRI 2-10 reference card I can share with colleagues?+
Where can I find real company examples of GRI 2-10 reporting on the page?+
More questions this page can help with
GRI 2-10 board and committee selection: what should I collect from the board pack and nomination process?GRI 2-10 stakeholder views in selection: how do I evidence that stakeholder input was considered?GRI 2-10 diversity decision process: what process notes should I keep for assurance?GRI 2-10 independence in selection: what supporting documents should I request?GRI 2-10 impact skills process: how do I describe the process without overclaiming?GRI 2-10 evidence pack: what are the five items and how should I file them?GRI 2-10 common reporting gaps: what should I check before I submit the draft?GRI 2-10 workbook download: how do I use the .xlsx to track ownership and evidence?GRI 2-10 draft output: how do I use the narrative starters to write the disclosure?GRI 2-10 content index line: what should I include in the index entry?GRI 2-10 synthetic example: how do I adapt the example table to my own data?GRI 2-10 plain-language explainer: how should I use it to brief HR and the board team?