Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks you to explain how the organisation checks and judges the performance of its highest governance body. In practice, that means describing the process used to assess whether the board or equivalent body is doing its job effectively, what aspects are reviewed, and how often the review happens. The focus is on the evaluation approach itself, not on giving a general description of the body’s responsibilities.
The practical question is whether the assessment covers the whole governance body in a meaningful way, rather than only selected members or a one-off exercise. You should make clear who carries out the evaluation, what information is used, and how the results are acted on. If the review is limited in scope, say so plainly; if it applies across the full body, explain that too.
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 2-18 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Set out what changed after the review, including any shifts in board membership or structure.
Set out what changed after the review in the way the organisation works and is run.
Explain how the board’s performance is assessed when it is overseeing how the organisation handles its economic, environmental and social impacts.
State how often these reviews take place.
State whether the review is carried out independently or not.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first: confirm which governing group you are describing and make sure the disclosure covers how its performance is assessed in relation to the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts.
2Define what counts as an evaluation for this disclosure. Use one consistent internal meaning for the review process, and separate it from other board or committee activities that are not part of the performance assessment itself.
3Gather the source material that shows how the assessment is carried out. Typical support would be board papers, committee minutes, review schedules, governance reports, or other internal records that explain the process and timing.
4Compile the required content in plain language: explain the assessment process, state whether the review is carried out independently or not, and give the review frequency. Keep the wording factual and specific.
5Record what changed as a result of the assessments. Include any follow-up actions, and make sure you cover both changes to the make-up of the governing group and changes to company practices where relevant.
6Check the draft against the official source before sign-off. Confirm that every required point is covered, nothing extra has been added, and any exclusions, changes in approach, or wording choices are clearly explained in the working papers.
Request the data
Request the board evaluation evidence pack
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How does the board review its own performance, how often does that happen, and what changed as a result?
Use your organisation’s own terms first — for example, board review, director appraisal, committee review, governance effectiveness review, or similar — then map those terms to the disclosure wording before sign-off.
Weak request
Please send the GRI 2-18 evidence showing how the highest governance body is evaluated, whether the evaluations are independent, how often they occur, and what actions were taken.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only, so the owner has to translate it before they can respond. It also does not say which internal records to pull, what period to cover, or what counts as useful evidence for the report.
Better request
Please send the board or committee review pack for [period] that shows how governance performance is checked, whether the review is internal or independent, how often it happens, and what follow-up actions were agreed, including any changes to board or committee membership and any updates to governance processes. Please include the source document and the wording we should use in the report, using your normal internal terms.
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 defines the board review process, whether the assessment is carried out internally or by an outside party, and how often it is performed.
Context note
Set out what the figures show about how the board is checked on its oversight of the organisation’s economic, environmental and social impacts, and what kinds of follow-up actions result.
Fluctuation statement
If the review method, timing, or follow-up actions changed during the period, briefly note what changed and why the pattern differs from earlier reporting.
Content index entry
GRI 2-18 Evaluation of the performance of the highest governance body — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 2-18 — 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
Asking the wrong owner
The request goes to a board secretary or sustainability lead when the actual evidence sits with the chair, committee chairs, or the team that runs the review process.
Using framework language in the ask
People are asked for a governance-body evaluation in reporting terms, so they return the wrong pack instead of the organisation’s own review notes, board papers, or appraisal records.
Leaving the scope vague
The team does not pin down which directors, committees, or review cycle are in scope, so different contributors send data for different populations.
Mixing the time basis
One source uses the reporting year, another uses the calendar year, and the final dataset blends them without a clear cut-off date.
Combining separate populations
Results for the board and its committees are merged into one file even though the underlying review process, frequency, or follow-up actions differ.
Losing the original source labels
Extracted figures or notes are copied into a working sheet without the source document name, version, or line reference, so the trail back to the original record is lost.
Confusing the counting basis
The team mixes counts of review events, counts of people reviewed, and counts of actions taken, which makes the dataset internally inconsistent.
Dropping the evidence trail
The file contains the answer but not the supporting metadata, such as who supplied it, when it was pulled, and which version was checked.
Skipping sign-off
Draft data is passed straight into reporting without a named reviewer confirming that the source, scope, and interpretation all match the organisation’s records.
Where judgement is often needed
What counts as the review process
Set out the actual steps your board and committee members use to assess how well they oversee the organisation’s impacts on people, planet and the economy, and explain any material differences between entities or countries in how that review is run.
Independent or internal review
State whether the assessment is carried out by people outside the board or by the board itself, and if the approach changes across parts of the group, explain the basis for the split.
How often the review happens
Choose a clear timing basis for the reporting period, such as annual or more frequent cycles, and disclose it consistently if the cadence differs by business unit, country or committee.
What to do when the group changes mid-year
If acquisitions, disposals or restructurings change which directors or committees sit within scope, explain the cut-off used and whether the reported process reflects the opening, closing or average structure for the period.
Different local meanings for the same practice
Where the same governance practice is described differently in different jurisdictions, use the organisation’s own operating language and explain how you mapped those local terms into one group-wide description.
Which follow-up actions to include
Describe the actions that came out of the review, making clear whether you are covering only changes to board membership and committee structure or also wider changes to policies, controls and working practices.
Using estimates versus direct records
If the review information is not fully captured in one system, explain any estimates, judgement-based summaries or manual consolidation used, and note where the figures or descriptions were taken from.
Rounding and small-number handling
Apply one rounding approach across the disclosure, and if rounding or suppression changes the visible totals, explain the method so readers can reconcile the narrative with the underlying counts.
Protecting personal data in the write-up
When the review involves named individuals or small groups, aggregate or anonymise the information enough to avoid identifying people, while still showing the nature, timing and outcome of the evaluation.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Manufacturing
*Synthetic illustration only.* Each year, our board and committee chairs are reviewed through an external board-effectiveness process led by an independent adviser, with the full board receiving a summary of findings and a follow-up action plan. - The review looks at how well the board oversees our economic, environmental and social impact, using interviews, document checks and a skills-gap assessment. - The assessment is independent and is carried out annually; in the latest cycle, 9 of 11 directors were judged to meet expectations, and 2 were asked to complete targeted development. - In response, we refreshed one committee seat, added a director with climate-risk experience, and changed our operating routines by tightening agenda time for impact oversight, introducing quarterly progress tracking, and updating management reporting templates.
Illustrative only: shows an independent annual board review, the kinds of evidence used, and how findings can lead to both board refreshment and changes in day-to-day management routines.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Healthcare services
*Synthetic illustration only.* Our group uses a mixed review process for the board: every second year an outside facilitator runs the assessment, and in the intervening year the company secretary coordinates an internal check with input from directors and senior leaders. - The review considers how the board is steering our economic, environmental and social impact, and the latest cycle covered attendance, decision quality, committee papers and follow-through on prior actions. - The external cycle is independent; the internal cycle is not. Overall evaluations are completed annually, with the most recent round showing 7 of 8 directors contributing fully and 1 needing additional support on sustainability oversight. - After the review, we changed board composition by appointing one non-executive director with public-health expertise, and we adjusted organisational practice by adding a standing impact review to monthly executive meetings and revising escalation routes for material issues.
Illustrative only: shows a blended review model, distinguishes independent from internal assessment, and links results to both board changes and operational practice changes.
Company reports
How companies report GRI 2-18
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
Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.'s 2024 Integrated Management Report does not provide any quotable evidence related to the disclosure in question. There are no narrative items or datapoints found in the report that address this specific disclosure. Consequently, the report lacks coverage or clarity on this topic.
Acer Incorporated
Technology Hardware and Equipment · Taiwan · 2024
Acer Incorporated’s 2024 Sustainability Report provides clear evidence that the highest governance body oversees the management of impacts, with detailed references to corporate governance roles and delegation on page 145. The report also states that the Audit and Remuneration Committees are composed entirely of independent directors, as noted on page 33. However, while some communication channels and their frequencies are mentioned on page 22, there is no headline value or comprehensive data on stakeholder engagement, and no additional narrative items were found elsewhere in the report.
Berli Jucker Public Company Limited
Food and Consumer Staples Retailing · Thailand · 2024
Berli Jucker Public Company Limited’s Sustainability Report 2024 provides specific information on the role and oversight responsibilities of the highest governance body (p.201) and details the report’s coverage period from 1 January to 31 December 2024 (p.200). The report includes some context on internal and third-party evaluations aligned with the Amfori Business Social Compliance Initiative, though it lacks headline values for these assessments (p.87). However, there is no clear evidence regarding certain narrative items such as policies on gifts and entertainment beyond partial context (p.29), and some expected disclosures are not found in the report.
✓ 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.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 2-18?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
The board’s annual review is run by the company secretary using a questionnaire completed by directors and committee chairs. The draft note says the review looks at how well the board oversees the business’s effects on the economy, the environment and people, but it does not say whether anyone outside the board helped.
QWhat should you check before finalising the disclosure about how the review is carried out?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑You should explain the review process in plain terms and make clear whether it is carried out with outside independence or entirely within the organisation. If the process is internal, say so; if an external party is involved, say that the review is independent. The description should focus on how the board’s performance is assessed in relation to oversight of the organisation’s impacts.
Why this matters · Readers need enough detail to understand the review method and whether it is independent or internal.
A preparer has confirmed that the directors are assessed every two years, but the draft only says the review is “regular” and gives no timing. The same draft also mentions that the audit committee feeds into the process, but not how often the assessment happens.
QHow should you handle the timing information for the evaluation?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑State the actual cadence of the assessment, such as annual or every two years, rather than using a vague label like regular. The frequency belongs in the disclosure because users need to know how often the board’s performance is reviewed.
Why this matters · The timing of the assessment should be stated clearly and specifically.
After the latest review, two directors were not re-nominated and the board introduced a new sustainability training session for all committee members. The draft note mentions the training but leaves out the board changes, even though the review led to both actions.
QWhat actions should be included when describing the response to the evaluation?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Include the follow-up actions that came out of the review, both the change in board membership and the change in working practices. In this case, that means explaining the non-reappointment of the two directors and the new training session, because both are responses to the assessment.
Why this matters · Describe the concrete changes that followed the review, including any changes to board makeup and to how the organisation works.
The governance team has a short paragraph saying the board review led to a revised agenda format and a new skills matrix for future appointments. However, the paragraph does not link those changes back to the evaluation, and it also omits whether the review covered the board’s oversight of impacts on people, the environment and the economy.
QWhat should the preparer make sure is clear in the final wording?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Make the link between the evaluation and the resulting actions explicit, and keep the focus on the board’s oversight of the organisation’s impacts. The final wording should show that the revised agenda format and the new skills matrix were responses to the review, not unrelated governance updates.
Why this matters · The disclosure should connect the evaluation to the actions taken and keep the subject matter tied to oversight of impacts.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
Organizational details → Guide ✓Nomination and selection of the highest governance body → Guide ✓Chair of the highest governance body → Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in overseeing the management of impacts → Guide ✓Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts → Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in sustainability reporting → Guide ✓Show all 29 related disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
For GRI 2-18, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare five datapoints: the board review process, whether the review was independent, when the review happened, what follow-up actions were taken, and what practice changes resulted. Use those as your starting data set before you write the narrative.
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 2-18?+−
Use it as a practical workflow to move from scoping the disclosure to collecting evidence and drafting the output. The page is designed to help you prepare the disclosure in a structured way rather than leaving it as a free-text exercise.
Who should own the GRI 2-18 data collection and sign-off in practice?+−
The page does not assign roles, but it is written for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers to work from the same pack. In practice, you would use the page to coordinate ownership of the board review data, evidence pack, and draft output.
What evidence should I keep for GRI 2-18 so the disclosure is assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness, alongside four assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to show how each datapoint was sourced and checked before the disclosure is finalised.
What are the four assurance claims in the GRI 2-18 page and how do I use them?+−
The page says there are four claims to verify, each with a claim, risk, and evidence angle. Use them as a checklist to test whether the disclosure is supported, where the weak points are, and what evidence you need to retain.
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for GRI 2-18?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you avoid weak or incomplete disclosures. Use that section as a pre-submission check so you can spot missing datapoints, thin evidence, or unclear wording before drafting is final.
How do I turn the GRI 2-18 data into a draft disclosure?+−
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a practical way to turn the prepared data into a first draft rather than starting from a blank page.
Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on the GRI 2-18 page as a template?+−
Yes, as an illustrative guide only. The page includes synthetic example disclosures, including a quantitative table, so you can see how the information might be presented, but you should adapt it to your own data and evidence.
How should I use the workbook download for GRI 2-18?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the preparation steps, evidence, and assurance checks in one place before you draft the disclosure.
What is the printable Library Card PDF for GRI 2-18 used for?+−
The Download Centre also provides a printable Library Card in PDF format. It is there as a practical companion to the page content, so you can keep the key preparation and assurance points to hand while working on the disclosure.
Does the GRI 2-18 page show real published report examples I can compare against?+−
Yes. The page includes a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed, which you can use as a reference point when shaping your own draft.
More questions this page can help with
GRI 2-18 board review process: what should I ask the board secretary or HR team for?GRI 2-18 review independence status: how do I evidence whether the review was independent?GRI 2-18 review timing: what date range or period should I capture?GRI 2-18 follow-up actions: how do I describe actions taken after the review?GRI 2-18 practice changes: what counts as a practice change for the disclosure draft?GRI 2-18 evidence pack: what are the five items I need to file for assurance?GRI 2-18 common mistakes: what are the most likely gaps in a first draft?GRI 2-18 workbook: how do I use the xlsx to track claims, evidence and draft text?GRI 2-18 narrative starters: what wording prompts does the page give for the draft?GRI 2-18 content index line: how do I build the index entry from the page?GRI 2-18 synthetic example table: how should I read the quantitative example without copying it?GRI 2-18 company report links: how do I use the linked examples without treating them as a template?
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 2-18 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 →