Management of material topics

Please provide the GRI 3-3 information for the material topic, including impacts, actions, tracking, and stakeholder engagement.

Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the owner has to translate the ask before they can answer. It also does not say what internal records, measures, or source files are needed, so the response is likely to be incomplete or hard to verify.

Please send the evidence pack for [internal topic name] covering [period]: the main impacts we have seen or may see, whether they come from our own work or our business links, the controls or commitments in place, the actions taken, how progress is tracked, any lessons learned, and any stakeholder input that shaped the response. Include the source system, owner, and supporting files.

Define the scope of the assessment, the basis used to identify and classify impacts, the sources of evidence used, and how the organisation distinguished between effects linked to its own operations and those connected through business relationships.

Explain what the figures mean in practice by linking the identified impacts, the response measures, and the tracking results to the organisation’s material topic and its wider economic, environmental, social, and human-rights effects.

If results changed during the period, explain whether that was driven by new actions, revised tracking methods, changes in business relationships, stakeholder feedback, or a shift in the underlying impact profile.

Evidence pack to prepare

Common reporting gaps

*Synthetic illustration only.* We focus on water use and labour conditions in our own sites and in a few key suppliers, where our operations can create both harm and benefit for local communities, workers and the natural environment, including rights-related risks. We are linked to the main harms through our own production activities and, in some cases, through business partners; our policy sets minimum labour, water and discharge standards, and we use supplier clauses, site controls and worker grievance channels to prevent or reduce likely harm, while also correcting confirmed issues through remediation, supplier improvement plans and, where needed, cooperation with affected parties. - To support beneficial outcomes, we run local hiring, skills and water-efficiency programmes, and we track progress through monthly site audits, supplier scorecards and complaint logs against targets for reduced water intensity, fewer substantiated labour cases and faster closure of corrective actions. - In the year shown, 18 of 20 sites met the water target, 14 of 16 priority suppliers completed improvement plans, and 9 of 10 worker complaints were resolved within 30 days; stakeholder input from workers, community groups and buyers led us to tighten contractor oversight and add a formal review step to our operating procedures after we learned that some issues were recurring at shift-change handovers.

This synthetic example shows how a reporter can cover both adverse and beneficial effects, explain where the link to the issue comes from, and connect controls, remediation, monitoring and stakeholder input in one narrative.

*Synthetic illustration only.* Our project work can affect land access, biodiversity, safety and local livelihoods, while also creating cleaner power, jobs and training; these effects can be direct from our own activities or indirect through contractors and land partners, and some carry human-rights implications for nearby residents and workers. Our commitments require fair land engagement, safe working practices and biodiversity safeguards, and we manage the topic through early consultation, contractor rules, incident response, community liaison and restoration plans so that likely harm is avoided or reduced, confirmed harm is repaired or supported through cooperation, and positive outcomes are expanded through local procurement and training. - We assess how well these steps work using permit-condition checks, incident reviews, community feedback and quarterly management reviews, with indicators for land-access complaints, safety events, habitat restoration and local spend; our 2025 goals were to cut land-access complaints to no more than 4, keep recordable safety events below 2, restore 100 hectares and raise local spend to 35%. - Results for the year were 3 land-access complaints, 1 recordable safety event, 100 hectares restored and 34% local spend; after hearing from residents and local authorities, we changed our consultation timetable, added clearer contractor briefing notes and embedded a lessons-learned register into our operating procedures so the same issues are less likely to recur.

This synthetic example illustrates a second plausible reporter with different impacts and controls, while still showing the source of impacts, the response, monitoring, outcomes and how stakeholder views changed the approach.

A manufacturing group has identified worker safety and local air emissions as key issues. Its draft note covers accident trends and pollution controls, but it says nothing about possible future harm, any upside from cleaner processes, or effects on nearby communities.

A retailer sources most of its own-brand products through third-party suppliers. The draft says the company is “linked to labour concerns in the supply chain” but does not explain whether the issue comes from its own operations, from supplier ties, or both.

A services firm has a policy on fair treatment of contractors and a programme to reduce late payments to small suppliers. It also runs a grievance channel, but the draft only lists the policy and the channel without saying what is being done to stop harm, fix harm already caused, or build on positive effects.

A food producer says it has introduced supplier audits and worker training, but the draft gives no detail on how it checks whether those steps work. It also mentions a target to cut grievances by 20% but does not say how progress is measured or what has been learned from worker feedback.