Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to identify and describe where its activities, products, or services are causing or contributing to impacts on biodiversity. In practice, the report should make clear what those impacts are, where they occur, and how the organisation has determined that they are significant enough to disclose. The emphasis is on being specific about the nature of the impact rather than giving a general statement of commitment to nature.
The practical focus is usually on coverage across the organisation’s relevant operations, not just a few flagship sites or headline projects. A useful report will show whether the organisation has looked across its full footprint, including upstream and downstream where relevant, and explain any exclusions or gaps. The aim is to give readers a clear picture of the main biodiversity impacts the organisation has identified and the basis for that identification.
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 101-4 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Set out how you identified which sites matter most for biodiversity impacts, including both current and possible effects.
Set out how you identified which products and services in the supply chain matter most for biodiversity impacts, including both current and possible effects.
How to prepare it
1Set the boundary for the explanation first: decide which locations and which goods or services in your value chain are in scope for the biodiversity assessment.
2Define the basis for judging significance, using a consistent internal method so you can explain why some locations or value-chain items were treated as more important than others.
3Gather the supporting material that shows how the judgement was made, such as assessment notes, screening outputs, maps, supplier information, or other internal records used in the decision.
4Write the disclosure as a clear explanation of the process and outcome, showing how the organisation identified the sites and value-chain products or services with the greatest actual or likely biodiversity impacts.
5Record any exclusions, boundary changes, or assumptions that affected the scope or the result, so the reader can see what was left out and why.
6Check the final wording against the official source and your evidence pack to confirm the explanation is complete, consistent, and aligned with the underlying requirement.
Request the data
Request the site and supply-chain impact screening evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How did we decide which sites and which products or services in the supply chain have the most significant actual and potential effects on biodiversity?
Use your own operational terms first, then map them to the biodiversity reporting request. For example, if your teams talk about locations, assets, facilities, product lines, suppliers, or sourcing routes, use those labels in the ask and in the response. Keep the request in business language, then translate it for reporting review.
Weak request
Please provide the biodiversity impacts identification data for GRI 101-4.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the recipient has to translate the ask before they can act. It does not say which internal records are needed, what period to cover, what method was used, or what evidence should come back. That makes it harder to trace the decision and harder to reuse the material for reporting review.
Better request
Please send the working papers or extracts for [reporting period] that show how your team decided which sites and which products or services in the supply chain were treated as the highest biodiversity priorities. Include the items reviewed, the screening or scoring method, the source system or file, the final priority list, and the reviewer or approver. Use your own site, asset, product, supplier, or route names rather than reporting 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 the basis used to decide which sites and which supply-chain products or services were treated as the most important for biodiversity, including the criteria, data sources and any judgement applied.
Context note
Set out what the identified sites and supply-chain areas mean in practice, namely where the organisation believes its biggest current and possible biodiversity effects are concentrated.
Fluctuation statement
If the set of priority sites or supply-chain items changed from the previous period, explain whether that was due to a change in operations, better information, or a revised assessment approach.
Content index entry
GRI 101-4 Identification of biodiversity impacts — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 101-4 — 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 request goes to a team that only sees one part of the business, so the people who actually choose sites or suppliers with the biggest nature effects never provide the input.
Framework language instead of business language
The data call asks for the answer in reporting jargon, and the operational team cannot map it back to how they talk about locations, products, or supply routes.
Scope not pinned down
The team starts collecting examples without first fixing which sites, which product lines, and which supply-chain activities are in scope, so the dataset shifts as people interpret it differently.
Wrong period or timing basis
Inputs are pulled from different reporting windows or cut-off dates, which means the final set does not reflect one consistent point in time or period.
Mixed counting basis
Some teams count individual sites while others count business units or product families, so the figures cannot be compared or combined cleanly.
Original source labels lost
When notes are copied into a tracker, the site names, product codes, or supplier references from the source evidence are stripped out, making later trace-back difficult.
Populations merged too early
Sites, products, and supply-chain items that should stay separate are rolled into one list, which hides where the biggest nature effects sit.
Evidence details missing
The file contains the conclusion but not the supporting metadata such as source date, owner, or document reference, so the basis for the selection cannot be checked.
No sign-off trail
The draft list is circulated without a recorded review by the people who know the operations, leaving no clear record of who agreed the final selection.
Where judgement is often needed
Acquisitions and disposals during the year
Use a clear cut-off for bought-in or sold-off sites and explain whether you assess them from the date control starts or ends, so readers can see why some locations are included or left out.
Different local meanings for the same habitat or species term
Where country teams use different labels or legal definitions, pick one practical internal rule for comparing sites and say how you translated local descriptions into a single group view.
Sites or products sitting on the boundary of the review
Decide in advance how to treat locations, suppliers, or product lines that are partly inside and partly outside the review, and disclose the rule used for borderline cases.
Choosing the timing basis for the assessment
State whether the assessment reflects a point in time, a full year, or another period, and explain any timing choice that affects which impacts are counted as most significant.
Measured information versus informed estimates
If field data are incomplete, use the best available estimate, label it as such, and explain where direct observation was available and where judgement filled the gaps.
Rounding and ranking close calls
When scores or counts are very close, apply one consistent rounding rule and explain how ties or near-ties were resolved so the final shortlist is reproducible.
Protecting sensitive location data
If exact coordinates or site names could expose sensitive information, group the data at a higher level and explain the aggregation method while keeping the impact assessment understandable.
Mergers, closures, and reorganised operations
When the operating footprint changes through restructuring, say which version of the business was used for the review and how you avoided double counting or missing impacts.
Shared facilities and mixed-use sites
For assets used by more than one business line or tenant, explain how you split responsibility and how you decided which part of the site drove the biodiversity assessment.
Supply-chain products with incomplete traceability
Where upstream traceability is partial, describe the proxy used to identify the most material products or services and note the limits of that approach.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food manufacturing
We first mapped where our own operations and upstream supply chain could create the greatest pressure on nature, then ranked those locations and product lines using a simple materiality screen. In practice, we focused on sites and ingredients where land conversion risk, water stress, and proximity to sensitive habitats were highest, and we checked which suppliers and product groups contributed most to those pressures. - Our site review covered 18 facilities; 5 were flagged as the most significant because they sat in water-stressed catchments or near protected habitats. - For the supply chain, we assessed 24 product and ingredient groups; 6 were prioritised because they accounted for 71% of our purchased volume and were linked to the highest nature-related risks in sourcing regions.
Synthetic illustration only. Shows a plain-language explanation of how the company identified the most important sites and supply-chain products/services for biodiversity-related impacts, using internally consistent figures.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Apparel retail
We used a risk-based review to decide which parts of our business and supply chain needed the closest biodiversity focus. That review combined location data, sourcing concentration, and known sensitivity of the surrounding environment so we could separate lower-risk activities from the places and product categories most likely to affect nature. - Of 31 distribution, office, and owned retail sites, 4 were treated as the key locations because they were in or beside ecologically sensitive areas. - In our supply chain, we screened 19 product and service categories; 5 were treated as the main priorities because they represented 64% of spend and were associated with the strongest potential effects on habitats and species.
Synthetic illustration only. Shows a different sector using a different explanation, while still describing how the company identified the sites and supply-chain products/services with the most significant actual and potential biodiversity impacts.
How companies report GRI 101-4 in practice
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
MOEVE, S.A.
Oil and Gas · Spain · 2025
Moeve, S.A.'s 2025 Consolidated Management Report provides evidence on significant actual and potential negative impacts related to suppliers, as noted on page 126. The report also references impacts on local communities and sustainable supply chain management on pages 155 and 164, including evaluation of new suppliers according to environmental criteria. However, the extent of detailed quantitative data or comprehensive impact assessments remains unclear from the provided excerpts.
Engie Brasil Energia S.A.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil · 2025
Engie Brasil Energia S.A.'s 2025 Sustainability Report includes a narrative on supply chain issues, specifically mentioning non-compliance with governance standards and regulations, as well as a lack of diligence regarding DUE 1 rules (p.170). However, the report does not provide detailed quantitative data or further explanation on these points, leaving the extent and impact of these issues unclear. Additional information on how these governance concerns are addressed or mitigated is notably missing.
Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.
Home Building · Japan · 2025
Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.'s Sustainability Report 2025 includes a narrative on significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities, referencing supplier social assessment and new suppliers on page 537. This is the strongest covered datapoint related to the disclosure. However, the report does not provide further detailed data or metrics on this topic, leaving other aspects of the disclosure unclear or missing.
✓ 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 101-4?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 group with farms, warehouses and a small manufacturing site has mapped all locations, but only some places sit near sensitive habitats. The team also buys several raw materials and wants to know which products and services in the supply chain need deeper review.
QHow should the preparer explain how the organisation worked out which sites and which supply-chain products or services have the biggest current and possible effects on biodiversity?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The explanation should describe the method used to sort the organisation’s own locations and its supply-chain products or services by the size of their current and possible biodiversity effects. It should make clear what factors were used, how the comparison was done, and why the selected sites and supply-chain items were judged to matter most.
Why this matters · Give a plain account of the approach used to identify the most important biodiversity impacts across both owned locations and supply-chain activities.
A preparer has a list of ten sites, but the review only covered three locations because those were the ones with recent complaints. The remaining sites were not assessed, even though two are close to watercourses and one is in a protected area buffer zone.
QCan the organisation present this as its basis for choosing the most significant biodiversity impacts?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑No. The explanation needs to cover the full set of relevant sites and the relevant supply-chain products or services, not just the places that were easiest to review or that already had complaints. If some locations were screened out, the organisation should be able to show the logic used to do that and why the final set still captures the most important actual and possible effects.
Why this matters · The selection method should be broad enough to support a credible ranking of impacts, not a narrow sample chosen for convenience.
A business has assessed its own operations carefully, but its biodiversity review says nothing about purchased goods, outsourced transport or other services. The team argues that the supply chain is too complex to explain in a short report.
QWhat should the preparer do before finalising the disclosure?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The preparer should include how the organisation identified which supply-chain products and services have the most significant actual and possible biodiversity effects, alongside the site-based assessment. If the supply chain was narrowed to certain categories, the explanation should say how those categories were chosen and why they were treated as the most relevant.
Why this matters · Do not limit the explanation to owned sites; include the supply chain where it is part of the impact-screening approach.
A company used a scoring matrix that combined habitat sensitivity, scale of land use, and whether impacts were already happening or could happen later. The draft report says only that 'high-risk sites were selected' and gives no further detail.
QIs that enough for the disclosure, or does the explanation need more substance?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑That is not enough. The organisation should explain the actual method it used to decide which sites and which supply-chain products or services had the greatest current and possible biodiversity effects. A useful explanation would set out the main criteria, how they were applied, and how they led to the final shortlist, rather than using a bare label such as 'high-risk'.
Why this matters · The reader should be able to follow the decision process, not just see the final label applied to the chosen sites or supply-chain items.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
Policies to halt and reverse biodiversity loss → Guide ✓Management of biodiversity impacts → Guide ✓Access and benefit-sharing → Guide ✓Locations with biodiversity impacts → Guide ✓Direct drivers of biodiversity loss → Guide ✓Changes to the state of biodiversity → Guide ✓Show all 7 related disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
How do I use the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity page to prepare a draft disclosure from scratch?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer, then follow the step-by-step preparation section and the draft-output section. The page is designed to help you move from selecting the biodiversity impact data point through to a draft narrative, visual ideas and a content-index line.
What data do I need to collect for GRI 101-4 Biodiversity before I start drafting?+−
The page says the key datapoint to prepare is biodiversity impact selection. Use that as the starting point for gathering the information you need, then check the example disclosures and the workbook to see how the data is turned into a draft.
Who should own the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity data and sign-off in practice?+−
The page does not assign roles, but it is set up for a sustainability or ESG manager to coordinate with the relevant data owner and assurance reviewer. Use the preparation steps and evidence pack to agree who collects the data, who checks it, and who signs off the final draft.
What methodology decisions do I need to make for GRI 101-4 Biodiversity impact selection?+−
The page points you to a step-by-step preparation section, so the practical focus is on deciding how you will select and describe the biodiversity impacts you are reporting on. Use the plain-language explainer and the synthetic examples to keep the approach consistent and easy to evidence.
What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 101-4 Biodiversity assurance?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness. Build your pack around those items and use the five assurance claims to check that each claim has a clear risk and supporting evidence.
How do I use the five assurance claims on the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity page?+−
Use them as a checklist to test whether your draft is supportable before it goes to assurance. For each claim, make sure you can point to the related risk and the evidence you would show a reviewer.
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for GRI 101-4 Biodiversity, and how do I avoid them?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can spot weak points before drafting. A practical way to use it is to compare your draft against those gaps, then tighten the scope, evidence and wording where needed.
How do I use the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity workbook and printable library card?+−
The Download Centre provides a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise preparation and assurance checks, and the library card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing.
Can I use the synthetic example disclosures on the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity page as a template for my own draft?+−
Yes, as a drafting aid only. The examples are synthetic and internally consistent, so they are useful for seeing how the data table, narrative starters and content-index line can be put together, but they are not a substitute for your own company data.
How do I turn my GRI 101-4 Biodiversity data into a draft narrative and content-index line?+−
Use the draft-output section, which gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. That section is intended to help you convert prepared data into a report-ready draft without having to start from a blank page.
Is the GRI 101-4 Biodiversity page useful if I also need ESRS E4 biodiversity data?+−
The page notes ESRS E4 (Biodiversity and Ecosystems) as the closest correspondence, so it can help you think about reuse of data across frameworks. It does not say the requirements are identical, so treat it as a practical cross-reference rather than a one-to-one mapping.
More questions this page can help with
GRI 101-4 Biodiversity disclosure checklist for ESG managersHow to prepare GRI 101-4 Biodiversity impact selection evidence packGRI 101-4 Biodiversity assurance claims and evidence packGRI 101-4 Biodiversity workbook download how to useGRI 101-4 Biodiversity common reporting mistakesGRI 101-4 Biodiversity draft narrative starters and content index lineGRI 101-4 Biodiversity synthetic example disclosure tableGRI 101-4 Biodiversity from company reports examplesESRS E4 biodiversity data reuse from GRI 101-4GRI 101-4 Biodiversity plain language explainerGRI 101-4 Biodiversity assurance ready checklistGRI 101-4 Biodiversity who should own the data
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63171 pages with page-level citations
272 practitioner guides
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 101-4 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 →