GRI 303: Water and Effluents 2018 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 303-3
Water withdrawal
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.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
8 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how much water it takes in from the environment over the reporting period, and to break that down in a way that shows where the water came from. The emphasis is on actual withdrawal, not just water use or efficiency, so the report should make clear the scale of water taken from different sources and how that relates to the organisation’s activities.
In practice, the focus is usually on coverage across the organisation’s operations rather than only a few headline sites. That means thinking about whether the figures include all relevant facilities, business units and geographies, and whether any parts of the business are excluded. If there are significant differences between sites or sources, the disclosure should help readers understand those patterns rather than presenting a single total with no context.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total water taken | Capture the full volume of water taken in the reporting period from every location and source in scope, before any split by source or water-stress status. | Water balance, utility invoices, abstraction logs, site meter reads, consolidated sustainability data file. | Environment / Facilities / Operations |
| Water taken by source | Capture the same overall withdrawal volume, broken out by each water source used, with the source split adding back to the total for the period. | Meter schedules, supplier statements, abstraction permits, site-level water register, consolidation workbook. | Environment / Facilities / Operations |
| Water stress total | Capture the volume of water taken from locations identified as water-stressed, covering all such areas in scope for the period. | Site location list, water-stress mapping or screening file, meter data by site, consolidation workbook. | Environment / Sustainability / Operations |
| Stress water by source | Capture the water taken from water-stressed locations, split by each source used, with the source breakdown matching the stressed-site total. | Stressed-site meter reads, supplier records, abstraction logs, source-by-site schedule, consolidation workbook. | Environment / Facilities / Operations |
| Third-party stressed water | Describe any water taken from water-stressed locations that was supplied by another party, showing which withdrawal sources were involved and how those volumes were identified. | Supplier contracts, purchased-water invoices, site water ledger, third-party supply records, methodology note. | Procurement / Environment / Facilities |
| Water by source and type | Explain the total water taken from all locations, split first by source and then by the relevant category used in the reporting file, with all parts rolling up to the overall total. | Consolidation workbook, site water register, source/category mapping, meter and invoice support, methodology note. | Environment / Sustainability / Data Management |
| Stress water by type | Explain the water taken from water-stressed locations, split by source and then by the relevant category used in the reporting file, with all parts rolling up to the stressed total. | Stressed-site consolidation file, site water register, source/category mapping, meter and invoice support, methodology note. | Environment / Sustainability / Data Management |
| Compilation notes | Set out the assumptions, boundaries, estimation methods, data sources, and any other notes needed for a reader to understand how the figures were assembled. | Methodology paper, boundary memo, estimation log, data-quality notes, sign-off pack. | Sustainability Reporting / Finance / Environment |
Show GRI 303-3 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Provide the context needed to understand how the figures were put together.
- Break out third-party water taken from stressed-water areas by where that water came from.
- State the overall amount of water withdrawn across all areas.
- Show the total water withdrawn across all areas, split by source.
- Show the total water withdrawn across all areas, with each source further split by category.
- State the overall amount of water withdrawn from stressed-water areas.
- Show the stressed-water withdrawal total, split by source.
- Show the stressed-water withdrawal total, with each source further split by category.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which sites, operations and water-taking activities are in scope, so the figures cover the full set of withdrawals you intend to report.
- Agree the classification rules before counting anything: define the water source categories you will use, and separately mark which withdrawals come from locations where water pressure is present.
- Gather the underlying records for each site and source: meter logs, supplier statements, invoices, extraction records or other source documents that support the totals and the breakdowns.
- Build the reported figures and narrative from those records: calculate the overall withdrawal total, split it by source, then repeat the same approach for the subset from water-stressed locations; also prepare the text explanation for the source-by-category breakdowns and any third-party withdrawals in stressed areas.
- Record any exclusions, assumptions or changes in method: explain what was left out, why it was left out, and whether the way you compiled the data changed from the prior period.
- Check the final disclosure against the official source before sign-off: confirm every required number and explanation is present, internally consistent and supported by evidence, with the contextual note sufficient for a reader to understand how the data were assembled.
Request the water withdrawal data from site operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How much water did we take in the reporting period, where did it come from, and how should it be split for reporting and review?
Use your organisation’s own site, utility and water-management terms first, then map them to the reporting categories. Keep the ask in operational language rather than framework wording, and check the source material before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 303-3 water withdrawal disclosure data, including totals, source breakdowns, stressed-area figures, and contextual information.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that may not match how the operations team stores or explains the data, so the owner may not know which systems, sites, or internal labels to pull from. It also does not specify the period, boundary, evidence, or how to handle third-party volumes and estimates.
Better request
Please send the site water take data for [period] for [sites in scope], with totals, the split by your normal source labels, the subset from stressed locations, any third-party volumes if you track them, and a short note on how the figures were built. Please attach the meter reads, supplier statements, logs, or system extracts used, and keep your own terms in the response so we can map them later.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for water take data for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], Could you please send the water take figures for [reporting period] for [sites / business units in scope]? Please include: - the total volume taken across the full scope; - the split by water source used in your records; - the subset linked to sites in water-stressed locations, with the same source split; - any volumes taken by third parties on our behalf or through managed services, if tracked; - the category split you use internally for each source; - a short note on how the figures were compiled, including any estimates, assumptions, or data gaps. Please return the data in the attached table and add the supporting evidence you used, such as meter reports, supplier statements, site logs, or system extracts. If your team uses different labels, please keep your own terms in the response and add a short mapping note so we can translate them for reporting. Please also check the source material before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send the water take data for [period] for [sites in scope]? Please include totals, the split by source, the part linked to water-stressed sites, any third-party volumes if tracked, and a short note on how you built the numbers. Use your own site terms and add the evidence file(s). Thanks.
Industry examples
Food and drink manufacturing
Context. Multiple plants use mains supply, boreholes, and recycled process water; one site sits in a water-stressed catchment.
Adapted request. Please send the water take figures for [period] for [Plant A, Plant B]. Include total volumes, the split by your site labels (mains, borehole, recycled process water), the amount linked to the stressed-catchment site, any contractor-managed water if tracked, and the notes on meter reads, estimates, and any missing data.
Example response. Plant A: 120,000; Plant B: 80,000; stressed site: 45,000; source split provided by site; contractor-managed water: 5,000; notes include one estimated meter read and one supplier invoice pending.
Property / facilities management
Context. A portfolio team tracks water through landlord bills, sub-meter reads, and tenant recharge records across offices and warehouses.
Adapted request. Please provide the portfolio water take data for [period] across [properties in scope]. Include the total, the split by your normal supply labels, the amount for properties in stressed areas, any tenant or managed-service volumes you track, and a short note on how landlord bills, sub-meter reads, and estimates were combined.
Example response. Offices: 32,000; warehouses: 18,000; stressed properties: 14,000; source split by mains and harvested rainwater; tenant-managed volumes separately identified; compilation note explains one site used estimated reads for two months.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain how you defined each water source, how you separated stressed from non-stressed locations, and what basis you used to compile the figures, including any supporting notes needed to understand the data.
Context note
Set out what the totals and splits mean for the business, including how much of the water taken comes from stressed areas and which sources drive the overall pattern.
Fluctuation statement
If the figures move materially, describe the main operational or sourcing reasons behind the change and note whether the shift is linked to stressed locations, source mix, or third-party supply.
Content index entry
GRI 303-3 Water withdrawal — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 303-3. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| I have shown the overall figure using the same reporting boundary as the rest of the dataset, and I can explain any exclusions or adjustments we made before publication. | The assurer will test whether the headline number is complete, whether the boundary was applied consistently, and whether any omitted sites, periods, or adjustments could change the result. | Boundary memo; site list included in scope; consolidation or inclusion/exclusion notes; working papers showing any adjustments; sign-off pack linking the published figure to source records. |
| I have broken the total down by water source type, and the split ties back to the underlying records we used to build the published number. | The assurer will probe whether the source categories were applied consistently, whether the split reconciles to the total, and whether any source was misclassified or double-counted. | Source classification schedule; extraction files from meters, invoices, or logs; reconciliation showing the sum of source lines equals the total; review notes for any reclassifications. |
| I have isolated the part of the figure linked to locations we identified as water-stressed, using the same method and cut-off rules as for the wider dataset. | The assurer will check whether the water-stress filter was applied correctly, whether the location list is current, and whether the subset is complete and not overstated. | Water-stress location register; methodology note for the stress-screening approach; site-level calculations; reconciliation between the stressed subset and the full population; approval evidence for the location list. |
| I have also split the water-stressed portion by source type, and the numbers reconcile to the stressed subset we reported. | The assurer will test whether the stressed-source split is internally consistent, whether the categories were used in the same way across sites, and whether the subtotal matches the stressed total. | Working spreadsheet with stressed-source breakdown; source coding rules; subtotal-to-total reconciliation; reviewer comments and corrections; evidence of final approval. |
| Where third parties supplied water in stressed locations, I have kept that amount separately and traced it back to the supplier or contract records. | The assurer will look for whether third-party volumes were identified correctly, whether they were separated from own operations, and whether supplier evidence supports the amount reported. | Supplier statements, contracts, or invoices; allocation method for third-party volumes; mapping of third-party amounts to stressed locations; reconciliation to the published line item. |
| I have grouped the data by source and by operational category, using a consistent coding approach across the reporting period. | The assurer will examine whether the category mapping was applied consistently, whether any site was coded differently without justification, and whether the grouped totals are mathematically sound. | Category mapping table; site-by-site coding sheet; calculation workbook; exception log for unusual cases; evidence of management review of the coding approach. |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
Common reporting gaps
- Figures are stated without the supporting narrative, or narrative without figures.
- Scope is inconsistent between the text and the numbers.
- The reporting boundary is left undefined.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Estimates and measured values are not distinguished.
- Source records for the figures are not identified.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong data owner
The team asks a sustainability lead for figures that sit with site operations, utilities, or facilities, so the numbers arrive late or incomplete.
- Framework language first
People ask for the data using disclosure labels instead of the organisation’s own meter, invoice, or plant-report terms, and the right source never recognises the request.
- Scope left vague
No one pins down which sites, business units, or water-using activities are in scope, so some withdrawals are counted twice while others are missed.
- Wrong time basis
The collection window does not match the reporting period used elsewhere, so the figures mix months from different cycles or cut off partway through a period.
- Mixed counting basis
One team reports billed volumes, another reports meter reads, and a third uses estimates, but the file does not separate them, so the totals are not built on one consistent basis.
- Source labels lost
Original tags from invoices, meter logs, or supplier files are stripped out during consolidation, making it impossible to trace each figure back to the source record.
- Populations merged
Water from normal operations and water from stressed locations are rolled into one pool before review, so the separate breakdowns cannot be rebuilt cleanly.
- No evidence trail
The working file has numbers but no attached source documents, version history, or sign-off record, so nobody can show how the figures were checked before submission.
Where judgement is often needed
- Acquisitions and disposals during the year
Choose a cut-off date and explain whether newly bought or sold sites are included for the full year or only for the period they were under your control, so the totals can be read on the same basis.
- Different local water labels and source groupings
Where country teams use different names or categories for the same supply type, map them to one internal grouping and disclose the mapping so readers can see how site-level records were combined.
- Sites on the boundary of your reporting scope
Set out how you treated facilities, joint operations, leased assets, or other borderline locations, and explain any inclusion or exclusion rule used when the operational control picture is not straightforward.
- Water-stressed locations versus other locations
State the method used to decide which withdrawals sit in stressed areas, and explain any location data gaps, proxy use, or reclassification where a site spans more than one area.
- Measured readings versus estimates
If some volumes come from meters and others from calculations or supplier figures, say which parts were estimated, what method was used, and whether any figures were later replaced with actual readings.
- Third-party supply and direct abstraction split
Explain how you separated water taken from external providers from water drawn directly from the environment, and disclose any mixed arrangements or shared systems that needed allocation rules.
- Rounding and small residual differences
Describe the rounding rule used for site figures and totals, and note any small differences between subtotals and the headline number that arise from aggregation.
- Protecting sensitive site-level information
If detailed site data could identify a facility or supplier, aggregate the figures to a higher level and explain the level of grouping used so the published numbers remain understandable without exposing sensitive detail.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food and beverage processing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows a simple way to present total withdrawals, source mix, stressed-source amounts, and the stressed-source breakdown by source category, with a brief methods note.
| Source category | All areas | Water-stressed areas | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal supply | 1,200,000 | 300,000 | 1,500,000 |
| Groundwater | 800,000 | 200,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Surface water | 500,000 | 100,000 | 600,000 |
| Third-party delivered water | 300,000 | 50,000 | 350,000 |
| Other sources | 200,000 | 50,000 | 250,000 |
Synthetic illustration only: we report how much water we took in during the year, split by where it came from and whether the source area is under water stress. We also show the same split for the stressed-source portion, plus a short note on how the figures were compiled.
Textiles manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example uses a different sector and a different source mix, while still covering the total, the source split, the stressed-source subset, the third-party stressed amount, and the methods context.
| Source category | All areas | Water-stressed areas | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal supply | 900,000 | 250,000 | 1,150,000 |
| Groundwater | 600,000 | 150,000 | 750,000 |
| Surface water | 700,000 | 100,000 | 800,000 |
| Third-party delivered water | 200,000 | 50,000 | 250,000 |
| Rainwater and other sources | 100,000 | 25,000 | 125,000 |
Synthetic illustration only: we set out our annual water take in a way that separates all sources from those in stressed catchments, and we identify the share obtained through third parties. The figures below are internally consistent and are accompanied by a short explanation of the compilation approach.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. The charts below are drawn from the illustrative figures above — swap in your own data.
Other views you could build
- Overall water taken in, split by source — stacked bar: The total volume taken from all locations, broken down by where it came from.
- Water taken from stressed areas, split by source — stacked bar: The volume taken from areas under water stress, shown by source of supply.
- Share of withdrawals from stressed areas — donut: The proportion of all water taken that comes from water-stressed areas versus other areas.
- Source mix across all withdrawals — bar: How the different supply sources contribute to total water taken overall.
- Source mix within stressed areas — bar: How the supply sources compare for water taken from water-stressed areas.
- Third-party supply in stressed areas — table: The amount taken from water-stressed areas via external suppliers, listed by source type.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We withdrew 12,400 from all areas.
Better
We withdrew 12,400 in total, split between 9,800 from direct supplies and 2,600 from other sources, and 1,900 of the total came from water-stressed areas.
Best
We withdrew 12,400 across our operations in 2025, with 9,800 from direct supplies and 2,600 from other sources; 1,900 came from water-stressed areas, and the year-on-year rise was mainly due to higher production at two sites and a dry summer.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 303-3 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd. | Semiconductors · Taiwan | 2024 | Partial | p. 260 →p. 261 →p. 138 → | 2024 CSR Report → | Deloitte | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd.'s 2024 CSR Report provides numeric data on total water withdrawal and water use, including specific figures for water sourced from groundwater, marine water, and third parties on page 244, and a total water withdrawal value on page 266. The report also includes a percentage related to water withdrawal in areas of water stress on page 244. However, the report lacks clear narrative detail on the methodology for water management disclosure, as no quotable evidence was found for this aspect.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
MOEVE, S.A. | Oil and Gas · Spain | 2025 | Partial | p. 39 →p. 59 →p. 110 → | Consolidated Management Report 2025 → | EY; BSI | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in MOEVE, S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows MOEVE, S.A.'s Consolidated Management Report 2025 provides numeric data on freshwater withdrawal in water-stressed areas over the past five years, showing values in thousands of cubic meters from 14,723 in 2021 to 12,881 in 2025 (p.60). The report also references a goal to reduce freshwater withdrawal in these areas by 20% compared with 2019 (p.58-59). However, the report lacks clear narrative on methodology or detailed explanations for these figures, and no additional numeric values or narrative items related to water disclosure were found.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited | Oil and Gas · Thailand | 2025 | Partial | p. 159 →p. 160 →p. 161 → | Integrated Sustainability Report 2025 → | EY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited’s Integrated Sustainability Report 2025 provides numeric data on total water withdrawal and water withdrawal in water-stressed areas, with figures reported on pages 159 and 190 respectively. The report also includes values for total dissolved solids and third-party water usage, as shown on page 190. However, the report lacks clear narrative explanation or methodology regarding water management practices, and some expected numeric values are not found or remain unclear.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A manufacturing group has three sites. Two draw from municipal supply and one takes from a river; the water team has monthly meter readings, but the finance pack only shows a single annual total.Do you need to keep the site-level source split, or is the annual total enough for this disclosure?
Model answer. The annual total on its own is not enough. You need the overall withdrawal figure and a breakdown showing where the water came from, so the reporting pack should retain the source split rather than collapsing everything into one number.
Why this matters. Keep both the headline volume and the source breakdown, because the disclosure is about total use and where that water came from.
A business operates in four countries, but only one plant sits in a region flagged internally as water-stressed. The preparer has the group-wide withdrawal total and a separate site report for that plant, but no combined figure for the stressed area.How should you treat the water-stressed location when compiling the figures?
Model answer. You should separate the water taken in the stressed area from the rest of the group’s withdrawals and report that subset on its own, including its own source split. The stressed-area figures are not optional add-ons; they are a distinct part of the data set.
Why this matters. Isolate the withdrawals linked to water-stressed areas and report them separately from the wider total.
A facilities manager says a cooling-water intake was arranged through a utility contract, so the company never touched the water directly. The reporting team is unsure whether to leave it out because the utility handled the physical abstraction.Should that utility-supplied volume be left out of the withdrawal figures?
Model answer. No. If the company used the water in its operations, it belongs in the withdrawal total even if a third party handled the supply route. The team should also explain, in the narrative, how third-party supplied water in stressed areas was identified and grouped by source.
Why this matters. Do not drop water just because a third party delivered it; include it if it was used by the organisation and explain the method clearly.
The preparer has totals by source and by site, but the working papers do not explain that one site used recycled process water, another used groundwater, and a third used purchased mains water. A reviewer cannot tell how the numbers were built or whether the stressed-area subset was assembled on the same basis as the group total.What extra information should be added before sign-off?
Model answer. Add a short explanation of how the figures were compiled: what sources were counted, how each source was grouped into categories, how the stressed-area subset was identified, and any assumptions or exclusions that affect the numbers. That context lets a reader understand the method behind the totals and the splits.
Why this matters. Provide enough method notes for someone else to follow how the water figures were assembled and grouped.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 303-3 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS E3
Water and Marine Resources — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
What data do I need to prepare for GRI 303-3 Water and Effluents on this page?
The page says to prepare totals for water taken, water taken by source, water stress total, stressed water by source, third-party stressed water, water by source and type, stressed water by type, and compilation notes. Use that list as your starting point before drafting the disclosure. ↑ section
How should I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 303-3?
Use it as a practical workflow to move from scoping and data collection to checking the figures and drafting the disclosure. The page is designed to help you prepare the data, not to replace your own internal process. ↑ section
Who should own the data for GRI 303-3 Water and Effluents in practice?
The page is aimed at sustainability or ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can gather, check, and explain the water data. The workbook and evidence pack are there to help those owners coordinate the process. ↑ section
What should I include in the evidence pack for GRI 303-3 assurance readiness?
The page says there is an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Use it to assemble the documents and records that back up the datapoints, methodology, and compilation notes. ↑ section
What are the six assurance claims I need to verify for GRI 303-3?
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk, and evidence prompt. Use those prompts to test whether your data, calculations, and supporting records are complete and consistent. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes on the GRI 303-3 page?
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you spot weak points before you finalise the disclosure. It is useful as a pre-submission check against missing data, unclear scope, or weak support. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 303-3 Water and Effluents?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the required datapoints, track preparation, and support assurance readiness. ↑ section
What can I do with the printable Library Card PDF for GRI 303-3?
The Download Centre also includes a printable Library Card in .pdf format. It is a handy reference for the disclosure page content when you are working through preparation or review. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 303-3 data into a draft disclosure?
The page includes a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. Use those to turn the prepared data into a first draft and then check it against your evidence pack. ↑ section
Can I use the GRI 303-3 page to compare my water data with ESRS E3?
The page notes ESRS E3 (Water and Marine Resources) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you still need to check the other framework separately. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 303-3 Water and Effluents what datapoints should I collect before drafting?
- GRI 303-3 how do I scope water taken by source and water stress data?
- GRI 303-3 what does compilation notes mean in practice?
- GRI 303-3 assurance readiness what evidence should I keep?
- GRI 303-3 how do I use the workbook and printable library card?
- GRI 303-3 common mistakes and reporting gaps to avoid
- GRI 303-3 how to write the narrative starter and content index line
- GRI 303-3 synthetic example disclosure table what should it look like
- GRI 303-3 who should own the water data collection and sign-off
- GRI 303-3 how to prepare for assurance reviewer questions
- GRI 303-3 from company reports how can I use the linked examples
- GRI 303-3 ESRS E3 data reuse what should I check
✓ 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.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
