GRI 305: Emissions 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 305-5
Reduction of GHG emissions
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
9 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how much it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions over the reporting period, compared with a chosen baseline. The emphasis is on the actual reduction achieved, not just on targets or intentions, so the report should make clear what has changed in emissions and how that reduction is being measured.
In practice, the focus is usually on whether the reported reduction covers the organisation’s full operations or only selected activities, sites, or projects. Readers should be able to see the scope of the reduction claim, the period it relates to, and whether the figure reflects a broad operational change or a narrower initiative such as a flagship site or specific programme.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reduction emissions amount | The quantified emissions cut achieved directly by the reduction actions, stated in tCO2e and tied to the reporting period. | Project calculations, emissions inventory comparison, initiative tracking sheets, and sign-off from the sustainability or carbon accounting team. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
| Offset-related reductions | Any reduction figure that comes from offsetting activity, clearly separated from operational cuts and described in plain terms. | Offset retirement records, carbon credit documentation, and the working paper showing how offset effects were treated. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
| Included gases list | The specific greenhouse gases counted in the calculation, using the same gas set throughout the working papers and disclosure. | Calculation methodology, emissions factor library, and the inventory scope note listing the gases included. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
| Base year start date | The first day of the chosen reference year used for comparison against later reductions. | Baseline methodology, board or management approval paper, and the dated source record for the selected reference period. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
| Base year end date | The final day of the chosen reference year used for comparison against later reductions. | Baseline methodology, approval paper, and the dated source record for the selected reference period. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
| Reference baseline | The benchmark emissions level or reference point used to measure change over time, stated consistently with the rest of the disclosure. | Baseline calculation file, prior-year inventory, and approval record for the selected reference point. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
| Baseline choice reason | The explanation for why this reference year or benchmark was selected, including the practical basis for that choice. | Baseline selection memo, governance approval, and any supporting analysis used to justify the choice. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
| Reduction emissions types | Which kinds of emissions are covered by the reported reductions, with the scope described clearly and consistently. | Reduction methodology, inventory boundary note, and the working paper showing which emissions categories were included. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
| Calculation methods used | The methods, assumptions and tools used to work out the reduction figure, including any models or software relied on. | Method statement, calculation workbook, assumptions log, and tool output or version record. | Sustainability / carbon accounting |
Show GRI 305-5 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- State the starting point used for comparison.
- State the date on which that comparison period ends.
- List which greenhouse gases were counted in the calculation.
- Show the emissions cut achieved directly by reduction actions.
- Explain why this comparison year or starting point was selected.
- Separate out any reductions that come from offsets.
- Describe the standards, methods, assumptions, and tools used for the calculation.
- State the date on which the comparison period begins.
- Identify which emissions categories have reported reductions.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first. Decide which emissions cuts you will count, and make sure the scope matches the reduction activity you are describing.
- Define the measurement basis in plain terms. State which greenhouse gases are included, and be clear about the types of emissions for which you are claiming reductions.
- Gather the supporting records for the reduction figure. Keep the evidence that shows the emissions fall was achieved through specific reduction actions, and separate that from any effect linked to offsets.
- Compile the numbers and the explanatory details together. Report the reduction amount in tCO2e, then add the base-year start and end dates, the baseline used, and why that reference point was chosen.
- Record the method trail. Note the standards, assumptions, calculation approach, and any tools used so the figure can be traced and repeated.
- Check the final disclosure against the source material. Confirm nothing has been left out, and explain any exclusions or changes in approach clearly before sign-off.
Request the emissions-reduction evidence pack
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What verified evidence do we have for the emissions cuts achieved through our reduction work, and what baseline, gases, and calculation approach sit behind those figures?
Use your organisation’s own language first — for example, your project, energy, facilities, fleet, or decarbonisation terms — then map the result back to the reporting disclosure. Keep the ask in business terms, not framework wording, and check the source material before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 305-5 data and evidence for reductions in GHG emissions, including the baseline, gases, methodology, and offsets.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that many operational teams do not use day to day, so the owner may not know which project files, dashboards, or calculations to pull. It also does not point to the specific workstream, system, or comparison point, which makes the response slower and less reliable.
Better request
Please send the emissions-cut evidence pack for [initiative/workstream] in [reporting period], including the reduction figure, the comparison point used, the gases included, the calculation method or tool, any offset or credit treatment, and the supporting files from your usual system.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for emissions-reduction evidence pack for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name],\n\nCould you please send over the evidence pack for the emissions cuts linked to [initiative/workstream] for [reporting period]?\n\nWe need the figures, the comparison point used, the gases included, and the method or tool behind the calculation. Please also include any notes on whether offsets or credits were treated separately, plus the key assumptions and source files.\n\nIf it is easier, you can return it in the table format below or attach your existing workbook and supporting documents. Please use your team’s own terms where possible, and we will map them to the reporting line.\n\nPlease send by [date]. We will check the source material before sign-off.\n\nThanks,\n[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the emissions-reduction pack for [reporting period] for [initiative/workstream]?\n\nPlease include the reduction figure, the baseline used, gases included, method/tool, any offset or credit treatment, and the main assumptions/source files. Use your usual team terms — we’ll map them afterwards. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant team has replaced older equipment and wants to evidence the resulting drop in energy-related emissions.
Adapted request. Please send the plant decarbonisation pack for [reporting period], covering the equipment upgrade project at [site]. Include the emissions reduction achieved in tCO2e, the plant baseline used, the gases included, the model or calculator, any offset treatment, and the source files from the energy or maintenance system.
Example response. Project: Furnace upgrade at Site A; Period: FY2025; Baseline: FY2023; Reduction achieved: 1,240 tCO2e; Gases included: CO2, CH4 and N2O; Method: internal carbon model; Offsets: none; Source files: energy dashboard export, project tracker, calculation workbook.
Transport / Logistics
Context. A fleet team has introduced route optimisation and vehicle changes and needs the supporting evidence.
Adapted request. Please share the fleet emissions-reduction pack for [reporting period] for the route optimisation and vehicle replacement work. Include the tCO2e reduction, the fleet baseline, gases included, the calculation method, any offset or credit treatment, and the telematics or fuel records used.
Example response. Workstream: Fleet efficiency programme; Period: FY2025; Baseline: FY2022/23; Reduction achieved: 860 tCO2e; Gases included: CO2 only; Method: telematics-based calculator; Offsets: reported separately; Source files: fuel card extract, telematics report, calculation sheet.
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 which gases were counted, what reference period was used, why that reference point was chosen, which reduction categories are included, and which methods, assumptions and tools were applied to calculate the figures.
Context note
Set out what the reported reductions mean in practice by distinguishing cuts achieved through the organisation’s own initiatives from any reductions linked to offsets, and by linking the numbers back to the selected baseline.
Fluctuation statement
If the figures moved materially, describe the operational or methodological drivers behind the change, such as a different reference period, a revised calculation approach, or a shift in the mix of reduction measures.
Content index entry
GRI 305-5 Reduction of GHG emissions — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 305-5. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We have shown the reported cut in emissions comes from our own reduction actions, not from a broader market movement or unrelated change. | An assurer will test whether the reduction is actually attributable to the initiatives described, and whether the calculation isolates those effects from other drivers such as activity changes, acquisitions, divestments, or estimation shifts. | Project files linking each initiative to the quantified change; before-and-after calculations; management sign-off on attribution logic; supporting operational data; any sensitivity or variance analysis showing other drivers were considered. |
| We have kept any offset-related effect separate from the operational reduction figure and labelled it clearly in the disclosure. | An assurer will check that offset effects are not mixed into the main reduction number and that the presentation does not overstate performance by blending different sources of change. | Working papers separating the operational figure from offset effects; purchase and retirement records for offsets if relevant; disclosure draft showing clear presentation; reconciliation from source data to the published number. |
| We have identified which greenhouse gases were included in the calculation and used the same set consistently across the period reported. | An assurer will probe whether the gas list is complete for the stated method, whether any gases were omitted without explanation, and whether the same scope was applied consistently. | Calculation model or inventory file listing included gases; methodology note explaining inclusions and exclusions; prior-period comparison showing consistency; review notes confirming the gas set used in the final figure. |
| We have stated the opening date of the reference period used for the comparison. | An assurer will check that the start point is clearly defined, matches the underlying records, and is the same point used in the supporting calculations. | Baseline schedule or timeline; source records showing the chosen opening date; internal approval of the reference period; cross-check between the date stated in the report and the calculation workbook. |
| We have stated the closing date of the reference period used for the comparison. | An assurer will test whether the end point is unambiguous, supported by records, and aligned with the period used in the underlying analysis. | Baseline schedule or timeline; source records showing the chosen closing date; internal approval of the reference period; cross-check between the date stated in the report and the calculation workbook. |
| We have recorded the benchmark figure used for comparison and kept the supporting calculation trail. | An assurer will look for whether the benchmark is the same one used throughout the analysis, whether it is mathematically correct, and whether it can be traced back to source data. | Baseline calculation workbook; source data extracts; version-controlled files showing the benchmark value; review evidence confirming the published benchmark matches the working papers. |
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 owner
Asking the sustainability team alone can miss the operational lead who actually tracks the savings from each initiative.
- Framework language first
Using disclosure labels instead of the business’s own terms can leave the data request unclear to the people who hold the figures.
- No boundary set
Collecting numbers without stating which sites, activities, or projects are in scope can mix unlike reductions together.
- Wrong time basis
Pulling figures from a different reporting period than the one used for the reduction work can make the result unusable.
- Mixed counting basis
Combining values built on different calculation methods or assumptions can produce a total that does not compare like with like.
- Source labels lost
Copying figures into a summary without keeping the original file names, version marks, or source tags makes later tracing difficult.
- Populations merged
Putting project savings and offset-related figures into one pool can blur two separate data sets that need to stay distinct.
- Evidence trail missing
Saving the number without the supporting notes, dates, and sign-off record leaves no clear path back to the source.
Where judgement is often needed
- Choosing the comparison year after a business change
If a takeover, sale, or other boundary shift changes the footprint, pick the comparison period that best matches the new operating set and explain why that point was used.
- Deciding what counts as a reduction versus an offset
Separate cuts achieved through operational action from any benefit claimed through offsets, and describe the split clearly so the reader can see what sits in each bucket.
- Aligning gases where local practice differs
Where sites or countries use different gas lists or calculation conventions, state the gases included in the reduction figure and explain any local differences you have normalised or left in place.
- Setting the start and end dates for the comparison period
If the comparison period does not run on a simple calendar basis, disclose the exact opening and closing dates and explain the timing choice so the reduction figure can be traced.
- Using a fixed baseline or a refreshed one
When the comparison point is updated after a major change, state the baseline used, the dates attached to it, and the reason that version gives a fairer comparison.
- Explaining the method behind the reduction figure
Set out the approach, assumptions, and tools used to calculate the reduction, especially where the result depends on estimates rather than direct measurement.
- Handling sites or teams at the edge of the reporting scope
For operations that sit partly inside and partly outside the reporting boundary, explain the rule used to include or exclude them and how that affects the reported reduction.
- Rounding and small-number treatment
If rounding changes the reported total or masks small movements, say what rounding rule was applied and keep the underlying working consistent with the published figure.
- Protecting sensitive detail through grouping
Where site-level or team-level detail cannot be shown for privacy or confidentiality reasons, aggregate the data and explain the level at which the reduction has been presented.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only. Shows how a reporter can explain the comparison year, why it was chosen, the starting point used for tracking progress, the gases included, the emissions categories covered, the amount cut through projects, the amount attributed to offsets, and the main calculation approach.
We are using 2019 as our reference point because it is the first year with complete site-level energy data after a major plant expansion, so it gives us a stable comparison for our reduction work. In this synthetic example, our reported greenhouse gas cut from efficiency projects is 18,400 tCO2e, and a further 3,100 tCO2e comes from purchased offsets; the gases covered in the calculation are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, and the figures relate to our direct operational emissions and our energy-related indirect emissions.
- The reference year starts on 1 January 2019 and ends on 31 December 2019; the baseline is 92,000 tCO2e.
- We used the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, activity data from utility bills and meter reads, emission factors from recognised public datasets, and spreadsheet-based calculation tools with internal QA checks.
Food retail · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only. Shows a different sector using a different comparison year and emissions profile, while still covering the same disclosure points: why the year was selected, the baseline, the date range, the gases counted, the emissions categories reported, the split between operational reductions and offsets, and the calculation approach.
Our synthetic disclosure uses 2021 as the comparison year because it reflects the first full year after we completed a store network reset and gives a clean starting point for tracking progress. In this example, our own actions lowered emissions by 6,750 tCO2e, while offsets account for 1,250 tCO2e; the calculation includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons, and it covers direct fuel use, refrigerant leakage and purchased electricity.
- The comparison period runs from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021, with a baseline of 28,500 tCO2e.
- We relied on the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, supplier and utility records, refrigerant logs, published emission factors, and a carbon accounting platform with documented assumptions and review steps.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.
Suggested visuals
- Reductions achieved through operational initiatives versus offsets — stacked bar: A split between emissions cuts delivered by the organisation’s own actions and any separate reductions attributed to offsetting measures.
- What sits inside the calculation — table: The gases included in the emissions calculation, alongside the basis used to define the reporting scope.
- Baseline period and reference point — table: The chosen reference level, the opening and closing dates for that reference period, and the reason it was selected.
- Reduction types reported — bar: The different categories of emissions reductions being reported, so readers can see which areas contributed to the total.
- How the result was built — table: The standards, methods, assumptions and calculation tools used to derive the reported reduction figures.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We cut 12,400 tCO2e.
Better
We cut 12,400 tCO2e from our 2020–2022 baseline, and that figure excludes offset purchases.
Best
We cut 12,400 tCO2e in 2024 from our 2020–2022 baseline, covering Scope 1 and 2 gases only, using our internal calculation method; the fall was mainly due to energy-efficiency upgrades and lower fuel use.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 305-5 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Yuanta Financial Holding Co., Ltd. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Taiwan | 2024 | Partial | p. 167 →p. 169 →p. 32 → | 2024 ESG Report → | PwC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Yuanta Financial Holding Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows Yuanta Financial Holding Co., Ltd.'s 2024 ESG Report provides detailed coverage of its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including the methodology based on emission factors and Global Warming Potential values aligned with IPCC AR5 standards (p.88). The report states a target to reduce emissions by 42% by 2030 compared to the 2020 baseline and includes data on emissions intensity per revenue and renewable energy usage trends from 2020 to 2021 (pp.88, 90). However, some narrative elements, particularly related to methodology or additional context, are missing or unclear, with no quotable evidence found for certain narrative items (no page).
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Grupo Cibest S.A. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Colombia | 2025 | Partial | p. 41 →p. 42 →p. 43 → | Management Report 2025 → | PwC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Grupo Cibest S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Grupo Cibest S.A.’s 2025 Management Report provides a reported value for direct (Scope 1) greenhouse gas emissions on page 293. The report also references Scope 3 emissions and the use of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol for inventory purposes on pages 220 and 296, with additional mentions of emissions intensity and overall GHG emissions as of December 31, 2025, on pages 298 and 334. However, there is no clear narrative or methodological explanation for these emissions data within the report, as multiple narrative items are either missing or 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
O-Bank Co., Ltd. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Taiwan | 2024 | Exact | p. 24 →p. 25 →p. 308 → | 2024 Sustainability Report → | Deloitte | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in O-Bank Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows O-Bank Co., Ltd.'s 2024 Sustainability Report provides reported values for direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) greenhouse gas emissions on page 25, along with a narrative linking energy consumption reduction to ecology conservation (p.25). The report also includes GHG emission reduction targets for all global business locations with a base year of 2022, detailed on page 171. However, some narrative items related to climate risk disclosures and methodology are only partially covered or unclear, with no headline values or quotable evidence found for certain aspects.
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 facilities team has cut electricity use and fuel burn across two sites, and the emissions team has calculated a 1,240 tCO2e drop against the chosen comparison year. Separately, the organisation also bought carbon credits, but those are tracked in a different part of the report.Should the reported reduction figure include the credit purchases, or only the drop that comes directly from the improvement work?
Model answer. Use only the decrease that can be tied to the reduction actions themselves. Keep any credit-based effect separate, because the figure here is about the emissions avoided or removed through the organisation’s own initiatives, not the effect of offsets.
Why this matters. Separate operational improvement from credit-based claims so the reported reduction reflects direct action only.
A reporting manager is preparing the narrative and has data for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, but the project team also wants to mention refrigerant gases because they were part of a cooling upgrade. The calculation file currently mixes all gases together without saying which ones were included.What should be checked and stated before the reduction figure is finalised?
Model answer. The report should make clear which greenhouse gases were included in the calculation. If the calculation covers more than one gas, the gases need to be identified so readers can understand exactly what sits behind the reduction number.
Why this matters. State the gas coverage plainly so the reduction result can be understood and traced.
An organisation changed its comparison point midway through a long-term energy programme. The team has a start date of 1 April 2019 and an end date of 31 March 2020 for the base period, but the draft report only says 'baseline year 2019/20' and gives no reason for choosing that period.What extra information is needed to make the comparison point usable for readers?
Model answer. Provide the start and end dates for the base period, identify the baseline itself, and explain why that period was chosen. The comparison point should be specific enough that someone can see what the reduction is measured against and why that reference was selected.
Why this matters. A comparison point needs dates, a clear baseline, and a reason for choosing it.
A manufacturing group reports a 9,800 tCO2e reduction from process changes and boiler upgrades. The draft methodology note says the figure was built using an internal spreadsheet, a recognised emissions method, and several assumptions about operating hours, but it does not say whether the reduction covers only direct emissions or also purchased electricity.What should the preparer include about the calculation approach and the scope of emissions covered?
Model answer. Describe the calculation approach in enough detail to show the standards, methods, assumptions and tools used, and state which types of emissions are included in the reported reduction. That way, readers can see both how the number was built and what part of the emissions profile it relates to.
Why this matters. Explain both the calculation approach and the emission types covered so the figure is transparent.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 305-5 — 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 E1
Climate Change — 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 gather for GRI 305-5 before I start drafting the disclosure?
The page says to prepare the reduction emissions amount, any offset-related reductions, the list of gases included, the base year start and end dates, the reference baseline, the reason for the baseline choice, the types of reductions, and the calculation methods used. It is set up as a practical prep list rather than a formal rulebook. ↑ section
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 305-5 in practice?
Use it as a working sequence to move from scoping and data collection through to a draft disclosure. The page is designed to help you organise the information needed for reporting, not to replace your own internal process. ↑ section
What should I check about the base year and reference baseline for GRI 305-5?
The page flags the base year start date, base year end date, reference baseline, and the reason for choosing that baseline as key datapoints. That means you should be able to explain what period you are comparing against and why that comparison point was selected. ↑ section
How do I decide which emissions reduction types to include in the GRI 305-5 data set?
The page asks you to identify the reduction emissions types and the calculation methods used, so the focus is on being clear about what kinds of reductions are being counted and how they were worked out. Keep the scope consistent with the data you can evidence. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 305-5 data collection and sign-off process?
The page is written for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can source, explain, and evidence the numbers. It does not assign roles for you, so you need to map responsibilities internally. ↑ section
What evidence should go into the GRI 305-5 evidence pack for assurance readiness?
The page says there is an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness, alongside six assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to assemble the documents and records that show how the disclosure was prepared and checked. ↑ section
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes to avoid in a GRI 305-5 disclosure?
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is intended to help you spot weak points before you finalise the disclosure. A practical use is to compare your draft against that list and close any missing items early. ↑ section
How can I use the synthetic illustrative example for GRI 305-5 without copying it into my report?
The example is there to show what a disclosure can look like, including a quantitative table where relevant. Treat it as a model for structure and presentation, not as a substitute for your own company data. ↑ section
What can I download from the GRI 305-5 page to help me prepare the disclosure?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Those downloads are meant to support preparation, checking, and drafting. ↑ section
How do I turn my GRI 305-5 data into a draft narrative and content-index line?
The page includes draft-output support with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. Use those prompts to turn the prepared data into a first-pass disclosure and then refine it internally. ↑ section
Can I reuse my GRI 305-5 data for ESRS E1 (Climate Change)?
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both contexts. 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 305-5 emissions disclosure checklist: what datapoints should I have ready before drafting?
- How do I evidence the base year and baseline choice for GRI 305-5?
- What should an assurance reviewer look for in a GRI 305-5 evidence pack?
- How do I use the GRI 305-5 workbook download to prepare the disclosure?
- What are the most common mistakes in GRI 305-5 emissions reporting?
- How do I write a draft narrative for GRI 305-5 from the data table?
- What does the GRI 305-5 page say about offset-related reductions?
- Which gases need to be listed for GRI 305-5?
- How do I document the calculation methods used for GRI 305-5?
- Where can I find real company report examples for GRI 305-5 on the page?
- How do I assign ownership for GRI 305-5 data collection and review?
- Can the GRI 305-5 data be reused for ESRS E1 climate reporting?
✓ 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.
