GRI 308: Supplier Environmental Assessment 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 308-1
New suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria
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
1 datapoints ↓
5 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to say how many new suppliers were checked against environmental criteria before or when they were brought on board, and to present that information in a way that shows the scale of that screening. The focus is on whether environmental checks are part of supplier onboarding, rather than on describing a few isolated examples or only the most visible suppliers.
In practice, the main question is coverage: did the organisation apply environmental screening across the relevant supplier base, or only in selected areas such as major contracts, flagship sites, or a limited pilot? The reporting should make clear the extent of the screening and the basis used to identify which new suppliers were included.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier screening rate | Capture the share of newly onboarded suppliers that were checked against environmental criteria during the reporting period, using the same supplier population and screening rule set used by procurement or supplier management. | Supplier onboarding records, screening logs, procurement workflow outputs, and the environmental criteria checklist used for review. | Procurement / Supplier management |
Show GRI 308-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Check what share of newly onboarded suppliers was assessed against environmental criteria.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which supplier onboarding activity is in scope for the period you are reporting, and make sure the same boundary is used consistently throughout the disclosure.
- Agree what counts as a screened new supplier: define the population you will include, the environmental checks that qualify, and any internal rules used to classify a supplier as new for this metric.
- Gather the underlying records: pull together the supplier list, screening logs, approval files, or other source documents that show which new suppliers were assessed against environmental factors.
- Calculate the percentage: count the new suppliers that met the environmental screening test, divide by the total number of new suppliers in scope, and present the result as a percentage.
- Record any exclusions or changes: explain any suppliers left out, any changes to the method or data source, and any assumptions needed to produce the figure so the result can be traced back clearly.
- Check the final disclosure against the source material: confirm the number, wording, and supporting evidence align with the official reporting basis before sign-off.
Request the supplier screening data from Procurement
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What share of newly onboarded suppliers had an environmental check recorded during the period?
Use your organisation’s own supplier and onboarding terms first, then map them to the reporting wording. For example, if your team talks about vendor setup, due diligence, or onboarding checks, use those terms in the request and only translate them afterwards for reporting. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 308-1 evidence for the percentage of new suppliers screened using environmental criteria.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only, so the owner may not know which internal records to pull, how to define the population, or which system to use. It also does not say what period, scope, or counting rule to apply, so the result may not be usable.
Better request
Please send the supplier onboarding extract for [period] showing all new suppliers added in scope, which of them had an environmental check recorded, and the source system used. Please include your team’s own terms for onboarding and screening, plus any exclusions or duplicates.
Formal email template
Subject: Data request — supplier environmental screening for [period] Hi [name], I’m preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the supplier onboarding data for [period]. Please send a table showing: - the number of new suppliers added in the period; - how many of those had an environmental check recorded; - the source system or file used; - any notes on exclusions, duplicates, or reactivations. Please use your team’s own terms for supplier onboarding and screening, and include a short note explaining how those terms map to the reporting view. If possible, please also attach or link the supporting record extract or process evidence. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the supplier onboarding data for [period]? I need the count of new suppliers and how many had an environmental check recorded, plus the source system and any exclusions. Please use your team’s own terms and add a short note on how they map to the reporting view. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant buys raw materials and packaging from a central supplier master managed by procurement.
Adapted request. Please share the supplier master extract for [period] showing all newly approved suppliers for the plants in scope, and which of those had an environmental review recorded during onboarding. Please include the approval workflow name, the system used, and any reactivated suppliers excluded from the count.
Example response. Table returned with 42 new suppliers in scope; 31 had an environmental review recorded; 11 did not. Supporting notes explain that the team uses 'supplier approval' for onboarding and 'sustainability review' for the environmental check.
Retail / Wholesale
Context. A buying team onboards new product and logistics suppliers through a vendor setup workflow.
Adapted request. Please provide the vendor setup report for [period] covering all new suppliers added to the approved list, and show which ones completed the sustainability screening step. Please include the workflow stage names, the system extract, and any duplicates removed before counting.
Example response. Table returned with 85 new vendors; 68 completed the sustainability screening step; 17 did not. The notes map the internal term 'vendor setup' to the reporting population of new suppliers.
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
State how you define a new supplier, what environmental checks count as screening, and whether the figure covers all new suppliers or only those in scope for the reporting period.
Context note
Explain what the percentage says about how consistently environmental checks are built into supplier onboarding, and whether the result suggests broad coverage or only partial application.
Fluctuation statement
If the figure moved materially, note whether the change came from a wider onboarding pool, a revised screening process, better data capture, or a shift in which suppliers were brought into scope.
Content index entry
GRI 308-1 New suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 308-1. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| I used our supplier onboarding records to calculate the coverage figure, and I kept the same cut-off date and population definition throughout the working papers. | The assurer will test whether the denominator was defined consistently, whether any suppliers were left out without a clear reason, and whether the cut-off date could have changed the result. | Supplier master list, onboarding logs, calculation workbook, notes showing the reporting cut-off, and any exclusions or adjustments approved before publication. |
| I treated only newly onboarded suppliers in the period as in scope, and I documented any cases where a supplier was not assessed because the relevant data were missing or the process had not been completed. | The assurer will probe whether the scope was applied consistently, whether exceptions were handled in a controlled way, and whether missing data could bias the percentage. | Scope memo, exception log, missing-data tracker, onboarding workflow records, and evidence of management review of any exclusions. |
| I relied on the screening result recorded in the procurement system, then checked a sample of supplier files against the underlying assessment evidence before sign-off. | The assurer will look for weak source data, mismatches between system records and underlying files, and whether the reported figure is supported by traceable evidence. | System extracts, supplier assessment forms, sample file reviews, version-controlled calculation sheets, and sign-off records from the preparer and reviewer. |
| Before publication, I reconciled the draft figure to the source population, re-ran the calculation after any late changes, and resolved the differences I found. | The assurer will test whether the final number was updated for late additions or removals, whether the arithmetic is correct, and whether reconciliation was performed independently enough to catch errors. | Reconciliation notes, recalculation evidence, change log for late supplier movements, review comments, and final approval documentation. |
| I kept evidence for the screening decisions, the calculation steps, and the review checks so that the published figure can be traced back from the report to the original records. | The assurer will probe whether the audit trail is complete, whether the evidence is retained in a retrievable form, and whether each step from source to disclosure is supported. | Document retention register, audit trail from report to source records, calculation workbook with version history, reviewer sign-off, and archived supporting files. |
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
- A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).
- The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.
- Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.
- One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.
- Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.
- Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner
The request goes to a team that does not hold the supplier onboarding or screening records, so the answer is built from guesswork instead of the source system.
- Framework language first
People ask for the figure using reporting jargon rather than the business terms used in procurement or supplier setup, and the data owner cannot map the request cleanly.
- Scope left vague
No one agrees which supplier population is in scope, so the team mixes different onboarding groups and cannot tell what should be counted.
- Wrong time basis
The team pulls names from the wrong period, such as approvals outside the reporting window, so the count does not match the intended year.
- Mixed counting method
One source counts supplier records while another counts supplier relationships or onboarding events, and the two bases are combined as if they were the same.
- Source labels lost
The original tags from the procurement or screening file are stripped out during export, so the team cannot trace which entries were marked as environmentally checked.
- Populations merged
New suppliers that were checked and those that were not are rolled into one list before analysis, which hides the split needed for the calculation.
- No evidence trail
The team keeps the final number but not the supporting file names, dates, or approver notes, so the figure cannot be traced back for review.
Where judgement is often needed
- Defining which supplier starts the clock
Set a clear rule for when a supplier first counts as new in your buying cycle, apply it consistently across the year, and explain that rule if your onboarding process or contract setup creates borderline cases.
- Handling business changes that shift the supplier base
If an acquisition, disposal, or reorganisation changes who sits in scope, state the cut-off you used for the reporting period and note any restatement or exclusion approach so the percentage is not read as a like-for-like trend.
- Using one screening rule across different countries
Where local teams use different environmental checks, choose a single group-wide basis for counting screened suppliers or explain the country-by-country differences and how you combined them into one figure.
- Deciding whether a partial check counts as screened
If a supplier only went through a light-touch review, a risk-based filter, or a document check rather than the full process, spell out the threshold you used to include or exclude that supplier from the count.
- Choosing the timing point for inclusion
Be explicit about whether you count suppliers at onboarding, at first order, or after the environmental review is completed, and use the same timing rule for both the numerator and the supplier population you compare it with.
- Estimating when records are incomplete
If some supplier files are missing or systems do not capture the review status cleanly, use a documented estimate method, label it as such, and explain the basis so readers can judge the reliability of the percentage.
- Rounding and small-number effects
State your rounding approach and, where the supplier count is small, check that rounding does not materially distort the percentage or hide a change in the underlying number of suppliers.
- Protecting supplier confidentiality in the presentation
If the supplier list is small enough that individual firms could be identified, aggregate the data further or suppress detail as needed, and say how you balanced privacy with a clear explanation of the result.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example demonstrates how to report the share of newly added suppliers that were assessed against environmental criteria, using a clear numerator, denominator and calculated percentage.
Synthetic illustration only. During the year, we brought in 50 new suppliers and checked 40 of them against our environmental screening criteria, so 80% of new suppliers were reviewed before onboarding.
- This example shows a simple supplier intake process where environmental checks are applied to most new relationships.
- The figures are internally consistent: 40 screened out of 50 total new suppliers.
Construction materials · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows the same disclosure for a different sector, with the proportion of newly engaged suppliers that were screened using environmental criteria expressed as a percentage.
Synthetic illustration only. In the reporting period, our group added 24 suppliers and applied environmental checks to 18 of them, which means 75% of new suppliers went through that review step.
- The example is intentionally simple and uses round numbers to show the calculation.
- The subset does not exceed the total: 18 reviewed from 24 new suppliers.
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
- Screened vs not screened among new suppliers — bar: A simple comparison of the share of newly onboarded suppliers that were checked against environmental criteria versus those that were not.
- Supplier screening coverage over time — line: How the proportion of new suppliers assessed for environmental factors changes across reporting periods.
- Breakdown of new supplier checks by outcome — stacked bar: The split between new suppliers that passed through environmental screening and those that were not assessed, shown period by period.
- Coverage rate by business unit or region — map: Where screening coverage is stronger or weaker if the data are available by country, site, or operating area.
- Share of new suppliers screened — donut: The overall proportion of newly added suppliers that were reviewed using environmental criteria, presented as a single percentage share.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We screened 62% of our new suppliers against environmental checks.
Better
We screened 62% of our 120 new suppliers using environmental checks, with 74 suppliers covered.
Best
We screened 62% of our 120 new suppliers during the year using environmental checks, and the share was lower than last year because we onboarded more small local suppliers with simpler procurement reviews.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 308-1 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
CAE Inc. | Aerospace and Defense · Canada | 2024 | Partial | p. 30 →p. 157 →p. 171 → | FY24 Global Annual Activity and Sustainability Report → | ey | ||||||
Evidence in CAE Inc.’s reportWhat the report shows CAE Inc.’s FY24 Global Annual Activity and Sustainability Report shows that by FY26, the company aims to complete the second wave of its GHG reduction program with suppliers, with progress described as "On track" (p.60). The report also indicates that in FY24, 73% of CAE’s strategic suppliers, representing about 92% of direct spend, were scored, reflecting active supply chain engagement (p.145). However, specific percentage values for overall supply chain emissions or detailed Scope 3 targets are not clearly provided, and the extent of governance details beyond general management approaches is not fully detailed (pp.57, 147).
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Cogna Educação S.A. | Education Services · Brazil | 2024 | Partial | p. 139 →p. 159 →p. 150 → | Relato Integrado 2024 → | KPMG | ||||||
Evidence in Cogna Educação S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Cogna Educação S.A.'s 2024 Relato Integrado report includes a covered datapoint on the percentage of new suppliers screened using environmental criteria, as indicated on page 139. The report explicitly mentions that all new suppliers were screened under GRI 308-1 environmental criteria (p.139). However, the report does not provide further details or additional metrics related to supplier environmental screening, leaving other aspects of this disclosure 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
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Godrej Properties Limited | Real Estate · India | 2025 | Exact | p. 92 →p. 263 →p. 268 → | Integrated Report 2024-25 → | KPMG | ||||||
Evidence in Godrej Properties Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Godrej Properties Limited's Integrated Report 2024-25 shows that 100% of new suppliers were screened using environmental and social criteria, as reported on page 252. This is the strongest covered datapoint related to supplier screening. However, the report does not provide further details on the screening process, criteria specifics, or outcomes, leaving other aspects of the disclosure 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 procurement team onboarded 40 new suppliers this year. Before contracts were signed, 30 were checked against the organisation’s environmental screening process, while 10 were not because the team considered them low risk.Should the reported percentage include all 40 new suppliers, or only the 30 that went through the environmental check?
Model answer. Use the full set of new suppliers brought in during the period as the base, then calculate the share that went through the environmental review. In this case, 30 out of 40 were screened, so the figure is 75%. The judgement point is that the measure is about the proportion of new suppliers that were actually assessed, not just the number reviewed.
Why this matters. The percentage should be based on all new suppliers added in the period, with the numerator being those that were checked for environmental factors.
A business added 12 new suppliers in the year. Five were direct manufacturers, four were logistics providers, and three were office service firms. The procurement lead screened the manufacturers and logistics providers, but not the office service firms, because they were thought to have little environmental impact.Can the organisation leave out the office service firms from the calculation because they were not screened, or must they still be counted as new suppliers?
Model answer. They still belong in the total count of new suppliers for the period. If they were not screened, they remain part of the denominator and reduce the percentage. Here, 9 of 12 were screened, so the result is 75%. The key is to report the share of all new suppliers that received the environmental check, regardless of why some were not reviewed.
Why this matters. Do not shrink the base by excluding unscreened new suppliers; they remain part of the period total.
A group signed framework agreements with 20 suppliers during the year, but only 8 actually started delivering goods or services before year-end. The sustainability team screened all 8 active suppliers, while the other 12 had not yet begun trading.For the percentage, should the organisation count only the 8 suppliers that started trading, or all 20 signed suppliers?
Model answer. Count the suppliers that were newly brought into the supplier base during the reporting period, not just those that had already started deliveries. If all 20 were added as new suppliers in the year and 8 were screened, the percentage is 40%. If only 8 were truly new in the period, then the base would be 8. The decision depends on your organisation’s definition of a new supplier, but the calculation must follow that same population consistently.
Why this matters. Be consistent about which supplier population is treated as ‘new’ and use that same population for the percentage.
A company used two different onboarding routes. One route screened suppliers for environmental issues before approval; the other route only checked them after they had already been appointed. During the year, 50 suppliers were newly added and 35 were screened at some point, but 10 of those checks happened after appointment.Should the reported figure include suppliers screened only after they were already appointed, or only those checked during onboarding?
Model answer. The safer reading is to count suppliers that were screened as part of the new-supplier process, not checks done later for other reasons. If 25 were screened before approval and 10 were checked only after appointment, the reported percentage should be based on the 25 that were screened in the onboarding flow, giving 50% of the 50 new suppliers. The point is to reflect how many new suppliers were assessed when they were being brought in.
Why this matters. Only include screening that forms part of the new-supplier onboarding process, not later reviews done after appointment.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 308-1 — 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.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
For GRI 308-1 Supplier Environmental Assessment, what data do I actually need to prepare before drafting the disclosure?
The page says the key datapoint to prepare is the supplier screening rate. Use the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step preparation section to turn that into a clear scope, method and draft narrative. ↑ section
How do I work out the supplier screening rate for GRI 308-1 in a way that is usable for reporting?
The page points you to the supplier screening rate as the main datapoint and includes a quantitative illustrative example. Use that example as a model for how to present the calculation, but keep your own figures and scope consistent. ↑ section
What should I include in the scope and methodology notes for GRI 308-1 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The page’s step-by-step preparation section is there to help you set scope and methodology before drafting. It is also useful to check the common reporting gaps so you do not leave the method too vague for review. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 308-1 data collection and sign-off process in practice?
The page is designed for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person who can evidence the supplier screening data and explain the method. Use the workbook to assign tasks and track review points. ↑ section
What evidence do I need to keep for GRI 308-1 if I want the disclosure to be assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and five assurance claims to verify, each tied to a claim, risk and evidence check. Use those sections to build a file that shows how the screening rate was calculated and supported. ↑ section
What are the most common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 308-1 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you avoid weak or incomplete disclosures. It is especially useful for checking whether the scope, method and evidence are aligned before you finalise the draft. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 308-1 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format to help you organise the disclosure, evidence and assurance checks. Use it alongside the step-by-step preparation section and the evidence pack to turn raw data into a draft. ↑ section
What can I take from the synthetic example disclosure for GRI 308-1 without copying it into my report?
The synthetic example shows how a disclosure can be structured, including a quantitative table where relevant. Treat it as a formatting and logic guide only, and make sure your own numbers, scope and narrative are internally consistent. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 308-1 page into a draft disclosure and content-index line?
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. Use those prompts to build a first draft, then check it against the evidence pack and common gaps before sign-off. ↑ section
Where can I find real company report examples for GRI 308-1 Supplier Environmental Assessment?
The page includes a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed. Use it to see how others present the topic, but keep your own reporting based on your own data and method. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 308-1 Supplier Environmental Assessment checklist for data owners and assurance reviewers
- How to evidence supplier screening rate for GRI 308-1
- GRI 308-1 common reporting mistakes and how to avoid them
- How to use the GRI 308-1 workbook download
- GRI 308-1 draft disclosure example and narrative starters
- What goes in the evidence pack for GRI 308-1 Supplier Environmental Assessment
- GRI 308-1 scope and methodology guidance for practitioners
- Who should own GRI 308-1 supplier environmental assessment data
- How to prepare GRI 308-1 for assurance readiness
- GRI 308-1 supplier screening rate reporting template
- How to turn GRI 308-1 notes into a draft report line
- Where to find real company report examples for GRI 308-1
✓ 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.
