Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how its administrative, management and supervisory bodies are involved in sustainability governance. In practice, it is about showing who has responsibility, how those bodies oversee sustainability matters, and how that oversight is built into decision-making rather than treated as a side activity.
The practical focus is on the organisation’s governance coverage as a whole, not just a few flagship sites or isolated initiatives. Report on the main bodies and their roles across the business, including how responsibilities are assigned, how oversight works in practice, and whether the approach applies consistently across operations and entities where relevant.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official EFRAG source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
＋ Show GOV-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Note whether employees are represented in the board or equivalent governing group.
State the mix of women and men in that governing group.
Show what share of the governing group is made up of independent members.
Explain any other diversity factors the organisation takes into account when appointing or reviewing the governing group.
Describe the knowledge and experience that the governing group brings to the role.
Indicate whether ESG-related expertise is available within the governing group.
Set out how the organisation builds and refreshes the governing group’s skills and knowledge.
List the sustainability matters that the board or equivalent body oversees directly.
Name the board, committee, or individual that carries that oversight.
Explain how far that oversight responsibility extends.
Describe the process used to track progress against sustainability commitments.
Explain how the organisation keeps watch over sustainability targets.
Give examples of major decisions that the board or equivalent body has taken.
Describe how sustainability risk management is built into governance.
State whether sustainability is built into the organisation’s strategy.
Explain how the organisation weighs trade-offs when making sustainability-related decisions.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first. Decide which governing group, committee, or named individual you are describing, and make sure the same scope is used across every part of the disclosure.
2Define the categories you will count or describe. For the composition items, separate out the share of independent members, the gender split, employee voice, and any other diversity factors you have chosen to consider. For the capability items, decide how you will show whether sustainability-related expertise exists, what that expertise covers, and how learning or development is handled.
3Gather the underlying support before drafting. Pull together board and committee records, appointment details, skills matrices, training logs, responsibility charts, oversight calendars, and any papers showing how sustainability matters are handled in governance and decision-making.
4Prepare the actual disclosure content in the format each datapoint needs. Use figures where the item asks for a count or yes/no response, and use concise narrative where the item asks for a description of responsibilities, oversight arrangements, target follow-up, strategy links, risk handling, or trade-off discussions.
5Record any exclusions, assumptions, or changes in method. If a category is not used, a responsibility sits with a different body, or the way you have grouped information has changed from a prior period, explain that clearly so the reader can understand the basis of the disclosure.
6Check the draft against the official source before sign-off. Confirm that every required item is covered, the wording matches the underlying evidence, and the final version does not omit or misstate anything in the source material.
Request the data
Request board governance evidence and oversight details
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How do the board and its committees oversee sustainability matters, and what evidence supports the reported governance narrative?
Use your organisation’s own names for the board, committees, roles, policies and reporting packs first; then map them to the reporting fields below. Keep the request in internal business language rather than framework wording, and check the source material before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the ESRS 2 GOV-1 information on the administrative, management and supervisory bodies, including composition, expertise, oversight, target monitoring, strategy integration and trade-offs.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that many internal owners will not recognise, and it does not tell them which records to pull, which internal names to use, or what source documents should back the answer. It is also too abstract to work as a practical evidence request.
Better request
Please pull the board and committee pack for [period] showing: who sits on the board and relevant committees; any diversity information held in the board register; whether there is sustainability-related expertise and how it is maintained; who owns oversight and what sits in that remit; how targets are reviewed and progress tracked; and examples where sustainability was part of strategy, risk, major decisions or trade-off discussions. Use our internal names for the bodies and attach the source documents or links.
Industry examples
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain how each governance metric was defined and compiled, including the basis used to classify independence, diversity, expertise, oversight responsibilities and strategy integration.
Context note
Set out what the figures say about how the board is structured, what knowledge it has available, how oversight is assigned, and how sustainability is embedded in decision-making.
Fluctuation statement
If any figures changed from the prior period, describe the main reason in plain terms, such as changes in board membership, committee coverage, training activity, oversight arrangements or the way strategy was applied.
Content index entry
GOV-1 Role of the Administrative, Management and Supervisory Bodies — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GOV-1 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
The information is presented without a date or as-at point.The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Ask the wrong owner
The request goes to a governance secretary or report writer instead of the board lead, committee chair, or the manager who actually holds the underlying records.
Use framework language instead of internal terms
People answer with ESRS-style labels rather than the organisation’s own job titles, committee names, and process names, so the source evidence cannot be traced cleanly.
Leave the boundary vague
The team does not state which board, committee, or legal entity is in scope, so different contributors pull data from different populations.
Use the wrong reporting period basis
Some inputs are taken from a different cut-off date, meeting cycle, or year-end than the one used for the disclosure pack.
Mix counting methods
One source counts seats, another counts people, and a third counts meetings, which makes the figures and descriptions impossible to reconcile.
Strip off source labels
Original file names, register references, or meeting identifiers are removed during consolidation, so the team cannot show where each answer came from.
Merge groups that should stay separate
Board members, committee members, and employee representatives are blended into one pool even though the data points need them kept distinct.
Lose the evidence trail
The working file captures the answer but not the supporting note, date, owner, or approval step, so there is no clear sign-off path.
Collect narrative before the facts are fixed
The team starts drafting the disclosure text before the underlying governance data are checked, which leads to later rework when the source records change.
Where judgement is often needed
Board oversight split across committees
If different committees handle parts of the oversight picture, name the lead group and explain how the work is divided so readers can see who covers strategy, risk, targets and performance follow-up.
Mixed board structures in different countries
Where local entities use different governance setups, describe the equivalent decision-makers in each case and explain the basis used to map them into one group-wide narrative.
Newly acquired or sold businesses during the year
If the reporting perimeter changed because of a deal, state which parts of the year include the new or exited business and explain how that affected the governance description and any examples given.
People on the boundary of board representation
When worker voice is indirect, partial or only present in some entities, explain who is counted as employee representation and why any near-miss cases were included or left out.
Diversity factors beyond gender and independence
If you consider other diversity dimensions, say which ones matter in your organisation and explain the practical basis for choosing them, especially where local practice or legal context differs.
ESG know-how held by directors versus advisers
If the relevant knowledge sits with directors, committee members or external advisers, explain where the capability actually sits and whether it is permanent, shared or brought in for specific topics.
Training and development counted by attendance or completion
Choose one basis for describing learning activity, such as sessions offered, sessions attended or modules completed, and explain that basis consistently so the reader can compare year to year.
Direct oversight versus delegated management
If the board sets direction but day-to-day handling sits elsewhere, distinguish clearly between what the board itself oversees and what is managed below it, and explain any delegation limits.
Targets and progress tracked by estimate or measured result
Where exact figures are not available, use a clear estimate only if that is the best available basis, label it as such, and explain any material assumptions or changes in method.
Aggregation needed to protect personal data
If naming or splitting results would risk identifying individuals, combine the information to a safer level and explain the aggregation approach so the reader understands the loss of detail.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing
We report that 8 of our 10 directors are independent, with 4 women and 6 men on the board; 2 directors are employee-elected, and we also consider age range, nationality and professional background when looking at balance. - ESG know-how is available on the board: yes; it comes from directors with audit, climate-risk and people-management experience, and we keep that capability current through induction, annual refreshers and topic briefings. - Oversight sits with the board chair, supported by the audit and sustainability committees; they cover strategy, risk, targets, policy changes and major capital choices, while management tracks delivery through quarterly dashboards and a formal year-end review. - Sustainability is built into our strategy work, and recent board decisions included approving a lower-carbon packaging programme and a supplier due-diligence upgrade.
Synthetic, internally consistent example for practitioner training only. It shows how to describe board composition, ESG capability, oversight arrangements, monitoring and strategy linkage without naming the organisation.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Utilities
Our board has 7 members, 5 of whom are independent; the group includes 3 women and 4 men, 1 employee representative, and we also take account of skills mix, international experience and disability when reviewing balance. - The board does have ESG capability: yes; it is drawn from directors with energy-transition, compliance and stakeholder-engagement experience, and we maintain it through external courses, peer learning and periodic updates from management. - Responsibility for this area sits with the board and its risk committee, which oversee climate, safety, ethics, workforce matters and long-term planning; management reports progress each quarter and escalates exceptions between meetings. - Our strategy process already includes these matters, and recent board choices covered a grid-resilience investment and a revised supplier code.
Synthetic, internally consistent example for practitioner training only. It demonstrates a different plausible sector and a different governance set-up while covering the same disclosure points.
How companies report GOV-1 in practice
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
EDP, S.A.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Portugal · 2025
EDP, S.A.'s 2025 Integrated Annual Report provides clear data on board composition, reporting that 56.3% of board members are independent and detailing gender distribution with three male and two female executive members on the board (p.51). The report also references a Gender Equality Plan and notes the representativeness of the board elected for 2024-2026 (pp.51, 247, 585). However, several governance disclosure datapoints are missing or unclear, including detailed methodologies, certain structural indicators, and specific ESG target disclosures, with only partial context on employee involvement in target setting provided (pp.53, 146).
Continental AG
Tires · Germany · 2025
Continental AG's 2025 Annual Report provides partial context on governance-related disclosures, including some data on the distribution of employees by gender and age for senior executives and executives (p.181), and mentions the percentage of independent board members (p.215). The report also references governance structures and sustainability considerations within corporate management (pp.18, 110, 115), but does not clearly disclose specific governance datapoints such as detailed methodologies or headline values for several required indicators. Many governance-related datapoints remain not found or unclear, indicating limited explicit disclosure in this report.
Sanoma Oyj
Education Services · Finland · 2025
Sanoma Oyj's 2025 Annual Report provides clear data on the Board of Directors' gender ratio, showing a ratio of 0.5 in 2025 and 0.3 in 2024, with 89% of Board members being independent in 2025 (p.58). There is related but unclear information on the gender distribution of management, mentioning female, male, others, and not disclosed categories without explicit figures (p.114). The report partially addresses internal control processes related to governance but lacks headline values or detailed disclosures for many governance datapoints, including several key gender and independence metrics (p.52).
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context. Your first two answers are free — join LRA Community for free to continue without a limit.
TryHow do I prepare GOV-1?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
2 free answers
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A group has a nine-person board and two committees. The reporting team has draft wording saying the board oversees sustainability matters, but it has not yet checked which committee handles targets, which body reviews progress, or whether the board itself keeps direct oversight of any topics.
QHow should the preparer decide what to include about who oversees what, so the description matches the actual governance setup?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Map the real decision-making chain first: name the body or person that carries the responsibility, then state the scope of that responsibility, and separate matters the board handles directly from those delegated to a committee or another role. If the board only receives summaries, do not describe that as direct oversight.
Why this matters · Describe the actual allocation of oversight, not a generic governance chart.
The board has six members, including two who are independent, three women and three men, and one employee-elected director. The draft report also mentions that the board considered age mix and international experience, but the team is unsure whether those extra factors should be included.
QWhat should the preparer do when presenting the board’s make-up and the diversity factors considered?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Report the relevant composition facts that are being tracked for this disclosure, then add any other diversity factors the board took into account when appointing or reviewing its members. Keep the description tied to the actual board and avoid implying that every possible diversity factor was assessed if it was not.
Why this matters · Cover the composition points and any additional diversity aspects that were actually considered.
A company says its directors have sustainability knowledge because one member previously led an environmental project and another has finance experience. Training on climate, labour and ethics topics is planned for later in the year, but no session has happened yet.
QHow should the preparer judge whether to say the board has relevant sustainability expertise and how to describe development plans?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Only say the board has the needed expertise if that capability is genuinely available now, and describe it in practical terms. If the organisation is building capability through training or other learning, explain the approach honestly and do not present planned learning as already in place.
Why this matters · Separate current capability from future development.
The board reviews the annual plan, the main risk register and a set of sustainability targets at the same meeting. Management also asks whether the report should say the board weighed growth plans against emissions reduction and workforce impacts when approving a new investment.
QWhat is the right way to explain how strategy, risk and trade-offs are handled in the governance narrative?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑State whether sustainability is built into strategic choices and risk oversight, and give concrete examples of major decisions where that happened. If the board considered competing effects, explain the trade-offs in plain language, showing how the different impacts were balanced in the decision rather than leaving that step implied.
Why this matters · Show how sustainability is embedded in decisions, risk review and trade-off handling.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
General Basis for Preparation of Sustainability Statements → Guide ✓Disclosures in Relation to Specific Circumstances → Guide ✓Actions and Resources in Relation to Material Sustainability Matters →Metrics in Relation to Material Sustainability Matters → Guide ✓Policies Adopted to Manage Material Sustainability Matters → Guide ✓Targets in Relation to Material Sustainability Matters → Guide ✓Show all 14 related disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
What should I collect first for GOV-1 (ESRS 2: General Disclosures) before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
Start with the page’s datapoints to prepare and work through the step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section. That will help you gather the right board, oversight, strategy, risk and target information before you turn anything into draft wording.
How do I use the GOV-1 page to set the scope and methodology for the disclosure?+−
Use the page’s plain-language explainer, the datapoints list, and the ‘how to prepare’ steps to define what you are covering and how you will describe it. The page is designed to help you set a practical approach rather than copy official wording.
Which GOV-1 data points should I ask the board secretary, HR, or ESG data owner for?+−
The page points you to board composition, worker voice, ESG expertise, ESG training, oversight lead and remit, board topics, strategy links, risk process links, trade-off handling, and target review/tracking. Those are the items you would typically need to source from different owners before drafting.
How do I evidence board independence, gender mix, worker voice and other diversity factors for GOV-1?+−
The page tells you to prepare the relevant board composition datapoints, including independent member share, gender mix, worker voice and other diversity factors. Use the evidence pack and assurance claims to support what you report and to show where the underlying records came from.
What counts as ESG expertise for GOV-1 and how should I describe it in the draft?+−
The page asks you to prepare both the presence of ESG expertise and the details behind it, so you should be ready to explain who has the expertise and how it is evidenced. The draft-output section can help you turn that into a short narrative once the underlying data is confirmed.
How do I write the board oversight section for GOV-1 without overclaiming?+−
Use the page’s oversight lead, oversight remit and board oversight topics datapoints, then keep the wording tied to what the board actually does. The common reporting gaps section is there to help you avoid vague statements or claims that are not backed by evidence.
What evidence should go into the GOV-1 assurance pack?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and also lists six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence focus. Together these are meant to help you build an assurance-ready file before the disclosure is finalised.
How do I use the GOV-1 workbook and printable Library Card?+−
The Download Centre provides a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use them to organise the preparation work, capture evidence, and keep the disclosure draft aligned with the page’s guidance.
What are the most common mistakes to avoid when preparing GOV-1?+−
The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, which is intended to help you spot weak or incomplete disclosures early. In practice, that means checking that your draft is supported by the datapoints, evidence pack and assurance claims rather than relying on generic wording.
How do I turn the GOV-1 data into a draft disclosure?+−
Use the draft-output section, which includes visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That gives you a practical way to move from collected data to a first draft that is easier to review and assure.
More questions this page can help with
GOV-1 ESRS 2: General Disclosures checklist for sustainability reporting teamsHow to prepare GOV-1 board oversight data for ESRS 2 General DisclosuresGOV-1 evidence pack for assurance readinessGOV-1 common reporting gaps and mistakesGOV-1 Prep & Assurance workbook downloadGOV-1 printable Library Card PDFGOV-1 draft narrative starters and content index lineGOV-1 board diversity and ESG expertise datapointsGOV-1 target review and tracking process disclosure helpGOV-1 strategy link and risk process link disclosure helpGOV-1 from company reports examplesGOV-1 assurance claims to verify claim risk evidence
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63171 pages with page-level citations
247 practitioner guides
Free · LRA Community
Get your GOV-1 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →