GRI 101-7 — Changes to the state of biodiversity

Q: For GRI 101-7 Biodiversity, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?

The page says to prepare six datapoints: key biodiversity sites, affected ecosystem type, base-year ecosystem area, base-year condition, current ecosystem condition, and compilation notes. Use those as the starting checklist before you draft anything.

Q: How do I scope GRI 101-7 Biodiversity so I know which sites and ecosystem areas to include?

The page’s plain-language explainer and step-by-step preparation section are the place to start, and the key biodiversity sites datapoint is the main scoping input. The guidance is meant to help you decide what to include and document that choice in the compilation notes.

Q: What should I put in the compilation notes for GRI 101-7 Biodiversity?

The page includes compilation notes as one of the required datapoints to prepare, so use them to record how the figures and descriptions were assembled. That helps make the disclosure easier to review and explain later.

Q: Who should own the GRI 101-7 Biodiversity data collection in practice?

The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person or team that can gather the site and ecosystem data and keep the evidence together. The page does not assign a single mandatory owner, so you need to set that internally.

Q: What evidence should I keep to make a GRI 101-7 Biodiversity disclosure assurance-ready?

The page says there is an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, and it also lists six assurance claims to verify using claim, risk, and evidence. Use those materials to build a file that shows where each datapoint came from and how it was checked.

Q: What are the common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 101-7 Biodiversity?

The page includes a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is designed to help you spot issues before you finalise the draft. A practical use is to compare your own draft against that list and fix any missing or inconsistent datapoints.

Q: How do I use the GRI 101-7 Biodiversity workbook and printable Library Card?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise the preparation and assurance checks, and the PDF if you want a quick reference copy.

Q: Can I turn the GRI 101-7 Biodiversity page into a draft disclosure quickly?

Yes — the page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a practical route from the prepared datapoints to a first draft.

Q: What does the synthetic example on GRI 101-7 Biodiversity show me, and can I copy it into my report?

The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure might look. You should use it as a model for structure and presentation, not as real company data.

Q: Is there a cross-framework link for GRI 101-7 Biodiversity that I can reuse in my reporting pack?

Yes — the page notes a closest correspondence with ESRS E4 (Biodiversity and Ecosystems). You can reuse the underlying data across both, but the page does not say the reporting requirements are identical.

Disclosure focus

This disclosure asks an organisation to explain whether, and how, its activities have changed the condition of biodiversity in the places where it operates or influences nature. The focus is on reporting the actual change observed or reasonably linked to the organisation, rather than simply describing policies, intentions, or general environmental commitments.

In practice, the organisation should look across the parts of its business that can affect biodiversity and consider the full range of relevant sites and activities, not only a few showcase locations. The report should make clear where the changes are happening, what kind of biodiversity state has changed, and whether the organisation is covering its main operational footprint or only selected assets.

Before you start

A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.

Have you already pinned down which sites sit at the centre of your biggest biodiversity impacts, so you know what belongs in scope?
For each affected or possibly affected habitat, have you fixed the baseline year and the area measure you will use, with hectares as the unit?
Have you agreed how you will describe the habitat’s condition at the baseline point and again for the current reporting period, using the same basis each time?
Can every figure and description be traced back to a source record or working paper, so the numbers are auditable?
Have you set out the methods, standards and assumptions behind the compilation, so readers can understand how the data was built?

Preparation

Key datapoints to prepare

Datapoint	What to capture	Evidence hint	Owner
Key biodiversity sites	List the sites where the organisation’s activities are most likely to have the biggest effect on nature, using the organisation’s own assessment of significance.	Site screening or impact assessment, biodiversity risk register, project or asset maps, environmental due diligence, and internal sign-off on the selected sites.	Environment / Sustainability
Affected ecosystem type	State the kind of ecosystem linked to the base-year position for the site or area being described, using the same ecosystem classification used in the underlying assessment.	Baseline ecological survey, habitat map, land classification record, or environmental assessment showing the ecosystem type used for the base year.	Environment / Sustainability
Base-year ecosystem area	Capture the size of the relevant ecosystem in the base year, expressed in hectares, using the same boundary and measurement basis as the baseline record.	Baseline survey area calculations, GIS or mapping outputs, land parcel records, and the working papers used to derive the hectare figure.	Environment / Sustainability
Base-year condition	Describe the condition of the ecosystem in the base year, using the assessment criteria and rating or narrative used in the baseline evidence.	Baseline ecological condition assessment, habitat quality scoring, survey notes, and any methodology paper showing how condition was judged.	Environment / Sustainability
Current ecosystem condition	Describe the ecosystem’s condition for the current reporting period, using the same assessment approach as the baseline so the two periods can be compared.	Current-period ecological survey, monitoring results, condition scoring sheets, and the methodology used for the latest assessment.	Environment / Sustainability
Compilation notes	Explain how the datapoint was put together, including the standards followed, the methods used, and the assumptions made in the calculation or judgement.	Reporting methodology paper, calculation workbook, internal guidance, assumption log, and any review or approval notes.	Reporting / Sustainability Reporting

Show GRI 101-7 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

Set out the context needed to understand how the figures were prepared, including the methods, standards and assumptions used.
State the ecosystem condition at the starting year.
State the ecosystem condition for the reporting period.
Give the ecosystem area in hectares for the starting year.
Identify the sites where biodiversity impacts are most significant.
Describe the type of ecosystem affected, or likely to be affected, for the starting year.

LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source

How to prepare

Start by identifying the locations that matter most for biodiversity impact, so you know which sites belong in the disclosure and which do not.
For each included site, set the baseline details: note the ecosystem type involved, record its area in hectares, and capture the condition at that starting point.
Update the same site-level record for the reporting period by stating the ecosystem condition for the current year, using a consistent basis with the baseline.
Gather the supporting material that shows how you built the figures and descriptions, including the methods you used, the standards you followed, and any assumptions you relied on.
Prepare the final disclosure so it clearly presents the site list, the baseline and current-condition information, and the explanatory context in a way that can be traced back to source records.
Before filing, check the output against the official source to confirm nothing has been left out, any exclusions or changes are explained, and the wording still matches the underlying evidence.

Request site biodiversity change data from EHS / site teams

Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.

Which sites have had the most material effects on biodiversity, and what was the affected ecosystem type, size, condition at the start point, condition now, and the method used to compile the figures?

Use your organisation’s own site, land, habitat, ecology, or environmental management terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. Keep the request in the language your EHS, estates, or site teams already use, rather than using framework labels in the first instance.

Weak request

Please provide the biodiversity disclosure data for the reporting period.

Why it fails: This is too broad and uses framework language without telling the owner which sites, which measures, or which supporting notes are needed. It is hard to action, hard to trace back to source records, and likely to trigger a partial or inconsistent response.

Better request

Please send the site-level extract for the locations your team ranks as having the biggest biodiversity impact, for [period]. For each site, include the habitat or ecosystem type, the base-year area in hectares, the base-year condition, the current condition, and a short note on the method, assumptions, and source records used. Please use your normal site and ecology terms, then add a simple mapping note if needed.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for biodiversity site data and supporting notes

Hi [name/team],

We are preparing the sustainability report and need a site-level extract for the locations with the most significant biodiversity impacts.

Please send, for [reporting period], the sites in scope together with:
- the site name / asset reference
- the habitat or ecosystem type affected
- the area affected in hectares for the base year
- the condition of that habitat in the base year
- the current condition for the reporting period
- a short note on how the figures were compiled, including any standards, methods, assumptions, or estimation steps used
- the source file or system reference for each line

Please use your own operational terms where possible, and include a brief mapping note if your labels differ from the reporting wording.

If helpful, you can return this in the table format below. Please also attach any survey notes, GIS outputs, or other supporting evidence.

Thanks,
[preparer name]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [name/team] — could you send the site list for the locations with the biggest biodiversity impact for [period], plus the habitat type, base-year area (ha), base-year condition, current condition, and a short note on how you compiled it? Please use your own site / ecology terms and add the source file or system link. Thanks.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A plant has a wastewater outfall, adjacent green belt, and a small area of managed land around the site.

Adapted request. Please provide the ecology and land-management record for [period] for the plant sites with the biggest biodiversity impact. For each site, include the habitat type affected, the base-year area in hectares, the condition at the baseline, the current condition, and the method used to compile the figures from surveys, maps, or site inspections.

Example response. Site A: managed grassland; 3.2 ha; baseline condition: moderate; current condition: improved; compiled from 2022 ecology survey, 2025 site walkover, and GIS boundary file. Site B: riparian strip; 0.8 ha; baseline condition: poor; current condition: unchanged; compiled from contractor survey and land register.

Property / Real estate

Context. A portfolio team manages estates with landscaped grounds, ponds, and conservation areas.

Adapted request. Please send the portfolio extract for the assets with the most significant habitat change for [period]. Include the asset reference, habitat type, base-year area in hectares, baseline condition, current condition, and a note on whether the figures came from estate surveys, tenant reports, or GIS mapping.

Example response. Asset 14: pond and reed margin; 1.1 ha; baseline condition: fair; current condition: fair; compiled from estate ecology survey and mapping layer. Asset 27: woodland edge; 4.6 ha; baseline condition: good; current condition: good; compiled from contractor survey and maintenance records.

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 sites were included, how the affected habitats were identified, what counts as the starting-year baseline, and the standards, methods and assumptions used to compile the figures.

Context note

Set out what the site ranking, habitat type, area in hectares and condition ratings are intended to show, so readers can understand the scale, location and state of the affected ecosystems.

Fluctuation statement

Describe any notable movement in habitat condition between the baseline year and the current period, and note the operational, environmental or data-related reasons behind those changes.

Content index entry

GRI 101-7 Changes to the state of biodiversity — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 101-7. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.

XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints + per-datapoint risk, evidence to check, owner & evidence pack XLSData-request packEHS / Operations request — email & message templates, response form, sign-off & industry examples PDFLibrary CardPrintable summary (PDF)

Assurance readiness

For each claim, check the evidence

Claim	Risk	Evidence to check
We identified the locations that most materially affect biodiversity and used that set as the basis for the coverage figure.	The selection may be subjective, incomplete, or not applied consistently across the group, which could overstate or understate what was included.	Site screening criteria, impact-ranking methodology, management review notes, the final site list, and any exclusions with reasons.
For the base year, we recorded the kind of habitat or ecosystem affected, using the same classification approach across the disclosed operations.	The ecosystem type may be misclassified, inconsistently named, or not tied back to the underlying source records for the base year.	Base-year source data, classification guidance, mapping between site records and ecosystem categories, and reviewer sign-off on the final labels.
For the base year, we calculated the area affected in hectares from the underlying site data and kept the working papers used in the calculation.	The area figure may be based on weak measurements, unit conversion errors, or unsupported estimates.	Survey records, GIS outputs or other measurement files, calculation sheets, unit-conversion checks, and evidence of review of the hectare total.
For the base year, we described the condition of the affected ecosystem using the assessment method applied at that date.	The condition statement may rely on inconsistent scoring, outdated field evidence, or a method that was not applied uniformly.	Condition assessment methodology, field notes or monitoring reports, scoring sheets, and approval of the base-year assessment.
For the current period, we updated the ecosystem condition using the latest available evidence and compared it with the earlier baseline.	The current-period condition may not be comparable with the base year, may omit recent changes, or may be based on partial evidence.	Current-period monitoring data, comparison to the base-year assessment, change logs, exception notes, and management review of the final position.
We included a short note explaining the methods, assumptions, and source rules used to compile the figures so a reader can follow how they were built.	The narrative may be too vague, omit key assumptions, or fail to explain material judgement calls that affect interpretation.	Disclosure drafting notes, methodology papers, assumption logs, source-data descriptions, and evidence that the explanatory note was checked before publication.

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, wrong language
The request goes to a team that knows the framework label but not the site records, so the first answer comes back in reporting jargon instead of the organisation’s own asset and ecology terms.
Scope left too broad
The data pull starts without fixing which locations count, so sites with different biodiversity impacts get mixed together and the final set no longer matches the intended boundary.
Base year and current period blurred
The collector uses the latest survey for both time points, which makes the baseline and the reporting-period condition impossible to compare properly.
Counting basis changed mid-stream
One source is captured by area, another by site count, and the two are merged without conversion, so the figures cannot be compared on the same basis.
Source labels stripped out
Field names, map references, and survey tags are removed during export, leaving no way to trace each value back to the original record.
Separate habitats merged
Different ecosystem types are rolled into one line because they sit at the same location, even though they should stay distinct for the base-year record and condition notes.
Evidence notes not captured
The team saves the numbers but not the standards, methods, and assumptions used to build them, so the compilation logic cannot be checked later.
No approval trail
The dataset is passed on without a named reviewer or sign-off record, so nobody can show who checked the inputs before the disclosure draft was prepared.

Where judgement is often needed

Setting the starting point after a portfolio change
If sites were bought, sold, or closed during the period, choose a clear starting point for the earlier comparison year and explain which locations were kept in, removed from, or added to the site list.
Using local habitat labels across different countries
Where the same habitat is named or classified differently in different places, map those labels to one internal description and explain the mapping so readers can compare like with like.
Deciding whether a fringe population counts
For species or habitat areas that sit partly inside and partly outside your operational area, set a consistent rule for inclusion and explain how you treated borderline cases.
Choosing the date used for the comparison year
Pick one cut-off date for the earlier year and apply it consistently, then state that date and any reason why it differs from the reporting-period cut-off.
Mixing measured field data with estimates
If some figures come from surveys and others from modelling or judgement, say which parts were directly observed and which were estimated, and explain the basis for any assumptions.
Handling incomplete condition information
When the earlier or current condition of an ecosystem is not fully known, use the best available evidence, note the gap, and explain how the missing information affected the comparison.
Rounding area figures without distorting the change
Round hectares in a way that keeps the before-and-after picture internally consistent, and disclose the rounding approach if it affects the apparent size of the change.
Aggregating sensitive location data
If naming a site or giving exact coordinates would create a privacy, security, or conservation issue, group the data at a higher level and explain the level of aggregation used.
Defining the site set for the most affected locations
Set a transparent rule for which locations are included in the list of most affected sites, and explain any threshold, ranking method, or tie-break used to decide the final selection.
Reconciling condition descriptions between years
If the way you describe ecosystem condition changed between the comparison year and the current year, restate both years using the same internal scale or explain the conversion so the movement is understandable.

Examples

Illustrative examples

Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.

Food processing · synthetic · written by LRA

Synthetic illustration only. We identified the two locations where our operations are most likely to affect nature: our coastal ingredients site and our inland packaging plant. For the base year, the first site sat within 120 ha of coastal wetland, recorded as fair condition; by the current period, the same area was assessed as slightly improved after drainage controls and habitat buffers were put in place.
- The second site covered 85 ha of mixed farmland edge, starting from moderate condition in the base year and moving to moderate-to-good in the current period.
- We compiled the figures using site boundary maps, field surveys, and a simple condition scoring method applied consistently across both periods; where exact ecological boundaries were not available, we used the operational land parcel as the proxy and kept the same assumptions year on year.

This example shows how a reporter can name the main locations driving nature impact, describe the habitat type and area at the starting point, compare condition then and now, and explain the method used to build the numbers.

Renewable energy · synthetic · written by LRA

Synthetic illustration only. Our two most significant nature-sensitive locations are the upland turbine cluster and the river-crossing cable corridor. In the base year, the turbine cluster occupied 240 ha of heathland and rough grassland, assessed as good; in the current reporting period, it remained good after ongoing access management and seasonal restoration work.
- The cable corridor covered 36 ha of riparian woodland and riverbank habitat in the base year, with a poor-to-fair condition rating then and a fair rating now.
- We prepared the data from GIS site footprints, ecological walkovers, and a condition rubric aligned to our internal biodiversity procedure; the area totals reflect the full operational footprint, while the condition ratings reflect the habitat within that footprint that we could inspect directly.

This example demonstrates a second plausible sector using different sites and habitat types, while still giving the starting area, the starting and current condition, and a clear note on the data sources and assumptions.

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

Sites with the strongest biodiversity pressure — table: A ranked list of locations, with the most affected sites first, so readers can see where the main pressures sit.
Ecosystem type at the start of the year — stacked bar: How the affected or at-risk habitat mix is split across ecosystem categories in the opening period.
Area covered by each ecosystem type — bar: The number of hectares linked to each habitat category in the base year, making the scale of exposure easy to compare.
Condition at the start versus now — stacked bar: A side-by-side view of habitat condition in the base year and the current period, highlighting any shift in status.
Where the main impacts are located — map: The geographic spread of the sites with the greatest biodiversity effects, helping readers see whether impacts are concentrated in particular places.

From a number to a disclosure

What separates a figure from a disclosure.

Basic

I reported that our most affected site was a wetland area of 120 ha.

Better

I reported that our most affected site was a wetland area of 120 ha, that its condition was fair at the start of the year and slightly improved by period end, and that we used the same site survey method throughout.

Best

I reported that our most affected site was a wetland area of 120 ha, that its condition moved from fair at the base year to slightly improved at period end, and that this change mainly reflected restoration work and a consistent field-assessment method used across the year.

From company reports

Real published reports Compare side by side →Get it free

Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 101-7 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.

Company

Sector · Country

Year

Match

Page

Report

Assurance

Sands China Ltd.

Hotels, Restaurants, Leisure, Tourism Services · Macao

2025

Partial

p. 51 →p. 33 →p. 27 →

2025 ESG Report →

EY

Evidence in Sands China Ltd.’s report

What the report shows

Sands China Ltd.'s 2025 ESG Report provides detailed coverage of biodiversity impact assessments, reporting the area of operational sites with such assessments as 58, 18, and 29 hectares on page 37, along with information on sites near critical biodiversity. The report also addresses transition risks related to carbon tax models over short, medium, and long time horizons on page 32, and notes an 8% reduction in a base year performance metric on page 10. However, there is no clear narrative found specifically addressing other aspects of biodiversity or ecosystem conditions beyond these points, and some narrative items remain unreported or unclear.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

Datapoint	Status	Page
Key biodiversity sitesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 37
Affected ecosystem typeA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 32
Base-year ecosystem areaA reported value was found on this page (%).	covered	p. 10
Base-year conditionNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Current ecosystem conditionA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 51
Compilation notesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 4

Source trail

p. 37sites with a biodiversity impact assessment1 5 1 1 Area of operational sites with a biodiversity impact assessment (Hectares) 58 18 29 Operational
p. 37Hectares) 58 18 29 Operational sites in close proximity to critical biodiversity (within 2 km)2 5 0 0 Threatened
p. 32potentially occur: Short (0–5 years) Medium (5–30 years) Long (30+ years) T R A N S I T I O N R I S K : CA R B O N TA X Models
p. 33potentially occur: Short (0–5 years) Medium (5–30 years) Long (30+ years) Time horizon where effects could potentially
p. 10base year 2 0 2 5 P E R F O R M A N C E 8% Reduction
p. 31base year is provided for comparison. 2 Includes renewable energy consumption and EACs 3 Energy intensity ratio includes
p. 54year flood zones 2 SV-HL-450a.1 Social Responsible Gaming Percentage (by revenue) of gaming facilities implementing the Responsible
p. 7base year 2 0 2 5 P E R F O R M A N C E 54% Reduction
p. 29base year. We commit to reducing scope 1 and 2 emissions 60.2% by 2030 from a 2018 base
p. 5base year Food Waste 2025 Target: 25% of food waste is prevented, rescued or diverted 36% Achieved Water
p. 50base year Reference: 2025 ESG Report, p. 18 SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy 7.2: Increase substantially the share
p. 36Base year) Target 2025 Water Use (gallons/sq. ft.) 2025 Target: 3% decrease in potable water intensity (gal. per sq. ft.) from
p. 34base year: 10% 20% 28% 24% 2025 19% 2024 2023 18% 18% 2022 2021 Target 2019 (Base
p. 51ecosystem conditions at our operational sites during the current reporting period. 101-8 Ecosystem services According to the Exploring
p. 51ecosystem conditions at our operational sites during the current reporting period. 101-8 Ecosystem
p. 4standards and ESG requirements with our business partners Macao Skyline 7 2025 ESG REPORT 6 APPENDIX GOVERNANCE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
p. 33Type Potential Impact Management Approach Resource Efficiency Building operations efficiency While relevant to meeting our ESG commitments, the operating cost

Canacol Energy Ltd

Oil and Gas · Canada

2024

Partial

p. 95 →p. 96 →p. 97 →

2024 ESG Integrated Report →

Deloitte; EY; BSI

Evidence in Canacol Energy Ltd’s report

What the report shows

Canacol Energy Ltd’s 2024 ESG Integrated Report provides detailed coverage of biodiversity impacts, identifying 10 drivers of change and reporting on sites near critical biodiversity areas covering 247,382.43 hectares (p.97). The report quantifies specific areas such as 48,323 hectares for DRMI Serranía de los Yariguies and 2,506 hectares for the mining river (p.98), and notes ecosystem restoration efforts including planting 2,500 trees and promoting sustainable practices benefiting local communities (p.43). However, the report lacks a clear narrative on methodology or overarching biodiversity strategy, with some risk-related context provided but no headline values or comprehensive narrative on biodiversity management (p.208; no page).

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

Datapoint	Status	Page
Key biodiversity sitesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 97
Affected ecosystem typeA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 98
Base-year ecosystem areaA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 43
Base-year conditionNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Current ecosystem conditionSupporting context was found, but no headline value.	partial	p. 208
Compilation notesNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—

Source trail

p. 97Biodiversity Importance [GRI 101-4] [GRI 101-6] We identified 10 drivers of change that represent the main impacts
p. 97sites assessed near critical biodiversity areas (ha) 247,382.43 42 Number of sites near critical biodiversity areas with biodiversity management
p. 68r NOx, SOx, particulate matter (PM10), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). More than 50% reduction in NOx emissions. Ecosystems and Biodiversity Development of strategies for biodiversity mitigation, conservation, and restorat<ion. Minimization of negative impacts on biodiversity through responsible…
p. 97both preventive and corrective measures to ensure biodiversity conservation and minimize our environmental footprint. Biodiversity Assessment [GRI 101-7] [GRI 304-1] Sites used for operational activities 62 Total area of operational zones (ha) 87.4 Number of biodiversity impact assessments conducted at operational…
p. 98Type VIM-10-1 48,323 DRMI Serranía de los Yariguies VMM-49 2,506 DRMI of the mining river
p. 43hectares of ecosystem, planted 2,500 trees, and promoted sustainable practices, benefiting more than 200 families and 300 students
p. 96Ecosystem Services Analysis Ecosystem Services Analysis [GRI 304-2] [GRI 101-8] Through an ecosystem
p. 101ecosystem preservation and collaborative environmental stewardship. The Company achieved the reforestation of 13 hectares in the El Indio
p. 224year per employee GRI 404-2 (2016) Programs for upgrading employee skills and transition assistance programs GRI 405-1 (2016) Diversity
p. 83base year of the strategic goal. 3. Temporal analysis (time horizons): The methane reduction plan is structured with
p. 153ategy: We hold socialization sessions with communities to review the environmental licenses governing our operations. To reduce environmental impacts, we promote the use of noise-re- duction technologies and implement road wetting procedures to minimize particu- late matter during load mobilization. In addition…
p. 70ecosystem instability—are heightening the urgency to reduce emissions and implement robust mitigation and adaptation strategies. At the same
p. 43year. We became one of the first companies globally to adopt the TNFD framework, integrating the LEAP methodology to identify
p. 208current risks while also identifying, planning for, and evaluating emerging risks. This approach demon- strates our ability to understand long
p. 101current regulations. (ANLA), which also conducts annual audits to ensure compliance with environmental obligations and current regulations. Moreover, the TNFD

Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.

Home Building · Japan

2025

Partial

p. 529 →p. 408 →p. 241 →

Sustainability Report 2025 →

EY; BSI

Evidence in Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.’s report

What the report shows

Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.'s Sustainability Report 2025 includes narrative coverage on biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, highlighting issues such as rapid decline in ecosystem integrity and the significance of ecosystem services, with relevant information found on page 128. The report also provides area values related to ecosystems on the same page and includes some narrative context on future forecasts and data periods on page 499. However, specific headline values for certain narrative items are missing, and some expected detailed disclosures, such as narrative item (a-i), are not found in the report.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

Datapoint	Status	Page
Key biodiversity sitesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 128
Affected ecosystem typeNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Base-year ecosystem areaA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 128
Base-year conditionNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Current ecosystem conditionA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 499
Compilation notesSupporting context was found, but no headline value.	partial	p. 531

Source trail

p. 128biodiversity, [2] high integrity of the ecosystem, [3] rapid decline in ecosystem integrity, [4] significance of providing ecosystem
p. 529biodiversity impacts 101-5 Locations with biodiversity impacts 101-6 Direct drivers of biodiversity loss 101-7 Changes
p. 137There were 71 remaining significant risks and 36 potential opportunities identified from the qualitative assessment results, of which 30 risks were rated as high priority in terms of "degree of impact" and "probability of occurrence" based on the following qualitative assessment criteria, and 34 opportunities were…
p. 132With the aim of understanding the quantitative environmental impacts on nature from our business activities, we are advancing estimations of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) using LIME3.*1 In 2025, we attempted a quantitative evaluation using LIME3 for raw materials in the upstream value chain and for electricity and fuel…
p. 128ecosystem, [3] rapid decline in ecosystem integrity, [4] significance of providing ecosystem services and [5] physical
p. 130base year, and the year 2023 was used as the comparison year *2 The table above
p. 130Ecosystem Integrity (2) High Integrity*2 Areas of high ecosystem integrity (the degree to which ecosystem
p. 540year flood zones IF-HB-420a.1 - Description of climate change risk exposure analysis, degree of systematic portf olio
p. 133year/ More than 10% but can be replaced within a year Occurred in the past but there are existing
p. 126ecosystem services through proper management *1 Risks: landslides in planted forest Opportunities: monetization opportunities for ecosystem
p. 523year by number of employees on April 1 of the year *1 The calculation includes voluntary turnover *2 External
p. 499period for the fiscal year 2020 is from April 2020 to December 2020. * Reliability of Report Content Click here
p. 499period and after December 2024, and future forecasts are also included. A note is also included if the period of data
p. 138Item (risks) Items for which attempts were made to quantify the financial impacts Business Size of impact Probability of occurrence Transition Risks Policies Change in raw material procurement Procurement costs for PKS increase due to compliance with stricter laws and regulations following the introduction of policies…
p. 531siness Activities and the Adoption of Renewable Energy Mitigation of Climate Change External Recognition　-　Editorial Pol icy　-　ESG Data　-　GRI Content Index (GRI Standards)　-　SASB Content Index Top Commitment Sustainability Management Initiatives for Sumitomo Forestry Group’s Business and ESG Environment Social…

Check your understanding

A manufacturing group has three sites near sensitive habitats, but only one factory has the clearest link to habitat change this year. The team has base-year habitat notes for that factory, plus a current-year field survey showing the area and condition have shifted.Should you include only the site with the strongest biodiversity impact, and what details do you need to capture for that site?

Model answer. Yes. For the site with the most material effect on nature, record the kind of habitat affected or at risk in the base year, its size in hectares for that base year, the habitat condition in the base year, and the condition in the current reporting period. If the other sites are not the main drivers of the impact, they do not belong in this item.

Why this matters. Focus on the locations that drive the biggest nature impact, and pair the base-year picture with the current-year condition.

A utility company has mapped a wetland area as 18.4 ha in the base year, but the latest survey shows 17.9 ha after a boundary correction. The preparer is unsure whether to replace the earlier figure or keep the original base-year number.Which figure belongs in the base-year field, and how should the current-year change be handled?

Model answer. Keep the base-year figure as the starting reference used for this disclosure, even if later work refines the understanding of the site. Then report the current-period condition separately, so readers can see the present state alongside the original baseline. Do not swap the base-year number for a later estimate unless your organisation has a clear, documented basis for restating the baseline in the supporting explanation.

Why this matters. The baseline and the current period are separate reference points, so do not blur them together.

A food producer uses satellite imagery, consultant surveys, and internal site walkovers to compile the biodiversity note. The methods do not all line up perfectly, and the team has also made a few judgement calls about habitat boundaries and condition scoring.What supporting explanation should accompany the figures so a reader can understand how the information was built?

Model answer. Add a plain explanation of how the data was assembled, including the methods used, any standards or guidance applied, and the key assumptions or judgement calls that affected the result. This should make it possible for a reader to understand why the numbers and condition descriptions look the way they do.

Why this matters. Always explain the method, the rules used, and the main assumptions behind the biodiversity data.

A mining group has one site where land disturbance is obvious, but another site has a smaller footprint and a more sensitive habitat. The reporting team is debating whether to list both sites or only the one with the largest area change.How should you decide which sites belong in the disclosure?

Model answer. Choose the sites that have the most significant effect on biodiversity, not simply the largest physical footprint. A smaller site can still belong in the disclosure if its impact on habitat is more serious than a larger site elsewhere. The selection should be based on materiality of the nature impact, and the supporting explanation should make that basis clear.

Why this matters. Size alone is not the test; include the sites that matter most for biodiversity impact.

Analyse this disclosure across real reports

See how companies actually report GRI 101-7 — 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.

Compare across reports → Open in the Cabinet → What is LRA Community? →

Related framework references

How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.

GRIPrimary

GRI 101-7

within GRI 101: Biodiversity 2024

Open official source →

→

ESRSRelated

ESRS E4

Biodiversity and Ecosystems — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).

→

IFRSNo equivalent

—

No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.

Related & explore

Policies to halt and reverse biodiversity… Guide ✓Management of biodiversity impacts Guide ✓Access and benefit-sharing Guide ✓Identification of biodiversity impacts Guide ✓Locations with biodiversity impacts Guide ✓Direct drivers of biodiversity loss Guide ✓Ecosystem services Guide ✓

More in GRI 101 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →

Questions this page answers

For GRI 101-7 Biodiversity, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?

The page says to prepare six datapoints: key biodiversity sites, affected ecosystem type, base-year ecosystem area, base-year condition, current ecosystem condition, and compilation notes. Use those as the starting checklist before you draft anything. ↑ section

How do I scope GRI 101-7 Biodiversity so I know which sites and ecosystem areas to include?

The page’s plain-language explainer and step-by-step preparation section are the place to start, and the key biodiversity sites datapoint is the main scoping input. The guidance is meant to help you decide what to include and document that choice in the compilation notes. ↑ section

What should I put in the compilation notes for GRI 101-7 Biodiversity?

The page includes compilation notes as one of the required datapoints to prepare, so use them to record how the figures and descriptions were assembled. That helps make the disclosure easier to review and explain later. ↑ section

Who should own the GRI 101-7 Biodiversity data collection in practice?

The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person or team that can gather the site and ecosystem data and keep the evidence together. The page does not assign a single mandatory owner, so you need to set that internally. ↑ section

What evidence should I keep to make a GRI 101-7 Biodiversity disclosure assurance-ready?

The page says there is an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, and it also lists six assurance claims to verify using claim, risk, and evidence. Use those materials to build a file that shows where each datapoint came from and how it was checked. ↑ section

What are the common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 101-7 Biodiversity?

The page includes a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is designed to help you spot issues before you finalise the draft. A practical use is to compare your own draft against that list and fix any missing or inconsistent datapoints. ↑ section

How do I use the GRI 101-7 Biodiversity workbook and printable Library Card?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise the preparation and assurance checks, and the PDF if you want a quick reference copy. ↑ section

Can I turn the GRI 101-7 Biodiversity page into a draft disclosure quickly?

Yes — the page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a practical route from the prepared datapoints to a first draft. ↑ section

What does the synthetic example on GRI 101-7 Biodiversity show me, and can I copy it into my report?

The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure might look. You should use it as a model for structure and presentation, not as real company data. ↑ section

Is there a cross-framework link for GRI 101-7 Biodiversity that I can reuse in my reporting pack?

Yes — the page notes a closest correspondence with ESRS E4 (Biodiversity and Ecosystems). You can reuse the underlying data across both, but the page does not say the reporting requirements are identical. ↑ section

Changes to the state of biodiversity

Neem contact op