Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how far it has put in place structured engagement with local communities, assessed the impacts of its operations on those communities, and supported community development through programmes or initiatives. The focus is on whether these practices are actually embedded in the way the organisation operates, rather than being occasional or limited to a few visible projects.
In practice, the key question is coverage: does this apply across the organisation’s operations, or only at flagship sites, major facilities, or selected locations? A useful response should make clear the scope of operations included, the types of engagement, assessment and development activities used, and whether these are applied consistently or only in certain parts of the business.
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
＋ Show GRI 413-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Check which sites have put in place local community engagement arrangements.
Check which sites have carried out impact assessments for nearby communities.
Check which sites have put in place community development programmes.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first: decide which sites, business units, joint arrangements, or other operations will be included in the calculation, and keep that scope consistent with the period you are reporting.
2Agree what counts as an included operation for this metric, so you can identify which parts of the business have local community engagement, impact review work, and/or community development activity in place.
3Gather support for each included operation, using internal records, project files, approvals, monitoring outputs, or other evidence that shows the relevant activity is actually in place.
4Calculate the share of operations covered by the relevant activity, then present the result as a percentage and make sure the numerator and denominator are built from the same scope.
5Record any exclusions, boundary changes, or methodology updates, including why an operation was left out or newly brought in, so the figure can be traced and compared over time.
6Check the draft against the official source before sign-off, confirming that the scope, definition of included operations, evidence trail, and percentage all match the underlying requirement.
Request the data
Request the site-level evidence from Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which sites or operating units have put in place local community engagement, impact review, or community development activity during the reporting period, and what share of the total does that represent?
Use your organisation’s own site, asset, branch, project, or operating-unit terms first, then map them to the reporting question. Keep the ask in business language that your teams already use, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the operations with local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs data for GRI 413-1.
Why it fails: It uses framework wording, does not say which internal units to pull from, and does not specify the period, boundary, source, or how to count the sites. That makes it hard for the owner to answer quickly or consistently.
Better request
Please send the site or operating-unit list for [period] and mark which ones had any local community engagement, local impact review, or community development activity in place. Use your own internal labels, include the source record, and confirm the total number of sites in scope so we can calculate the share covered.
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 you defined an operation, what counted as community engagement, impact review, or development activity, and whether the figure reflects all operations or only those with complete records.
Context note
Set out what the percentage says about how widely community-related practices are embedded across the business, rather than how intensive or effective those activities are.
Fluctuation statement
If the figure moved from the prior period, note whether that was driven by more sites adopting these practices, changes in the number of operations included, or improved record-keeping.
Content index entry
GRI 413-1 Operations with local community engagement, impact assessments, and development programs — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 413-1 — 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
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.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong owner
The request goes to a team that does not hold the site-level records, so the count is built from second-hand estimates instead of the people who run the local programmes.
Framework language only
The data call is written in reporting jargon rather than the organisation’s own site, project, or community terms, so teams cannot map it cleanly to their records.
Scope left vague
No one defines which operations are in or out, so different teams include different sites and the final percentage is not based on the same boundary.
Wrong time basis
The collection period is not fixed up front, so some sites report current activity while others use older records and the figures do not line up.
Mixed counting method
Some teams count sites, others count projects or events, which makes the numerator and denominator incompatible before the disclosure is even drafted.
Source labels lost
Original file names, site codes, or local programme labels are stripped away during consolidation, so the team cannot trace each figure back to its source record.
Populations merged
Community engagement work, impact review records, and development activity are blended together without keeping separate source lists, so overlaps and gaps are hidden.
Missing evidence trail
The dataset is assembled without keeping the underlying files, dates, and reviewer notes together, so there is no clear audit trail for later checking.
No sign-off trail
The final numbers are circulated without a named reviewer and approval record, so nobody can show who checked the data before it moved into reporting.
Where judgement is often needed
Set the reporting boundary after acquisitions or disposals
Use the same cut-off date and boundary logic as the rest of your reporting period, then explain which sites were added or removed and whether the percentage was recalculated or left on the prior basis.
Choose one working definition where local terms differ by country
If site teams use different labels or thresholds for community work, impact reviews, or development activity, map them to one internal definition for the percentage and note the mapping used.
Decide how to treat sites on the edge of the operational perimeter
For shared sites, temporary locations, or assets with mixed control, set a consistent inclusion rule, apply it across the portfolio, and disclose the rule where judgement was needed.
Align the count with the period you are reporting on
If programmes start, end, or change during the year, state whether you counted only active sites at period end or used another consistent timing basis, and keep the approach stable year to year unless you explain the change.
State when you used estimates instead of direct records
Where site-level evidence is incomplete, use a documented estimate method, identify the main assumptions, and separate estimated from directly verified coverage if that affects the result.
Round the percentage without obscuring the underlying count
Round the final figure to a sensible level, but keep the unrounded numerator and denominator available internally so the reported percentage can be traced back and reproduced.
Aggregate carefully where privacy limits site-level detail
If naming individual communities or projects could expose personal or sensitive information, group the data at a higher level, explain the aggregation rule, and show that the reported percentage still covers the full population in scope.
Handle mixed-purpose programmes consistently
When one initiative combines community engagement, impact review, and development support, count the operation as covered if your internal rule treats any one of those elements as sufficient, and describe that rule clearly.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks
This is a synthetic, illustrative example, not a real company. In this illustrative reporting year, we engaged 61 communities across 9 countries, and our community engagement covered 38 of 42 operations, representing 90% coverage. We also carried out 35 impact assessments and supported 27 development programmes, reflecting our deep direct local footprint and the fact that any excluded operations would need a clear explanation.
For a high direct-impact business, the disclosure should show near-total operational coverage and make any gaps explicit. Keep the narrative first-person and tie the figures to the organisation’s direct footprint.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Commercial banking
This is a synthetic, illustrative example, not a real company. In this illustrative reporting year, we engaged 9 communities across 4 countries, and our community engagement covered 6 of 16 operations, representing 38% coverage. We also carried out 4 impact assessments and supported 3 development programmes, which reflects a footprint concentrated in a minority of sites rather than a gap in reporting.
For a business with partial indirect impact, it is appropriate that only a subset of sites is covered. The narrative should make clear that partial coverage is inherent to the operating model, not the result of omission.
Company reports
How companies report GRI 413-1
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Abertis
Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · Spain · 2024
Abertis’ 2024 Annual Report includes coverage of local community engagement, referencing GRI standards 413-1 and 413-2 related to positive social and environmental criteria and social responsibility in the value chain (p.257). The report also discusses dialogue with local community actors and types of engagement (p.220), as well as impact, risk, and opportunity management concerning adjacent communities (p.175). However, specific quantitative data or detailed outcomes related to these disclosures are not clearly presented or elaborated beyond these references, leaving some aspects unclear.
Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited
Chemicals · Thailand · 2024
Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited’s Sustainability Report 2024 includes data related to local community engagement, specifically referencing the Global CSR Data Standard Requirements and GRI 413-1 on page 85. The report provides figures on the number of local community consultation committees and operations with implemented work councils, showing an increase to 27 in 2024 (p.85). However, the report does not clearly specify the percentage value for local community engagement or provide detailed qualitative descriptions of the engagement processes.
Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil · 2024
Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL’s 2024 Integrated Report provides a covered datapoint showing 100% impact assessments related to local community development programs tailored to local needs (p.210). The report also discusses social and environmental challenges linked to the Copel GeT projects and details these in an Impact Study (p.212). However, the report does not clearly specify the extent of negative impacts on communities or provide detailed quantitative data on stakeholder engagement outcomes beyond these points.
✓ 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.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 413-1?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
1 free answer
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A group has 12 operating sites. At 9 sites, the business has put in place a local community engagement process; at 7 sites, it has carried out impact reviews; and at 5 sites, it runs community development activities. Three sites have none of these in place.
QFor this disclosure, how should the preparer decide which sites count in the numerator, and what should be checked before turning that into a percentage?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Count each operating site once if it has at least one of the three types of action in place: community engagement, impact review, or development activity. In this example, 9 sites have engagement, 7 have impact reviews, and 5 have development activities, but the numerator is the number of sites with any one of those measures, not the sum of the three figures. The percentage is then that count divided by the total number of operating sites, with the evidence file showing how each site was assessed and why it was included or excluded.
Why this matters · Use a site-level count of operations with at least one relevant local-community measure in place, then divide by all operations.
A preparer has data from 20 sites, but 4 are newly opened and have not yet been screened for local community effects. The team is tempted to leave those 4 out because no action has started there yet.
QShould those 4 sites be excluded from the calculation, or does the preparer need to resolve their status first?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Their status needs to be resolved first. The calculation should cover the full set of operations in scope for the reporting period, so a site cannot be left out simply because no community process, impact review, or development activity has begun. The preparer should confirm whether each of the 4 sites is in scope and then record whether any of the three measures is in place there before calculating the percentage.
Why this matters · Do not drop sites from the denominator just because implementation has not started; first confirm whether they belong in scope.
A business has one large processing plant and eight small depots. The plant has a formal community programme and an impact review, while two depots have only informal meetings with neighbours and no documented assessment or development activity.
QCan the informal meetings at the depots be counted as local community engagement for this disclosure?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Only if the business can show that those meetings are a real, implemented engagement process rather than ad hoc contact. For this disclosure, the preparer should count a site only when there is evidence of an actual local-community engagement arrangement, an impact review, or a development activity in place. If the depot meetings are not documented as an implemented process, they should not be counted on that basis alone.
Why this matters · Count implemented practice, not casual contact, and keep evidence that shows the action is actually in place.
A company has 15 operations. It has a community engagement process at 6 sites, impact reviews at 6 sites, and development activities at 6 sites, but 3 of those sites have all three measures and 9 sites have none.
QHow should the preparer avoid overstating the result when the same sites appear in more than one internal list?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The preparer should remove duplicates and count each operation only once, even if it appears in more than one internal list. In this example, the numerator is 9 sites with at least one of the three measures in place, not 18. The percentage is therefore 9 out of 15, and the working papers should show the de-duplication logic clearly.
Why this matters · When a site has more than one relevant measure, count it once only and document the de-duplication.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
How do I prepare GRI 413-1 Local Communities using this page without missing the key datapoint?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer and the single datapoint to prepare: community programme coverage. Then use the step-by-step preparation section to turn that into a draft and check it against the common gaps before you finalise anything.
What does 'community programme coverage' mean for GRI 413-1 on this page, and how should I use it in my draft?+−
The page points you to community programme coverage as the datapoint to prepare, so use it as the core input for your disclosure draft. The page does not add a formal definition, so keep the wording aligned to the explainer and your own evidence pack.
What data do I need to collect for GRI 413-1 Local Communities before I can write the disclosure?+−
Collect the community programme coverage data first, then gather the evidence pack items so you can support the claim and the methodology. The page also suggests using the workbook to organise the data before drafting.
How should I set the scope and methodology for GRI 413-1 using this page?+−
Use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section to decide what is in scope and how you will describe the coverage data. The page is designed to help you make the method clear enough for assurance and to avoid the common reporting gaps listed on the page.
Who should own the GRI 413-1 Local Communities data and evidence pack in practice?+−
The page is aimed at sustainability and ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with whoever can collect the coverage data and maintain the evidence pack. Use the workbook to assign and track those responsibilities internally.
What evidence pack do I need to make a GRI 413-1 disclosure assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with six items for assurance readiness, so use that as your checklist before sign-off. Pair it with the five assurance claims to verify so you can link each claim to a risk and supporting evidence.
What are the five assurance claims I should verify for GRI 413-1 Local Communities?+−
The page says there are five assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence prompt. Use them to test whether your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is complete enough for review.
What are the common mistakes or reporting gaps on the GRI 413-1 page, and how do I avoid them?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a pre-submission check. A practical approach is to compare your draft, your coverage data and your evidence pack against those gaps before you export anything.
How do I use the workbook and printable library card for GRI 413-1 Local Communities?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise preparation and evidence, and the library card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing.
Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on the GRI 413-1 page as a template for my own draft?+−
Yes, but only as a synthetic illustration of how a disclosure might look, not as a model requirement. The page also includes a quantitative table in the example, so you can see how the data may be presented consistently in a draft.
How does the ESRS S3 (Affected Communities) reference help me with GRI 413-1 Local Communities?+−
The page says ESRS S3 (Affected Communities) is the closest correspondence, so it can help you think about cross-framework reuse of data. Treat it as a practical reference point only; the page does not say the requirements are identical.
More questions this page can help with
GRI 413-1 Local Communities workbook download: what should I fill in first?GRI 413-1 evidence pack checklist for assurance readinessHow to draft GRI 413-1 Local Communities from the page’s narrative startersGRI 413-1 common reporting mistakes and gaps to check before submissionWhat is the GRI 413-1 community programme coverage datapoint and how do I collect it?GRI 413-1 Local Communities step-by-step preparation guideHow to assign ownership for GRI 413-1 Local Communities data and evidenceGRI 413-1 assurance claims claim risk evidence explainedGRI 413-1 draft output ideas: visualisation, narrative and content index lineCan I reuse GRI 413-1 data for ESRS S3 Affected Communities?GRI 413-1 Local Communities plain-language explainer for practitionersHow to use the from company reports table on the GRI 413-1 page
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 413-1 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 →