GRI 413-2 — Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities

Disclosure focus

This disclosure asks an organisation to explain which parts of its operations have, or could have, significant negative effects on nearby communities. The focus is not on every site in the business, but on identifying the operations where the risk or impact is material and describing them clearly.

In practice, the organisation should think about coverage across its footprint, not just headline or flagship locations. It should show where the significant impacts are concentrated, what kinds of operations are involved, and how it has determined that those impacts are significant for local communities.

Before you start

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

Have we agreed which sites, projects, or activities count as being close enough to local communities for this check?
Have we settled which parts of the business are included, and which are left out, before we list any locations?
Are we using a single reporting period or cut-off date for the locations and impact assessment, and is that the same basis across the file?
Can each location and impact judgement be traced back to a named source, such as site records, incident logs, or assessment notes?
Have we fixed the working definition we will use for a serious negative effect on nearby communities, so the team applies it consistently?

Preparation

Key datapoints to prepare

Datapoint	What to capture	Evidence hint	Owner
Affected operations list	Identify the sites, facilities or activities that have caused, or could cause, material harm to nearby communities. Capture enough detail to show which operations are in scope and why they are considered significant.	Impact assessments, incident logs, community complaints, site registers, and internal review papers linking the operation to the community impact.	Sustainability / Operations
Operation locations	Record where each relevant operation sits, using the business’s own location naming and enough geographic detail to distinguish sites, assets or project areas.	Site register, asset register, lease records, project maps, and legal entity or branch records showing the physical location.	Operations / Property / Legal Entity Management
Community impact summary	Describe the actual and possible harm linked to the operations, covering the nature of the impact and the affected community context. Keep the description tied to the specific operation and period being reported.	Impact assessments, grievance records, monitoring reports, incident investigations, and management papers that describe the harm and its likely effects.	Sustainability / Risk / HSE

Show GRI 413-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

List where the organisation carries out its operations.
Identify operations that have, or could have, material adverse effects on nearby communities.
Set out the material actual and possible adverse effects arising from operations.

LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source

How to prepare

Set the reporting boundary first: decide which sites, projects, or activities you will assess for this disclosure, and keep that scope consistent with the period you are reporting on.
Define what you will treat as a material community harm: use a clear internal test for when an operation may create, or has created, a meaningful adverse effect on nearby people or places.
Gather location-based support for each included operation: map where it sits, then pull together the records, assessments, incident logs, complaints, or other source material that show why it is in scope.
For every included operation, compile the substance of the issue: describe the adverse effects you identified, covering both harms that have already happened and those that could reasonably arise.
Record any omissions or changes in approach: note excluded operations, explain why they were left out, and flag any changes in method, boundary, or judgement from the prior reporting cycle.
Check the final draft against the source material: confirm the list of operations, their locations, and the impact descriptions are supported by evidence and align with the official reporting source before sign-off.

Request the site list and impact notes from Operations

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

Which sites or activities have had, or could have, material adverse effects on nearby communities, and where are they located?

Use your own site, asset, project, incident and community-impact terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. Keep the request in the language your operations teams already use, rather than using framework wording.

Weak request

Please provide the GRI 413-2 data on operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities, including the location of operations and the significant actual and potential negative impacts.

Why it fails: This uses framework language that many operational teams will not recognise, so it is harder to action. It also does not say which internal records to pull, what location detail is needed, how to judge significance, or how to separate actual issues from risks in the organisation’s own terms.

Better request

Please send the list of sites, projects or activities in scope for [reporting period], plus any community-impact issues or risks that your team has treated as material. For each item, include the site or asset name, internal ID, location, issue category, whether it is an actual issue or a credible risk, the source record, and the reason it was escalated. Use your normal operational language first, then add a short mapping note so we can align it to the reporting disclosure.

Formal email template

Subject: LRA training request — site locations and community-impact notes for [reporting period]

Dear [name/team],

I am preparing a reporting pack and need your help with the site-level information for [business unit / region / portfolio]. Please send the list of sites, projects or activities in scope for [reporting period], together with any notes on nearby-community issues that were material in practice or could become material.

Please use your normal operational terms first, then add a short mapping note so we can align the information to the reporting disclosure. For each item, please include the location, the internal site or asset reference, the issue category you use, whether it is an actual issue or a credible risk, the source record, and the basis used to treat it as significant.

If helpful, you can return the information in the table format below. Please also attach or link to the supporting records. This is a possible LRA training template only; adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.

Many thanks,
[preparer name]
[role]
[contact details]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [name] — could you send the site list for [reporting period] plus any community-impact notes for [business unit / region]? Please use your normal site/asset terms, then add a short mapping note. I need location, internal ID, issue type, whether it is an actual issue or a risk, source record, and the basis for treating it as significant. Thanks.

Industry examples

Mining / Extractives

Context. A multi-site operator with pits, processing plants, haul roads and a nearby tailings facility

Adapted request. Please provide the site register for [reporting period] and any community-impact issues or risks linked to pits, plant, haul routes, tailings, water abstraction or land access. For each item, include the site name, GPS or address location, internal asset ID, issue category, whether it is an actual issue or a credible risk, the source record, and the basis for escalation.

Example response. Returned table includes 14 sites; 3 sites flagged with actual community complaints about dust and traffic, 2 sites flagged with potential access and water-use risks, each with source references to the grievance log and site risk register.

Infrastructure / Transport

Context. A rail or road operator with depots, worksites, stations and temporary construction compounds

Adapted request. Please send the list of depots, stations, worksites and temporary compounds in scope for [reporting period], plus any local-community issues or risks linked to noise, access, congestion, safety, or construction disruption. Include the location, internal project or asset reference, issue type, whether it is live or potential, the source record, and the reason it was treated as significant.

Example response. Returned table includes 9 locations; 4 have live complaints about noise or access disruption, 1 has a potential traffic-management risk during peak works, with links to the complaints tracker, project risk log and weekly site reports.

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 how the organisation decided which sites to include, what it treated as a community-related impact, and whether the figures cover confirmed harm, possible harm, or both.

Context note

Set out what the figures indicate about where the organisation’s activities are affecting local communities and whether the issue is concentrated in a few sites or spread more widely.

Fluctuation statement

If the numbers moved materially, note whether that was driven by new sites, closures, better identification of issues, or changes in the severity or type of community impact recorded.

Content index entry

GRI 413-2 Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 413-2. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.

XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints + per-datapoint risk, evidence to check, owner & evidence pack XLSData-request packOperations / Site Management 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 built the coverage figure from the sites and activities we had already screened as the ones most likely to create material harm for nearby communities, rather than from every location in the group.	The assurer will probe whether the coverage basis was defined consistently, whether any relevant sites were left out, and whether the selection was made before results were compiled rather than adjusted afterwards.	Documented screening or scoping method; list of included and excluded sites or activities; rationale for why each site was treated as in or out of scope; dated working papers showing the scope was fixed before reporting.
For the disclosed locations, we used the operational footprint we held at the reporting date and mapped each site to the relevant local area using internal records and site registers.	The assurer will check whether the location list is complete, current and traceable to source records, and whether the same site naming and boundaries were used throughout the disclosure.	Site register or asset list; maps or address records; management reports showing the reporting-period footprint; reconciliation between the location list and the final disclosure; evidence of any changes during the period and how they were handled.
We based the impact statement on documented cases, assessments and incident records, and we only included effects that our review showed were significant enough to warrant reporting.	The assurer will test whether the impact assessment was evidence-based, whether significance was judged using a clear and consistent method, and whether adverse effects were omitted or softened without support.	Impact assessment methodology; incident logs, complaints, audit findings or investigation reports; meeting papers showing how significance was judged; supporting analysis for each reported effect; sign-off evidence from the team that reviewed the draft.
Before publication, we checked the figures and narrative against the underlying files, challenged any unusual movements or gaps, and obtained internal approval from the responsible reviewers.	The assurer will look for weak review controls, unexplained changes, arithmetic errors, or a lack of documented sign-off before the information was released.	Reconciliation sheets; review checklists; version history; evidence of challenge and resolution of anomalies; approval emails or sign-off forms; final draft compared with source data and working papers.

Evidence pack to prepare

The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation

Common reporting gaps

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.

Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data

Wrong owner
The team asks a community-relations lead for site impact data when the operational manager, H&S team, or local site contact holds the source records.
Framework language used too early
People request the information using disclosure labels instead of the business terms the site teams use, so they cannot map the request to their own records.
Scope not pinned down
The collector does not define which sites, projects, or activities are in scope, so some relevant operations are left out and others are pulled in by mistake.
Boundary set inconsistently
Different teams use different cut-offs for which locations count, so the final list mixes sites that should be included with sites that should not.
Wrong period basis
The data is pulled from a different reporting window than the one used for the rest of the report, which makes the site list and impact notes impossible to reconcile.
Counting rules mixed
One source counts individual incidents while another counts affected locations, and the collector combines them as if they were the same measure.
Source labels lost
The original site names, project codes, or incident references are stripped out during consolidation, so no one can trace each entry back to the first record.
Separate groups merged
Operations with different kinds of local impact are bundled into one line, which hides which locations have actual harm and which only have a possible risk.
Evidence trail incomplete
The file pack is missing the supporting notes, dates, and approver names, so the reviewer cannot see who checked the data or when.

Where judgement is often needed

Set the reporting perimeter after acquisitions and disposals
Use the same cut-off date and consolidation logic across the year, and explain any sites added or removed because ownership or control changed.
Handle country-by-country community labels consistently
Where local terms for nearby residents or affected groups differ, map them to one internal definition and note the translation or interpretation used.
Decide how to treat sites on the boundary of the affected area
If a location sits near the edge of the community area, apply a documented rule for inclusion or exclusion and describe that rule in the disclosure.
Choose one basis for judging significance and keep it stable
If you use incident counts, severity, complaints, or another internal test, apply the same basis across comparable sites and explain any change in method.
State when estimates are used instead of direct measurement
Where site-level evidence is incomplete, use a clearly described estimate method, label it as such, and say which locations were estimated rather than measured.
Round figures without losing the overall picture
Round individual site counts or summaries in a consistent way, and make sure the rounded figures still reconcile to the total set of affected operations.
Aggregate sensitive location details where needed
If naming a site would expose personal or security-sensitive information, group locations at a higher level and explain the level of aggregation used.
Separate current impacts from likely future impacts
Distinguish between harm already occurring and harm that could arise later, and describe both where they are material to the site list.

Examples

Illustrative examples

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

Mining — Iron, Aluminum, Other Metals · synthetic · written by LRA

This is a synthetic, illustrative example, not a real company. In this illustrative reporting period, we identified significant negative impacts at 11 of our 42 operations, and we recorded 23 grievances raised and 18 grievances resolved. We also had 7 remediation programmes in place to address the impacts identified.

This example shows how to describe the organisation’s own identification of significant negative impacts, alongside grievance handling and remediation, using only the supplied figures.

Technology Hardware and Equipment · synthetic · written by LRA

This is a synthetic, illustrative example, not a real company. In this illustrative reporting period, we identified significant negative impacts at 2 of our 16 operations, and we recorded 5 grievances raised and 4 grievances resolved. We also had 2 remediation programmes in place to respond to the impacts identified.

This example shows a concise first-person disclosure focused on where significant negative impacts were identified and how grievances and remediation were handled, without promotional language.

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 community-related impact issues — map: A geographic view of where operations are linked to material community impacts, helping readers see whether issues are concentrated in particular locations.
Count of affected operations by location — bar: A comparison of how many operations in each place are associated with material community impacts.
Impact status by operation — stacked bar: For each operation, a split between those with actual harm and those with possible future harm to nearby communities.
Overall mix of actual and possible impacts — donut: The share of operations associated with confirmed community harm versus those linked to potential harm.
Operations and impact type over time — line: How the number of operations linked to community impacts changes across reporting periods, if the reporter tracks this annually.

From a number to a disclosure

What separates a figure from a disclosure.

Basic

We identified 3 sites with material adverse effects on nearby communities.

Better

We identified 3 sites in coastal and rural areas with material adverse effects on nearby communities, based on our site review and incident log.

Best

We identified 3 sites in coastal and rural areas with material adverse effects on nearby communities during 2025, based on our site review and incident log, and the count rose by 1 because a new quarry began operating near a village.

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 413-2 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.

Company

Sector · Country

Year

Match

Page

Report

Assurance

Wistron Corporation

Technology Hardware and Equipment · Taiwan

2024

Exact

p. 272 →p. 244 →p. 33 →

2024 Sustainability Report →

KPMG

Evidence in Wistron Corporation’s report

What the report shows

Wistron Corporation’s 2024 Sustainability Report includes a specific reference to operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities, noted on page 272. However, the report does not provide quotable evidence for more detailed narrative items (a-i) and (a-ii). Additional mentions related to potential impacts on natural capital (p.96), high-risk ecosystems (p.92), and occupational hazards (p.170) are present but do not directly address the detailed disclosure requirements.

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
Affected operations listA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 272
Operation locationsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Community impact summaryNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—

Source trail

p. 272Local Communities 2016 413-2 Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts
p. 272Operations and suppliers at significant risk for incidents of child labor 4.3.3 Human Rights Risks and Material Issues 156 No significant
p. 96actual or potential negative impacts of our operations on natural capital in accordance with the TNFD
p. 92potential impacts such as pollution and noise, thereby identifying high-risk ecosystems Identify potential impacts Ensure
p. 170potential occupational hazards are being consistently eliminated from the workplace. In the event of an immediate and dangerous emergency

Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.

Home Building · Japan

2025

Exact

p. 537 →p. 289 →p. 137 →

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 a covered datapoint on operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities, referenced on page 537. However, the report does not provide quotable evidence for the more detailed narrative items (a-i) and (a-ii). Other related topics such as forced or compulsory labour risks and waste management are mentioned on pages 536 and 533 respectively, but these do not directly address the specific disclosure narrative items.

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
Affected operations listA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 537
Operation locationsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Community impact summaryNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—

Source trail

p. 537Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities 6.3.9 6.5.3 6.8 ‒ Supplier
p. 536Location Forced or Compulsory Labor 2016 409-1 Operations and suppliers at significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory
p. 533Location WASTE 2020 306-1 Waste generation and significant waste-related impacts 306-2 Management of significant
p. 530Impacts 2016 203-1 Infrastructure investments and services supported 6.3.9 6.8.1 6.8.2 6.8.7 6.8.9 203-2 Significant indirect
p. 540LOCATION Land Use & Ecological Impacts Number of (1) lots and (2) homes delivered on redevelopment sites IF-HB-160a
p. 137significant risks and 36 potential opportunities identified from the qualitative assessment results, of which 30 risks were rated

Hindustan Zinc Limited

Mining — Iron, Aluminum, Other Metals · India

2025

Partial

p. 76 →p. 116 →p. 128 →

Sustainability Report 2024-25 →

EY; BSI

Evidence in Hindustan Zinc Limited’s report

What the report shows

Hindustan Zinc Limited’s Sustainability Report 2024-25 provides data on operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts, specifically referencing this on page 116. The report also addresses management of material topics related to land and resource rights, as noted on page 119. However, there is no quotable evidence found for narrative item (a-ii), indicating a gap in coverage for that specific disclosure element.

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
Affected operations listA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 116
Operation locationsA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 119
Community impact summaryNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—

Source trail

p. 116Operations with significant 413-2 Operations with significant actual and potential negative actual
p. 51negative impacts 0 % of suppliers with substantial actual/potential negative impacts with agreed corrective action/improvement
p. 115significant waste-related impacts significant waste-related impacts Waste: 14.5.2 Waste: 14.5.2 SR: Responsible Waste SR: Responsible
p. 38Significant risks found HIGHLIGHTS FOR FY 2024-25 We recognise our accountability for using the local resources in our operations
p. 128Local Communities GRI 3-2 List of material topics GRI 414-1, 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment GRI 3-3 Management
p. 119Location Page Number 14.12.1 Management of material topic: Land and resource rights IAR: Reclaiming Tomorrow Through Responsible Site Closure SR: Responsible
p. 123Location Page Number Greenhouse Gas Emissions EM-MM-110a.1 SR: KPIs - Environment 105 EM-MM-110a.2 SR: Sustainability

Check your understanding

A quarry sits beside two villages and a school. The site team has logged dust complaints, truck traffic concerns, and a planned expansion that could increase noise and access issues.Should this site be treated as one of the places where the business has meaningful harmful effects, and should you capture where it is and what the current and possible future harm is?

Model answer. Yes. This is the kind of location that should be picked out because the business can point to a real harmful effect already happening, and a likely future one as well. The write-up should identify the site location and describe both the harm already seen and the harm that could arise if the expansion goes ahead.

Why this matters. Use the site’s place and the nature of the harm together, not one without the other.

A distribution depot is in an industrial estate, but residents from a nearby housing area have raised repeated concerns about night-time vehicle movements and light spill. The team has not linked this to any formal incident record yet.Do you include this depot in the disclosure even though the issue is based on complaints and a foreseeable risk rather than a recorded incident?

Model answer. Yes. A site can belong in the disclosure where there is a credible harmful effect on nearby people, whether that effect has already happened or is reasonably expected. The absence of a formal incident log does not remove the need to describe the location and the nature of the concern.

Why this matters. A documented incident is not the only trigger; credible present or future harm can be enough.

A processing plant has one boundary shared with farmland and another with a small settlement. The environmental team has evidence of odour complaints from the settlement and a risk assessment showing that an equipment failure could affect local water use.How should you decide what to report for this plant: only the complaint issue, only the risk issue, or both?

Model answer. Both should be covered if each is a meaningful negative effect or a meaningful possible one. The disclosure should not be limited to one type of harm when the same operation creates more than one relevant issue for nearby communities. The location should be named, and the actual and possible harms should be described clearly and separately.

Why this matters. Where one operation creates more than one significant community impact, report the full picture.

A wind farm has no current complaints, but the project team has identified a likely future issue during maintenance works because access roads will pass close to homes. The team is unsure whether a future-only concern belongs in the disclosure.Should a likely future harm be included even if no community has been affected yet?

Model answer. Yes. The disclosure is not limited to harm that has already happened. If the operation presents a meaningful risk of negative impact on local people, that future risk belongs in the narrative alongside the site location.

Why this matters. Potential harm counts when it is significant and tied to a specific operation.

Analyse this disclosure across real reports

See how companies actually report GRI 413-2 — 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 413-2

within GRI 413: Local Communities 2016

Open official source →

→

ESRSRelated

ESRS S3

Affected Communities — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).

→

IFRSNo equivalent

—

No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.

Related & explore

Operations with local community engagemen… Guide ✓

More in GRI 413 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →

Questions this page answers

What do I need to gather before drafting GRI 413-2 Local Communities on this page?

Start with the three datapoints listed on the page: affected operations, operation locations, and a community impact summary. The page also gives a step-by-step preparation section to help you turn those inputs into a draft. ↑ section

How should I define the scope for GRI 413-2 Local Communities when I use this page?

Use the page’s preparation guidance to identify which operations are affected and where they are located, then link that to the community impact summary. The page is designed to help you set scope in a practical way before drafting. ↑ section

What evidence should I collect for assurance on GRI 413-2 Local Communities?

The page says there are four assurance claims to verify and an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness. Use those sections to build a file that shows the claim, the risk, and the supporting evidence. ↑ section

How do I use the assurance claims section for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?

The page breaks assurance into claim, risk, and evidence, so you can check each point systematically. That makes it easier to see what needs support before review or assurance. ↑ section

What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 413-2 Local Communities?

The page says the evidence pack contains five items and is meant to support assurance readiness. Use it alongside the assurance claims so your draft is backed by the right source material. ↑ section

What are the common mistakes to avoid when reporting GRI 413-2 Local Communities?

The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is worth checking your draft against that list before sign-off. This is especially useful for spotting missing scope, weak evidence, or unclear narrative. ↑ section

How can I turn the GRI 413-2 Local Communities data into a draft report section?

The page includes draft-output support with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. Use those to move from raw inputs to a report-ready draft without starting from scratch. ↑ section

Where can I download the workbook for GRI 413-2 Local Communities and what is it for?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. The workbook is there to help you prepare the disclosure and get assurance-ready. ↑ section

Can I use the GRI 413-2 Local Communities page to support an ESRS S3 affected communities data pack?

The page notes ESRS S3 (Affected Communities) as the closest correspondence, so the same data may be reusable across both. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you should still check the other framework separately. ↑ section

What does the synthetic example on GRI 413-2 Local Communities show me?

The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table where relevant. You can use them as a model for structure and presentation, but they are examples only and not real company data. ↑ section

Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities

Neem contact op