GRI 101-2 — Management of biodiversity impacts

Disclosure focus

This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it manages its biodiversity impacts in practice, rather than just stating that it has a policy. The focus is on the systems, responsibilities and actions used to identify, avoid, reduce and address impacts on nature, and on whether those arrangements are applied consistently across the business.

In practical terms, the report should show the breadth of coverage: whether management approaches apply only to a few flagship sites or to all relevant operations, activities and locations. It should also make clear where the organisation has stronger control and where there are gaps, so readers can understand how complete and embedded the approach really is.

Before you start

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

Have you already separated the sites where biodiversity pressure is most material from the rest, so you know which locations need a management plan and which ones need a reason for not having one?
For each action you plan to describe, have you decided whether it sits in the avoid, reduce, restore, offset, or wider conservation bucket, so the same activity is not counted twice?
If you are giving area figures for land under recovery work and land already recovered, have you fixed the measurement basis and reporting period, and can you keep the two numbers distinct?
Before you mention any offset, have you checked what kind it is, where it sits, whether it follows accepted good-practice principles, and whether a third party has checked or certified it?
Have you traced every narrative and number back to a source record, such as site plans, project files, or assurance evidence, so the wording can be supported at sign-off?
When you describe how the work links biodiversity with climate action and stakeholder outcomes, have you agreed which internal definition and scope your team will use so the explanation is consistent across the report?

Preparation

Key datapoints to prepare

Datapoint	What to capture	Evidence hint	Owner
Avoidance actions	A plain summary of the steps taken to stop harm to biodiversity from happening in the first place, including the main measures used and where they apply.	Project plans, mitigation hierarchy notes, site environmental plans, approvals, and internal action trackers.	Environment / Sustainability
Reduction actions	A plain summary of the steps taken to reduce biodiversity harm that could not be fully prevented, including the main measures and the affected activities or sites.	Mitigation plans, site monitoring records, contractor instructions, and environmental management logs.	Environment / Operations
Ecosystem repair actions	A description of the work done to repair or bring back affected habitats and ecosystems, including the main activities and locations covered.	Restoration plans, ecological contractor reports, completion certificates, and site inspection records.	Environment / Project Delivery
Restoration aims	The intended outcomes for the repair or recovery work, stated as the ecological end state or improvement the organisation is trying to achieve.	Restoration strategy, project objectives, ecological design documents, and approval papers.	Environment / Sustainability
Stakeholder involvement	How affected or relevant parties are involved during the repair and recovery work, including when they are consulted, informed, or participate.	Engagement logs, meeting notes, consultation records, grievance records, and community liaison reports.	Stakeholder Engagement / Environment
Offsetting actions	A description of the measures used to compensate for biodiversity harm that remains after other steps, including the main offset activity and where it applies.	Offset agreements, project files, ecological assessments, and offset monitoring reports.	Environment / Sustainability
Transformative and extra conservation	A description of the major change-making actions and any additional conservation measures taken, with enough detail to show what was done and in what form.	Strategy papers, conservation project records, investment approvals, and implementation updates.	Environment / Strategy
High-impact sites	The sites where biodiversity effects are greatest, identified by name or location and linked to the basis used to rank them as most significant.	Site impact assessments, biodiversity risk maps, materiality analysis, and site registers.	Environment / Operations
Area under repair	The total land area, in hectares, currently under restoration or rehabilitation work.	Ecological project schedules, site maps, contractor measurements, and land survey records.	Environment / Project Delivery
Area repaired	The total land area, in hectares, that has been restored or rehabilitated and counted as completed for the reporting period.	Completion reports, ecological sign-off documents, post-restoration surveys, and GIS area calculations.	Environment / Project Delivery
Offset type	The kind of offset used, described in business terms that show what form the compensation takes and how it is delivered.	Offset contracts, project descriptions, registry entries, and ecological assessment files.	Environment / Sustainability
Offset aims	The intended result of the offset, stated as the ecological outcome it is meant to achieve.	Offset design documents, project objectives, and approval papers.	Environment / Sustainability
Offset location	The geographic place where the offset is carried out, with enough detail to identify the site or area.	Maps, registry records, land titles, project files, and location coordinates.	Environment / Sustainability
Good practice check	A yes/no judgement on whether the offset follows the organisation’s stated good-practice principles, based on the evidence available.	Offset assessment checklist, assurance reports, internal review notes, and third-party evaluations.	Environment / Sustainability
Good practice basis	A short explanation of how the offset meets the organisation’s good-practice principles, including the specific features or controls relied on.	Assessment memos, offset design documents, monitoring results, and assurance findings.	Environment / Sustainability
Third-party check	A yes/no statement on whether an outside party has certified or verified the offset.	Certificates, verification statements, registry records, and assurance reports.	Environment / Sustainability
Third-party evidence	A description of the external certification or verification, including who did it and what was checked.	Certificate documents, verifier reports, registry entries, and scope statements.	Environment / Sustainability
Managed high-impact sites	The sites with the greatest biodiversity effects that also have a biodiversity management plan in place, identified by site name or location.	Site registers, biodiversity management plans, impact rankings, and environmental governance records.	Environment / Operations
No-plan explanation	A short explanation for each other high-impact site that does not have a biodiversity management plan, stating the reason it is not in place.	Gap analysis, site action plans, management decisions, and risk assessments.	Environment / Operations
Biodiversity-climate links	A description of how the organisation joins up biodiversity actions with climate actions so the two work together better and conflict less.	Integrated strategy papers, project design notes, climate and nature assessments, and cross-functional meeting records.	Environment / Strategy
Stakeholder benefit balance	A description of how the organisation designs and runs biodiversity actions so they prevent harm, limit remaining harm, and create the greatest positive effect for stakeholders.	Impact assessments, stakeholder engagement records, project design documents, and benefit tracking reports.	Environment / Sustainability

Show GRI 101-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

Check that any offset follows recognised good-practice principles.
Set out the steps used to prevent harm to biodiversity.
Set out the steps used to reduce harm that could not be prevented.
Set out the steps used to compensate for remaining biodiversity harm.
Set out the steps used to repair and bring back affected habitats.
Explain how affected stakeholders are involved during the repair and recovery work.
Explain how the biodiversity actions and climate actions are aligned, and where conflicts are reduced.
Explain how the organisation makes sure biodiversity actions prevent and reduce harm, while also increasing benefits for stakeholders.
Describe any wider change-making actions and any extra conservation actions taken.
Explain why the other locations do not have a biodiversity plan.
State where the offset is located.
State what the offset is intended to achieve.
State what the repair and recovery work is intended to achieve.
Explain how recognised good-practice principles are met for the offset.
Explain whether a third party has certified or checked the offset.
State whether the offset has been certified or checked by a third party.
List the locations with the biggest biodiversity impacts that do have a biodiversity plan.
Identify the locations with the biggest biodiversity impacts.
State the area restored or rehabilitated, in hectares.
State the area currently under restoration or rehabilitation, in hectares.
State the kind of biodiversity offset used.

LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source

How to prepare

Set the reporting boundary first. Decide which operations, projects, and sites belong in scope, then identify the locations where biodiversity effects are most material so you know what needs to be covered in the disclosure.
Agree the categories of action you will report. Separate what was done to prevent harm, what was done to reduce harm that could not be prevented, what was done to restore or repair affected ecosystems, what was done to compensate for remaining harm, and any wider conservation or transformational measures.
Gather support for each item before drafting. Pull together site records, project files, restoration plans, offset documents, management plans, stakeholder engagement notes, and any third-party checks so each statement can be backed up.
Prepare the figures and narrative in the required format. For restoration and rehabilitation, include the area under work and the area completed, both in hectares. For offsets, state the type, purpose, location, whether good-practice principles are met, how they are met, and whether a third party has certified or checked them, including how that was done.
Record any gaps, exclusions, or differences in coverage. Explain which significant sites have a biodiversity management plan and why other relevant sites do not, and note any changes in scope, method, or underlying data so the reader can understand the basis of the disclosure.
Check the draft against the source data point by point. Confirm that every required item is answered, the wording matches the evidence, the site list is complete, and the final text stays aligned with the official source before sign-off.

Request biodiversity management evidence from site operations

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

What actions, site details and supporting evidence do we have for managing biodiversity impacts across the reporting period?

Use your organisation’s own site, environment and nature terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. Ask for the way the work is actually tracked internally, not in framework language, and check the source material before sign-off.

Weak request

Please provide the biodiversity management disclosure for the year.

Why it fails: It uses framework language only, gives no boundary or period, and does not tell the owner what records or site-level details to pull. That makes it hard to find the right evidence and easy to return an incomplete answer.

Better request

Please send the site-level nature management records for [period] across [boundary], including the actions taken to avoid harm, the actions used where harm remained, restoration or rehabilitation details, any offset records, the sites with the biggest impacts, which sites have a site plan, and the supporting files or links. Use your internal labels first, then I will map them for reporting.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for biodiversity management evidence for [reporting period]

Hi [name/team],

Please could you send the information and supporting records for the biodiversity work tracked by your team for [reporting period] across [boundary].

I’m looking for the practical details we use internally for:
- actions taken to avoid harm to nature
- actions taken where harm could not be fully avoided
- restoration or rehabilitation work, including the aim of the work and how stakeholders were involved
- any offsetting activity, including location, purpose, and any third-party check or certification
- sites with the most significant nature impacts, including which ones have a site plan and why others do not
- any links between nature actions and climate actions
- how the approach is set up to reduce harm and support positive outcomes for affected stakeholders

Please include the source record for each item, the site or project name, the period covered, and any supporting documents or links. If your team uses different labels internally, please use those labels first and I will map them for reporting.

A possible LRA training template is attached below for reference only; please adapt this to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.

Thanks,
[preparer name]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [name] — could you share the biodiversity / nature management records for [period] across [boundary]? I need the site list, actions taken, restoration or offset details, any third-party checks, and the supporting files/links. Please use your team’s own terms first, and I’ll map them for reporting. Thanks.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A plant with land adjacent to a watercourse and a small restoration area around drainage works.

Adapted request. Hi [site manager] — please share the nature management records for [period] for [plant name] and any associated land. I need the actions taken to avoid or reduce harm, the restoration work around the drainage area, the area restored in hectares, any offset records, and whether the site has a site nature plan. Please include the source files and any consultant notes.

Example response. Site: Plant A; Action type: avoid/reduce; Action summary: rerouted access track away from riparian strip; Goal: protect bank habitat; Area under restoration or rehabilitation: 1.2 ha; Area restored or rehabilitated: 0.8 ha; Offset type: habitat creation; Offset goal: replace residual loss; Offset location: nearby county land; Good-practice check: yes; Third-party check: yes; Supporting evidence: ecology report, contractor completion note, consultant sign-off.

Infrastructure / Utilities

Context. A network operator with multiple substations and a linear corridor where some sites have formal habitat plans and others do not.

Adapted request. Hi [environment lead] — could you send the biodiversity management records for [period] across the substations and corridor sites in [boundary]? Please include the sites with the largest nature impacts, which ones have a management plan, why the others do not, any restoration or offset activity, and how nature work is aligned with climate works. Attach the relevant plans, monitoring records and any third-party verification.

Example response. Site list with biggest impacts: Substation 12, Corridor section C4; Has biodiversity management plan: yes for Substation 12, no for Corridor section C4; Reason if no plan: temporary works only, low-duration disturbance, managed through project controls; Nature-climate link: vegetation management timed to reduce habitat disturbance and fire risk; Supporting evidence: site plan, monitoring log, project risk assessment, verification letter.

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 defined each action category, how it measured hectares and selected the sites included, and how it decided whether an offset counted as meeting its stated good-practice approach.

Context note

Set out what the figures show about the organisation’s response to biodiversity impacts, including where the main sites are, how much land is being restored or has been restored, and how offsets are being used to address any remaining harm.

Fluctuation statement

If the figures changed from the prior period, describe the operational or project reasons behind the movement, such as more sites entering restoration, completion of rehabilitation work, or changes in the number, type, or location of offsets.

Content index entry

GRI 101-2 Management of biodiversity impacts — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 101-2. 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
I have documented the practical steps we took to prevent harm to nature, and I can show the working papers that support that narrative.	The assurer will test whether the statement is backed by site-level records rather than a high-level summary, and whether the actions described are actually preventive rather than general good practice.	['Internal action logs, project plans or method statements showing the measures implemented', 'Site records, permits or operational instructions linking the actions to the disclosed locations', 'Review notes showing the wording was checked against underlying evidence before publication']
Where harm could not be fully prevented, I have set out the measures we used to reduce it, with evidence that these were the measures actually applied.	The assurer will probe whether the report overstates what was done, whether the residual harm was identified properly, and whether the reduction measures are specific to the disclosed impacts.	['Impact assessments or mitigation plans showing the remaining issues and the response chosen', 'Operational records, contractor instructions or monitoring results showing the measures were carried out', 'Approval trail showing the final text was reconciled to the source records']
I have described the work done to repair affected areas, and the file contains the records behind that description.	The assurer will check whether the restoration activity really happened, whether the description matches the work completed, and whether the evidence covers the relevant locations and period.	['Restoration plans, completion reports and site photographs', 'Progress monitoring, ecological surveys or handover records', 'Version-controlled draft and sign-off evidence linking the narrative to source documents']
I have stated the intended outcome of the repair work in plain terms, and that outcome is supported by the project documents.	The assurer will test whether the stated aim is consistent with the approved plan and whether it is framed as an actual project objective rather than a retrospective claim.	['Project charter, business case or restoration plan setting out the intended outcome', 'Internal approvals showing the objective was agreed before work started', 'Evidence that the published wording matches the approved objective']
I have explained how affected parties were involved during the repair work, and I can evidence the engagement that took place.	The assurer will look for proof that engagement was ongoing and relevant, not a generic statement about consultation or stakeholder interest.	['Meeting notes, correspondence, workshop records or consultation summaries', 'Attendance lists, feedback logs and responses showing how input was handled', 'Records showing the engagement description was checked against the underlying trail']
I have set out any remaining harm that we chose to balance through offsetting, and the supporting records show the offset was actually arranged.	The assurer will probe whether the residual impact was identified correctly, whether the offset is linked to that impact, and whether the claim is more than an intention or policy statement.	['Residual impact assessment and offset plan', 'Contracts, registry entries or implementation records for the offset arrangement', 'Internal review confirming the disclosed offset matches the underlying evidence']

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
The request goes to the wrong team, so the site manager, environment lead or project owner never confirms the actions from their own records.
Framework language only
The data call is written in reporting jargon, so operational teams cannot map it to the words they use for projects, permits or habitat work.
Scope left vague
No one states which sites, activities or entities are in scope, so some relevant locations are missed while others are included by mistake.
Wrong reporting period
The team pulls records from the wrong dates or cut-off basis, so the evidence does not match the period being reported.
Mixed counting basis
Area figures, site lists and action descriptions are gathered on different bases, so one set of numbers cannot be reconciled to the others.
Source labels lost
Original file names, map references or register codes are stripped out, so the team cannot trace each entry back to its source.
Separate populations merged
Restoration work, offset activity and other biodiversity actions are lumped together, so distinct populations that should stay separate are no longer distinguishable.
No evidence trail
The pack is assembled without dates, version history or sign-off names, so reviewers cannot see who checked the data or when.

Where judgement is often needed

Set the reporting perimeter when sites change hands
If a site is bought, sold, opened or closed during the period, explain whether you include it from the transaction date, the full year, or another cut-off, and keep that basis consistent across the biodiversity actions you describe.
Handle local naming differences with one internal rule
Where countries or business units use different labels for the same habitat, species or restoration activity, map them to one group of terms for reporting and note the local terms used so readers can follow the comparison.
Decide how to treat locations that sit partly inside your footprint
For assets or project areas that are only partly within your operational control or impact area, state the rule used to include, split or exclude them, and explain any material judgement behind that choice.
Choose a single timing basis for progress updates
If actions, hectares or offset arrangements move at different points in the year, disclose whether you report by start date, completion date or year-end status, and describe any material lag between action and measurement.
State when you rely on estimates rather than direct counts
Where the area restored, the extent under management or the status of an offset is not directly measured, say what was estimated, what source data supported it, and whether later checks changed the figure.
Round area figures in a way that still ties back
If you round hectare figures, use one rounding rule across the disclosure set and make sure the rounded subtotals and totals still reconcile, or explain any small differences.
Aggregate sensitive site details only as far as needed
When naming exact locations could create privacy, security or land-access issues, group sites at a higher level and explain the aggregation basis so the reader understands what has been withheld and why.
Explain how you treat borderline biodiversity impacts
For sites near the edge of your significant-impact list, set out the threshold or screening rule used to include or exclude them, and disclose any borderline cases that were judged material.
Separate current-period actions from legacy work
If restoration, rehabilitation or offset work began before the reporting period but continued into it, explain whether you report only the current-year activity or also the ongoing legacy programme, and keep the treatment consistent.

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 focused our biodiversity response on the two sites where our land-use change and water abstraction pressures were highest, and we set out the practical steps we took to reduce harm, repair habitats and deal with what could not be fully removed.
- We first changed operating practices to avoid impacts where possible, then reduced the remaining effects through tighter water controls, timing restrictions for works, and habitat buffers around sensitive areas.
- For recovery work, we had 18.0 hectares under active repair and had completed 11.5 hectares by year-end; the aim was to re-establish native cover, improve habitat structure and support return of local species, with nearby landowners, local conservation groups and community representatives involved through site walks, progress reviews and planting days.
- To address the remaining footprint, we used habitat creation and long-term protection as offset measures across 24.0 hectares in the same river catchment, with the offset designed to secure net ecological gain; we also carried out one landscape-scale restoration project and two additional conservation measures, and we considered the offset approach to follow recognised good-practice principles.

Illustrative only: shows how a reporter can describe avoidance, reduction, restoration, stakeholder involvement, residual offsetting, and extra conservation actions in plain language, while keeping figures internally consistent.

Mining services · synthetic · written by LRA

Synthetic illustration only. Our biodiversity work centred on three operating areas with the greatest pressure on habitats, and we used a mix of prevention, repair and compensation measures to manage the effects.
- We avoided some harm by redesigning access routes, narrowing the working footprint and excluding high-value habitat from disturbance; where impacts still occurred, we limited them through seasonal work windows, erosion controls and dust suppression.
- We had 32.0 hectares in restoration or rehabilitation programmes and had brought 19.2 hectares back to target condition by the reporting date; the purpose was to rebuild soil function, re-establish native vegetation and improve habitat connectivity, with local communities, indigenous representatives and environmental advisers engaged through planning meetings, field monitoring and sign-off visits.
- For what remained, we used species habitat enhancement and protected-area support as offset measures covering 40.0 hectares in a nearby bioregion, aiming to balance residual loss and strengthen long-term habitat quality; alongside this, we delivered two transformative land-management changes and one extra conservation initiative, and we judged the offset design to align with accepted good-practice principles.

Illustrative only: shows a second plausible reporter with different sector context and different figures, while covering the same disclosure points in narrative form.

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

Actions taken across the biodiversity response chain — table: A side-by-side summary of the main response steps: measures to prevent harm, steps used to reduce harm that could not be avoided, restoration and rehabilitation work, and any remaining impacts addressed through offsets or other conservation actions.
Restoration and rehabilitation progress — bar: A comparison of the area under restoration or rehabilitation with the area already restored or rehabilitated, using hectares.
Offset approach by type and location — stacked bar: The mix of offset types used, grouped by where the offset sits geographically, so readers can see how different offset approaches are distributed across places.
Sites with the greatest biodiversity pressure — map: The locations of the sites with the most significant biodiversity impacts, helping readers see where the main pressure points are concentrated.
Offset design and practice check — table: For each offset, the stated aim, the location, and whether the organisation says it has followed recognised good-practice principles.

From a number to a disclosure

What separates a figure from a disclosure.

Basic

We managed biodiversity impacts at our sites.

Better

We avoided harm where we could, reduced the remaining impacts, and restored 12 ha out of 20 ha affected.

Best

Across our three highest-impact sites this year, we avoided harm first, then reduced what remained, restored 12 ha of the 20 ha affected, and used local habitat offsets because one project still left residual pressure after design changes.

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 101-2 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.

Company

Sector · Country

Year

Match

Page

Report

Assurance

Zorlu Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.Ş.

Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Turkey

2025

Partial

p. 214 →p. 55 →p. 40 →

2025 Integrated Annual Report →

bsi

Evidence in Zorlu Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.Ş.’s report

What the report shows

Zorlu Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.Ş.'s 2025 Integrated Annual Report provides data on biodiversity impacts, including a total assessed area of 3,411,364.07 hectares and a total affected area of 6,439.46 hectares (p.56). The report references management and identification of biodiversity impacts and risks, citing relevant standards and processes (p.214, p.216). However, the report lacks detailed narrative explanations or methodology on several specific disclosure items, with many narrative elements not found or unclear throughout the document.

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
Avoidance actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Reduction actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Ecosystem repair actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Restoration aimsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Stakeholder involvementNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offsetting actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Transformative and extra conservationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
High-impact sitesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 214
Area under repairA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 56
Area repairedNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset typeNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset aimsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset locationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Good practice checkNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Good practice basisNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Third-party checkNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Third-party evidenceNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Managed high-impact sitesNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
No-plan explanationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Biodiversity-climate linksNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Stakeholder benefit balanceNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—

Source trail

p. 214biodiversity loss Biodiversity and Ecosystems 101–2 Managing biodiversity impacts Biodiversity and Ecosystems 101–4 Identifying biodiversity impacts
p. 45Biodiversity and Ecosystems 120 .Water Footprint / Water and Marine Resources 126 .Circularity 109. Biodiversity 116 . Ecosystem Services 127 Natural Resource
p. 224Impacts, Risks and Opportunities analysis ISO: International Organization for Standardization ISO 14046: Water Footprint Standard ISO 45001: Occupational Health
p. 56area: 3,411,364.07 hectares • .Total area assessed: 3,411,364.07 hectares • .Total affected area: 6,439.46 hectares
p. 41Biodiversity conservation projects, afforestation and ecosystem restoration works 15.1 Protection of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems Biodiversity and Ecosystems 15.5 Halting
p. 216Biodiversity and Ecosystems) (i) Describe the organisation’s processes for identifying, assessing and prioritising nature related dependencies, impacts, risks

Tata AutoComp Systems Limited

Automobiles and Components · India

2025

Partial

p. 113 →p. 73 →p. 24 →

Tata AutoComp Sustainability Report FY 2024-25 →

ey

Evidence in Tata AutoComp Systems Limited’s report

What the report shows

Tata AutoComp Systems Limited’s Sustainability Report FY 2024-25 provides some coverage on biodiversity, noting on page 74 that no significant negative impacts on biodiversity were identified and describing actions taken. On page 113, the report references biodiversity impacts, policies to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and locations with biodiversity, indicating some policy-level engagement. However, the report lacks detailed quantitative data such as area values related to biodiversity and does not provide narrative information on several specific disclosure items, leaving some aspects unclear or unaddressed.

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
Avoidance actionsEvidence was found on this page.	covered	p. 74
Reduction actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Ecosystem repair actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Restoration aimsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Stakeholder involvementNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offsetting actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Transformative and extra conservationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
High-impact sitesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 113
Area under repairNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Area repairedNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset typeNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset aimsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset locationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Good practice checkNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Good practice basisNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Third-party checkNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Third-party evidenceNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Managed high-impact sitesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 3
No-plan explanationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Biodiversity-climate linksNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Stakeholder benefit balanceNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—

Source trail

p. 74Description of Impacts and Actions Taken No significant negative impacts on biodiversity were
p. 115Negative social impacts in the supply chain and actions taken 415-1 Political contributions 403-5 Worker
p. 115Negative social impacts in the supply chain and actions taken 415-1 Political contributions
p. 114Negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and actions taken 102-4 GHG emissions reduction
p. 114Negative environmental impacts in the supply chain and actions taken 102-4 GHG emissions
p. 113biodiversity impacts 101-1 Policies to halt and reverse biodiversity loss 101-5 Locations with biodiversity
p. 113biodiversity impacts 101-1 Policies to halt and reverse biodiversity loss 101-5 Locations with biodiversity impacts 2-2 Entities
p. 113Biodiversity 2024 11 39 11, 12 27, 29, 31, 49 38 17 73-74 4 41, 42 42 16 18 19-25 75 4, 12 36 9 18 27, 29, 31, 49 39 18 75 5 41 41, 42 45 42, 35 - 37 42 29, 73-74 75 2-1
p. 30biodiversity related non-compliance YoY Become water positive Assess 100% site for Biodiversity impact Achieve zero liquid discharge
p. 3Biodiversity Conservation Sustainable Innovations Water Management Employee Health, Safety & Wellbeing Sustainability Report FY 2024-25 50 51 Information Security & Data
p. 107taken care of for 3 years until they have grown to a significant height and width and can survive
p. 73biodiversity risk screening across all operational locations and developed a high-level biodiversity management plan. Our approach includes targeted actions

Sands China Ltd.

Hotels, Restaurants, Leisure, Tourism Services · Macao

2025

Partial

p. 51 →p. 37 →p. 28 →

2025 ESG Report →

EY

Evidence in Sands China Ltd.’s report

What the report shows

Sands China Ltd.'s 2025 ESG Report provides data on biodiversity impact assessments, reporting five operational sites in Macao, one in Singapore, and one in New York with such assessments, including the area covered (p.37). The report notes no termination of business partner relationships due to violations related to the disclosure topic (p.52) and acknowledges biodiversity as an emerging topic with both positive and negative impacts discussed (p.28). However, several narrative items related to the disclosure are not found or unclear in the report, indicating gaps in comprehensive coverage of all expected aspects.

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
Avoidance actionsA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 52
Reduction actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Ecosystem repair actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Restoration aimsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Stakeholder involvementNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offsetting actionsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Transformative and extra conservationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
High-impact sitesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 37
Area under repairA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 37
Area repairedNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset typeNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset aimsNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Offset locationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Good practice checkNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Good practice basisNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Third-party checkNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Third-party evidenceNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—
Managed high-impact sitesNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
No-plan explanationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Biodiversity-climate linksNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Stakeholder benefit balanceA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 28

Source trail

p. 52actions taken 2025 ESG Report, p. 93 No relationships with business partners were terminated due to violations related
p. 37Biodiversity Impact Assessment Macao Singapore New York Number of operational sites with a biodiversity impact assessment1 5 1 1 Area
p. 37biodiversity. 5 Includes paper hygiene goods, printed goods, case goods and upholstered goods City Nature Challenge, Macao APPENDIX GOVERNANCE
p. 51biodiversity loss 2025 ESG Report pp. 71–72, 103 Our current activities do not lead to land or sea use change
p. 6biodiversity as practices, priorities and desired outcomes evolve. P L A N E T See more on page 12. 2 0 2 1 – 2 0 2 5 H I G H L I G H TS RELEASED
p. 37sites with a biodiversity impact assessment1 5 1 1 Area of operational sites with a biodiversity impact assessment (Hectares
p. 28Negative impact Positive and negative impact 1 Biodiversity is an emerging topic that previously
p. 28Negative impact Positive and negative impact 1 Biodiversity is an emerging topic that previously has been

Check your understanding

A quarry operator has one active site beside a wetland and two smaller depots inland. The team has mapped the wetland risks, changed drainage and timing of works to avoid harm where possible, and is now drafting the disclosure.What should the narrative cover for the site where the main biodiversity pressure sits?

Model answer. Set out the practical steps used to steer clear of harm first, then explain the measures used where some harm could not be fully prevented. Keep the description tied to the site or sites with the greatest effect, and make clear how the approach aims to avoid, then reduce, negative outcomes.

Why this matters. Start with avoidance, then explain reduction measures for any remaining harm, focused on the most affected locations.

A transport company is restoring a former storage yard into habitat after soil removal. It has a 12 ha programme, of which 7 ha have been completed, and it has held meetings with local residents and an ecology group during the work.What details need to be included about the restoration work?

Model answer. Describe what was done to repair the affected area, state the purpose of the work, explain how people with an interest were involved throughout, and give the area under the programme and the area already completed. The figures should be consistent, so the completed area cannot be larger than the total area under work.

Why this matters. Cover the action, the aim, the engagement approach, and both area figures with internally consistent numbers.

A manufacturing group has unavoidable habitat loss at one plant and has agreed an off-site habitat project elsewhere. The project is being checked by an external verifier, and the team is deciding how much detail to include.What should the offset description make clear?

Model answer. Identify the kind of offset used, explain what it is meant to achieve, say where it is located, and state whether it has been checked by an outside party. If it has been checked, describe the form of that check; if not, do not imply external assurance that is not there.

Why this matters. For offsets, explain the type, purpose, location and any third-party check without overstating assurance.

A food producer has four sites with notable biodiversity pressure. Two have site-specific biodiversity plans, one is covered by a wider regional plan, and one has no plan because the land is leased short term and will close next year. The sustainability team also wants to show how its habitat work links with its carbon programme.How should the disclosure handle the site coverage and the link with climate work?

Model answer. List the sites that do have a biodiversity plan, then explain why any remaining sites do not. Also describe how the biodiversity actions are being coordinated with climate-related actions, including where the two sets of measures support each other and where any tensions are being reduced.

Why this matters. Show which significant sites have a plan, explain the gaps, and describe how biodiversity and climate actions are aligned and balanced.

Analyse this disclosure across real reports

See how companies actually report GRI 101-2 — 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 101-2

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 ✓Access and benefit-sharing Guide ✓Identification of biodiversity impacts Guide ✓Locations with biodiversity impacts Guide ✓Direct drivers of biodiversity loss Guide ✓Changes to the state of biodiversity Guide ✓Ecosystem services Guide ✓

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

Questions this page answers

How do I use the GRI 101-2 Biodiversity page to turn the datapoints into a draft disclosure?

Start with the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step preparation section, then use the datapoints list to gather the information you need. The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line to help you turn the data into a first draft. ↑ section

What data do I need to collect for GRI 101-2 Biodiversity before I start writing?

The page lists the datapoints to prepare, including actions, repair and restoration information, offset details, site information, good practice checks, third-party checks, and stakeholder-related items. Use that list as your collection checklist so you can build the disclosure from the right source data. ↑ section

How should I scope GRI 101-2 Biodiversity data across sites and actions?

The page points you to high-impact sites, managed high-impact sites, area under repair, area repaired, offset location and no-plan explanation, so scope should be built around where actions happened and where they did not. Use the step-by-step preparation section to make sure the scope is explained consistently in the draft. ↑ section

Who should own the GRI 101-2 Biodiversity data collection and evidence pack?

The page is designed for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can source the datapoints and evidence. Use the evidence pack section to assign who will provide each item and who will review it before sign-off. ↑ section

What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 101-2 Biodiversity assurance readiness?

The page includes an evidence pack with five items, plus six assurance claims to verify with claim, risk and evidence. Use those sections together so the pack supports both the numbers and the narrative behind the disclosure. ↑ section

What are the common mistakes to avoid when preparing a GRI 101-2 Biodiversity disclosure?

The page has a common reporting gaps and mistakes section that is meant to help you spot missing or inconsistent information before drafting. It is especially useful for checking that actions, offsets, site information and evidence all line up. ↑ section

How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 101-2 Biodiversity?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to help you organise the disclosure inputs and assurance checks. Use it alongside the page’s datapoints, evidence pack and assurance claims so the workbook reflects the same scope and terminology. ↑ section

What is the printable Library Card for GRI 101-2 Biodiversity for?

The Download Centre also includes a printable Library Card in .pdf format, which you can use as a quick reference while preparing the disclosure. It is most useful when you want a compact checklist of the page’s main preparation points. ↑ section

How do I use the synthetic example disclosure on the GRI 101-2 Biodiversity page?

The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the information can be presented. Treat it as a formatting and drafting aid only, and make sure any real disclosure uses your own internally consistent data. ↑ section

Can I reuse GRI 101-2 Biodiversity data for ESRS E4 Biodiversity and Ecosystems reporting?

The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS E4 (Biodiversity and Ecosystems), so the same underlying data may be reusable across both. Use the page as a practical bridge, but do not assume the reporting requirements are identical. ↑ section

Management of biodiversity impacts

Свяжитесь с нами