GRI 101: Biodiversity 2024 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 101-5
Locations with biodiversity impacts
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
10 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to identify the locations where its activities are causing, or are likely to cause, impacts on biodiversity. In practice, that means reporting the places that matter most for biodiversity risk and impact, rather than giving only a general statement about nature-related issues. The focus is on being specific about where those impacts occur across the organisation’s footprint.
The practical emphasis is on coverage: the organisation should consider its operations, sites, and other relevant locations, and not limit the reporting to a few flagship or well-known sites if impacts also arise elsewhere. The aim is to show where biodiversity-related effects are happening so readers can understand the geographic spread of the issue and how broadly it is managed.
* 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
| Datapoint | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| High-impact sites | List the sites where biodiversity effects are greatest, using the organisation’s own assessment of materiality and site-level impact. | Materiality assessment, site impact register, environmental review, biodiversity screening notes. | Environment / Sustainability |
| Site location | Capture the place of each site in a way that can be traced to the same location source used elsewhere in reporting. | Property register, site master data, GIS record, lease or title documents. | Property / Facilities |
| Site area | Record the site’s size in hectares, using the same boundary basis as the source used for site records. | Land survey, title plan, lease schedule, GIS area calculation. | Property / Facilities |
| Sensitive-area flag | State whether the site is in or close to an ecologically sensitive place, using the organisation’s defined proximity test. | GIS map, environmental screening, protected-area check, site assessment. | Environment / Sustainability |
| Distance to sensitivity | Capture the measured distance from the site to the relevant ecologically sensitive area, using the same reference point and units throughout. | GIS measurement, map output, environmental assessment, survey note. | Environment / Sustainability |
| Sensitive-area type | Describe what kind of ecologically sensitive area is relevant for the site, using the category applied in the underlying assessment. | Environmental screening report, GIS layer legend, protected-area register, site assessment. | Environment / Sustainability |
| Site activities | Describe the main activities carried out at each site, keeping the description aligned to the actual operations on the ground. | Site operations log, process map, management interview, site visit notes. | Operations |
| High-impact supply items | Identify the products and services in the supply chain that drive the largest biodiversity effects, based on the organisation’s impact assessment. | Supply-chain impact assessment, procurement analysis, supplier risk review, biodiversity hotspot mapping. | Procurement / Sustainability |
| Operating countries | Capture the countries or jurisdictions where the related product or service activities actually take place. | Supplier declarations, contract records, logistics data, operating footprint map. | Procurement / Supply Chain |
| Other jurisdictions | Record any additional countries or jurisdictions linked to the relevant activities that are not already covered in the main list. | Supplier declarations, operating footprint map, contract records, logistics data. | Procurement / Supply Chain |
Show GRI 101-5 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Describe what happens at each site.
- State the countries or territories where the related products and services are carried out.
- Give the site’s distance from any ecologically sensitive area.
- Say whether the site is inside or close to an ecologically sensitive area.
- Provide the site location.
- List any other countries or territories involved.
- Identify the products and services in the supply chain with the greatest biodiversity impact.
- Identify the sites with the greatest biodiversity impact.
- State the area in hectares.
- Specify the kind of ecologically sensitive area.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Start by deciding which locations belong in the disclosure: include the places where your organisation’s activities have the strongest effect on biodiversity, and also the products and services in the supply chain that drive the most material biodiversity impact.
- For each included site, record the basic site details you will report: where it is, how large it is in hectares, and what work happens there.
- Check whether each site is in, or close to, an area that is environmentally sensitive. If it is, capture the distance to that area and identify the type of sensitive area involved.
- Gather the source evidence before drafting the disclosure. Use internal records, site information, maps, operational data and supply-chain information that support the site list, the site characteristics and the country or jurisdiction details for the relevant products and services.
- Assemble the final response in a clear structure: list the relevant sites, then the supply-chain products and services, then the countries or jurisdictions where the related activities occur, and finally any other countries or jurisdictions that need to be shown.
- Before sign-off, document any exclusions, boundary changes or updates to the site list and compare the completed disclosure back to the official source to make sure nothing required has been missed or described inconsistently.
Request site and supply-chain location evidence from EHS / Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which sites and related supply-chain activities are the ones we should treat as having the most material biodiversity impacts, and what are their key location details?
Use your organisation’s own site, asset, depot, plant, project, route, supplier, or service-area terms first, then map them to the reporting fields. Keep the ask in operational language rather than framework wording, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the biodiversity locations disclosure data for GRI 101-5, including all sites with the most significant impacts, their locations, hectares, proximity to ecologically sensitive areas, and related supply-chain jurisdictions.
Why it fails: This uses framework language that many operational teams will not recognise, and it does not tell the owner how to pull the information from their own systems. It also leaves out the practical labels they can use internally, so the response is more likely to be incomplete or inconsistent.
Better request
Please send the list of sites, projects, depots, plants, or other operating locations that you think have the biggest nature impacts for [reporting period], plus the related supply-chain activities. For each one, include the site name, location, size in hectares, whether it is in or near a sensitive ecological area, the distance and type of that area, the main activity there, and any linked products or services with the countries or jurisdictions involved. Use your own operational terms first, then we will map them to the reporting fields.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for site and supply-chain location evidence for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], We are preparing the biodiversity location pack for [reporting period] and need your help with the sites and related supply-chain activities that appear to have the most significant nature-related impacts. Please send a table covering the relevant sites, using your own operational names and identifiers first, then we will map them into the reporting fields. For each item, please include: - site or activity name - location details - site size in hectares, where available - whether the site sits in or close to a sensitive ecological area - distance to that area and the type of area, if applicable - the main activities carried out there - any products or services in the supply chain linked to the most significant biodiversity impacts - the countries or jurisdictions where those activities take place - any other countries or jurisdictions linked to the same products or services Please also attach the source evidence or note the system, file, or survey used. If helpful, I can share a simple template. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send the site / activity list for [reporting period] with location, size, sensitive-area check, distance, activity type, and any linked supply-chain items/countries? Please use your own site names and systems first, then we’ll map it. Thanks.
Industry examples
Mining / Quarrying
Context. A regional quarry operator has several extraction and processing sites, some near protected habitats.
Adapted request. Please send the quarry and processing-site list for [reporting period], using your site register names. For each site, include the footprint in hectares, the nearest sensitive habitat check, distance and habitat type, the main work carried out, and any linked transport or processing services in other countries or jurisdictions.
Example response. Site A: North Quarry; 42.6 ha; yes, within 1.8 km of a designated wetland; extraction and crushing; no linked overseas services. Site B: East Processing Yard; 11.2 ha; no; screening and stockpiling; inbound aggregate transport from Country X and Country Y.
Food manufacturing / Consumer goods
Context. A manufacturer sources agricultural ingredients and operates a packaging and processing site.
Adapted request. Please send the list of processing sites and the sourced ingredients or services that are most linked to nature impacts for [reporting period]. For each item, include the site or supplier name, location, hectares where relevant, sensitive-area check, distance and type, the activity carried out, and the countries or jurisdictions where the related sourcing or service activity happens.
Example response. Processing Site 1: Midlands Plant; 18.4 ha; no; blending and packing; cocoa ingredient sourced from Country A and Country B. Supplier group 2: timber packaging; activities in Country C and Country D; other jurisdiction: Country E.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain which sites and supply-chain activities were included, how the organisation defined the locations and activities it treated as most significant, and how it assessed proximity to sensitive natural areas.
Context note
Set out what the figures show about where the main biodiversity pressures sit, which sites or supply-chain activities matter most, and how close those locations are to sensitive natural areas.
Fluctuation statement
If the pattern changed from the previous period, note whether that was driven by changes in site coverage, activity mix, location data, or the way proximity to sensitive natural areas was assessed.
Content index entry
GRI 101-5 Locations with biodiversity impacts — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 101-5. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| I identified the sites that we judged to have the greatest biodiversity-related impact, using our documented screening and prioritisation method. | The selection may be subjective, incomplete, or based on an unrecorded method; an assurer will test whether the shortlist was built consistently and whether any material sites were left out. | Impact-screening criteria, site-ranking or materiality working papers, management review notes, the final site list, and any exclusions with reasons. |
| I recorded the site’s place using the same location reference we used in our internal records, so the disclosed figure can be traced back to source data. | The location may be vague, inconsistent across systems, or not supported by source records; the assurer will check that the place stated matches the underlying records. | Asset register or site database, maps or coordinates where used, legal entity/site records, and reconciliation between the report and source listings. |
| I used the site area from the latest approved source and converted it into hectares on a consistent basis before publication. | The area may be outdated, misconverted, or copied from an unverified source; the assurer will test the calculation basis and whether the figure is current. | Land records, survey reports, lease or title documents where relevant, calculation sheets, unit-conversion workings, and approval of the final number. |
| I checked whether the site sits within, or close to, a sensitive natural area by using a documented boundary check and a named reference source. | The proximity judgement may be unsupported, based on the wrong map layer, or applied inconsistently; the assurer will test the method and the reference used. | GIS outputs or map screenshots, boundary files, source dataset details, distance workings, and sign-off on the proximity assessment. |
| I stated the distance to the sensitive area from the same measured basis used in our working papers, and I kept the calculation trail. | The distance may be measured from the wrong point, rounded without support, or not reproducible; the assurer will check the measurement basis and arithmetic. | Measurement methodology, map or GIS evidence, calculation sheets, rounding policy, and reviewer checks on the final distance. |
| I classified the nearby sensitive area using the category recorded in our source evidence, rather than relying on a general description. | The type may be misclassified, too broad, or unsupported by the underlying source; the assurer will test whether the category matches the evidence. | Protected-area or habitat records, external registry extracts where used, internal classification notes, and any expert or specialist review. |
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 for site data
People often ask the sustainability team first, when the site manager, property lead, or supply-chain owner holds the location details and activity notes.
- Using framework terms too early
Requests go out in disclosure language instead of the organisation’s own site, asset, or product terms, so teams cannot match the ask to their records.
- Scope not pinned down
The data pull starts before it is clear which sites, products, and jurisdictions are in scope, so the list is incomplete or includes the wrong population.
- Timing basis left vague
Teams mix current site status with older records because no one fixes the reporting period or the cut-off date before collection starts.
- Counting bases mixed together
One file combines site counts, area totals, and country lists without separating the different ways each field is measured.
- Source labels stripped out
Original file names, map references, register IDs, or system tags are lost during consolidation, making it hard to trace each figure back to its source.
- Separate groups merged
Sites, supply-chain products, and other jurisdictions get rolled into one list even though they need to stay distinct for the data pull.
- Evidence details not captured
The team saves the answer but not the supporting note, map extract, date stamp, or other source metadata needed to show where it came from.
- No sign-off trail
Draft data moves on without a named reviewer and approval record, so nobody can show who checked the figures before they were used.
Where judgement is often needed
- Setting the cut-off for sites after a buy-in or sale
Use one clear rule for when a site enters or leaves the list, and explain whether you used the position at period end, an average view, or another cut-off so readers can see why the named places changed.
- Choosing the country label where local boundaries differ
Where a site sits in a place that is described differently by local authorities, map it to one consistent country or jurisdiction basis, and note the source used so the same place is not counted differently across the group.
- Handling a site that sits on the edge of a sensitive area
If only part of a site is close to a protected or otherwise sensitive place, state the basis used to decide whether it is included, and describe any threshold or buffer applied.
- Deciding whether to list a shared or multi-tenant location
For premises used with others, explain whether you included the whole location or only the part under your control, and make the same control test apply across all sites.
- Selecting the measure for site size
Choose one area basis for all locations, keep it consistent, and disclose if the figure comes from plans, mapping tools, or a measured survey rather than a direct count.
- Using estimates where exact figures are not available
If you cannot measure a distance, area, or site attribute directly, use a reasonable estimate, say so plainly, and identify the method and any main assumptions.
- Grouping locations to protect sensitive information
When naming every place would create a privacy, security, or commercial issue, combine sites into a higher-level location group and explain the level of aggregation used.
- Applying one biodiversity sensitivity test across countries
If local lists or classifications differ, use one internal rule to decide what counts as a sensitive area and disclose the reference set or screening approach behind that rule.
- Rounding site distances and areas
Set a single rounding rule for hectares and distances, apply it consistently, and make sure the rounded figures still match the underlying site list and totals.
- Separating direct sites from supply-chain places
Keep your own locations distinct from places linked to products or services in the wider chain, and explain the basis used to decide which activities belong in each list.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food processing · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only: this example shows how a reporter can describe the sites it operates, the nearby sensitive areas, and the main value-chain products and jurisdictions linked to the most significant biodiversity impacts.
Synthetic illustration only. We identify the sites in our own operations that create the greatest pressure on nature, and for each one we note where it is, how large it is, whether it sits close to a sensitive habitat, how far away that habitat is, what kind of sensitive area it is, and the main work carried out there.
- Our two most material sites are a grain-milling plant in East Anglia, UK (18 ha), 4 km from a designated wetland reserve, where we mill and store cereals; and an edible-oil refinery in Rotterdam, Netherlands (12 ha), 2 km from a river estuary protected area, where we refine, blend and package oils.
- In our wider value chain, the product lines with the most material nature impacts are palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia, soy ingredients from Brazil and Argentina, and cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana; the related farming, primary processing and export activities take place in those countries, with supporting trading and logistics activity also occurring in the UK, the Netherlands and Singapore.
Consumer electronics assembly · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only: this example shows how a reporter can describe its own sites and the upstream and downstream jurisdictions tied to the most significant biodiversity impacts.
Synthetic illustration only. We map the places in our own business that are most closely linked to biodiversity pressure, recording the site, its size, its proximity to a sensitive habitat, the habitat type, and the activities carried out there.
- Our two most material sites are a component assembly campus in Penang, Malaysia (9 ha), 1 km from a mangrove conservation zone, where we assemble circuit boards and test devices; and a distribution and repair hub in Guadalajara, Mexico (7 ha), 6 km from a dry-forest reserve, where we store finished goods, repair returned units and manage spare parts.
- In the supply chain, the product and service areas with the greatest nature impacts are mined metals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Chile, semiconductor fabrication in Taiwan and South Korea, and battery-cell production in China and Poland; the associated work also involves sourcing and logistics activity in Japan, the United States and Germany.
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 notable biodiversity impact: location and size — table: A site-by-site list showing where each location is, how large it is, and whether it sits in or close to a sensitive natural area.
- Site exposure to sensitive areas — stacked bar: A comparison of sites by whether they are inside, near, or not near a sensitive area, with the distance shown as part of the split.
- Types of sensitive areas near sites — bar: How many sites are linked to each kind of sensitive natural area, helping show which area types appear most often.
- Activities at high-impact sites — stacked bar: The main activities carried out at each site, split by location so readers can see which operations are associated with the greatest biodiversity impacts.
- Supply chain activities by country — map: The countries or jurisdictions where the relevant product and service activities take place, including any additional countries or jurisdictions involved.
- Products and services with the greatest biodiversity impact — table: A ranked summary of the products and services most associated with biodiversity impacts, alongside the countries or jurisdictions where those activities occur.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
I identified 3 sites with the greatest biodiversity impact.
Better
I identified 3 sites with the greatest biodiversity impact, listed their locations and sizes, and noted that 2 are near sensitive habitats.
Best
I identified 3 sites with the greatest biodiversity impact this year, set out each site’s location, size and nearby sensitive habitat status, and explained that the change from last year reflects a new screening of our operating and supply-chain activities.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 101-5 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
MOEVE, S.A. | Oil and Gas · Spain | 2025 | Partial | p. 111 →p. 113 →p. 151 → | Consolidated Management Report 2025 → | EY; BSI | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in MOEVE, S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Moeve, S.A.'s 2025 Consolidated Management Report provides detailed coverage of biodiversity impacts, including a table of facilities with area of occupation and activities on site (p.111), and references to managing biodiversity loss and significant spills (p.111, p.113). The report also includes data on water use by area and source (p.110) and discusses waste management activities, noting no recovery disposal operations at their facilities (p.114). However, there is no clear evidence of numeric values or narrative items beyond these points, and some aspects of biodiversity impact management and waste-related impacts are mentioned but not fully detailed in the provided excerpts.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
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 reportWhat the report shows Tata AutoComp Systems Limited’s Sustainability Report FY 2024-25 includes narrative coverage on biodiversity, noting the establishment of a robust, data-driven foundation for biodiversity management in FY 2024-25 (p.74). The report also addresses governance and risk management related to sustainability, with references to corporate overview and governance structures (p.114), and discusses supply chain assessment prioritizing Tier 1 significant suppliers (p.52). However, the report does not provide specific quantitative data such as area (ha) values or numeric biodiversity impact figures, and some narrative details remain absent or unclear.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
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 reportWhat the report shows Sands China Ltd.'s 2025 ESG Report includes coverage of biodiversity impact assessments, reporting the number of sites with such assessments and the area of operational sites involved (p.37). The report also addresses management of material topics and waste, referencing GRI standards with specific pages noted for further detail (p.52). However, the report lacks clear quantitative data on the exact area in hectares for biodiversity impact assessments and some narrative items are missing or unclear, limiting a full understanding of the scope and impact.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A manufacturer has three plants, but only one has the clearest pressure on local habitats because it sits beside a protected wetland and uses the largest land area. The reporting team is deciding which places to include in the disclosure.Should the team list only that one plant, or should it also include any other places that are the main sources of biodiversity pressure?
Model answer. The team should identify the places that drive the most significant biodiversity pressure and include the relevant details for each of them. If more than one site is material on that basis, they should not narrow the list to just the most obvious one.
Why this matters. Focus on the sites that matter most for biodiversity impact, not every location by default.
A logistics depot is 2.4 km from a marshland that is recognised as sensitive, and the site file also notes the depot covers 18 ha. The preparer is unsure whether the proximity detail is needed because the area is outside the site boundary.What information should be captured about the depot’s relationship to the sensitive area?
Model answer. The disclosure should show whether the site is in or near a sensitive area, give the distance, and name the type of sensitive area. The fact that the area is outside the boundary does not remove the need to describe the connection if the site is near it.
Why this matters. Record both the proximity and the kind of sensitive area, not just the site’s own footprint.
A quarry operates extraction, blasting, water pumping and vehicle loading on the same land parcel. The sustainability lead has drafted a short note that says only “quarrying operations” and is unsure whether that is enough.How specific should the description of on-site activity be?
Model answer. The description should explain what actually happens at the site in practical terms, so a broad label alone is too thin. It should make clear the main activities taking place there, such as extraction, blasting, pumping and loading, where those are the relevant operations.
Why this matters. Describe the real work carried out at each place, not just a generic site label.
A food company buys cocoa and palm oil through separate supply chains. The team knows the farming stage creates the strongest biodiversity pressure, but the farms are in several countries and some sourcing records are incomplete.What should the team do when mapping the supply-chain products and services linked to the biggest biodiversity impacts?
Model answer. The team should identify the products and services in the chain that are most connected to biodiversity pressure, then state the countries or jurisdictions where the related activities happen. If there are additional countries or jurisdictions involved beyond the main ones, those should also be listed.
Why this matters. Link the high-impact products to where the related activities take place, and include any other relevant jurisdictions too.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 101-5 — 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.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS E4
Biodiversity and Ecosystems — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
How do I use the GRI 101-5 Biodiversity page to draft the disclosure from scratch?
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints list. The page also gives draft-output ideas, so you can turn the collected data into a first-pass narrative and content-index line. ↑ section
What data do I need to collect for GRI 101-5 Biodiversity before I start writing?
The page says to prepare data on high-impact sites, site location, site area, sensitive-area flag, distance to sensitivity, sensitive-area type, site activities, high-impact supply items, operating countries and other jurisdictions. Use that list as your collection checklist so you do not miss any core fields. ↑ section
How should I decide which sites count as high-impact sites for this disclosure?
The page tells you to prepare a high-impact sites datapoint, but it does not define the test for inclusion. Use the page’s step-by-step preparation guidance and keep your scope decision and rationale documented in the evidence pack. ↑ section
What should I do if I do not have exact site-area or distance-to-sensitivity data for GRI 101-5?
The page expects those datapoints to be prepared, so missing values should be treated as a data gap to resolve or clearly explain. Check the common reporting gaps section and keep the source evidence and any assumptions in the workbook and evidence pack. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 101-5 Biodiversity data collection in practice?
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 site, supply-chain and jurisdiction data. The workbook is there to help assign and track that work. ↑ section
What evidence pack do I need to make GRI 101-5 Biodiversity assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside six claims to verify. Use those materials to link each reported datapoint back to source records, methodology notes and supporting documents. ↑ section
What are the six assurance claims on the GRI 101-5 Biodiversity page and how do I use them?
The page says there are six claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence prompt. Use them as an assurance checklist so you can test whether the disclosure is supported and where the main risk areas sit. ↑ section
What are the common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 101-5 Biodiversity?
The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, which is there to help you spot missing scope, incomplete site data and weak evidence before sign-off. Use it as a pre-submission review against your draft and workbook outputs. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 101-5 Biodiversity?
The workbook is listed in the Download Centre as an .xlsx file, so it is the main working tool for collecting, checking and organising the disclosure inputs. Use it alongside the printable Library Card if you want a quick reference during drafting or review. ↑ section
Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on the GRI 101-5 Biodiversity page as a template for my own draft?
Yes, but only as a synthetic illustration of how the disclosure can be presented. The page also includes a quantitative table, so you can mirror the format while replacing the example values with your own internally consistent data. ↑ section
How does the GRI 101-5 Biodiversity page help me map data for ESRS E4 Biodiversity and Ecosystems?
The page says ESRS E4 is the closest correspondence, which is useful for thinking about reuse of data across frameworks. It does not say the requirements are identical, so treat it as a cross-reference for data alignment rather than a one-to-one mapping. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 101-5 Biodiversity datapoints checklist for site location, area, sensitivity and supply items
- How to evidence high-impact sites for GRI 101-5 Biodiversity
- GRI 101-5 Biodiversity workbook download what is included
- How to write the draft narrative for GRI 101-5 Biodiversity
- GRI 101-5 Biodiversity common reporting gaps and mistakes
- What evidence should I keep for GRI 101-5 Biodiversity assurance
- GRI 101-5 Biodiversity synthetic example disclosure table
- GRI 101-5 Biodiversity content index line example
- ESRS E4 data reuse for GRI 101-5 Biodiversity
- Who should own GRI 101-5 Biodiversity data collection
- How to use the printable Library Card for GRI 101-5 Biodiversity
- GRI 101-5 Biodiversity step-by-step preparation guide
✓ 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.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
