Operations with significant actual and potential negative impacts on local communities

Wistron provides a direct no-significant-impact response in its 2024 GRI Content Index.

The company states that it assessed the dependence and impacts of its own operations on the local natural environment through the LEAP approach and concluded that there were no significant or potential negative impacts.

The current card should:

recognize that page 272 contains a substantive no-impact statement rather than only a reference to the disclosure title;

remove the claim that items 413-2(a)(i) and 413-2(a)(ii) are missing merely because no operations were listed;

explain that operation locations and impact descriptions are not applicable if no operation meets the significant-impact threshold;

assess whether the LEAP-based review covered the full economic, social, cultural, environmental and rights-related scope of GRI 413-2, rather than only natural-environment impacts;

remove unrelated occupational-hazard references; and

classify the report as a direct no-significant-impact response whose assessment scope requires review.

Do not classify it automatically as either complete or incomplete solely because the result is zero.

Wistron’s index expressly states its assessment approach and no-significant-impact conclusion.

Sumitomo Forestry does not substantively report GRI 413-2 in its 2025 GRI Content Index.

The GRI 413-2 row appears on report page 536 and shows a dash in the disclosure-location column.

The current card should:

correct the page reference from page 537 to page 536;

remove the claim that a covered datapoint is provided;

remove references to forced-labor risk and waste management;

state that the content index does not identify a substantive disclosure location; and

classify GRI 413-2 as not reported unless a separate substantive source is located.

The official content index shows no disclosure location for GRI 413-2.

Hindustan Zinc’s Sustainability Report 2024–25 maps GRI 413-2 to an external Impact Assessment Report.

The GRI mapping appears on report page 113. It does not itself identify the affected operations, their locations or their significant actual and potential negative impacts.

The Community Engagement and Development section on pages 73–82 mainly describes stakeholder engagement, CSR interventions and positive community programmes. These disclosures support GRI 413-1 and the management approach but do not automatically satisfy GRI 413-2.

The revised card should:

correct the principal reference from page 116 to report page 113;

describe page 113 as a GRI content-index cross-reference rather than substantive impact data;

follow and assess the linked external Impact Assessment Report;

verify whether that report identifies operations and locations;

verify whether it describes significant actual and potential negative impacts, rather than only evaluating the positive effectiveness of CSR programmes;

remove the page 119 land-and-resource-rights reference as primary GRI 413-2 evidence; and

classify the disclosure as external cross-reference requiring verification until the linked report is assessed.

Hindustan Zinc’s index maps GRI 413-2 to an Impact Assessment Report without providing the required operation-impact information in the index row itself.