For material biodiversity and ecosystem change-related impacts, risks or opportunities the undertaking discloses the locations in its own operations they relate to, for those locations the biodiversity-sensitive areas (name and type) related to its material negative impacts, and the activities related to those impacts, aggregating sites with similar impacts where that does not obscure material information; it indicates which material impacts concern land degradation, desertification or soil sealing and operations affecting threatened species or ecosystems; and under GDR-M it reports metrics on its material impacts, covering as relevant drivers of change, state of species, condition and extent of ecosystems and ecosystem services, preferring primary location-level or remote sensing data, with monitoring frequency, baseline and a clear link to the impacts.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.