Where actions addressing one topic create material negative impacts or risks on another, the disclosures are presented so the connections are clear, for instance a transition plan's workforce impacts disclosed under own workforce with a cross-reference. Information is aggregated or disaggregated at the level where significant variations in material impacts, risks or opportunities arise (topic, sector, subsidiary, geography, asset), never so as to obscure material information, and at the level most relevant to users; material geographies are disaggregated where severity depends on local context or activities differ, without hiding cumulative effects on ecosystems or shared resources. Group reporting assesses materiality for the whole consolidated group regardless of legal structure, covers subsidiaries' activities so group-level identification is unbiased, disaggregates where a subsidiary's material impacts, risks or opportunities differ significantly from the group's, and may report an impact relevant to only some subsidiaries at that disaggregated level.
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.