When a material topic isn’t addressed by a Topic Standard, you still report how you manage it.

If an organization's material topic is not covered by a Topic Standard, what must it still report?

• A. Annual review processes
• B. How it manages the topic
• C. Stakeholder concerns
• D. Results from external audits

Answer: (B)

When an organization's material topic is not addressed by a Topic Standard within the framework of the Global Reporting Initiative, the organization is still required to report on how it manages that specific topic. This requirement ensures that stakeholders have transparency regarding the management practices in place for topics that, while not explicitly covered by the Topic Standards, are deemed significant for the organization's operations and impact. By articulating management strategies, the organization demonstrates accountability and provides insight into its approach to handling relevant issues, thereby fostering trust and engagement with stakeholders. In contrast, while annual review processes, stakeholder concerns, and results from external audits are important components of corporate reporting, they do not directly address the actions or policies that the organization has implemented regarding the management of a specific unstandardized material topic. The focus on management provides a clear picture of how the organization prioritizes and addresses potential risks and opportunities associated with that topic, which is essential for comprehensive sustainability reporting.

When a topic isn’t covered by a Topic Standard, what should you report about it? The quick answer is simple, but the reasoning behind it is worth unpacking. In the GRI framework, if a material topic isn’t addressed by an existing Topic Standard, the organization must report on how it manages that topic. That “how” might feel a little abstract at first, but it’s the clearest way to show accountability and practical responsibility to stakeholders.

Let me explain why this matters and how you can tell that story without getting lost in jargon.

What “how it manages the topic” really means

Think of a material topic as a headline issue—the big thing that could influence a company’s sustainability picture. If there’s a standard for that topic, you have a ready-made structure to report against: governance, risks, performance indicators, and so on. But when no standard exists for a particular topic, you’re not left without a path. You’re invited to show stakeholders the methods, controls, and decisions you apply to address the topic.

So, “how it manages the topic” is about the organization’s playbook, not just the outcomes. It’s a concise map of:

• Governance and ownership: Who owns the issue? Which board committee, executive sponsor, or management team is responsible? Is there a cross-functional owner, like a risk manager working with operations, legal, and sustainability staff?

• Policies and standards: What formal rules guide actions on the topic? Do you have written policies, codes of conduct, supplier requirements, or due-diligence procedures specifically for this issue?

• Processes and workflows: How do you identify, assess, and address the topic in day-to-day operations? What steps happen from risk identification to remediation or improvement?

• Resources and capability: What people, money, and tools are dedicated to this topic? Is training required for staff? Are there data systems that track progress?

• Monitoring and adjustment: How do you track performance? What indicators are used, and how often are they reviewed? How quickly do you adapt when the situation changes?

• Disclosure and learning: How do you communicate progress and setbacks to stakeholders? What have you learned, and how have you adjusted strategies as a result?

In short, it’s the visible architecture of management—the policies in place, the decisions made, and the way those choices are turned into action and reporting.

Why focusing on management, not just results, resonates with stakeholders

Results matter, of course. Stakeholders want to know what happened and when. But numbers without the story of “how” can leave questions hanging: How did you decide this mattered? Why did you pursue this approach? What constraints did you face, and how did you navigate them?

Reporting “how you manage the topic” provides several benefits:

• Accountability: It shows who is responsible and what they’re empowered to do.

• Consistency: It helps readers compare topics that aren’t covered by a standard with other well-documented areas.

• Risk awareness: It reveals the controls and processes that reduce risk or seize opportunity, not just the end result.

• Improvement trajectory: It makes it clearer where you’re learning and adapting, which builds credibility over time.

A gentle contrast: what’s not required (but still valuable)

Some readers might assume that every topic needs to hit a specific performance target or that you must disclose every detail of internal processes. The reality is a bit more nuanced:

• Annual review processes, while important for governance, are not the direct reporting focus for an unstandardized topic. They matter for overall governance, but they don’t automatically reveal how you manage a specific topic.

• Stakeholder concerns are essential context. They inform what you report, but they aren’t the core content of “how you manage” the topic itself.

• Results from external audits can strengthen credibility, but they don’t replace the narrative of management. Audits validate processes, yet the heart of the requirement is to explain the management approach.

That distinction matters. The goal isn’t to blanket the topic with more numbers; it’s to give readers a honest, usable picture of the organization’s management framework for that topic.

A practical blueprint you can reuse

If you’re drafting a section about an unstandardized material topic, here’s a practical, reader-friendly structure that keeps the focus on management:

• Topic introduction: Briefly describe why the topic matters for your organization and its stakeholders. Ground this in materiality wherever possible.

• Governance and ownership: Name the owner, the governance structure, and how oversight is integrated into decision-making.

• Policies and standards: List the key policies and any controls or due-diligence requirements that guide actions.

• Management processes: Outline the steps from identification to remediation or continuous improvement. Mention data collection points and who is responsible.

• Resources and capabilities: Note the people, training, tools, and budget that support the topic.

• Monitoring and performance indicators: Share the main metrics you track, how often you review them, and how you respond when numbers shift.

• Learning and evolution: Highlight lessons learned, adjustments made, and what’s planned for the next period.

If you want to keep it human while staying precise, weave in a couple of short, vivid examples. A real-world touchstone, a brief anecdote about a challenge, or a concrete policy tweak can help readers connect with the framework without bogging them down in bureaucracy.

A quick example to visualize the concept

Suppose your organization operates in a region where water stewardship is critical, and you’ve identified a material topic around water management that isn’t fully covered by a Topic Standard. Here’s how a concise narrative might look:

• Governance: The Chief Sustainability Officer leads water stewardship, with a cross-functional team including operations, environment, and procurement. The governance charter requires quarterly updates to the executive committee.

• Policies: We maintain a water use policy that prioritizes minimizing withdrawals, optimizing recycling, and protecting local aquatic ecosystems. Suppliers must meet water stewardship criteria to work with us.

• Processes: Water risk assessments are conducted annually; water-saving projects get prioritized based on payback and community impact. Data is captured in our sustainability data system and reviewed by a dedicated committee.

• Resources: The program relies on a dedicated water analyst, a small grant for efficiency projects, and training for site managers on water-saving practices.

• Monitoring: We track water intensity, groundwater levels, and treatment efficiency. Targets are reviewed every six months; adjustments are made when criteria aren’t met.

• Learning: We learned that certain industrial processes could be re-sequenced to cut withdrawals. A new operating guideline was issued, and teams were trained accordingly.

That structure makes the topic tangible. It’s not about chasing a perfect number; it’s about showing the logic, the safeguards, and the commitment to continuous improvement.

Blending professional rigor with a human touch

A good report on an unstandardized topic balances clarity and credibility. Use plain language where possible, but don’t shy away from the technical bits that demonstrate rigor. The goal is to be both informative and trustworthy.

• Keep sentences varied: short, punchy lines paired with a few longer, more explanatory ones. This rhythm helps readers stay engaged.

• Mix in a few concrete numbers where relevant, but don’t force a statistic for every section. Sometimes a qualitative descriptor—like “ongoing improvements”—is enough to convey progress.

• Use transitions smoothly. Phrases like “Here’s the thing” or “That said” help guide readers from governance to processes to learning without feeling abrupt.

• Include light, natural digressions that stay relevant. For example, you might briefly compare how a standard-covered topic differs from an unstandardized one, then circle back to the main point.

Common pitfalls to watch for (and how to avoid them)

• Don’t turn the narrative into a dreary list of procedures. Pair governance details with meaningful outcomes or changes you’ve implemented.

• Don’t hide gaps. If data isn’t perfect, explain why and what you’re doing to improve it.

• Don’t get lost in jargon. Readers come from diverse backgrounds—strike a balance between precise terms and reader-friendly explanations.

• Don’t over-claim. If a topic isn’t covered by the standard, be careful about presenting it as fully resolved. Show the ongoing work and next steps.

Where this fits in the broader reporting conversation

GRI’s framework is built to help readers grasp what matters to the organization and how it steers those matters. A topic outside a standard is a chance to demonstrate practical governance and learning. It’s not a sidestep; it’s a chance to prove you’ve got a plan for issues that are important, even if the framework doesn’t spell out a fixed template.

If you’re comparing organizations or trying to understand a sustainability report, look for the section that explains management of unstandardized topics. A well-structured narrative here often reveals:

• Clear ownership and accountability

• Concrete steps from risk identification to remediation

• Measurable indicators and review rhythms

• Evidence of learning, adaptation, and continuous improvement

The human element behind the numbers

Yes, the numbers carry weight. But the story behind those numbers—who’s responsible, how decisions are made, what trade-offs are considered—tells you a lot about an organization’s character. When a topic isn’t mapped to a standard, the way it’s managed becomes a window into governance quality, operational discipline, and a company’s willingness to be accountable to the people affected by its operations.

A closing thought

The requirement to report how a topic is managed isn’t a trap; it’s a doorway. It invites organizations to reveal the practical heartbeat of their sustainability work. It invites readers to understand not just what’s achieved, but how it’s pursued—through policy, people, processes, and purpose. And it invites ongoing dialogue: where you see gaps, you can ask for more clarity; where you see strength, you can learn from it.

So, if you’re drafting or evaluating a report, look for that management thread. It’s the steady, human core of a good sustainability story—the part that says, “We see this as material, we’ve got people owning it, we’ve put processes in place, and we’re learning as we go.” That approach builds trust, explains action, and keeps the conversation alive with stakeholders who want to understand not just the outcomes, but the commitments and capabilities behind them.