# ESRS S3 Affected Communities Disclosures > Draft and validate ESRS S3 affected-communities disclosures for a CSRD sustainability statement: SBM-2/3 plus S3-1 policies, S3-2 culturally appropriate engagement, S3-3 remedy and grievance mechanisms, S3-4 actions, and S3-5 targets. Covers community economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, Indigenous peoples, and evidence-based FPIC processes. Tags: CSRD, ESRS, ESRS S3, Affected Communities, Indigenous Peoples, FPIC, Human Rights, UNDRIP, ILO 169, IFC Performance Standards, Grievance Mechanisms, Sustainability Reporting, GRC, ESG ## Example Prompts - Draft the ESRS S3 disclosure pack for our renewable-energy project portfolio, covering land access, community health and safety, Indigenous engagement, remedy, and S3-5 targets - Build an S3-1 policy register from our human-rights, land acquisition, security, resettlement, and grievance policies and map each to the DMA IRO register - Review our community-engagement record for ESRS S3-2: identify culturally appropriate participation gaps and describe FPIC as an ongoing process without claiming consent - Draft an S3-3 grievance and remedy section assessed against all UN Guiding Principles Principle 31 effectiveness criteria - Produce an ESRS S3 non-materiality statement tied to the approved double-materiality decision and reassessment triggers URL: https://rakenne.app/skills/esrs-s3-affected-communities/index.md Try this skill: https://rakenne.app/a/?skill=esrs-s3-affected-communities ## Overview Draft and validate ESRS S3 affected-communities disclosures for a CSRD sustainability statement: SBM-2/3 plus S3-1 policies, S3-2 culturally appropriate engagement, S3-3 remedy and grievance mechanisms, S3-4 actions, and S3-5 targets. Covers community economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, Indigenous peoples, and evidence-based FPIC processes. ## What It Covers - A materiality gate and ESRS 2 IRO-2 non-materiality route grounded in the approved DMA. - Evidence-traceable SBM-2 / SBM-3 and S3-1 through S3-5 disclosures for affected communities. - Culturally appropriate, safe engagement and an evidence-based FPIC process where relevant — never a claim that consent has been completed. - Remedy and grievance mechanisms assessed against all UN Guiding Principles Principle 31 effectiveness criteria. - Evidence ownership, pending-information markers, IRO-2 hand-offs, and measurable target fields. ## Example Conversation > **You:** We are preparing CSRD disclosures for two solar projects. The DMA marks S3 material for land access, livelihoods, and community safety. We have liaison notes and a draft human-rights policy, but we have not verified whether an Indigenous community is affected or whether any consent process occurred. > > **Agent:** I’ll first reconcile the approved DMA IRO IDs with the project sites, stakeholder log, and evidence index. I’ll draft the S3 pack with `[PENDING: verification with community/rights-holder]` for the Indigenous-rights and consent questions, rather than infer either fact. I’ll also map policy gaps, culturally appropriate engagement conditions, grievance pathways, action owners, and a time-bound plan for target development. > > **You:** The project team wants us to say that the community-meeting attendance sheet proves FPIC. > > **Agent:** I can describe the attendance evidence, but it does not by itself establish Free, Prior and Informed Consent. The S3-2 section will distinguish free, prior, informed, and collective decision-making evidence; identify authority, timing, alternatives, dissent, and safety gaps; and route unresolved questions to appropriate legal and independent specialist review. ## Sample Output Excerpt This illustrative excerpt shows how the skill preserves uncertainty and evidence ownership rather than turning incomplete project records into claims. --- ### S3-2 — Engagement processes and FPIC-process status The undertaking's approved DMA identifies IRO-S3-01 (potential livelihood and land-access impacts) at Project Alpha as material. Community liaison records show three meetings held during the design phase. `[PENDING: evidence owner to confirm languages, representative-selection process, and participation barriers.]` Where Indigenous peoples may be affected, the undertaking will not state that FPIC has been obtained from meeting attendance or a signed minute. The evidence file currently does not establish whether a community-defined authority, free conditions, prior timing, accessible impact alternatives, collective decision process, dissent record, or conditions of consent were present. `[PENDING: verification with rights-holders and independent specialist review.]` ### S3-3 — Remedy and grievance mechanisms The project accepts concerns through its community liaison office and a contractor channel. `[PENDING: Community Relations owner to document language access, cost, confidentiality, non-retaliation safeguards, appeal route, outcomes, and UNGP Principle 31 effectiveness review.]` Where an adverse impact is substantiated, the remedy assessment will consider cessation, restoration, compensation, livelihood support, referral, and re-engagement within the undertaking's authority. ## Validation Tool **`validate_esrs_s3_affected_communities`** reviews a disclosure pack, non-materiality statement, policy register, engagement/FPIC section, grievance section, actions section, or targets tracker. It checks S3-1 through S3-5 coverage, culturally appropriate engagement, FPIC-process guardrails when FPIC is discussed, UNGP Principle 31 criteria, evidence signposting, and MDR-T target fields. The tool accepts workspace-relative text, Markdown, or CSV paths only and rejects absolute paths, traversal, symlink escapes, and likely binary/PDF inputs. It checks drafting completeness; it does not verify facts, determine rights-holder authority, or certify consent. ## Getting Started 1. Confirm the approved S3 materiality decision in `program/material-topics.md` and the related IRO IDs in `program/iro-register.csv`. 2. Gather site, value-chain, stakeholder, engagement, policy, grievance, action, baseline, and evidence-owner records. 3. Ask the skill to prepare the S3 pack or the non-materiality statement. Keep unknown facts as `[PENDING: owner/source]`. 4. Run the validator on each output and resolve drafting gaps without replacing unknown evidence with assumptions. --- Back to [Skill Library](https://rakenne.app/skills/index.md)