Practical guide · Educational reading

Build a waste dashboard that separates generation from destination, explains changes in output and turns uncertain data into practical follow-up actions.

Audience / jurisdiction: International guidance for environmental and sustainability practitioners, including smaller organizations; not jurisdiction-specific legal advice.

1. Separate prevention from destination

A useful waste dashboard should answer two different questions: are we generating less waste, and what happens to the waste we still generate? Combining these into one headline percentage can obscure whether an organization prevented waste or simply changed its destination.

GRI 306: Waste 2020 distinguishes waste generated, waste diverted from disposal and waste directed to disposal. Its guidance also excludes reductions in production capacity from waste prevention. These distinctions provide a useful starting point for an internal dashboard, without making every suggested indicator a reporting requirement.

ISO 14031 provides a broader framework for environmental performance evaluation across organizations of different sizes. It does not prescribe performance levels or add environmental-management-system conformity requirements. The workflow below is a suggested management approach, not a compliance checklist.

Sources: [1], [2]

2. Define what the numbers cover

Before selecting indicators, write a short scope statement naming the sites, activities, reporting period and exclusions. For an internal dashboard, also decide how to handle sites entering or leaving the reporting boundary and who approves changes.

GRI’s generated-waste disclosure concerns the organization’s own activities; upstream and downstream waste can be reported separately when information is available. A suggested practical safeguard is to keep these categories distinguishable rather than combining figures with different boundaries.

Record the scope beside the dashboard. A lower total after a site leaves the reporting boundary should prompt a comparability check, not an automatic claim of better performance.

Sources: [1]

3. Build a small, clearly defined indicator set

Start with total waste generated, waste diverted from disposal and waste directed to disposal. Break destinations down by route where the available evidence supports it. Keep route labels consistent with the reporting framework being used.

Classification matters: GRI treats incineration with energy recovery as disposal. A dashboard label such as “recovered” should therefore not automatically be translated into “diverted from disposal.” Check the treatment route before assigning it to a reporting category.

Two optional internal indicators can add context: waste per relevant activity unit, and the share of records supported by measured weights. Neither is presented here as a prescribed GRI metric. Choose an activity denominator that helps managers interpret the process, and explain its limitations.

Sources: [1]

4. Make each indicator reproducible

As a suggested implementation tool, give each indicator a definition card. Include its purpose, formula, unit, scope, source record, owner, review frequency, exclusions, estimation method and known uncertainty.

For waste intensity, specify both the waste quantity and the activity denominator. For destination indicators, record how the route was established. Where information is missing, identify the gap rather than treating an assumed destination as confirmed.

This approach supports a deliberate performance-evaluation process consistent with ISO 14031’s public description. It is not a claim that ISO requires these particular fields.

Sources: [2]

5. Test the explanation behind the trend

Hypothetical example: a workshop generates 1,000 kg of waste while making 10,000 units in Period A. In Period B, it generates 800 kg while making 8,000 units. Absolute waste falls by 20%, but waste intensity remains 0.10 kg per unit.

The suggested management response is to investigate, not declare a prevention success. Ask whether output changed, a site entered or left scope, a treatment route was confirmed, or measured weights replaced estimates.

Similarly, moving material to a different destination does not by itself demonstrate less waste generation. Review generation and destination indicators together before describing the improvement.

Sources: [1]

6. Turn the review into an action

End each review with one recorded follow-up: an owner, intended outcome and review date. Suggested actions include investigating a recurring waste stream, confirming a contractor’s treatment route or improving measurement coverage.

Keep internal management choices separate from external reporting obligations. GRI distinguishes requirements, recommendations and guidance; applicability depends on the organization’s use of GRI and its material-topic determination. This dashboard alone does not establish complete GRI reporting compliance.

Sources: [1]

Sources

1. GRI 306: Waste 2020
2. ISO 14031:2021 — Environmental management — Environmental performance evaluation — Guidelines

Your experience

Can your waste dashboard show whether a falling total reflects prevention, lower output or a change in reporting scope?

Originally published by AdviseISO, a knowledge-sharing initiative of W3 Solutionz.