GRI 414: Supplier Social Assessment 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 414-2
Negative social impacts in the supply chain and actions taken
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
6 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain where it has found significant negative social impacts in its supply chain, and what it has done about them. In practice, it is about reporting the issues identified, the parts of the supply chain affected, and the actions taken to address or reduce those impacts.
The practical focus is on the breadth of coverage, not just isolated examples. Organisations should think about whether their reporting reflects the wider supply chain, including higher-risk tiers and suppliers beyond flagship or most visible sites, and make clear how they identified the impacts and followed up with action.
* This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
| Datapoint | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppliers reviewed | The count of suppliers that were checked for social impact issues during the reporting period, using the agreed review scope and method. | Supplier review log, assessment tracker, procurement or ESG due diligence records, and the period-end roll-up used for reporting. | Procurement / Sustainability / Supply Chain |
| Suppliers with major issues | The number of suppliers found to have important actual or possible negative social impacts after assessment, using the same supplier population as the review count. | Assessment outcomes, risk ratings, issue registers, supplier due diligence files, and the consolidated reporting schedule. | Procurement / Sustainability / Supply Chain |
| Supply chain social impacts | A short description of the important actual and possible negative social impacts found in the supply chain, covering the main issue types identified in the assessment process. | Assessment summaries, audit findings, grievance records, supplier corrective action logs, and issue categorisation used in the report. | Sustainability / Procurement / Human Rights / Supply Chain |
| Agreed supplier fixes | The share of suppliers with important actual or possible negative social impacts where improvement actions were agreed after assessment, calculated from the identified supplier population. | Corrective action plans, supplier meeting notes, remediation trackers, and the calculation showing the agreed-action count over the identified supplier count. | Procurement / Sustainability / Supply Chain |
| Supplier terminations share | The share of suppliers with important actual or possible negative social impacts where the relationship was ended after assessment, calculated from the identified supplier population. | Termination notices, supplier exit records, assessment outcomes, and the calculation linking terminations to the identified supplier set. | Procurement / Legal / Supply Chain |
| Termination reasons | The reasons the supplier relationship was ended after assessment, stated clearly enough to show what issue or issues led to the decision. | Termination letters, case notes, escalation records, legal or procurement approvals, and the assessment file supporting the decision. | Procurement / Legal / Sustainability / Supply Chain |
Show GRI 414-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Count how many suppliers you reviewed for social impact.
- Count the suppliers you found to have material actual or possible harm to people or communities.
- Work out what share of those suppliers had agreed improvement actions after the review.
- Work out what share of those suppliers had the business relationship ended after the review.
- Set out the reasons for ending supplier relationships after the review.
- List the material actual or possible negative social effects found in the supply chain.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which supplier relationships are in scope for this disclosure, and keep that scope consistent across all figures and narrative points you report.
- Define your screening method and criteria in practical terms, so you can show how you decided whether a supplier was checked for social risk and how you judged whether the impact was material enough to count.
- Gather the underlying records for each supplier you reviewed, including the evidence that supports the count of suppliers checked and the count flagged for serious actual or possible social harm.
- Compile the disclosure outputs from those records: the supplier count, the list or summary of the significant social issues found in the chain, the share of affected suppliers where corrective action was agreed, and the share where the relationship ended, plus the reasons for ending it.
- Explain any exclusions, changes in method, or unusual cases clearly, so a reader can understand why certain suppliers, findings, or outcomes are not included or are treated differently.
- Before finalising, compare your draft back to the official source and your evidence pack to check that the numbers, wording, and reasons are complete, internally consistent, and aligned with the underlying records.
Request supplier social impact assessment data
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which suppliers were reviewed for social risk, what issues were found, and what follow-up actions were agreed or led to exit decisions in the reporting period?
Use your organisation’s own supplier, sourcing and risk-review terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. Keep the request in the language your procurement, supplier management or responsible sourcing teams already use, and check the source guidance before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 414-2 data for the year, including the number of suppliers assessed, the number with significant negative social impacts, the impacts identified, the percentage with improvements agreed, and the percentage terminated, plus reasons for termination.
Why it fails: It uses framework language rather than the organisation’s own supplier-review terms, so the owner may not know which records to pull. It also does not specify the internal source, boundary, counting basis, or how to treat exits and action plans, which makes the response hard to reconcile.
Better request
Please pull the annual supplier social-risk review data from your supplier risk tracker or review log for [period]. We need the number of suppliers reviewed, the number flagged with significant social issues, the main issue types, the share where corrective actions were agreed, the share where the supplier relationship ended, and the reasons for any exits. Please use your team’s own labels, include the source file/system, the supplier population covered, and the counting method.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for supplier social impact review data for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need a data extract from your supplier review records for [reporting period]. Please use your team’s own terms and source systems, then map them to the fields below. Could you please provide: - the number of suppliers reviewed for social risk in the period; - the number of suppliers flagged as having significant actual or likely social issues; - a short description of the main issue types identified; - the share of those suppliers where improvement actions were agreed; - the share of those suppliers where the relationship was ended; - the reasons for any supplier exits linked to the review. Please include the reporting boundary, counting method, source system, and any notes needed to explain the figures. If a field is not available, please say so and explain the gap. Please return this by [deadline]. We will adapt the wording to our organisation and check the source guidance before sign-off. Many thanks, [preparer name] [team]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send the supplier review data for [period]? We need: suppliers reviewed, suppliers with significant social issues, main issue types, % with agreed improvements, % exited, and exit reasons. Please use your own system terms and include the source, boundary and counting method. Thanks — [name]
Industry examples
Retail / Consumer goods
Context. The team manages a large direct-supplier base and uses a supplier scorecard plus corrective action tracker.
Adapted request. Please extract the annual supplier scorecard and corrective action data for [period]. We need the number of suppliers reviewed, the number rated as having serious social-risk findings, the main finding types, the share with agreed remediation plans, the share where sourcing was stopped, and the reasons for any stop-supply decisions. Please include the scorecard version, supplier population covered, and how each supplier was counted.
Example response. A table from the supplier scorecard system showing 420 suppliers reviewed, 38 suppliers with serious findings, issue types such as excessive overtime and wage underpayment, 26 suppliers with agreed remediation plans, 4 suppliers exited, and exit reasons recorded as repeated non-closure of findings and refusal to cooperate.
Construction / Infrastructure
Context. The team oversees subcontractor due diligence and site labour compliance reviews across projects.
Adapted request. Please provide the subcontractor due diligence results for [period] from the compliance register. We need the number of subcontractors reviewed, the number with significant labour or welfare concerns, the main concern types, the share where improvement actions were agreed, the share where contracts were ended, and the reasons for those contract terminations. Please include the project boundary, review method, and the internal category names you use.
Example response. A project compliance extract showing 95 subcontractors reviewed, 12 with significant concerns, issue types including working hours, wage records and worker accommodation, 8 with agreed action plans, 2 contract terminations, and reasons noted as repeated failure to provide evidence and unresolved worker welfare issues.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain how suppliers were selected for review, what counted as a serious social issue in your process, and whether the figures cover the full reporting period and all relevant parts of the supply chain.
Context note
Set out what the numbers show about the scale of supplier review, how many suppliers were found to present material social risk, and how often the response was to agree improvements or end the relationship.
Fluctuation statement
If the figures moved materially, note whether this was driven by a larger review sample, changes in supplier mix, more issues being identified, or a different balance between remediation and termination decisions.
Content index entry
GRI 414-2 Negative social impacts in the supply chain and actions taken — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 414-2. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We checked the supplier set we used for the coverage figure and kept a record of how we defined the population, including any exclusions and the period covered. | The assurer will test whether the population was defined consistently, whether exclusions were justified, and whether the count could be reproduced from source records. | Supplier master list; inclusion/exclusion rules; reporting-period cut-off notes; reconciliation from the source population to the published count; version-controlled working papers. |
| We separated suppliers flagged through our review process from the wider supplier base and kept support for how each case was classified. | The assurer will probe whether the classification of suppliers was applied consistently and whether the count of flagged suppliers is supported by evidence. | Assessment logs; scoring or screening outputs; case notes showing why each supplier was flagged; reviewer sign-off; summary schedule tying individual cases to the published number. |
| We retained the underlying findings that led us to describe the main social issues in the supply chain, and we can show how those findings were grouped and summarised. | The assurer will check whether the reported issues are traceable to underlying evidence, whether the grouping is reasonable, and whether anything material was omitted or overstated. | Audit trail from findings to narrative; issue register; site or supplier review notes; incident records; internal analysis showing how themes were consolidated; approval papers for the final wording. |
| We calculated the improvement rate from the suppliers we had already identified as higher risk and kept evidence of the follow-up actions agreed with each one. | The assurer will test the denominator, the numerator, and whether the agreed actions were real, timely, and linked to the assessment outcome. | List of higher-risk suppliers; action plans or corrective-action trackers; correspondence confirming agreement; calculation sheet; evidence of follow-up status and closure. |
| We worked from the same assessed supplier set when we calculated the exit rate, and we kept records showing which relationships were ended and when. | The assurer will probe whether the termination count is complete, whether the timing matches the assessment outcome, and whether the percentage is calculated on the correct base. | Termination notices or contract records; supplier status history; calculation workbook; reconciliation between the assessed set and the terminated cases; management review evidence. |
| Where we ended a supplier relationship, we documented the business reason and linked it back to the assessment outcome so the published explanation could be checked. | The assurer will test whether the stated reasons are supported, whether they genuinely follow from the assessment, and whether the explanation is consistent across records. | Decision memos; meeting minutes; correspondence with the supplier; assessment reports; approval trail showing the reason for exit; consistency check between internal records and published text. |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
Common reporting gaps
- A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).
- The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.
- Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.
- One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.
- Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.
- Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner
The request goes to a team that does not hold the supplier review records, so the numbers are pulled from the wrong system or a partial spreadsheet.
- Framework language used
The data ask is written in reporting jargon instead of the organisation’s own supplier terms, so people answer different questions and the figures do not line up.
- Scope left vague
No one states which supplier population is in scope, so some teams include all vendors while others only count active or high-risk suppliers.
- Timing basis mixed up
The collection period is not fixed before extraction, so some records are taken from one date range and others from a different review cycle.
- Counting basis not aligned
Headcounts, supplier records and percentage calculations are mixed together without one agreed denominator, which makes the totals impossible to reconcile.
- Source labels lost
Original case notes, audit trails or issue tags are stripped away during consolidation, so the final file no longer shows where each figure came from.
- Populations merged
Suppliers with confirmed issues and suppliers with possible issues are combined into one bucket, so the separate counts and percentages cannot be built correctly.
- Evidence metadata missing
The team keeps the number but not the supporting date, owner, document reference or review status, so the figure cannot be traced back cleanly.
- No sign-off trail
The draft data pack moves forward without named review and approval, so no one can show who checked the figures before they were used.
Where judgement is often needed
- Set the supplier population before counting
Define which suppliers sit in scope for the period, and if acquisitions, disposals or contract changes alter that population, explain the cut-off used so the counts and percentages can be read on a like-for-like basis.
- Handle different local labels with one internal rule
Where countries use different legal or operational labels for the same kind of labour, rights or community issue, map them to a single internal classification and disclose the rule used so the impact list is consistent across locations.
- Decide how to treat borderline suppliers
State whether suppliers with weak evidence, indirect links, or issues only just below your significance threshold are included or excluded, and explain the judgement so readers can see how the edge of scope was handled.
- Choose one timing basis and stick to it
Use a clear period basis for assessments, findings and follow-up actions, and if the assessment date and the action date differ, explain which date drives each figure and why.
- Separate measured findings from estimates
If some supplier impacts are directly verified while others are inferred from sampling, complaints or other proxies, say which figures are measured and which are estimated, and describe the method used for each.
- Round percentages without breaking the totals
Apply one rounding approach across the disclosure, and if rounding means the percentages do not add neatly or a subset appears larger than the whole, explain the convention used and keep the underlying counts internally consistent.
- Aggregate sensitive cases to protect privacy
When naming the impact types would risk identifying workers, communities or suppliers, group the information at a higher level and explain that the detail has been aggregated for confidentiality reasons.
- Explain how follow-up actions are counted
If one supplier has several agreed improvements or more than one reason for ending a relationship, set out whether you count the supplier once or by issue, and describe the counting rule so the percentages are not double-counted.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only: the figures below are internally consistent and show one way to present this disclosure in plain language.
| Measure | Count / % |
|---|---|
| Suppliers reviewed | 120 |
| Suppliers with serious social concerns | 18 |
| Agreed improvement plans | 78 |
| Ended relationships | 22 |
| Reasons for ending relationships | 22 |
We reviewed a sample of direct and indirect suppliers for labour and community-related risks, then recorded where serious concerns were found and what follow-up we agreed. In a few cases we ended supply relationships because the issues were not resolved or the risk could not be reduced to an acceptable level.
Electronics assembly · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic illustration only: the figures below are internally consistent and show one way to present this disclosure in plain language.
| Measure | Count / % |
|---|---|
| Suppliers reviewed | 85 |
| Suppliers with serious social concerns | 10 |
| Agreed improvement plans | 70 |
| Ended relationships | 30 |
| Reasons for ending relationships | 30 |
We checked a group of suppliers for worker and community harm, noted the main issues found, and tracked whether corrective action was agreed or the relationship was stopped. Where we exited suppliers, it was because the concerns were severe, repeated, or not addressed within the agreed timeframe.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. The charts below are drawn from the illustrative figures above — swap in your own data.
Other views you could build
- Supplier review pipeline — table: How many suppliers were reviewed, how many were flagged for material social issues, and how many were later subject to agreed improvements or ended relationships.
- Assessment outcomes by supplier group — stacked bar: A side-by-side view of the supplier base split into reviewed suppliers, suppliers with material social issues, suppliers with agreed improvement actions, and suppliers where the relationship ended.
- Follow-up actions after review — bar: The count or share of flagged suppliers that led to agreed corrective steps versus those that led to ending the commercial relationship.
- Reasons for ending supplier relationships — table: The main reasons recorded when supplier relationships were ended following the review process.
- Issue profile across the supply chain — stacked bar: The different kinds of serious social harm identified in the supply chain, grouped to show the mix of issues found.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
I assessed 120 suppliers and found 18 with serious social harm risks or incidents.
Better
I assessed 120 suppliers, identified 18 with serious social harm risks or incidents, and agreed improvement plans with 67% of those suppliers while ending ties with 11% after the review.
Best
I assessed 120 suppliers this year, identified 18 with serious social harm risks or incidents, agreed improvement plans with 67% and ended ties with 11%, with the exits mainly driven by repeated child labour and unsafe working conditions.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 414-2 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
MOEVE, S.A. | Oil and Gas · Spain | 2025 | Partial | p. 126 →p. 153 →p. 154 → | Consolidated Management Report 2025 → | EY; BSI | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in MOEVE, S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows MOEVE, S.A.'s 2025 Consolidated Management Report provides detailed data on supply chain performance assessments, reporting 1,938 assessments carried out in 2025 compared to 2,188 in 2024 (p.126). The report also notes that no suppliers were identified as having significant negative impacts during this period (p.126), and it includes narrative on social impacts and actions taken within the supply chain (p.154). However, the report lacks specific percentage values related to recycled inputs or other sustainability metrics beyond the 0.95% recycled inputs used in 2025 mentioned on page 161, and some narrative details remain unclear or not found.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited | Retailing · India | 2025 | Partial | p. 43 →p. 107 →p. 176 → | Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 → | Bureau Veritas | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited’s Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 provides several datapoints on social and environmental assessments in its supply chain, including a reference to garments with sustainable attributes and suppliers assessed with ESG parameters on page 43. The report also notes that 38 suppliers were identified for social and environmental impact assessments on page 101, and discusses negative environmental impacts in the supply chain along with actions taken on page 106. Additionally, a percentage of total audits conducted by a third-party auditor is mentioned on page 108. However, the report lacks clear percentage values and narrative details specifically quantifying the extent of supplier assessments beyond these points.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Engie Brasil Energia S.A. | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil | 2025 | Partial | p. 106 →p. 107 →p. 161 → | ENGIE Brasil Sustainability Report 2025 → | ey | |||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Engie Brasil Energia S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Engie Brasil Energia S.A.'s 2025 sustainability report includes detailed information on supplier assessments, noting that all suppliers with active contracts exceeding R$ 1 million undergo in-depth evaluation (p.105). The report identifies 47 suppliers as causing significant real or potential social and environmental impacts and discusses negative environmental impacts in the supply chain along with actions taken (pp.159, 170). However, the report does not provide specific percentage values related to these assessments or impacts, and some narrative details remain unclear or absent.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A procurement team has reviewed 40 suppliers this year. Eight were flagged for serious labour or community-related concerns, and the team agreed improvement plans with six of those suppliers while ending two relationships after the review.How should you decide what to record for the assessment count, the number of suppliers with serious social concerns, the improvement share, and the termination share?
Model answer. Record the total number reviewed as 40, the number with serious negative social impacts as 8, the improvement share as 75% because 6 of 8 had agreed actions, and the termination share as 25% because 2 of 8 were ended. Keep the percentages tied only to the suppliers that were identified as having serious negative social impacts.
Why this matters. Use the reviewed-supplier total as the base, then calculate follow-up actions only against the subgroup with serious findings.
A sourcing manager says one supplier had a confirmed child-labour issue and another had a credible risk of unsafe working hours, but both were kept on because the business wanted to wait for the next audit cycle.Do you treat both cases as part of the set of serious negative social impacts, and how do you handle the action taken if no relationship was ended?
Model answer. Yes. The disclosure covers both confirmed harm and serious possible harm, so both suppliers belong in the identified set. If no relationship was ended, the termination percentage is 0%, and the narrative should explain that the organisation chose to keep the suppliers in place while agreeing corrective steps or monitoring, rather than ending the relationship.
Why this matters. Include both actual harm and serious risk, and report the action taken even when that action is to continue the relationship.
A supplier was removed after repeated findings of forced overtime and blocked worker access to grievance channels. The team also agreed a remediation plan before exit, and the buyer wants to mention only the exit because it sounds cleaner.What should you include in the narrative about the social issue and the reason for ending the relationship?
Model answer. Describe the underlying social problems that led to the decision, such as forced overtime and restricted access to complaints handling, and state that the relationship ended because the assessment showed serious negative social impacts that were not resolved to the organisation’s satisfaction. Do not hide the reason behind a generic exit statement; the explanation should connect the termination to the assessment outcome.
Why this matters. When a supplier is dropped, explain the social issue that drove the decision, not just the fact of exit.
The sustainability team has a spreadsheet showing 120 suppliers reviewed, 15 suppliers with serious social concerns, 9 suppliers with agreed improvement plans, and 3 suppliers ended. The remaining 3 suppliers with concerns are still under review, so no final action has been agreed yet.What should you do with the percentages and the wording of the actions section while the remaining cases are still open?
Model answer. Calculate the improvement share as 60% because 9 of the 15 identified suppliers had agreed improvements, and the termination share as 20% because 3 of the 15 were ended. For the narrative, list the social issues already identified and make clear that the other 3 cases are still open, so no final action has been agreed for them yet.
Why this matters. Only count completed actions in the percentages, and separate open cases from final outcomes.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 414-2 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS S2
Workers in the Value Chain — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
How should I use the GRI 414-2 page to draft a supplier social assessment disclosure from scratch?
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section, the datapoints to prepare, and the draft-output section. The page is designed to help you turn source data into a draft narrative, visuals and a content-index line. ↑ section
What data do I need to collect for GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment before I start writing the disclosure?
The page says to prepare six datapoints: suppliers reviewed, suppliers with major issues, supply chain social impacts, agreed supplier fixes, supplier terminations share, and termination reasons. Use those as the core data set for the draft and for checking completeness. ↑ section
How do I decide the scope and methodology for the GRI 414-2 supplier review in practice?
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation guidance to define which suppliers are reviewed and how you will count issues, fixes and terminations. Keep the method consistent with the datapoints listed on the page so the numbers and narrative line up. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 414-2 data collection and sign-off in my organisation?
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can source the supplier review data and evidence pack. The page itself does not assign roles, so use it to coordinate internal ownership rather than as a role map. ↑ section
What should go into the evidence pack for GRI 414-2 assurance readiness?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside six claims to verify with claim, risk and evidence. Use those materials to assemble a file that supports the figures, the method and the narrative before review. ↑ section
What are the six assurance claims on the GRI 414-2 page and how do I use them?
The page says there are six claims to verify, each linked to a risk and evidence point. Use them as an assurance checklist to test whether the disclosure is supported by the underlying records and whether anything is missing. ↑ section
What are the most common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful for checking whether your draft is missing key datapoints, unclear on method, or not backed by evidence. Review that section before finalising the disclosure and evidence pack. ↑ section
How do I use the GRI 414-2 workbook download to prepare the disclosure?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf. Use the workbook to organise the preparation and assurance steps, then use the Library Card as a quick reference while drafting. ↑ section
Can I use the synthetic example on the GRI 414-2 page as a template for my own disclosure?
Yes, as a drafting aid only: the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures and a quantitative table. Treat them as examples of how to present the information, not as real-world benchmarks or required figures. ↑ section
How does the GRI 414-2 page relate to ESRS S2 Workers in the Value Chain, and can I reuse the data?
The page says ESRS S2 is the closest correspondence. You can reuse the underlying data where it fits your reporting needs, but the page does not say the requirements are identical, so check the wording and scope separately. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: what datapoints should be in my source file before drafting?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: how do I turn supplier review data into a draft narrative?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: what should I include in the assurance evidence pack?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: how do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: what are the common reporting gaps to check for?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: what does the synthetic example show?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: how do I document supplier terminations and reasons?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: how do I evidence agreed supplier fixes?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: how do I decide which suppliers were reviewed?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: what should the GRI content-index line look like in a draft?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: where can I find real company report examples on the page?
- GRI 414-2 Supplier Social Assessment: can the Library Card PDF help with assurance prep?
✓ LRA AI Assistant · human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
