GRI 2: General Disclosures · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 2-30
Collective bargaining agreements
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
2 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how much of its workforce is covered by collective bargaining agreements. In practice, the point is to show the extent of negotiated terms and conditions across the organisation, rather than simply stating that some agreements exist. The report should make clear whether coverage is broad or limited, and whether it applies to employees in many parts of the business or only in particular locations, functions, or business units.
The practical focus is on coverage, not just the presence of a union relationship or a single agreement. An organisation should be able to describe the scope of coverage in a way that helps readers understand how representative it is of the workforce as a whole. If coverage differs across operations, countries, or sites, that variation should be clear so the reader can see where bargaining arrangements are widespread and where they are more limited.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union coverage rate | Capture the share of the employee population whose pay and working terms sit under a collective agreement, using the same employee base and period as the rest of the workforce data. | HR or employee-relations records showing covered employees, agreement lists, and the total employee count used for the percentage calculation. | HR / Employee Relations |
| Basis for non-covered terms | State which agreement basis is used for employees outside collective coverage: either the arrangements applied to the organisation’s own covered staff, or agreements taken from other organisations. | Policy notes, HR guidance, or labour-relations documentation showing the rule applied to non-covered employees and the source agreement referenced. | HR / Employee Relations |
Show GRI 2-30 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- For staff outside any union deal, state whether their pay and working terms are set by using agreements that apply to other staff or by using agreements from other organisations.
- Show what share of the workforce is covered by union-negotiated agreements.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which employees are in scope for this disclosure and keep that scope consistent across both parts of the answer.
- Define the coverage measure you will use: count the workforce included in the total employee base, then identify the share whose pay and conditions are covered by a collective agreement.
- Gather the supporting records: use HR, payroll, labour-relations, or legal documents that show who is covered and how the coverage percentage was calculated.
- Prepare the two required outputs: give the percentage figure for covered employees, and for everyone outside that coverage state whether their employment terms are set by agreements used for your other staff or by agreements from other organisations.
- Record any exclusions, assumptions, or changes in method: explain if any employee groups were left out of the count, or if the calculation basis changed from the prior period.
- Check the final disclosure against the source material: confirm the percentage is shown with the correct unit, the narrative answer is complete, and the wording matches the underlying records without adding unsupported detail.
Request the employee coverage and pay-setting basis data
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What share of our workforce is covered by a union or other pay-and-conditions agreement, and how do we set terms for everyone else?
Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting question. For example, you may talk about union recognition, staff agreements, site-level deals, or local labour arrangements rather than using framework language. Keep the wording aligned to how HR, payroll, employee relations, or local sites actually record this information, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Can you provide the collective bargaining agreement disclosure data?
Why it fails: This uses framework language only, so the owner may not know which internal records to pull, which employee groups to include, or how to describe the basis used. It also does not separate the coverage figure from the explanation for employees outside the arrangement.
Better request
Please send the employee agreement coverage figures for [reporting period] from HRIS or your local employee relations records: total employees in scope, number and percentage covered by a union deal, staff agreement, or similar arrangement, plus a short note on how terms are set for employees outside those arrangements. Include the source, boundary, counting basis, and any exceptions, using your internal labels first and a mapping note where needed.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for employee agreement coverage data for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name/team],\n\nI’m preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the employee agreement coverage figures for [reporting period].\n\nPlease send:\n1) The number of employees in scope for [boundary/basis].\n2) The number and percentage of those employees covered by a union deal, staff agreement, or other collective arrangement.\n3) For employees not covered, a short note on how their pay and working conditions are set — for example, whether we use the same deal as another employee group, or a deal from another organisation.\n4) Any assumptions, exclusions, or special cases.\n5) The source system or record used and the date extracted.\n\nPlease use the organisation’s own labels where possible, and add a brief mapping note if the internal wording differs from the reporting question.\n\nIf helpful, I can share a simple table format. Please check the official source before sign-off.\n\nThanks,\n[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send the [reporting period] employee agreement coverage figures? I need: total employees in scope, number/% covered by a union or staff agreement, and a short note on how terms are set for anyone not covered. Please include the source, basis, and any exceptions. Use your internal labels and I’ll map them. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A multi-site employer with plant-level labour agreements and some sites without any agreement.
Adapted request. Please provide the [reporting period] site-by-site employee agreement coverage from the employee relations log: total employees by plant, number and percentage covered by each site agreement or union deal, and a note for non-covered staff on whether their terms follow another site’s deal or a separate employer arrangement. Include the site list, source record, and any exceptions.
Example response. Plant A: 420 in scope, 390 covered, 92.9%; Plant B: 260 in scope, 0 covered, terms set using the regional operations agreement; Plant C: 180 in scope, 180 covered, 100.0%. Source: employee relations log, extracted 15 Jan 2026.
Retail
Context. A chain with store-level staff, some union-represented distribution centres, and head office employees.
Adapted request. Please send the [reporting period] employee agreement coverage figures from HRIS and the union recognition tracker: total employees in scope, number and percentage covered by store, depot, or head office agreements, and a short note on how terms are set for employees not covered. Please separate store, depot, and head office groups and include the basis used.
Example response. Stores: 1,200 in scope, 0 covered; Distribution centres: 340 in scope, 340 covered, 100.0%; Head office: 160 in scope, 0 covered. Non-covered staff follow the company-wide pay and benefits framework. Source: HRIS plus recognition tracker, extracted 10 Jan 2026.
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
State how the workforce total was defined, how bargaining coverage was identified, and how employees outside coverage were assessed for the basis used to set their terms and conditions.
Context note
Explain what the coverage percentage says about the reach of employee bargaining arrangements and how the approach for uncovered staff affects consistency in employment terms.
Fluctuation statement
If the coverage rate moved materially, note whether this was driven by hiring, restructuring, changes in bargaining scope, or a different mix of employees outside coverage.
Content index entry
GRI 2-30 Collective bargaining agreements — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-30. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| The percentage reported for this disclosure reconciles to the underlying source records. | What is reported cannot be traced back to the systems or documents it was drawn from, or does not tie out to them. | calculation_workbook reconciling the reported value to source_system_export |
| The percentage reported for this disclosure is current as at the reporting date. | The disclosure reflects a different period, a cut-off before the reporting date, or stale data carried over from a prior period. | approval_record showing the data cut-off date and the period covered |
| The scope behind the percentage reported for this disclosure is applied consistently. | Parts of the organisation are silently in or out of scope, or the scope differs from the prior period without that change being explained. | methodology defining the scope and a site_register of what it covers |
| Everything in scope is included in the percentage reported for this disclosure — nothing material is left out. | Parts of the population that should be reported are omitted, understating or overstating the disclosure. | site_register of the full population vs the calculation_workbook of what was actually included |
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 for the headcount
The team asks payroll, HR or legal for the figure without first naming who holds the employee coverage list and the agreement records.
- Using framework language instead of site terms
People ask for the data in reporting jargon, so the business cannot tell which employee groups, contracts or locations are meant.
- No clear boundary for who is in scope
The count is pulled from a mixed population because no one has fixed which workers, entities or countries belong in the calculation.
- Timing basis is not aligned
The percentage is built from figures taken at different dates, so the covered headcount and the total employee base do not match the same period.
- Different counting bases get mixed
One source uses full-time equivalents while another uses individual employees, which makes the coverage percentage unreliable.
- Original source labels are lost
The team copies numbers into a spreadsheet but drops the contract names, site codes or employee group tags that show where each figure came from.
- Separate populations are merged
Employees covered directly and employees whose terms follow another agreement are blended together, so the two data points can no longer be prepared separately.
- Evidence details are not captured
The file keeps the final number but not the supporting extracts, date stamps or version notes needed to show how it was built.
- No sign-off trail is kept
The draft is circulated informally and no one records who checked the source data, challenged the assumptions or approved the final input.
Where judgement is often needed
- Define the employee base before calculating coverage
Set out which workers sit in the headcount for the percentage, and explain any exclusions or inclusions so readers can see how the denominator was built.
- Decide how to treat people moving in or out of the group
If a business bought, sold, or restructured parts of the workforce during the period, explain whether the coverage figure reflects the opening position, closing position, or a period average, and why.
- Handle country-by-country labour rules consistently
Where local labour arrangements use different labels or legal forms, explain the rule used to decide what counts as a bargaining arrangement for reporting purposes.
- Separate direct coverage from inherited terms for others
For staff outside any agreement, state clearly whether their pay and conditions follow the same deal as covered colleagues or are taken from another employer’s arrangement.
- Choose one cut-off point for the reporting date
If coverage changes near period end, explain the date used to lock the population and the agreement status, so the percentage is not based on mixed timing.
- Use estimates only where the source data is incomplete
If the workforce count or coverage status cannot be measured exactly, disclose that an estimate was used, the basis for it, and whether it was applied across all sites or only some.
- Round in a way that does not distort the picture
State the rounding approach for the percentage and make sure any rounded figure still matches the underlying headcount logic.
- Aggregate enough to protect personal data
When a small team or site could make individuals identifiable, combine the figures at a higher level and explain the aggregation rule used.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic example for practitioner training only; figures are internally consistent and the wording is intentionally generic.
Illustrative only. We reviewed our workforce arrangements for the year and found that 72% of our employees were in roles where pay and core terms were set through a union-negotiated agreement. For the remaining 28%, we used the same employment terms as those agreed for our union-covered staff, rather than terms taken from another employer’s agreement. This means our non-covered employees were aligned to our own negotiated framework.
Retail · synthetic · written by LRA
Synthetic example for practitioner training only; figures are internally consistent and the wording is intentionally generic.
Illustrative only. In our group, 45% of employees were covered by collective bargaining arrangements during the reporting period. For the 55% outside those arrangements, we set their working conditions by reference to the agreements that apply to other employees in our business, not by using agreements from outside organisations. In practice, this meant the same internal framework was used across the wider workforce.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.
Suggested visuals
- Workforce coverage by bargaining arrangements — table: The share of the workforce included in employee bargaining arrangements, shown as a percentage of total headcount.
- Covered and uncovered employees — donut: A split between employees who are included in bargaining coverage and those who are not.
- How terms are set for uncovered staff — stacked bar: For employees outside bargaining coverage, whether their pay and working conditions follow the organisation’s own covered workforce arrangements or arrangements used by other employers.
- Coverage rate over time — line: Changes in the proportion of employees covered by bargaining arrangements across reporting periods.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
I report that 68% of our employees are covered by collective bargaining arrangements, and for the rest we use terms set by agreements covering our own staff.
Better
I report that 68% of our employees are covered by collective bargaining arrangements, while the remaining 32% follow terms drawn from agreements covering our other staff.
Best
I report that 68% of our employees are covered by collective bargaining arrangements; the other 32% are on terms based on agreements covering our own staff, and the split is unchanged this year because our workforce mix stayed broadly stable.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-30 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Aleatica | Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · Mexico / Spain | 2024 | Exact | p. 169 →p. 207 →p. 57 → | Sustainability Annual Report 2024 → | — | |||||||||
Evidence in Aleatica’s reportWhat the report shows Aleatica’s Sustainability Annual Report 2024 provides a clear percentage value for employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, broken down by country, as shown on page 207. The report also references collective bargaining in relation to occupational health and safety and worker involvement on page 208. However, there is no quotable narrative explanation or detailed discussion of the collective bargaining process or its impacts found in the report.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
SQM / Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile | Mining — Rare Minerals / Precious Metals / Gems · Chile | 2024 | Partial | p. 100 →p. 95 →p. 13 → | Sustainability Report 2024 → | Deloitte; TÜV | |||||||||
Evidence in SQM / Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile’s reportWhat the report shows SQM's Sustainability Report 2024 provides a clear figure for the number of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, reporting a total of 3,316 on page 100. Additionally, the report notes that 77.6% of employees in Chile are unionized and covered by such agreements, as indicated on page 13. However, the report lacks a detailed narrative explanation about the collective bargaining process or its broader implications, with no quotable evidence found elsewhere in the document.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
Indra Sistemas, S.A. | Software and Services · Spain | 2025 | Exact | p. 128 →p. 127 →p. 266 → | Sustainability Report 2025 → | — | |||||||||
Evidence in Indra Sistemas, S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Indra Sistemas, S.A.'s Sustainability Report 2025 provides clear evidence that 100% of employees in Germany are covered by collective bargaining agreements, as shown on page 266. The report also includes a narrative commitment to fostering work environments that support collective bargaining and dialogue (p.215). However, the report does not provide comprehensive data on collective bargaining coverage for countries other than Germany, leaving the overall global coverage unclear.
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 group has 240 employees in total. Of these, 180 are covered by a union-negotiated pay and conditions arrangement, while 60 are not. The reporting team is preparing the workforce section and has the headcount data ready.What figure should be disclosed for the share of employees covered, and what should the team do with the 60 employees who are outside that arrangement?
Model answer. The disclosed figure should be 75% because 180 out of 240 employees are covered. For the 60 employees who are not covered, the team should also explain whether their pay and working terms are set by using the arrangements that apply to other employees in the organisation, or by using arrangements from another organisation.
Why this matters. Give the coverage percentage, then explain the basis used for the remaining employees’ working terms.
A business has staff in three countries. In one country, all employees are covered by a bargaining arrangement; in the other two, none are. The preparer is unsure whether to report only the covered group or to address the uncovered staff as well.How should the disclosure be framed so it covers both parts of the workforce?
Model answer. The disclosure should include the overall percentage of employees covered across the whole workforce, not just the covered country. It should also state how the terms for employees outside any bargaining arrangement are set: either by reference to arrangements used for other employees in the organisation, or by reference to arrangements from another organisation.
Why this matters. Report the workforce-wide coverage rate and separately explain the rule used for people who are outside coverage.
A company has 100 employees. Forty are covered by a bargaining agreement. For the other 60, HR says their pay is set by a market benchmark, not by any bargaining arrangement used elsewhere in the group or by another employer’s arrangement.Can the preparer describe the basis for the uncovered employees using that market-benchmark approach in this disclosure?
Model answer. No. The disclosure needs to state whether the organisation uses bargaining arrangements that cover its other employees, or bargaining arrangements from other organisations, as the basis for the uncovered employees’ working conditions and terms. A market-benchmark approach does not answer that specific point, so it should not be presented as the response to this item.
Why this matters. The second part is about whether bargaining arrangements are used as the reference point, not about general pay-setting methods.
A preparer has confirmed that 90% of employees are covered by bargaining arrangements. However, the narrative draft only says that the organisation has a strong employee relations framework and does not mention how the remaining 10% are treated.What extra information is needed before the disclosure is ready for sign-off?
Model answer. The draft still needs a clear statement on the employees who are not covered. It should say whether their working conditions and employment terms are determined by bargaining arrangements that apply to other employees in the organisation, or by bargaining arrangements from another organisation.
Why this matters. A coverage percentage alone is not enough; the treatment of uncovered employees must also be explained.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 2-30 — 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.
Related & explore
Organizational details Guide ✓Nomination and selection of the highest g… Guide ✓Chair of the highest governance body Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in ov… Guide ✓Delegation of responsibility for managing… Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in su… Guide ✓Conflicts of interest Guide ✓Communication of critical concerns Guide ✓Collective knowledge of the highest gover… Guide ✓Evaluation of the performance of the high… Guide ✓Remuneration policies Guide ✓Entities included in the organization’s s… Guide ✓Process to determine remuneration Guide ✓Annual total compensation ratio Guide ✓Statement on sustainable development stra… Guide ✓Policy commitments Guide ✓Embedding policy commitments Guide ✓Processes to remediate negative impacts Guide ✓Mechanisms for seeking advice and raising… Guide ✓Compliance with laws and regulations Guide ✓Membership associations Guide ✓Approach to stakeholder engagement Guide ✓Reporting period, frequency and contact p… Guide ✓Restatements of information Guide ✓External assurance Guide ✓Activities, value chain and other busines… Guide ✓Employees Guide ✓Workers who are not employees Guide ✓Governance structure and composition Guide ✓
Questions this page answers
For GRI 2-30, what exactly should I prepare before drafting the disclosure?
Use the page’s plain-language explainer and step-by-step preparation section to identify the two datapoints to gather: union coverage rate and the basis for any non-covered terms. The page is designed to help you turn those inputs into a draft, not to replace your own reporting judgement. ↑ section
How do I calculate the union coverage rate for GRI 2-30 using this page?
The page tells you to prepare a union coverage rate, but it does not set out a calculation formula. Use the workbook and the preparation steps to define your own method consistently, then document it in the evidence pack. ↑ section
What does the page mean by the basis for non-covered terms in GRI 2-30?
The page flags this as a datapoint to prepare, so you should explain the basis you used for terms that are not covered in the union coverage rate. Keep the explanation clear, consistent, and supported by evidence in case it is reviewed. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 2-30 data collection and sign-off process?
The page is set up for sustainability, HR, and data owners to work together, so ownership should sit with the person who can evidence the figures and methodology. The workbook can help you assign tasks and track sign-off before the draft is finalised. ↑ section
What evidence should I keep to make a GRI 2-30 disclosure assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and four assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk, and evidence. Use those materials to build a file that shows where the numbers came from and how the disclosure was checked. ↑ section
What are the common mistakes to avoid when preparing GRI 2-30?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is meant to help you spot issues before submission. A practical approach is to check the draft against the preparation steps, the assurance claims, and the evidence pack. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 2-30?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use it to organise the datapoints, evidence, and review steps before turning the information into a draft. ↑ section
What can I use the printable Library Card for when drafting GRI 2-30?
The Download Centre also provides a printable Library Card in .pdf format. It is there as a practical reference alongside the workbook, the explainer, and the draft-output section when you are preparing the disclosure. ↑ section
Does the page give an example of what a GRI 2-30 disclosure could look like?
Yes. It includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, so you can see how the information might be presented in practice without treating the example as a real company disclosure. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 2-30 data into a draft disclosure?
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. Use those prompts to shape the wording and presentation once your data, methodology, and evidence are in place. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- What should I check before I finalise a GRI 2-30 draft from the workbook?
- How do I build an evidence pack for GRI 2-30 assurance review?
- What are the four assurance claims to verify for GRI 2-30?
- How should HR and sustainability teams split responsibilities for GRI 2-30?
- What are the most common reporting gaps in GRI 2-30 disclosures?
- How do I use the synthetic example table on the GRI 2-30 page?
- What should go into the GRI 2-30 content-index line in the draft output?
- Where can I find real published reports that disclose GRI 2-30?
- What does the plain-language explainer on GRI 2-30 help me do?
- How do I document the basis for non-covered terms in GRI 2-30?
- What should I include in the GRI 2-30 assurance-ready file?
- How can the GRI 2-30 page help me avoid incomplete reporting?
✓ 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.
