GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 403-10
Work-related ill health
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
11 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it tracks and reports work-related ill health among its workers. In practice, the focus is on whether the organisation has a way of identifying cases that are linked to work, how it records them, and what it can say about the scale and pattern of those cases over the reporting period.
The practical question is coverage: does the reporting capture the whole organisation, or only selected sites, business units, or worker groups? A useful explanation should make clear the scope of the data, any gaps or exclusions, and whether the approach is consistent across operations rather than limited to a few flagship locations.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Worker population | The set of people included in this disclosure, using the organisation’s chosen worker categories for the reporting period. | Workforce register, HRIS headcount extract, contractor or agency population list, reporting boundary note. | HR / People team |
| Fatal illness count | The number of deaths in the period that are linked to illness arising from work. | H&S incident log, occupational health case records, investigation files, insurer or legal notifications. | Health and Safety |
| Recordable illness cases | The count of work-linked illness cases that meet the organisation’s recordable threshold for the period. | Occupational health register, incident reporting system, case management records, recordability criteria note. | Health and Safety / Occupational Health |
| Illness types | The main illness categories seen in the reporting period among work-linked cases. | Case summaries, occupational health trend report, coded diagnosis list, management review pack. | Occupational Health |
| Workplace health hazards | The main work-related conditions or exposures that could lead to illness. | Risk assessment register, exposure monitoring results, workplace inspection findings, hazard register. | Health and Safety |
| Hazard identification method | How the organisation worked out which workplace health hazards to include, including the method or sources used. | Risk assessment methodology, hazard review procedure, exposure survey approach, governance paper. | Health and Safety |
| Hazards linked to cases | Which of the identified workplace health hazards were connected to illness cases during the reporting period. | Case investigation notes, occupational health opinion, root-cause analysis, incident-to-hazard mapping. | Health and Safety / Occupational Health |
| Health risk actions | The steps already taken or in progress to remove health hazards and reduce remaining risk, including controls used in order of preference. | Action tracker, risk treatment plan, control implementation log, management review minutes. | Health and Safety / Operations |
| Excluded workers | Whether any workers were left out of this disclosure. | Boundary statement, exclusion log, reporting methodology note, sign-off memo. | Reporting / Sustainability |
| Exclusion details | The reason each worker group was left out and the type of worker affected. | Exclusion rationale note, boundary memo, workforce segmentation list, approval record. | Reporting / Sustainability |
| Compilation notes | Any extra explanation needed to understand the figures, including the methods, assumptions and rules used to build them. | Methodology note, calculation workbook, assumptions log, data quality commentary. | Reporting / Sustainability |
Show GRI 403-10 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Describe the steps already taken, or still in progress, to remove workplace dangers that could harm health, and to reduce remaining risk by following the control hierarchy.
- Add the background needed to interpret the figures: the methods, standards and assumptions used to compile them.
- State which people are covered by the disclosure: employees and other workers.
- Say whether any workers have been left out of this disclosure.
- Explain how you identified workplace dangers that could lead to ill health.
- Set out the main kinds of work-related ill health.
- Report the number of recordable cases of work-related ill health.
- Report the number of deaths linked to work-related ill health.
- Give the reason for any exclusion and identify the types of worker excluded.
- Identify which workplace dangers that could harm health caused or helped cause ill-health cases during the reporting period.
- List the workplace dangers that could lead to ill health.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which people are included in the disclosure, and make sure your scope matches the workforce group you intend to report on.
- Define the measures you will use for each required item: deaths linked to work-related ill health, recorded cases of work-related ill health, the main illness categories, and the hazards connected to those cases.
- Gather the supporting records and source documents: incident logs, occupational health data, risk assessments, investigation notes, and any other evidence that shows how the figures and descriptions were built.
- Prepare the disclosure content in a clear structure: provide the numbers where needed, describe the main illness types and hazards, explain how the hazards were identified, and state the actions taken or in progress to remove or reduce them using the control approach applied by the organisation.
- Check whether any people were left out of the reporting set; if so, record who was excluded and why, including the type of worker affected.
- Add a short methods note so readers can understand the compilation approach, including any standards used, the calculation method, and any assumptions or judgement calls; then compare the draft with the official source to confirm nothing material has been missed.
Request the work-related ill health data from EHS
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What work-related ill health cases, related fatalities, likely causes, and control actions should we report for the period, and who is outside scope?
Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting fields. For example, if you say ‘occupational health case’, ‘incident review’, ‘site hazard’, or ‘contractor population’ internally, keep that language in the request and only translate it at the end for reporting. Check the source material before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 403-10 data for work-related ill health, including fatalities, recordable cases, hazards, and control measures.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the owner has to translate the ask before they can act. It also does not specify the period, the worker groups, the source system, or what supporting notes are needed, which makes the return harder to compile and review.
Better request
Please pull the occupational health case data and related safety notes for [period] from [system] for [business unit / site]. Include any fatalities linked to work-related illness, the count of recordable cases, the main illness types, the hazards involved, how those hazards were identified, which hazards appear to have contributed to cases, the controls already in place or being rolled out, any excluded worker groups, and a short note on method, assumptions, and data limits.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for work-related ill health data and supporting notes Hi [Name], Could you please share the data and evidence pack for the period [start date] to [end date] covering your occupational health / safety records for [business unit / site / function]? Please include: - the number of work-related ill health fatalities, if any - the number of recordable work-related ill health cases - the main health conditions or illness types seen in the period - the work-related hazards that may lead to ill health - how those hazards were identified in your process - which hazards appear to have caused or contributed to cases during the period - the actions already taken, or underway, to remove the hazard or reduce exposure using your normal control hierarchy - any worker groups excluded from the figures, with the reason - any notes needed to explain the method, assumptions, standards, or data limitations Please also confirm the source system, the worker groups included, and the reporting boundary used. If helpful, you can return the information in the table below and attach any supporting extracts, case summaries, risk assessments, or action logs. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terminology and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks, [Your name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [Name] — could you send over the occupational health / safety data for [period] for [site / team / business unit]? I need the case counts, any fatalities, the main illness types, the hazards behind them, how those hazards were identified, the actions in place to reduce exposure, any exclusions, and a short note on method / assumptions. Please use your normal internal terms and attach any supporting extracts. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant with exposure to noise, dust, solvents, and repetitive tasks
Adapted request. Please share the plant’s occupational health case log and risk review for [period]. I need the count of work-related illness fatalities, the number of recordable illness cases, the main illness types, the hazards linked to those cases, how the hazards were identified, the controls being used or introduced, any excluded worker groups, and a short note on the method and assumptions.
Example response. Example return: 0 fatalities; 14 recordable illness cases; main illness types: hearing loss (6), dermatitis (4), respiratory irritation (4); hazards: noise, cleaning chemicals, airborne dust; hazard identification: risk assessments, health surveillance, incident reviews; controls: enclosure, ventilation upgrades, PPE, training; exclusions: none; method note: site cases only, agency workers included, contractor medical cases excluded because not tracked in the same system.
Logistics / Warehousing
Context. A distribution network with manual handling, vehicle movement, cold storage, and shift work
Adapted request. Please provide the warehouse health and safety case summary for [period]. Include any illness-related fatalities, recordable health cases, the main condition types, the site hazards that may have contributed, how those hazards were identified, the actions in place to reduce exposure, any worker groups left out, and a brief note on the counting method and assumptions.
Example response. Example return: 0 fatalities; 9 recordable illness cases; main illness types: musculoskeletal strain (5), stress-related absence (3), asthma flare-ups (1); hazards: repetitive lifting, cold exposure, diesel fumes; hazard identification: manual handling assessments, supervisor reports, occupational health referrals; controls: lift aids, rota changes, extraction checks, refresher training; exclusions: temporary agency workers excluded from the count because their cases are held by the agency provider; method note: figures cover permanent staff only and are based on cases logged in the incident system and occupational health referrals.
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
Set out which worker groups are covered, which are left out and why, and explain the basis, assumptions and any standards used to compile the figures.
Context note
Explain what the numbers show about the scale and pattern of work-related ill health, the main illness types, the hazards involved, and the steps being taken to reduce those risks.
Fluctuation statement
If the figures have moved materially, describe the main operational or reporting reasons, including changes in coverage, hazard identification, case classification, or control measures.
Content index entry
GRI 403-10 Work-related ill health — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 403-10. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| I prepared the coverage figure using the same worker population and reporting boundary applied in our internal reporting pack, and I checked that the population counted here matches the period and entities we said we were using. | The assurer may test whether the population included in the figure is complete, whether any entities or worker groups were left out without explanation, and whether the boundary used is consistent with the rest of the report. | Reporting boundary note; workforce listing used for the period; consolidation or inclusion rules; reconciliation between the disclosed figure and internal headcount records; sign-off note confirming the scope applied. |
| I compiled the fatality count from incident records and case files, then matched each case back to supporting documentation before the number was finalised. | The assurer may probe whether every fatality included is genuinely work-related, whether any case was double-counted or missed, and whether the source records support the final tally. | Incident logs; investigation reports; occupational health case files; death or coroner-related records where relevant; data extraction sheet; review trail showing case-by-case checking. |
| I built the count of reportable illness cases from the underlying health and incident records, and I checked the list against the source system before publication. | The assurer may ask whether the cases counted meet the organisation’s own reporting rules, whether the source data were complete, and whether the final number was reconciled to the underlying records. | Health surveillance records; occupational health referrals; incident management system extracts; case register; reconciliation worksheet; approval evidence from the data owner. |
| I summarised the main illness patterns from the cases we had on file, grouping similar diagnoses so the disclosure reflects the dominant themes rather than isolated entries. | The assurer may test whether the grouping method is sensible, whether the categories are supported by the case evidence, and whether the summary omits material patterns. | Case list with diagnosis fields; grouping or coding method; analysis workbook; review notes showing how themes were selected; management review of the summary wording. |
| I identified the hazards by reviewing our risk assessments, incident trends, and occupational health information, then I used those sources to decide which hazards were relevant for the figure. | The assurer may probe whether the hazard set was derived from a documented process, whether the inputs were current and complete, and whether the final list reflects the actual risk profile. | Risk assessments; hazard registers; trend analysis; occupational health reports; meeting minutes or review notes showing how hazards were selected; version history of the final list. |
| I traced the hazards back to the evidence we used to identify them, including assessment records and case information, so we can show how each hazard was picked up. | The assurer may ask whether the identification method is transparent, whether the evidence supports the hazard classification, and whether any relevant source was overlooked. | Assessment templates; source documents used in the review; hazard mapping or linkage table; reviewer comments; sign-off from the responsible manager. |
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
- Figures are stated without the supporting narrative, or narrative without figures.
- Scope is inconsistent between the text and the numbers.
- The reporting boundary is left undefined.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Estimates and measured values are not distinguished.
- Source records for the figures are not identified.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong data owner
The request goes to the wrong team, so the case counts, hazard notes, and exclusion details are pulled from separate systems that do not line up.
- Framework language, not site language
People ask for the data using disclosure terms instead of the organisation’s own health-and-safety labels, and the source team cannot map the request cleanly.
- Scope left vague
No one states which employee groups and other worker groups are in or out, so the dataset is built on an unclear population.
- Period basis not fixed
The team mixes cases from different cut-off dates or reporting windows, which makes the totals cover different time spans.
- Counting rules mixed together
Fatal cases, recordable cases, and narrative health categories are combined in one extract without keeping each count on its own basis.
- Source labels stripped out
The original case notes, hazard names, and system tags are replaced with generic headings, so the audit trail back to the first record is lost.
- Separate worker groups merged
Employees and other worker categories are rolled into one file even though the exclusion note or context needs them kept distinct.
- Evidence metadata missing
The file is saved without the date, source system, owner, or method note, so nobody can show how the figures were assembled.
- No sign-off trail
The draft numbers move forward without a named reviewer confirming the source pack, assumptions, and exclusions before submission.
Where judgement is often needed
- Set the reporting perimeter after takeovers and disposals
Explain whether you include people and cases only from the period they were under your control, and how you handled any business bought or sold during the year.
- Choose one illness classification rule where local systems differ
If different countries or sites label the same condition differently, state the rule you used to group cases and note any local mapping or translation applied.
- Decide who counts when someone sits near the boundary of scope
Set out how you treated agency staff, contractors, secondees, and other non-standard workers, and disclose any groups left out with the reason.
- Fix the timing basis for counting cases and deaths
State whether you used the date the illness was identified, reported, confirmed, or linked to work, and keep that basis consistent across the period.
- Separate measured cases from estimated ones
If some figures come from medical records, claims data, or internal estimates rather than direct counts, say which numbers were estimated and how the estimate was built.
- Explain how you handled privacy limits in small populations
Where case numbers are too small to show safely at site or country level, disclose the aggregation approach you used and how that affects the figures shown.
- State how you treated repeat or linked cases
If one person has more than one illness episode, or one event leads to several diagnoses, explain whether you counted each case separately or combined them.
- Describe the rounding rule used for published numbers
Tell readers whether you rounded the counts and, if so, the rule applied so they can understand any small differences between totals and components.
- Clarify how you linked hazards to the illnesses reported
Explain the method used to decide which workplace hazards were considered relevant, and note any cases where the link was uncertain or based on judgement.
- Explain any exclusions and the reason for them
If any worker groups were left out of the data set, name the types excluded and give the operational reason so readers can see the boundary of the figures.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows how to present the scope of people covered, the ill-health outcomes, the main conditions seen, the exposure risks behind them, how those risks were identified, and the controls in place. It also notes that agency packers were left out because the host contractor held the relevant records, and explains the methods and assumptions used to compile the figures.
| Category | Cases |
|---|---|
| Employees | 11 |
| Other workers under our control | 3 |
| Excluded workers | 2 |
Synthetic example only. We report on our own staff and other people working under our control, with one work-related ill-health death and 14 recordable ill-health cases in the year. The main conditions were respiratory irritation, dermatitis and noise-related hearing loss; we identified the relevant exposure risks through workplace inspections, task-based risk reviews, incident and health surveillance data, and the cases were linked mainly to dust, cleaning chemicals and high noise areas.
Warehousing and logistics · synthetic · written by LRA
This example illustrates a second plausible reporter with a different mix of people and outcomes. It also shows how to state the excluded group, why they were left out, and the compilation basis, including the use of site records, health referrals and a conservative counting approach for repeat episodes.
| Category | Cases |
|---|---|
| Employees | 7 |
| Contractors | 2 |
| Excluded workers | 1 |
Synthetic example only. We cover our employees and site-based contractors, with no ill-health deaths and 9 recordable ill-health cases during the period. The main conditions were musculoskeletal strain, skin irritation and stress-related illness; the linked risks were identified from manual-handling reviews, ventilation checks, occupational health referrals and supervisor reports, and the actions underway include removing the hazard where possible, substituting lower-risk materials, engineering changes, revised work methods, training and PPE as the last line of defence.
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
- Who is included in the count — table: The worker groups covered by the disclosure, and any groups left out with the reason for excluding them.
- Ill-health cases and fatalities — bar: A side-by-side view of the number of work-related ill-health cases and the number of deaths linked to work-related ill health.
- Main illness types — stacked bar: The main categories of work-related ill health, showing how the total cases are split across types.
- Hazards linked to ill health — table: The workplace hazards identified as creating ill-health risk, alongside which of those hazards were linked to cases during the period.
- How risks are being reduced — stacked bar: The actions taken or in progress to remove hazards and reduce risk, grouped by the level of control used.
- Coverage and exclusions — donut: The share of workers covered by the disclosure versus any excluded worker groups.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We recorded 3 cases of work-related ill health.
Better
We recorded 3 cases of work-related ill health among employees and other workers this year, with 2 linked to dust exposure and 1 to repetitive strain.
Best
We recorded 3 cases of work-related ill health across employees and other workers in the year to 31 December 2025, with no fatalities; 2 cases were linked to dust exposure and 1 to repetitive strain, we identified the risks through incident reviews and workplace assessments, no worker groups were left out, and the rise from 1 case last year mainly reflects better reporting after we tightened our health checks and record-keeping.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 403-10 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Indra Sistemas, S.A. | Software and Services · Spain | 2025 | Exact | p. 125 →p. 126 →p. 205 → | Sustainability Report 2025 → | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Indra Sistemas, S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Indra Sistemas, S.A.'s Sustainability Report 2025 provides numeric data on recordable work-related accidents among salaried employees on page 125 and reports the number of fatalities and accident rates on page 233. The report also discusses the workforce composition, including employees, non-employees, and value chain workers, but notes on page 124 that there has been no process to engage these groups. While there is some contextual information on regulatory factors affecting the group on page 127, key narrative details about engagement processes and other specific disclosures are missing or 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Grupo Cibest S.A. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Colombia | 2025 | Partial | p. 195 →p. 196 →p. 199 → | Management Report 2025 → | PwC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Grupo Cibest S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Grupo Cibest S.A.'s 2025 Management Report provides specific data on work-related accident injuries, reporting 199 cases on page 7, and includes a narrative on employees within governance bodies by age group on page 326. The report partially addresses work-related illnesses with contextual information on risk factors and measures on page 203 but lacks headline values. Additionally, the report mentions standards and methodologies used for compiling information related to Disclosure 403-9 on page 318, while several narrative items and numeric values related to work-related ill health and other specific disclosures are 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Godrej Properties Limited | Real Estate · India | 2025 | Partial | p. 21 →p. 77 →p. 88 → | Integrated Report 2024-25 → | KPMG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Godrej Properties Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Godrej Properties Limited’s Integrated Report 2024-25 provides detailed data on work-related injuries, reporting zero fatalities among employees and one high consequence injury among workers, with specific numeric values on total recordable injuries for workers (p.143, p.263). The company highlights its ISO 45001:2018 certification and ongoing review of health and safety standards and risk control measures (p.96), and mentions a robust Occupational Health and Safety Management System without headline values (p.88). However, the report lacks information on certain narrative elements related to injury details and other safety management aspects, with no evidence found for some disclosure items (no page).
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 manufacturer records one employee death linked to a long-term occupational illness, plus three reportable illness cases among site staff. The draft note also lists the main illness types and the workplace exposures thought to be involved.What should you make sure is captured in the disclosure so the reader can see the scale, the illness types, and the linked workplace risks?
Model answer. Include the count of deaths linked to work-related illness, the count of reportable illness cases, and a plain description of the main illness categories. Also set out the workplace hazards that may lead to illness, and explain how those hazards were identified. If any of those hazards are thought to have caused or contributed to the cases in the period, make that link clear as well.
Why this matters. The disclosure should connect the numbers, the illness patterns, and the workplace risks in one coherent picture.
A logistics business has several possible sources of illness risk, including diesel fumes, repetitive strain, and night work. The health and safety team used incident logs, occupational health referrals, and site assessments to decide which risks to include.How should you explain the way the illness risks were identified without overloading the reader with internal detail?
Model answer. Describe the practical method used to spot the risks, such as the evidence sources and review process, in enough detail for a reader to understand how the list was built. Keep it clear which hazards were judged relevant to illness risk, and avoid implying that every possible workplace issue was included if it was not actually assessed that way.
Why this matters. Explain the basis for the risk list in a way that shows how the judgement was made.
A care provider had no fatalities from work-related illness in the year, but two cases of stress-related illness and one case of dermatitis were recorded. The team is unsure whether to mention the chemical cleaning products because they were only suspected in one case, not confirmed.What is the right approach to linking hazards to illness cases in the period?
Model answer. If a workplace hazard is believed to have caused or added to a case during the reporting period, it should be identified as part of the explanation. If the link is only suspected, say so plainly and avoid presenting it as settled fact. If a hazard did not contribute to any case, do not list it as a cause for that period.
Why this matters. Be precise about whether a hazard is confirmed, suspected, or not linked to the cases reported.
A group report covers employees, agency staff, and contractors at several sites. The draft data only includes direct employees because the other groups were tracked in a different system, and the team has a short note saying so.What should you check before finalising the disclosure if some workers are left out of the figures?
Model answer. Check whether any workers have been left out of the disclosure, and if so, state who they are and why they were excluded. The explanation should make clear the type of worker omitted and the reason the data set does not cover them, so the reader understands the scope of the figures.
Why this matters. If the population is not complete, say who is missing and why the coverage is limited.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 403-10 — 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 S1
Own Workforce — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Occupational health and safety management… Guide ✓Hazard identification, risk assessment, a… Guide ✓Occupational health services Guide ✓Worker participation, consultation, and c… Guide ✓Worker training on occupational health an… Guide ✓Promotion of worker health Guide ✓Prevention and mitigation of occupational… Guide ✓Workers covered by an occupational health… Guide ✓Work-related injuries Guide ✓
Questions this page answers
How do I use the GRI 403-10 page to draft the disclosure from scratch?
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints list. The page also gives draft-output prompts, so you can turn the collected information into a narrative and a content-index line. ↑ section
What data do I need to collect for GRI 403-10 on occupational health and safety?
The page says to prepare worker population, fatal illness count, recordable illness cases, illness types, workplace health hazards, the method used to identify hazards, hazards linked to cases, health risk actions, excluded workers, exclusion details, and compilation notes. Use that list as your collection checklist before drafting. ↑ section
How should I decide the scope for GRI 403-10, including any excluded workers?
The page includes excluded workers and exclusion details as datapoints to prepare, so scope decisions should be documented rather than assumed. Keep the exclusion rationale and any related notes in the compilation notes so the disclosure is clear and reviewable. ↑ section
What should I include in the methodology notes for GRI 403-10?
The page specifically calls for hazard identification method and compilation notes, so the methodology should explain how hazards were identified and how the figures were put together. It is also useful to note any exclusions and how hazards were linked to cases. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 403-10 data collection and sign-off process?
The page is aimed at sustainability and ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can gather the worker and health data and explain the method. The evidence pack and assurance claims suggest a clear owner should also be able to support review and sign-off. ↑ section
What evidence pack should I build for GRI 403-10 assurance readiness?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, so you should use that pack to support the figures, the method, and the narrative. Keep it organised so a reviewer can trace the disclosure back to source information quickly. ↑ section
What are the common mistakes to avoid when preparing GRI 403-10?
The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is designed to help you spot weak points before publication. Use it to check that the scope, exclusions, hazard method, and supporting notes are all complete and consistent. ↑ section
How do I use the synthetic example on the GRI 403-10 page without copying it blindly?
The example is synthetic and illustrative, so treat it as a model for structure and presentation rather than a template for your own numbers. Use it to see how the quantitative table and narrative fit together, then replace it with your own internally consistent data. ↑ section
What can I use from the GRI 403-10 downloads to speed up drafting?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise the data and assurance checks, and the PDF as a quick reference while drafting. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 403-10 data into a draft report section?
The page’s draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That means you can move from the prepared datapoints to a first draft without starting from a blank page. ↑ section
Can I reuse GRI 403-10 data for ESRS S1 Own Workforce reporting?
The page says ESRS S1 (Own Workforce) is the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both frameworks. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you should still check the ESRS wording separately. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- What is the easiest way to check whether my GRI 403-10 disclosure is complete before assurance?
- How do I document hazard identification for GRI 403-10 in a way a reviewer can follow?
- What should I put in compilation notes for GRI 403-10?
- How do I link workplace health hazards to illness cases in the GRI 403-10 draft?
- How do I use the evidence pack and workbook together for GRI 403-10?
- What should I check in the worker population data for GRI 403-10?
- How do I write the narrative starter for GRI 403-10 occupational health and safety?
- What does the GRI 403-10 page say about excluded workers and exclusion details?
- How can I use the from company reports table on the GRI 403-10 page?
- What are the six assurance claims to verify for GRI 403-10?
- How do I avoid common reporting gaps in GRI 403-10?
- What visualisation ideas does the GRI 403-10 draft-output section suggest?
✓ 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.
