Zum Kern der Offenlegung springen
Kostenlos · Community-Mitglieder
＋ 6 weitere anzeigen− Weniger anzeigen
＋ 6 weitere anzeigen− Weniger anzeigen
Echte veröffentlichte Berichte
Bericht öffnen →
Bericht öffnen →
Bericht öffnen →
✓ LRA KI-Assistent · Mit menschlicher Kontrolle
Offizielle Quelle öffnen →
Explore the ESRS / CSRD course →
ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain·Disclosure Requirement S2-3
Actions & Resources
Praxisleitfaden für die Erstellung dieser Offenlegung. Mit dieser Karte bestimmen Sie die vorzubereitenden Angaben, prüfen Aussagen und ordnen die Nachweise. Für die genauen Anforderungen ziehen Sie stets die offizielle European Commission-Quelle heran.
Veröffentlichter Steckbrief
Prüfung ausstehend
···
In Prüfung
Redaktionelle Prüfung läuft
Erstellt auf Basis offizieller Quellen und Belegen aus veröffentlichten Berichten. Es ist noch keine freigebende Person erfasst, daher trägt diese Seite keine Autorenzeile.
Nutzen Sie sie zusammen mit der offiziellen European Commission-Quelle, solange die Prüfung läuft.
Standard
ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain
Disclosure Requirement S2-3 · 2026-5010-final
Zuletzt geprüft
—
LRA-Lehrmaterial · Nicht von European Commission herausgegeben oder gebilligt
Für diese Offenlegung
Kern der Offenlegung
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain the actions it is taking, or plans to take, to address material impacts, risks and opportunities connected to its own workforce. It is not just a list of policies: the report should show what is being done in practice, what resources are being committed, and how those actions are intended to respond to the issues that matter most for workers.
The practical focus is on whether the organisation’s response is broad enough and targeted enough to be credible. That means looking across the relevant parts of the business, not only at a few well-performing sites or headline initiatives, and showing where actions are being rolled out, where they are still limited, and what resources support delivery.
Dieses LRA-Lehrmaterial unterstützt die Erstellung der Offenlegung. Für die genauen Anforderungen ziehen Sie stets die offizielle European Commission-Quelle heran.
Bevor Sie beginnen
Bevor Sie beginnen
Eine kurze Checkliste, bevor Sie diese Offenlegung erstellen — haken Sie jeden Punkt ab, sobald er geklärt ist.
Vorbereitung
Wichtige vorzubereitende Angaben
| Vorbereitungsfeld | Was zu erfassen ist | Nachweishinweis | Verantwortlich |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implemented actions | A plain summary of the steps the organisation has put in place, including what was done and at what stage it stands now. | Action tracker, project updates, management reports, remediation plans. | Sustainability / operations |
| Supplier engagement | A short description of how the organisation has worked with suppliers on the issue, including the main engagement methods used. | Supplier communications, meeting notes, procurement records, supplier programme logs. | Procurement / supplier management |
| Audit activity | A summary of the checks or reviews carried out, including what was examined and the main outcome of those checks. | Audit reports, internal review files, assurance notes, corrective action logs. | Internal audit / compliance |
| Training and support | A description of the capability-building provided, such as training, guidance or support, and who received it. | Training attendance records, learning materials, workshop logs, HR development records. | HR / learning and development |
| Impact category | The kind of effect being addressed, stated in business terms so the reader can see what sort of issue the action relates to. | Impact assessment, issue log, case notes, risk register. | Sustainability / risk |
| Response actions | A summary of the steps taken in response to the issue, including what the organisation actually did and any follow-up measures. | Remediation plan, case management notes, management actions log, correspondence. | Sustainability / operations |
| Influence used | A description of the ways the organisation used its relationship with the supplier, including any contract terms or buying power applied. | Contract clauses, supplier correspondence, procurement escalation records, commercial review notes. | Procurement / legal |
| Performance measures | The key measures used to track supplier performance, including the metric name and the period or basis used to calculate it. | KPI dashboard, supplier scorecard, performance reports, management packs. | Procurement / supplier performance |
| Supplier scorecard | The supplier’s assessed performance score or rating, including the scoring scale and the period it relates to. | Supplier scorecard, performance review pack, procurement system record. | Procurement / supplier performance |
| Audit findings | The outcome of the audit work, including the main findings, pass/fail result, or any exceptions noted. | Audit report, assurance statement, findings log, corrective action tracker. | Internal audit / compliance |
| Incident count | The total number of incidents recorded for the reporting period, using one consistent incident definition and one clear cut-off date. | Incident register, case management system, incident log, escalation records. | Risk / compliance |
| Incident types | A description of the kinds of incidents recorded, grouped into clear categories that match the incident log. | Incident register, case notes, classification guide, investigation summaries. | Risk / compliance |
| Incident severity | The severity level assigned to the incidents, using the organisation’s defined scale and the basis used to judge seriousness. | Incident register, severity matrix, investigation report, escalation policy. | Risk / compliance |
＋ Teilelemente von S2-3 anzeigen (LRA-Arbeitscheckliste)
Record the measures put in place.
Note the checks carried out.
Set out the training or support provided to build capability.
Describe how suppliers were engaged.
State the steps taken.
Identify the kind of impact involved.
Explain which contractual or commercial levers were used.
Summarise the audit findings.
Set out the key performance measures used.
Report supplier performance ratings.
Give the count of incidents.
Classify how serious the incidents were.
Describe the incident categories.
So bereiten Sie es vor
Set the reporting boundary first: decide which suppliers, sites, contracts, and time period sit inside this disclosure, and keep that scope consistent across the narrative and any figures.
Translate each required item into your internal data fields: separate the actions you carried out, the supplier engagement work, any audits, capacity-building activity, the type of impact, the response taken, the leverage you used, the performance measures, and the incident details.
Gather source records before drafting: pull together action logs, supplier communications, audit files, training records, KPI outputs, scorecards, and incident registers so each statement can be traced back to evidence.
Build the disclosure from the evidence in a clear order: describe what was done, how suppliers were engaged, what audits and capability-building took place, what impacts were identified, what response was used, and what the relevant measures and incident information show.
Explain any gaps, exclusions, or changes in method: if a data point is not available, if a supplier group is left out, or if a calculation or classification approach changed, state that plainly and keep the explanation aligned to the scope you set.
Check the final draft against the official source before sign-off: confirm every required item is covered, the wording matches the underlying evidence, the numbers and labels are internally consistent, and nothing has been omitted or overstated.
Daten anfordern
Request supplier action and monitoring evidence
Übersetzen Sie die Offenlegung in eine interne Geschäftsfrage — und passen Sie diese dann an die Sprache Ihrer Organisation an.
What actions have we taken with suppliers, what leverage did we use, and what evidence shows the follow-up, checks, and incident tracking for the reporting period?
Use your own supplier-management language first, then map it to the disclosure. For example, if your team talks about vendor remediation, corrective actions, scorecards, site checks, or supplier incidents, use those terms in the request and only translate them afterwards for reporting.
Schwache Anfrage
Please provide the ESRS S2:S2-3 actions and resources data for suppliers, including all required datapoints and evidence.
Warum sie scheitert: It uses framework language that many operational teams do not use day to day, so the owner may not know which systems, records, or local terms to pull from. It also does not say what period, category, or source file is needed, so the response is likely to be incomplete or hard to map.
Bessere Anfrage
Please send the supplier action and monitoring pack for [reporting period] for [business area / category]. Include the actions taken, supplier follow-up, audits or checks, training or coaching, any contract or commercial levers used, the scorecard or KPI results, and the incident count with type and severity. Use your team’s own wording and add the source system, extract date, and supporting files so we can map it for reporting.
Vorlage für eine formelle E-Mail
Subject: Request for supplier action and monitoring evidence for [reporting period] Dear [name], We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the supplier-related evidence for [business area / category]. Please share the information below for [reporting period], using your team’s own terms where possible and adding a short note so we can map it for reporting. Please provide: - the main supplier actions completed during the period - any supplier engagement or follow-up activity - any audits, checks, or reviews carried out - any training, coaching, or capability-building provided to suppliers - the main issue types addressed and what was done in response - the commercial or contractual levers used, if any - the KPIs, scorecards, audit results, or other performance measures used - the number of supplier incidents recorded - the incident types and how each was classified for severity Please include the source system or file name, the date the extract was taken, and the person who can confirm the data. If you have supporting documents, please attach them or link them. Please adapt this to your organisation’s own language and check the official source before sign-off. Kind regards, [preparer name]
Kurzfassung für Teams / Slack
Hi [name] — could you send the supplier action / monitoring evidence for [reporting period] for [business area / category]? Please include actions taken, supplier follow-up, audits/checks, training, any levers used, KPI/scorecard or audit results, and the incident count with type and severity. Add the source system, extract date, and any supporting files. Please use your team’s own terms and we’ll map them for reporting. Thanks.
Branchenbeispiele
Manufacturing
Kontext. A plant team manages direct material suppliers and tracks corrective actions after quality or labour-rights issues.
Angepasste Anfrage. Please share the supplier corrective-action and monitoring file for [reporting period] covering direct material suppliers. Include remediation actions, supplier follow-up, audit findings, training provided to suppliers, contract levers used, quality or compliance scorecards, and any supplier incidents with severity ratings.
Beispielantwort. A spreadsheet listing supplier name, issue category, action taken, follow-up date, audit result, scorecard result, incident count, incident type, severity level, and links to the audit report and corrective-action tracker.
Retail / Consumer Goods
Kontext. A sourcing team oversees private-label suppliers and uses scorecards, site visits, and commercial escalation when issues arise.
Angepasste Anfrage. Please send the supplier performance and issue-management summary for [reporting period] for private-label suppliers. Include engagement activity, site visits, audits, training sessions, commercial escalation steps, KPI results, supplier scores, and any incidents recorded with type and severity.
Beispielantwort. A monthly pack with supplier scorecards, visit notes, audit summaries, training attendance records, escalation log entries, and an incident register with counts and severity classifications.
Offenlegung entwerfen
Notizen, die aus Daten eine Offenlegung machen
LRA-Schulungsvorlagen — passen Sie sie an Ihre Organisation an und prüfen Sie vor der Freigabe die offizielle Quelle.
Methodenhinweis
Explain how the company defined each supplier-related measure, what data sources were used, the reporting period covered and any rules used to classify actions, performance measures, audit findings and incidents.
Kontexthinweis
Set out what the figures show about how the company is working with suppliers, how it is tracking supplier performance and what the incident data indicates about the nature and seriousness of issues identified.
Erläuterung zu Schwankungen
If the numbers moved materially, describe the main operational reasons for the change, such as more supplier engagement, a different audit programme, changes in performance scoring or a shift in the mix or seriousness of incidents.
Eintrag im Inhaltsindex
S2-3 Actions & Resources — [location / page] / [notes]Download-Center
Werkzeuge & Formulare zur Vorbereitung
Professionelle Vorbereitungswerkzeuge für S2-3 — kostenlos mit einer LRA Community-Mitgliedschaft. Einmal registrieren (kostenlos) und alle Downloads sind frei — zusammen mit der Disclosure-Bibliothek, den Vorlagen und dem LRA KI-Assistenten.
01XLSArbeitsmappe für Vorbereitung & PrüfungDatenpunkte, Risiken, zu prüfende Nachweise, Verantwortliche und Nachweispaket.Kostenlos herunterladen ↧
02XLSPaket für die DatenanfrageAnfrage-E-Mail, Nachrichtenvorlage, Antwortfelder und Freigabestruktur.Kostenlos herunterladen ↧
03PDFBibliothekskarteDruckbare einseitige Zusammenfassung dieser Offenlegungskarte.Kostenlos herunterladen ↧
Prüfungsbereitschaft
Prüfen Sie zu jeder Aussage die Nachweise
| Aussage | Risiko | Zu prüfende Nachweise |
|---|---|---|
| We prepared the coverage figure by mapping the disclosed operations and related value-chain activities, then checking that the scope choice was applied consistently across the report. | An assurer may test whether the boundary was set selectively, whether exclusions were justified, and whether the same scope was used wherever the figure is discussed. | Scope memo; boundary map; list of included and excluded entities/activities; management sign-off; cross-checks showing the same scope was used in linked sections and tables. |
| We linked the actions on transition-related worker impacts to other sustainability topics so the reader can see how the different subjects connect in practice. | An assurer may probe whether the links are real and traceable, or whether the report is presenting separate topics as connected without support. | Draft narrative showing the cross-links; internal mapping between topics; source documents for the linked actions; review notes confirming the connections were checked before publication. |
| We cross-referenced the incident information to the concern channels and the related action sections so the reader can follow the issue from report to response. | An assurer may test whether the references actually point to the right places, whether the same incident set is used throughout, and whether any material link was omitted. | Hyperlink or page-reference check; incident log; channel records; action tracker; final proof showing the references were tested before issue. |
| We described the main steps already taken, the steps planned, and the steps still under way to address the negative effects on workers in the supply chain. | An assurer may ask whether the actions are complete, whether timing is clear, and whether the wording overstates what has actually started or been delivered. | Action plan; project tracker; implementation status updates; approvals for planned versus completed actions; evidence that each action was current at the reporting date. |
| We set out the key measures and the resources assigned to manage the positive and negative effects, risks, and opportunities linked to workers in the supply chain. | An assurer may test whether the resource description is specific enough, whether the measures are truly key, and whether the allocation matches the stated priorities. | Budget and staffing records; programme plans; ownership matrix; management papers showing why the measures were selected as key; internal review of resource allocation. |
| Where business pressure could have limited the response, we documented the leverage we had, any joint action with others, and how we handled those tensions. | An assurer may probe whether the company really had leverage, whether collective action was used where needed, and whether commercial pressure was downplayed or ignored. | Supplier engagement records; joint initiative documents; escalation notes; decision papers on trade-offs; evidence of how commercial constraints were considered and resolved. |
Vorzubereitendes Nachweispaket
Häufige Lücken in der Berichterstattung
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.
Häufige Lücken
Fehler, die Sie bei der Datenerhebung vermeiden sollten
Wrong ownerThe team asks a policy or reporting contact instead of the people who actually run supplier engagement, audits, training, or incident tracking, so the data comes back incomplete or second-hand.
Framework language onlyThe request is sent using disclosure labels rather than the organisation’s own operational terms, and the business cannot map the ask cleanly to its records.
Unclear boundaryNo one defines which suppliers, sites, contracts, or business units are in scope, so different teams pull different populations and the final set is not comparable.
Wrong time basisData is gathered using a different period, cut-off, or snapshot date from the one used elsewhere, which makes the figures and narrative impossible to align.
Mixed counting methodOne source counts events, another counts suppliers, and a third counts actions, but the team combines them without separating the basis, so the totals are misleading.
Source labels lostThe original names from the system, audit file, or tracker are replaced too early, so later reviewers cannot trace each figure back to the exact source record.
Populations mergedSuppliers with different risk levels, regions, or treatment paths are rolled into one file even though they should stay separate, which hides the real pattern in the data.
Missing evidence trailThe team stores the numbers but not the supporting file names, dates, owner details, or approval history, so nobody can show how the dataset was built or checked.
No sign-off recordThe final extract is circulated without a clear review and approval trail, so there is no reliable record of who checked the data before it was used.
Wo häufig eine Ermessensentscheidung nötig ist
Set the reporting perimeter after buy-ins and sell-offsUse the same cut-off date and consolidation logic across the period, and explain any business units added or removed so readers can see why the action list, supplier work and incident counts changed.
Decide how to handle country-by-country wording differencesWhere local labels or legal categories do not line up, map them to one internal description, state the mapping used, and note any places where the local meaning is broader or narrower.
Choose whether borderline suppliers are in or outIf a supplier sits near your operational boundary, apply one consistent rule for inclusion, then disclose that rule and any material exceptions so the scope of actions and checks is understandable.
Fix the timing basis for actions and resultsState whether you are using the position at period end, the full-year average, or another cut-off, and keep that basis consistent for actions taken, audits, training and performance measures.
Separate what was measured from what was estimatedWhen direct evidence is incomplete, say which figures come from records and which rely on estimates or proxies, and explain the method used to fill the gaps.
Round numbers without losing the storyApply one rounding rule across the disclosure, and check that rounded subtotals still reconcile to the total so the count of incidents, audits or trained people remains coherent.
Aggregate sensitive people data carefullyIf privacy rules prevent naming small groups or sites, combine the data to a level that protects individuals, and say that the figures are grouped for confidentiality.
Explain how overlapping actions are countedWhere one initiative covers more than one issue, describe the counting rule you used so the same work is not double-counted across supplier engagement, audits, capacity building or incident follow-up.
Clarify how performance scores are builtIf supplier scores come from several checks or weightings, disclose the main inputs and the scoring basis so users can understand what the score reflects and compare it with audit results.
Beispiele
Veranschaulichende Beispiele
Synthetisch, von LRA verfasst — nicht aus einem Unternehmensbericht und kein Text aus einem Standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Apparel manufacturing
We are using a supplier improvement programme to address labour-rights risks in our cut-and-sew and fabric supply base, and this example is synthetic and for illustration only. - We carried out 24 supplier reviews and 18 site audits across 30 direct suppliers; 12 suppliers received corrective-action plans, 9 completed our training on working hours and grievance handling, and 6 were supported through follow-up coaching. - The main issue type was excessive overtime, alongside wage-payment delays and weak worker voice channels; we used contract terms, order-volume discussions, and escalation meetings to secure remediation, and our supplier scorecard averaged 78/100, with audited sites averaging 82/100 on labour controls and 4 audits showing no major findings, 10 with minor findings, and 4 with significant findings. - During the period we recorded 7 incidents, including 4 overtime breaches, 2 wage-delay cases, and 1 retaliation allegation; we classified 2 as high severity, 3 as medium, and 2 as low.
Synthetic illustration only; figures are invented for training and are internally consistent.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing
We are applying supplier controls to reduce health-and-safety and forced-labour risks in our agricultural inputs and packaging chain, and this example is synthetic and for illustration only. - We completed 16 supplier engagements and 14 audits across 22 suppliers; 8 suppliers were placed on improvement plans, 11 managers and buyer teams received refresher training, and 5 suppliers took part in joint workshops on recruitment practices and site safety. - The main harm types were unsafe working conditions, recruitment-fee exposure, and restricted freedom to leave employment; we relied on purchasing commitments, contract clauses, and escalation with senior supplier contacts, while our supplier performance index averaged 74/100 and audited suppliers averaged 79/100, with 3 audits clean, 8 showing limited issues, and 3 showing material issues. - We logged 5 incidents in total, made up of 2 safety events, 2 recruitment-fee complaints, and 1 passport-retention case; 1 was classed as severe, 2 as moderate, and 2 as minor.
Synthetic illustration only; figures are invented for training and are internally consistent.
Unternehmensberichte
Wie Unternehmen S2-3 in der Praxis berichten
Beispiele für vollständige und teilweise Berichtspraxis. Es handelt sich um evidenzbasierte Analysen, nicht um Vorlagen zum Abschreiben.
Danone S.A.
Food Production — Animal Source · France · 2025
Danone's 2025 Universal Registration Document reports that 3,159 supplier entities were registered on the Sedex or EcoVadis platforms, with 691 audits conducted on Group tier 1 suppliers, of which 587 contained critical non-conformities (p.280, p.356, p.368). The report also notes the use of annual SMETA audits as a key performance indicator (p.280). However, there is no quotable evidence found regarding specific narrative details or numeric values related to human rights impacts or targets in the value chain beyond these audit figures.
Enagás, S.A.
Gas Utilities · Spain · 2025
Enagás, S.A.’s 2025 Annual Report provides some references related to human rights and governance, mentioning impacts and channels for value chain workers to raise concerns (p.85, p.198) and addressing supplier reputational controls linked to corruption and bribery risks (p.75). The report also notes risk management measures including supplier diversification and long-term agreements (p.34), as well as cybersecurity strategies (p.30). However, no direct or detailed narrative or numeric evidence specifically addressing the disclosure was found in the report.
Bakkafrost P/F
Food Production — Animal Source · Faroe Islands · 2025
Bakkafrost P/F’s Integrated Annual Report 2025 provides partial narrative context on engagement with suppliers to promote better practices and diversify the supplier base to reduce dependency (p.152), as well as on audits being reported and discussed at Board meetings with the Board’s expertise noted (p.61). However, the report lacks headline values or specific quantitative data related to these disclosures, and no direct evidence was found regarding processes for engaging with value chain workers or taking action on material impacts (p.152). Overall, the report offers some supporting context but does not fully cover the disclosure with detailed or measurable information.
Fragen Sie den Study-Studio-KI-Assistenten zu dieser Offenlegung
Erhalten Sie praxisnahe Antworten für Ihren Berichtskontext. Die ersten beiden Antworten sind kostenlos — treten Sie der LRA Community kostenlos bei, um ohne Limit weiterzumachen.
Ausprobieren
Wie bereite ich S2-3 vor?
Welche Daten muss ich erheben?
Wo finde ich ein Beispiel aus einem echten Bericht?
Welche Fehler sollte ich vermeiden?
2 kostenlose Antworten
Prüfen Sie Ihr Verständnis
Szenarien zum Durcharbeiten
A preparer has a short list of supplier-facing steps for a labour-rights issue: revised contract clauses, a corrective action plan, and extra site visits. The draft also mentions a training budget, but it is not clear whether that budget was actually used this period.
FWhich of these items should be described as carried out, and which should be treated separately as resources made available?
Musterantwort anzeigen →Antwort ausblenden ↑
The write-up should clearly separate what was put into action from what was set aside to support the work. The contract changes, corrective plan, and site visits belong in the actions section if they were actually done; the training budget belongs in the resources section only if it was allocated or used as part of the response. Do not blur the two, because the reader needs to see both the steps taken and the support behind them.
Warum das wichtig ist · Keep actions and supporting resources distinct so the account shows both delivery and backing.
A team has responded to a serious supplier labour issue by tightening purchase terms, increasing follow-up calls, and using its buying power to push for change. The draft report says the issue was “addressed”, but it does not explain what kind of harm was involved or how the company influenced the supplier.
FWhat extra detail needs to be added so the response is understandable to a reader?
Musterantwort anzeigen →Antwort ausblenden ↑
The description should say what sort of labour-related harm the company was dealing with, what it actually did in response, and how it used its commercial relationship to encourage change. A reader should be able to see whether the response relied on contract terms, purchasing decisions, or another form of business influence, rather than only seeing a generic statement that the matter was handled.
Warum das wichtig ist · Explain the harm, the response, and the business leverage used, not just the headline outcome.
A preparer has performance data from supplier scorecards and audit findings, but the numbers are mixed with narrative comments. One supplier improved on the scorecard after training, while another failed an audit and was given a corrective plan; the draft does not show which evidence supports which part of the story.
FHow should the evidence be organised so the report is usable and credible?
Musterantwort anzeigen →Antwort ausblenden ↑
The report should link the measures used to the relevant response, rather than leaving the data as a loose bundle. Scorecard results, audit findings, and any other indicators should be tied to the specific action or supplier they relate to, so the reader can see what was measured, what changed, and what the evidence says about progress.
Warum das wichtig ist · Connect each measure to the action or supplier it relates to, so the evidence tells a clear story.
A supplier audit found repeated excessive overtime at one site, and the company classifies the issue as serious. The draft mentions one incident, but the team is unsure whether to describe the event as a one-off or as part of a wider pattern, and whether the severity label should be explained.
FWhat should the preparer do when recording incidents linked to supplier labour issues?
Musterantwort anzeigen →Antwort ausblenden ↑
The preparer should state how many incidents were identified, describe the kind of incident involved, and explain how serious the company judged it to be. If the case is part of a wider pattern, that should be made clear in the narrative; if it is a single event, that should also be clear. The point is to give enough context for the reader to understand both the scale and the seriousness of the problem.
Warum das wichtig ist · Record the count, the nature of the incident, and the seriousness judgement with enough context to avoid ambiguity.
Verweise auf das Rahmenwerk
Einschlägige ESRS-Anforderungen und verwandte Offenlegungen
Verfügbare Verweise auf das Rahmenwerk und benachbarte Offenlegungen, die für diese Anforderung relevant sind.
ESRS
S2-3
innerhalb von ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain
Verwandtes & Entdecken
Policies (Value Chain Workers) → KarteEngagement & Grievance Mechanisms → KarteTargets → Karte
Alle Offenlegungen durchsuchen →
Mehr in ESRS S2 → Gesamten Katalog durchsuchen → Startseite der Disclosure-Bibliothek → Alle Offenlegungen durchsuchen →
FAQ
Fragen, die diese Seite beantwortet
How do I use the S2-3 page to prepare a disclosure on workers in the value chain?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step preparation section, then use the listed datapoints to shape your draft. The page is designed to help you organise scope, evidence and ownership before you write the disclosure.
Which S2-3 datapoints should I collect first for workers in the value chain?+−
The page lists the datapoints to prepare, including implemented actions, supplier engagement, audit activity, training and support, impact category, response actions and the incident-related measures. Use that list to decide what data you already hold and what still needs to be requested from owners or suppliers.
How do I decide who owns the S2-3 data collection and drafting work?+−
Use the page as a coordination tool: it points you to the datapoints, the step-by-step preparation process and the evidence pack so you can assign each item to the right business owner. In practice, that usually means separating content owners, data owners and the person assembling the draft.
What should I include in the evidence pack for S2-3 assurance readiness?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness, alongside six assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to build a file that shows the claim, the risk it addresses and the evidence you can produce.
What are the six assurance claims I need to check for S2-3?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each linked to a claim, risk and evidence check. Use that section to test whether your draft is supported by traceable records before it goes to review.
How do I avoid common mistakes when reporting S2-3?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can check for missing datapoints, weak evidence or unclear scope before finalising the draft. It is best used as a pre-submission quality check rather than as a substitute for your own controls.
How do I use the S2-3 workbook download to build the disclosure?+−
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 datapoints, evidence and assurance checks, and the PDF as a quick reference while drafting.
What can I learn from the synthetic example disclosure for S2-3?+−
The page includes synthetic illustrative examples and a quantitative table to show how the disclosure can be turned into a draft. Treat them as formatting and content examples only, not as real-world benchmarks or required wording.
How do I turn S2-3 data into a draft narrative and content index line?+−
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line to help you convert your data into report-ready text. Use those prompts to keep the narrative tied to the datapoints and evidence you have collected.
Where can I find real company report examples for S2-3 workers in the value chain?+−
The page has a 'From company reports' table that links to published reports where the topic is disclosed. Use it to see how others present the topic, but keep your own draft grounded in your organisation’s data and evidence.
Weitere Fragen, bei denen diese Seite hilft
S2-3 workers in the value chain: what data points should I ask suppliers and internal owners for?S2-3 disclosure: how do I build an assurance-ready evidence pack from the page?How should I use the S2-3 step-by-step preparation section to scope the disclosure?What are the common S2-3 reporting gaps I should check before sign-off?How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for S2-3 workers in the value chain?What does the S2-3 synthetic example disclosure show me about drafting?How do I assign ownership for S2-3 implemented actions, audit activity and incident data?What should an assurance reviewer look for in an S2-3 draft?How do I convert S2-3 supplier engagement and training data into narrative text?Where are the S2-3 visualisation ideas and narrative starters on the page?
Tiefer einsteigen · S2-3
Lernen Sie, diese Offenlegung durchgängig zu erstellen
This guide covers one Disclosure Requirement. The ESRS / CSRD Reporting course walks the full European workflow — double materiality, datapoints, evidence and assurance — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Wie diese Bibliothek entsteht
312 veröffentlichte Berichte indexiert
63.171 Seiten mit seitengenauen Fundstellen
272 von Praktikern erstellte Disclosure-Karten
/de/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/esrs-s2-3/
Kostenlos · LRA Community
Holen Sie sich Ihre S2-3-Werkzeuge — kostenlos
Ihre Vorbereitungswerkzeuge sind für Mitglieder der LRA Community und für Studierende kostenlos. Einmal registrieren (kostenlos) und Ihr Download startet sofort — dazu die Disclosure-Bibliothek, Vorlagen und der LRA KI-Assistent.
✓
Willkommen — Ihr Download startet
Ihre Datei wird jetzt heruntergeladen. Auch Ihr Community-Cabinet — mit der Disclosure-Bibliothek, Vorlagen und dem LRA KI-Assistenten — steht bereit.
Cabinet öffnen →