Disclosure LibraryPractitioner guidance for every reporting disclosure
All disclosures Courses
Home→ Disclosure Library→ GRI→ GRI 2→ GRI 2-25
GRI 2: General Disclosures
Disclosure GRI 2-25

Processes to remediate negative impacts

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.

Dr Ross Kurinko, GRI Certified Trainer
Reviewed by Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer LRA educational guidance · Not issued or endorsed by GRI
To prepare this disclosure
Disclosure focus

This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it deals with negative impacts it has caused or contributed to, or that are directly linked to its activities. In practice, the focus is on the process: how issues are identified, how decisions are made about what needs fixing, and how the organisation follows through on remediation. It is not just about saying that problems can be addressed; it is about showing the approach used to put things right.

The practical emphasis is on whether those processes are available across the organisation’s relevant operations and relationships, not only at a few visible or flagship sites. A useful explanation would cover who can raise issues, how cases are assessed, what remedies may be used, and how the organisation checks that remediation has happened. The aim is to show a real, working system rather than a one-off response to isolated incidents.

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
Remedy commitments State the organisation’s commitments to put right, or help put right, negative impacts it has identified as caused or contributed to by its activities. Capture the commitment itself, the type of remedy promised, and whether the organisation will act directly or work with others. Board-approved policy, remediation framework, case logs, legal/claims records, and action plans showing agreed remedy commitments. Legal / Human Rights / Sustainability
Grievance handling Describe the organisation’s method for receiving, assessing and responding to complaints, including any channels it runs itself or uses with others. Capture the mechanism type, who can use it, and the basic handling process. Grievance procedure, hotline or portal records, supplier/community complaint logs, and governance papers for any shared or third-party channels. Legal / Compliance / Human Rights
Other remedy routes Set out any other ways the organisation helps fix negative impacts it has identified as caused or contributed to, beyond formal grievance channels. Capture the route used, when it applies, and how it links to the identified impact. Remediation process maps, incident response procedures, settlement or repair records, and internal case files showing non-grievance remedy routes. Legal / Human Rights / Operations
User involvement Explain how the people meant to use the grievance channels help shape them, check them and improve them over time. Capture who is involved, at which stages they participate, and what input they provide. Consultation notes, user feedback summaries, co-design workshop records, review meeting minutes, and change logs showing user input on the mechanism. Human Rights / Stakeholder Engagement / Operations
Effectiveness monitoring Describe how the organisation checks whether grievance channels and other remedy routes are working as intended. Capture the measures used, how often they are reviewed, and who reviews the results. KPI dashboards, case-resolution reports, audit or assurance findings, management review packs, and follow-up actions from monitoring results. Human Rights / Internal Audit / Compliance
Effectiveness examples Provide concrete examples showing whether the grievance channels and other remedy routes have worked, including what stakeholders said about them. Capture the case outcome, the evidence of success or failure, and the feedback received from users. Closed-case examples, stakeholder survey results, interview notes, complaint follow-up records, and post-resolution feedback forms. Human Rights / Stakeholder Engagement / Operations
＋ Show GRI 2-25 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

How to prepare it

1Set the boundary for the disclosure first: decide which parts of the organisation, which grievance routes, and which remedy arrangements are in scope for this reporting period, so you do not mix in unrelated processes.
2List the channels and arrangements you actually use to hear concerns and put things right, including any systems you run yourself and any external or shared routes you take part in.
3Gather the source material that shows what the organisation says it will do when it has caused or helped cause harm, together with the records that show how those commitments are applied in practice.
4Capture how affected stakeholders are brought into the design, checking, day-to-day running, and improvement of the relevant complaint or remedy routes, using meeting notes, consultation records, user input, or similar evidence.
5Explain how you monitor whether the complaint and remedy routes are working, and include concrete examples of results, such as user feedback or other signs that the process is effective.
6Before finalising, compare the draft against the official source to confirm you have covered every required point, and note any exclusions, changes, or limitations in the way the information is presented.
Request the data

Request the grievance and remedy process evidence

Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.

What processes do we use to handle complaints, fix harm, and show how we check whether those processes are working?

Use your organisation’s own names first for complaint routes, case handling, remedy, escalation, and stakeholder engagement, then map them to the disclosure. Keep the wording in your internal language rather than using framework terms in the request.

Weak request

Please provide the GRI 2-25 grievance mechanism and remediation process evidence, including stakeholder involvement and effectiveness tracking.

Why it fails: This uses framework language that many internal owners will not recognise, so it is harder to route, harder to answer, and more likely to miss the actual records held by the business. It also bundles several asks without naming the internal systems or process labels people use day to day.

Better request

Please share the complaint-handling, speak-up, and remedy process records for [period], including how people can raise concerns, how we help put things right where we have caused or contributed to harm, how users help shape the process, and how we check whether it is working. Use your own process names and attach the latest policy, tracker, review notes, and any anonymised examples or feedback.

Formal email template
Subject: Request for complaint-handling and remedy process evidence for [reporting period]

Dear [name/team],

We are preparing the sustainability disclosure on how the organisation handles complaints, fixes harm, and checks whether those routes are working. Please could you share the material below for [reporting period] and the relevant scope:

1. The names and short descriptions of the internal routes used to receive and handle concerns or complaints.
2. Any routes we use or join to help put things right where we have caused or contributed to harm.
3. A summary of how the intended users of these routes are involved in designing, reviewing, operating, and improving them.
4. How we monitor whether these routes are effective, including any measures, dashboards, review notes, or case summaries.
5. Any examples of effectiveness, including feedback from users or other stakeholders.
6. Supporting documents or links, such as policy notes, process maps, committee papers, and anonymised case examples.

Please use the organisation’s own terminology in your response, and include enough detail for us to map it to the disclosure. If anything is incomplete, please note the gap and the owner.

This is a possible LRA training template only; please adapt it to your organisation and check the source disclosure before sign-off.

Many thanks,
[preparer name]
[team]
[contact details]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send over the complaint / case-handling and remedy process info for [period]?

We need:
- the routes we use to receive and handle concerns
- any routes we use to help put things right
- how users are involved in design/review/improvement
- how we track whether the routes work
- any examples or feedback showing effectiveness

Please use your team’s own terms and attach any links/docs. This is a possible LRA training template only; please adapt it to your organisation and check the source disclosure before sign-off.

Thanks, [name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing

Context. A plant has a hotline, supervisor escalation route, and a corrective-action log for worker and contractor concerns.

Adapted request. Please send the site complaint and corrective-action records for [period], including the hotline route, supervisor escalation path, any process used to put things right after a site incident, how workers and contractors feed into reviews, and how we track closure and repeat issues.

Example response. Attached: site speak-up procedure, corrective-action dashboard, quarterly review minutes, and two anonymised case summaries showing closure time, repeat-issue checks, and worker feedback.

Retail / Consumer Services

Context. A customer care team manages complaints, refunds, service recovery, and a separate route for supplier or community concerns.

Adapted request. Please share the customer complaints, service recovery, and escalation process notes for [period], plus any route used to address harm we have caused or contributed to, how customers or other users help improve the process, and the measures we use to track resolution quality.

Example response. Attached: customer care playbook, service recovery log, monthly quality report, user survey summary, and examples of process changes made after recurring complaint themes.

Draft your disclosure

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.

Method note

Explain what the organisation counts as a complaint route, a remedy process, stakeholder involvement, and an effectiveness check, and state the reporting period and any inclusion rules used to compile the figures and examples.

Context note

Set out what the numbers show about how the organisation handles concerns, supports remedy where it is linked to harm, and learns from user feedback on whether the arrangements are working.

Fluctuation statement

If volumes, outcomes, or feedback changed materially, note the main operational or stakeholder-related reasons for the movement and whether any process changes affected the results.

Content index entry
GRI 2-25 Processes to remediate negative impacts — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre

Preparation tools & forms

Professional preparation tools for GRI 2-25 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.

Free · Community members
01XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints, risks, evidence to check, owner and evidence pack.Get it free ↧ 02XLSData-request packRequest email, message template, response fields and sign-off structure.Get it free ↧ 03PDFLibrary CardPrintable one-page summary of this disclosure card.Get it free ↧
Assurance readiness

For each claim, check the evidence

ClaimRiskEvidence to check
The information 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 information 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 information 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 information 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

Common reporting gaps

The information is presented without a date or as-at point.The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Common gaps

Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data

Asking the wrong owner
The data request goes to a policy lead or legal contact instead of the team that actually runs the complaints route, repair process, or local case handling.
Using framework language only
People answer in GRI-style terms rather than the organisation’s own names for complaint lines, casework, repair actions, or escalation routes, so the source data cannot be traced back to real operations.
Leaving the scope undefined
The team does not state which sites, business units, suppliers, or affected groups are included, so different contributors collect different populations and the final dataset is not comparable.
Mixing the time basis
Inputs are pulled from different periods, such as calendar year, reporting year, or live system status, which makes the evidence set internally inconsistent.
Combining unlike counts
Case numbers, users, complaints, and remedy actions are merged into one total even though they are measured on different bases and should stay separate.
Dropping source labels
When extracts are copied into spreadsheets, the original system names, case IDs, channel labels, or document titles are lost, so the team cannot trace each figure back to its source.
Blending separate user groups
Feedback from workers, community members, customers, or other intended users is pooled together even though the mechanism design and review evidence should be kept distinct.
Missing evidence trail
The file set has no date stamp, owner, version history, or sign-off record, so no one can show who checked the data or when it was last confirmed.

Where judgement is often needed

Acquired or sold businesses during the reporting period
Decide whether to include remediation routes that existed only for part of the year, and explain the cut-off used so readers can see which parts of the business are covered.
Different local meanings for the same complaint type
Where countries use different labels or legal definitions for grievances, map them to one internal grouping and disclose the mapping rule so the approach is comparable across locations.
People close to, but not fully inside, the reporting boundary
State how you treat contractors, agency staff, community members, or other affected groups that sit near the boundary, and explain why they are included or left out of the process description.
Choosing the timing basis for process reporting
If the year-end position differs from the average or opening position, say which point in time you used for counts, status, or examples of use, and keep that basis consistent or explain the change.
Measured figures versus management estimates
When exact counts are not available for complaints, cases closed, or feedback received, use a clearly labelled estimate, explain the method, and separate it from measured data where possible.
Rounding and small-number suppression
If rounding changes totals or very small numbers could identify individuals, disclose the rounding rule or suppression approach and make sure the narrative still matches the figures shown.
Aggregating feedback to protect privacy
When stakeholder comments are too sensitive to quote directly, summarise them in grouped form and explain the aggregation level so the reader understands how privacy shaped the evidence presented.
One mechanism serving several affected groups
If the same channel is used by workers, communities, or other users, describe how each group can access it and how you track whether it works for each audience rather than only in total.
Partial coverage of remediation routes
Where some sites, countries, or business lines have a formal route and others rely on a different process, spell out the coverage gap and the alternative route used for the uncovered areas.
Changes in process design after feedback
If users helped reshape the channel during the year, note what changed, when it changed, and whether the effectiveness view is based on the old design, the new design, or both.
Examples

Illustrative examples

Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing

*Synthetic example only.* We use a single intake route for workers, contractors and nearby residents, and we review every case to decide whether we caused or helped cause the issue and what remedy we should provide or support. The people who use the route help shape it through quarterly reviews, and we also use separate follow-up channels for cases handled through supplier action plans and direct compensation. - We logged 48 grievances this year; 45 were closed, and 41 of those were resolved within the target time. - Effectiveness is tracked through closure time, repeat complaints and user feedback: 87% of closed cases were confirmed as satisfactorily handled by the person who raised them, and 12 users said the process was easier to use after we simplified the form and added a call-back option.

This synthetic disclosure shows how a reporter can explain its remedy commitments, complaint handling routes, user involvement, monitoring approach and evidence of whether the process works in practice.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Construction services

*Synthetic example only.* Where we find that our own work has caused or added to harm, we commit to help put it right through repair, compensation, apology or other agreed action, depending on the case. Site workers, subcontractors and community representatives help test the reporting channels twice a year, and their comments have led us to extend opening hours and add a phone line for people who prefer not to use the web form. - During the period we recorded 26 issues; 24 were handled to completion, including 18 through the main reporting route and 6 through separate project-level mediation or claims processes. - We judge performance by looking at time to close, whether the same issue returns, and direct user views; 20 of the 24 closed cases were accepted as resolved, and 9 users said the revised process was more accessible than before.

This synthetic disclosure shows a different reporter using plain language to cover remedy commitments, grievance routes, user participation in design and review, tracking methods and examples of effectiveness.

Company reports

How companies report GRI 2-25

Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.

Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Colombia · 2024
Open report →
Interconexión Eléctrica S.A. E.S.P.'s 2024 Integrated Management Report provides a reported value related to due diligence on page 142, referencing an external due diligence document for further details (p.142). The report also mentions the company’s commitment to improving environmental conditions and managing impacts on biodiversity, with references to pages 87 and 147 and external annexes for more information (p.87, p.147). However, the report lacks clear or quotable evidence on the methodology or narrative for several narrative items, including parts (b), (c), and (d), which remain unclear or not found in the document.
Globalvia
Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · Spain · 2025
Open report →
Globalvia's 2025 Sustainability Report provides coverage on corporate culture and business conduct policies, including ethics and compliance safeguard mechanisms, as detailed on page 107. The report also addresses prevention and detection of corruption and bribery, with mechanisms for seeking advice and raising concerns noted on the same page. Additionally, material impacts, risks, and opportunities are discussed in relation to the company's strategy and business model on pages 104 and 121. However, there is no clear or quotable evidence found regarding the methodology or narrative for some narrative items, indicating gaps in those areas.
Nan Pao Resins Chemical Co., Ltd.
Chemicals · Taiwan · 2024
Open report →
Nan Pao Resins Chemical Co., Ltd.’s 2024 sustainability report provides coverage on embedding policy commitments and processes to remediate negative impacts, with relevant information found on page 126. The report partially addresses grievance mechanisms, mentioning various meetings and forums on page 110, and offers some context on governance mechanisms and self-discipline on page 34. However, there is no clear or quotable evidence regarding certain narrative items, including one with no page reference, indicating some gaps in the disclosure.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Dr Ross Kurinko
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.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 2-25?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
1 free answer
Check your understanding

Scenarios to work through

A manufacturer has found that one of its sites caused a spill that affected nearby land and a local watercourse. The team has a draft note saying the issue was fixed, but it does not yet explain what support the business will offer or whether it will work with others to put things right.

QWhat should the disclosure cover before sign-off so readers can see how the business will help remedy harm it caused or helped cause?
Reveal model answer →

A services group has a whistleblowing line, a customer complaints inbox, and membership of an industry ombuds scheme. The draft report lists the channels but does not explain how people can use them or how the business handles the issues raised.

QWhat extra explanation is needed so the report shows how grievances are found and dealt with?
Reveal model answer →

A retailer says it has a supplier hotline and a worker complaint route, but the draft report gives no detail on how workers or community representatives helped shape those channels. The sustainability team says the channels were designed by management and then launched.

QHow should the report address the role of the people the channels are meant for?
Reveal model answer →

A construction business has a site grievance route and a separate mediation process for community complaints. It can show the number of cases closed, but it has not yet gathered any examples of whether people found the outcomes fair or useful.

QWhat should the preparer include to show whether these routes are working well?
Reveal model answer →
Framework references

Related framework references

How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.

GRI
GRI 2-25
within GRI 2: General Disclosures
Open official source →
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ

Questions this page answers

GRI 2-25 disclosure: what data do I need to collect before I draft it?+
How do I prepare a GRI 2-25 disclosure step by step?+
Who should own the GRI 2-25 data for remedy commitments and grievance handling?+
What evidence pack do I need for GRI 2-25 assurance readiness?+
What are the four assurance claims to check for GRI 2-25?+
What are the common mistakes in reporting GRI 2-25?+
How do I use the GRI 2-25 Prep & Assurance workbook?+
What is in the printable GRI 2-25 Library Card PDF?+
Can I use the GRI 2-25 example disclosure as a template for my own draft?+
How do I turn GRI 2-25 data into a draft disclosure?+
More questions this page can help with
GRI 2-25 remedy commitments: what should I collect before writing the disclosure?GRI 2-25 grievance handling: how do I set scope and ownership for the data?GRI 2-25 other remedy routes: what evidence should I keep for assurance?GRI 2-25 user involvement: how do I describe it in a draft without overclaiming?GRI 2-25 effectiveness monitoring: what counts as useful supporting evidence?GRI 2-25 effectiveness examples: how do I use the synthetic example without copying it?GRI 2-25 common reporting gaps: what mistakes should I check before sign-off?GRI 2-25 workbook download: how should I fill in the Prep & Assurance spreadsheet?GRI 2-25 evidence pack: what should be in the file set for review?GRI 2-25 draft output: what narrative starters does the page provide?GRI 2-25 content index line: how do I draft the index entry from the page?GRI 2-25 from company reports: how can I use the linked published reports for benchmarking?