ESRS S1 — Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms

Q: How do I prepare disclosure S1-2 on own workforce engagement using this page?

Use the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the listed datapoints. The page is designed to help you turn those inputs into a draft disclosure, not to replace your own judgement or internal process.

Q: What data do I need to collect for S1-2 own workforce engagement?

The page lists the core datapoints to gather, including engagement approach, priority groups, methods, agreements, reporting channels, grievance route, issues raised, closure rate, channel effectiveness, remedy process, remedied cases and remedial actions. Treat that list as the starting point for your data request and evidence check.

Q: How should I define the scope and methodology for S1-2 own workforce engagement?

The page gives a step-by-step preparation section and a set of datapoints that help you frame scope and method, such as who was engaged, how they were engaged, and what channels or grievance routes were used. It does not set a formal methodology, so you need to align the page to your organisation’s own approach.

Q: Who should own the S1-2 own workforce engagement disclosure in practice?

The page is aimed at sustainability and ESG managers, HR teams, data owners and assurance reviewers, so ownership usually needs to sit with whoever can coordinate those inputs and evidence. Use the page to split responsibilities across content, data, and assurance readiness rather than leaving it with one person alone.

Q: What evidence pack do I need for assurance on S1-2 own workforce engagement?

The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, plus six assurance claims to verify with claim, risk and evidence. Use those materials to build a traceable pack that supports the numbers and narrative you plan to disclose.

Q: What are the common mistakes or reporting gaps for S1-2 own workforce engagement?

The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, which is useful for checking whether your draft is complete and internally consistent. Use it as a final review step before sign-off and assurance.

Q: How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for S1-2 own workforce engagement?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to help you organise preparation and assurance work. Use it alongside the page’s datapoints, evidence pack and assurance claims to build a working draft.

Q: How do I turn the S1-2 own workforce engagement data into a draft disclosure?

The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That gives you a practical way to convert your collected data into a first draft and structure the supporting narrative.

Q: Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on S1-2 own workforce engagement as a template?

Yes, but only as an illustrative starting point. The example is explicitly synthetic, so you should adapt it to your own data and make sure any quantitative table remains internally consistent.

Q: Where can I find real company report examples for S1-2 own workforce engagement?

The page includes a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports where the topic is disclosed. Use it to see how others present similar information, but do not treat it as a substitute for your own disclosure approach.

Disclosure focus

The practical focus is on coverage and accessibility across the organisation, not just on a few well-known sites or headquarters. A useful response should make clear whether the arrangements apply across operations, locations and worker groups, and whether there are differences in how they work in practice for different parts of the workforce.

This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official European Commission source.

Request the data

Request employee engagement and grievance records

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

How do we show the ways people can raise issues, how those issues are handled, and what follow-up or remedy has been put in place during the reporting period?

Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. For example, if you call these routes, speak-up lines, case logs, employee forums, union consultations, or resolution actions, use those labels in the request and only translate them afterwards for reporting.

Weak request

Please provide the ESRS S1-2 engagement and grievance mechanism data, including stakeholder engagement methods, grievance channels, remediation, and effectiveness evidence.

Why it fails: It uses framework language that may not match how the business actually records the information, so the owner may not know which systems, teams, or case types to pull. It also does not specify the period, boundary, counting basis, or the exact internal records needed to support the figures and narrative.

Better request

Please send the people issue-handling and speak-up records for [reporting period] for [site/business unit]. We need the routes people use to raise concerns, any groups you tailor them for, any agreements that set out how they work, the channels available, whether a formal case route exists, the number of cases raised and resolved, how you assess whether the process works, and the remedy or follow-up actions taken. Please use your own team labels and include the source extract, date pulled, and any counting notes.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for people issue-handling and engagement records for [reporting period]

Hi [name/team],

We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the records that show how people can raise concerns, how those concerns are handled, and what follow-up actions were taken during [reporting period] for [entity / site / business unit].

Please share, in your team’s own terms first and with a short mapping note where helpful:
- the main routes people use to raise issues or ask for help
- any groups you specifically tailor these routes for, such as women, migrant workers, or people with disabilities, if applicable
- any agreements or arrangements that set out how these routes work, plus their scope and who they cover
- the channels available for raising concerns
- whether a formal case-handling route exists
- the number of cases raised in the period, the number resolved, and how you assess whether the process is working
- the process used to provide remedy or follow-up, the number of cases remediated, and the actions taken

Please include the source file or system extract, the date pulled, and any notes on definitions or counting rules. A possible LRA training template is attached for adaptation to your organisation. Please check the official source before sign-off.

Thanks,
[preparer name]
[team]
[contact details]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [name] — could you send the people issue-handling / speak-up records for [reporting period] for [site/business unit]? We need: the channels people use, any groups you tailor them for, any agreements and their scope/coverage, case counts, resolution rate, how you judge effectiveness, and the remedy/follow-up actions. Please use your team’s own labels and add a short mapping note. Include the source extract and date pulled. Thanks.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A multi-site employer with local worker forums, a hotline, and site-level case logs.

Adapted request. Please share the site forum notes, hotline summary, and case log extract for [reporting period] across [sites]. We need the routes workers use to raise issues, any groups you tailor them for, any site agreements, the channels available, whether a formal case route exists, case counts, resolution rate, effectiveness notes, and remedy actions.

Example response. Attached: hotline dashboard, site committee minutes, case log export. Labels used: worker forum, supervisor escalation, ethics line. Cases raised: 42; resolved: 39; remediated: 18. Notes include definitions, site coverage, and date pulled.

Retail

Context. A store-based workforce with a central employee relations team and a third-party speak-up provider.

Adapted request. Please send the store and head-office speak-up records for [reporting period]. We need the channels available to colleagues, any groups we specifically support, the case-handling route, the number of cases raised and closed, how you judge whether the process is effective, and the follow-up actions taken.

Example response. Attached: provider summary, ER tracker, policy note. Labels used: colleague helpline, manager escalation, HR case portal. Cases raised: 87; resolved: 81; remediated: 26. Coverage and counting rules are noted in the cover sheet.

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 which groups were included in the engagement review, what counted as an engagement method, how agreements were identified, and how scope and coverage were defined for the reported arrangements.

Context note

Set out what the figures show about how the organisation engages with people, what channels are available for raising concerns, how many cases were received and resolved, and what remediation steps were taken where issues were found.

Fluctuation statement

If the numbers changed from one period to the next, link the movement to changes in engagement activity, channel use, case volumes, resolution performance, or the extent of remediation work carried out.

Content index entry

S1-2 Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Preparation tools & forms

Download preparation tools for S1-2 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.

Free · Email access

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 ↧

Check

For each claim, check the evidence

We based the coverage figure on the workforce population we could evidence for the reporting period, and we documented any exclusions, cut-off dates, and duplicate records removed before the number was finalised.
Risk An assurer may test whether the reported coverage is complete, whether exclusions were applied consistently, and whether the figure could be overstated or understated by missing sites, entities, or worker groups.
Evidence to check ['Workforce population extract used for the calculation', 'Rules for inclusions and exclusions, including period cut-off', 'Reconciliation showing removals of duplicates or inactive records', 'Sign-off or review note confirming the final figure']
For the narrative on how we understand views from more exposed or less visible worker groups, we relied on documented engagement records, meeting notes, survey outputs, and any targeted listening sessions, and we kept the source material that supports the summary we published.
Risk An assurer may probe whether the statement is supported by real engagement rather than general intent, whether the groups described were actually reached, and whether the summary overstates the depth or breadth of insight obtained.
Evidence to check ['Engagement logs and attendance records', 'Survey results or interview notes for the relevant worker groups', 'Internal summary showing how inputs were turned into the disclosure', 'Evidence of management review of the final wording']
Where we refer to agreements or outcomes with worker representatives, we checked the signed documents, mapped which parts of the workforce they cover, and recorded the business units, locations, or worker categories included before publishing the statement.
Risk An assurer may test whether the agreement or outcome really exists, whether the stated coverage is accurate, and whether the disclosure implies wider reach than the underlying document supports.
Evidence to check ['Signed agreement or formal outcome record', 'Coverage mapping by site, entity, function, or worker group', 'Legal or HR review confirming the scope description', 'Version-controlled draft showing how the final wording was approved']
When we said the concern channel review was judged against recognised good-practice features, we kept the assessment matrix, the scoring notes, and the evidence showing how each feature was tested before the report went out.
Risk An assurer may challenge whether the assessment was actually performed, whether the criteria were applied consistently, and whether the channel was assessed on the basis claimed rather than by informal judgement.
Evidence to check ['Assessment matrix or checklist used for the review', 'Supporting evidence for each scored feature', 'Reviewer notes explaining any judgement calls', 'Approval record for the published assessment']
Our description of workforce engagement was built from direct meetings, representative discussions, and documented feedback, and we retained the records showing how those views influenced the actions or decisions we reported for the year.
Risk An assurer may probe whether the engagement was direct and current, whether representative views were fairly reflected, and whether the reported decisions can really be traced back to workforce input.
Evidence to check ['Meeting minutes, consultation notes, or feedback summaries', 'Records from worker representatives where relevant', 'Traceability note linking input to decisions or actions', 'Management approval of the final disclosure']
Where we pointed readers to the policy covering retaliation protection for people using the channel, we checked that the cross-reference matched the current policy version and that the policy was in force at the reporting date.
Risk An assurer may test whether the cross-reference is current, whether the linked policy actually covers anti-retaliation protections, and whether the disclosure points to the right document version.
Evidence to check ['Current policy document and version history', 'Cross-reference check between the report and the policy', 'Approval or publication date showing the policy was active', 'Document control log']

Evidence pack to prepare

The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosureA methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and preparedSource-system exports the figures or facts were drawn fromThe internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publicationMinutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation

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.

Where drafts go wrong

Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed

The left column is what preparers get wrong while collecting; the right column is where you will have to make and explain a judgement.

Mistakes to avoid

Wrong ownerThe request goes to the wrong team, so the data comes from people who do not run the staff channels, case handling, or follow-up actions in practice.
Framework language onlyThe data call uses disclosure terms instead of the organisation’s own labels, and the source team cannot map them cleanly to its internal records.
No scope setThe collector never defines which workforce groups, sites, or entities are in scope, so the figures mix together records that should have been kept separate.
Wrong period basisThe team pulls numbers from a different reporting window or cut-off date, so the dataset does not match the period being reported.
Mixed counting basisSome fields are counted by people, others by cases or actions, but the source files do not state the basis used, so the totals cannot be compared reliably.
Source labels lostOriginal system names, case IDs, or channel tags are stripped out during collection, making it impossible to trace each figure back to the underlying record.
Populations mergedRecords for different groups, such as women, migrant workers, or people with disabilities, are combined into one pool even though they should be tracked separately.
Missing evidence trailThe pack is saved without the supporting file names, dates, or approver trail, so no one can show where the data came from or who checked it.
No sign-off recordThe final dataset is used before the owner has confirmed it, leaving no clear trail that the numbers were reviewed and accepted before drafting.

＋ Show 5 more

Judgement needed

Acquisitions and disposals during the yearDecide whether to include only the people and channels in the business at the reporting date or to also reflect parts added or removed during the year, and explain the cut-off used.
Different local labels for the same worker groupsWhere countries use different labels or legal categories, map them to a single internal grouping approach and state the mapping rule so readers can see how like-for-like groups were combined.
People just outside the formal workforceSet out whether contractors, agency staff, interns, or other near-scope groups are counted in the engagement and complaint channels, and explain the boundary if they are partly included or excluded.
Which channels count as a complaint routeChoose whether to list only dedicated issue-reporting routes or also broader speaking-up, HR, union, or hotline channels, and describe the basis for that choice.
Agreements with worker representativesIf there are arrangements with employee representatives, clarify which parts of the workforce they cover and whether coverage is full, partial, or limited to certain sites or countries.
Counting cases and measuring resolutionState whether case numbers and closure rates are based on opened cases, closed cases, or another internal measure, and keep the same basis across the period or explain any change.
Effectiveness judged by numbers or by reviewExplain whether the assessment of how well the channels work is based on operational metrics, management review, user feedback, or a mix of these, and disclose the method used.
Privacy-driven grouping of sensitive dataWhere small numbers could identify individuals, combine categories or locations before reporting and say that the figures were aggregated to protect privacy.
Estimated figures versus system extractsIf some data come from manual estimates rather than a system report, identify the estimated items, the source used, and any known limits on accuracy.
Rounding and presentation of percentagesApply one rounding rule consistently to counts and percentages, and note it if rounding means subtotals do not add exactly to the total.

＋ Show 6 more

Examples

How it reads on the page

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

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food manufacturing

We used a mix of staff forums, one-to-one interviews, site walkabouts and worker-representative meetings to hear from people most likely to face barriers, including women, migrant workers and colleagues with disabilities. We had written arrangements with 3 of our 5 main labour suppliers, covering 420 of 500 workers in scope; our reporting channels were open to all staff and contractors, 18 concerns were logged, 15 were closed out, and we judged the process effective because most cases were handled within target times and users said the routes were easy to access.
- Where harm had already occurred, we used case-by-case fixes such as pay corrections, schedule changes, equipment adjustments and manager retraining; 11 matters were fully put right during the period.
- The figures above are internally consistent and illustrative only.

Synthetic, practitioner-facing example showing how a company might describe worker engagement, reporting routes, case handling and remedy in plain language.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Logistics and warehousing

We gathered views through toolbox talks, shift huddles, anonymous surveys and meetings with elected worker representatives, with extra outreach to women, migrant colleagues and employees with disabilities. We had formal agreements with 2 of our 4 key service partners, covering 260 of 320 people in the relevant workforce; our speaking-up routes included phone, web and in-person options, 9 matters were raised, 8 were closed, and we assessed the system as working well because access was broad and most issues were settled without delay.
- When something needed fixing, we used tailored remedy steps such as reinstating hours, replacing damaged equipment, adjusting duties and giving refresher training; 6 cases were remedied in full.
- This is a made-up example for training and review.

Synthetic, practitioner-facing example showing a different sector and a different mix of engagement, reporting and remedy practices while keeping the figures internally consistent.

Quality ladder

Basic
I have a worker feedback route and a complaint channel.
Better
I use staff forums, direct manager check-ins and a confidential reporting line, and I have a complaint process that handled 18 cases this year, with 15 closed.
Best
I use staff forums, manager check-ins and a confidential reporting line across our main workforce and contractor groups, and I have a complaint process that handled 18 cases this year, closed 15, and improved after we added a faster triage step because several cases were taking too long to review.

Check your understanding

Scenarios to work through

A preparer is drafting the people section and has one consultation log for the year, but it only covers office staff. The business also has migrant workers and employees with disabilities, and there were separate listening sessions for each group.

QHow should the team decide what to include about who was consulted and how the consultation was done?

Reveal model answer →

A grievance hotline exists for all staff, but the team is unsure whether to present it as a formal complaint route because some issues are also handled through line managers and HR. During the year, 18 cases were logged and 15 were closed.

QWhat should the preparer do when describing the complaint route and the cases raised through it?

Reveal model answer →

The company has a worker feedback process in place, but the team has not checked whether it actually works well. They know that 12 matters were closed during the year, while 3 remain open, and they have no documented review of whether users trust the process.

QHow should the team judge whether to say the process is effective?

Reveal model answer →

A worker complaint about unsafe conditions was resolved by changing the shift pattern and providing new protective equipment. Another complaint about pay was closed after a discussion, but no follow-up action was taken. The draft report currently says only that matters were “handled”.

QWhat should the preparer include about remedy and follow-up actions?

Reveal model answer →

✓ Knowledge Hub AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Get practical answers for your reporting context.

Try How do I prepare S1-2? What data do I need to collect? What mistakes should I avoid?

Framework references

Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures

ESRS

S1-2

within ESRS S1: Own Workforce

Open official source →

Guides that settle this question

ESRS S1 Own Workforce: Complete Guide to Policies, Metrics and Worker Characteristics →

Related & explore

Policies (Own Workforce) → Card Social Protection → Card Disabilities → Card Training → Card Health & Safety → Card Browse all disclosures →

More in ESRS S1 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →

FAQ

Questions this page answers

How do I prepare disclosure S1-2 on own workforce engagement using this page?+

What data do I need to collect for S1-2 own workforce engagement?+

How should I define the scope and methodology for S1-2 own workforce engagement?+

Who should own the S1-2 own workforce engagement disclosure in practice?+

What evidence pack do I need for assurance on S1-2 own workforce engagement?+

What are the common mistakes or reporting gaps for S1-2 own workforce engagement?+

How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for S1-2 own workforce engagement?+

How do I turn the S1-2 own workforce engagement data into a draft disclosure?+

Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on S1-2 own workforce engagement as a template?+

Where can I find real company report examples for S1-2 own workforce engagement?+

	Report A	Report B	Report C
Datapoint 1	✓ p.213	unclear	✓ p.87
Datapoint 2	✓ p.214	—	✓ p.90

Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms

What to collect before drafting

Engagement approach

Priority groups engaged

Engagement methods used

Formal agreements in place

Agreement subject matter

Agreement coverage

Reporting channels

Grievance route exists

Issues raised

Case closure rate

Channel effectiveness

Remedy process

Remedied cases

Remedial actions taken

How to prepare it

Request employee engagement and grievance records

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

Preparation tools & forms

For each claim, check the evidence

We based the coverage figure on the workforce population we could evidence for the reporting period, and we documented any exclusions, cut-off dates, and duplicate records removed before the number was finalised.

For the narrative on how we understand views from more exposed or less visible worker groups, we relied on documented engagement records, meeting notes, survey outputs, and any targeted listening sessions, and we kept the source material that supports the summary we published.

Where we refer to agreements or outcomes with worker representatives, we checked the signed documents, mapped which parts of the workforce they cover, and recorded the business units, locations, or worker categories included before publishing the statement.

When we said the concern channel review was judged against recognised good-practice features, we kept the assessment matrix, the scoring notes, and the evidence showing how each feature was tested before the report went out.

Our description of workforce engagement was built from direct meetings, representative discussions, and documented feedback, and we retained the records showing how those views influenced the actions or decisions we reported for the year.

Where we pointed readers to the policy covering retaliation protection for people using the channel, we checked that the cross-reference matched the current policy version and that the policy was in force at the reporting date.

Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed

Mistakes to avoid

Judgement needed

How it reads on the page

Scenarios to work through

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Check your text

Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures

Questions this page answers

Secure your enrolment

Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms

What to collect before drafting

Engagement approach

Priority groups engaged

Engagement methods used

Formal agreements in place

Agreement subject matter

Agreement coverage

Reporting channels

Grievance route exists

Issues raised

Case closure rate

Channel effectiveness

Remedy process

Remedied cases

Remedial actions taken

How to prepare it

Request employee engagement and grievance records

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

Preparation tools & forms

For each claim, check the evidence

We based the coverage figure on the workforce population we could evidence for the reporting period, and we documented any exclusions, cut-off dates, and duplicate records removed before the number was finalised.

For the narrative on how we understand views from more exposed or less visible worker groups, we relied on documented engagement records, meeting notes, survey outputs, and any targeted listening sessions, and we kept the source material that supports the summary we published.

Where we refer to agreements or outcomes with worker representatives, we checked the signed documents, mapped which parts of the workforce they cover, and recorded the business units, locations, or worker categories included before publishing the statement.

When we said the concern channel review was judged against recognised good-practice features, we kept the assessment matrix, the scoring notes, and the evidence showing how each feature was tested before the report went out.

Our description of workforce engagement was built from direct meetings, representative discussions, and documented feedback, and we retained the records showing how those views influenced the actions or decisions we reported for the year.

Where we pointed readers to the policy covering retaliation protection for people using the channel, we checked that the cross-reference matched the current policy version and that the policy was in force at the reporting date.

Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed

Mistakes to avoid

Judgement needed

How it reads on the page

Scenarios to work through

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Check your text

Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures

Questions this page answers

Get in touch