ESRS S2 — Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms

Q: How do I use the S2-2 page to prepare a first draft disclosure on workers in the value chain engagement and grievance routes?

Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints list. The page is designed to help you turn those inputs into a draft narrative and, where relevant, a simple table or content-index line.

Q: What data do I need to collect for S2-2 before I can draft the disclosure?

The page lists the datapoints to prepare, including engagement routes, stakeholder groups, engagement approach, agreed terms, grievance routes, formal process, access conditions, complaint metrics, resolved share, reply timing, fix-up process and closed remedies. Use that list as your collection checklist so you can gather the right inputs before drafting.

Q: How should I decide the scope and methodology for an S2-2 disclosure using this page?

Use the step-by-step preparation section to define what is in scope and then align your data collection to the listed datapoints. The page does not set a one-size methodology, so the practical approach is to document your own scope choices clearly and keep them consistent across the narrative, table and evidence pack.

Q: Who should own the S2-2 data and evidence pack in practice?

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 explain the data and provide evidence. In practice, assign a named owner for the disclosure, a data owner for the underlying metrics, and a reviewer for assurance readiness.

Q: What should go into the S2-2 evidence pack to make the disclosure assurance-ready?

The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside five assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to show how the figures and narrative were built, and keep the supporting documents organised so a reviewer can trace each claim back to source evidence.

Q: What are the common mistakes to avoid when drafting S2-2?

The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful as a pre-submission check. A practical use is to compare your draft against the datapoints, the evidence pack and the assurance claims to spot missing detail, weak support or inconsistent wording.

Q: How do I use the synthetic example disclosure on the S2-2 page without copying it blindly?

Treat the example as a model for structure and level of detail, not as a template to copy. The page says the example is synthetic and includes a quantitative table, so you can use it to see how a draft might read while still tailoring the content to your own data.

Q: Can I use the S2-2 workbook and printable Library Card to build my disclosure?

Yes. The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format, which are there to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use them to organise inputs, track evidence and shape the draft output.

Q: What does the draft-output section help me produce for S2-2?

The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That makes it easier to turn collected data into a usable draft rather than starting from a blank page.

Q: Where can I find real company examples for S2-2 on the page?

The page includes a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed. Use it to see how others have presented similar information, but keep your own disclosure grounded in your organisation’s data and scope.

Disclosure focus

The practical focus is on coverage and accessibility, not just on describing a policy or a few flagship examples. An organisation should be clear about which parts of its operations and value chain are covered, whether the mechanisms are available in the places and contexts where workers are actually located, and how it knows the process is functioning in reality rather than only on paper.

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

Request the data

Request supplier engagement and issue-handling evidence

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

How do we show which supplier groups we engage, what channels they can use to raise issues, and how those issues are tracked, resolved and remediated?

Use your team’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting fields. For example, if you talk about supplier forums, hotline cases, site visits, escalation logs or corrective actions, keep those labels in the request and only translate them afterwards for the disclosure pack. This is a training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.

Weak request

Please provide the ESRS S2-2 engagement and grievance mechanism data for the period, including stakeholder groups, channels, accessibility, KPIs, response times, resolution rates, remediation processes and remediated cases.

Why it fails: It uses framework language that many operational teams do not use day to day, so the owner may not know which records to pull. It also bundles several ideas together without pointing to the team’s actual trackers, logs or process names, which makes the request harder to action and harder to evidence.

Better request

Please send the supplier engagement and issue-handling records for [reporting period] covering [business boundary]. I need the groups you work with, the ways they can raise concerns, whether there is a formal route and what it covers, the channels available, how accessible they are, the KPIs you already track, how you calculate response time and closure rate, and any remediation notes for cases closed in the period. Please use your own tracker or case log names and attach the source file or link.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for supplier engagement and issue-handling evidence for [reporting period]

Hi [name/team],

I’m pulling together the disclosure pack for [reporting period] and need your help with the supplier engagement and issue-handling information for [business boundary].

Please send the following in your own team’s language, with any supporting files or links:
- the supplier groups you actively engage with;
- the ways you engage them;
- whether there is a formal route for raising concerns, and what it covers;
- the channels available for raising issues;
- how accessible those channels are;
- the measures you already track for this process;
- how you calculate response time and closure rate;
- the process used to fix issues and any examples of cases closed during the period.

If you have a dashboard, tracker, policy, procedure note, or case log, that would be ideal. Please include the period covered, the system or file name, and who owns the record.

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

Thanks,
[preparer name]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [name] — I’m pulling the [reporting period] pack and need your supplier engagement / issue-log evidence for [business boundary]. Please share the groups you work with, the channels they can use, whether there’s a formal route, the KPIs you track, how you measure response/closure, and any remediation examples. A tracker, policy, dashboard or case log is fine. Please use your team’s own terms and include the source file/system. Training template only — adapt to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A plant uses supplier audits, site meetings and a shared corrective-action tracker for logistics and component suppliers.

Adapted request. Please share the supplier forum notes, audit follow-up tracker and complaints log for [reporting period]. I need the supplier groups covered, the engagement routes used, the issue-reporting channels, whether the plant has a formal escalation route, the accessibility notes, the KPIs tracked, the response and closure measures, and the cases remediated during the period.

Example response. Attached: supplier engagement tracker, complaints register export, and corrective-action log. Supplier groups: tier 1 components, packaging, and transport providers. Channels: site visits, portal form, dedicated inbox. Formal route: yes, covers commercial and conduct issues. KPIs: average first response days, closure rate. Remediated cases: 12 closed, 9 with corrective actions completed.

Retail / Food Service

Context. A retailer manages supplier concerns through a vendor portal, buyer meetings and a central case-management inbox.

Adapted request. Please provide the vendor portal report and the supplier concern log for [reporting period]. Include the supplier groups you engage, the channels they can use, whether there is a formal concern route, how accessible it is, the measures you track, how you calculate response time and closure rate, and any remediation completed for closed cases.

Example response. Attached: portal report, concern log, and closure summary. Supplier groups: fresh produce, own-brand manufacturers, logistics partners. Channels: portal, email inbox, buyer meetings. Formal route: yes, covers payment, quality and conduct concerns. Accessibility: available in English and local-language support for key suppliers. Remediated cases: 7 closed, 5 with supplier action plans completed.

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 how the organisation identified the affected groups, what it counts as an engagement route or complaint channel, and how it measured coverage, accessibility, performance and case handling.

Context note

Set out what the figures show about how people can raise issues, how the organisation responds, whether arrangements are formalised, and how many matters are resolved through remediation.

Fluctuation statement

If the figures moved materially, note whether the change came from adding or removing channels, changes in who was covered, shifts in accessibility, or differences in how many cases were received and resolved.

Content index entry

S2-2 Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Preparation tools & forms

Download preparation tools for S2-2 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 used a documented method to decide which parts of the disclosed operations were included, and we can show why any exclusions were made.
Risk The coverage figure may be overstated, selectively framed, or based on an inconsistent boundary.
Evidence to check ['Boundary-setting memo or methodology note', 'List of included and excluded entities, sites, functions, or worker groups', 'Approval record for any exclusions or scope changes']
We based the disclosure on current-year information, with the underlying records traced back to named sources rather than unsupported estimates.
Risk The reported information may be incomplete, outdated, or not traceable to source records.
Evidence to check ['Source data extracts and system reports', 'Data lineage or traceability file', 'Version-controlled working papers showing the reporting period used']
Where we relied on judgement, we recorded the assumptions and applied them consistently across the figure and related narrative.
Risk Judgement may have been applied inconsistently or without a clear audit trail.
Evidence to check ['Assumption log', 'Calculation workbook with formula checks', 'Internal review notes showing consistent application']
Before publication, we carried out checks to spot missing items, duplicates, and obvious inconsistencies in the evidence pack.
Risk Basic data-quality issues may remain undetected, weakening the reliability of the disclosure.
Evidence to check ['Data validation checklist', 'Exception report and follow-up actions', 'Sign-off from the preparer and reviewer']
We kept supporting evidence for the channels, engagement activity, remedy arrangements, and any effectiveness review so an assurer can test what we said.
Risk The narrative may not be supportable because the underlying evidence is thin, fragmented, or not retained.
Evidence to check ['Meeting notes, logs, or correspondence', 'Copies of channel descriptions, process maps, or policy documents', 'Evidence retention index linking each statement to source material']

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 team asks the wrong business owner for the channel list or case data, so the figures come from someone who does not run the worker contact route or the case-handling process.
Framework language onlyThe request is sent in ESRS-style terms instead of the organisation’s own labels, and the recipient cannot map the ask to the hotline, case log, or local escalation route they actually manage.
Scope left vagueNo one fixes which worker groups, sites, or operating units are in scope, so the data pull mixes covered and non-covered populations.
Wrong time basisThe team pulls records using a different cut-off or reporting window from the one used for the rest of the report, which makes the channel and case data inconsistent.
Mixed counting basisOne extract counts unique people while another counts contacts or cases, so the numbers cannot be compared or rolled up cleanly.
Source labels lostThe original system tags, case IDs, or channel names are stripped out during export, so the team cannot trace each figure back to the underlying record.
Populations mergedSeparate worker groups that should stay distinct are combined into one file, which hides differences in how engagement or complaints are handled.
Missing evidence trailThe file is saved without the supporting notes, extract date, or reviewer sign-off, so nobody can show how the number was built or approved.

＋ Show 4 more

Judgement needed

Which worker groups sit inside the reporting boundary after a buy-in or saleUse the reporting period boundary you have set for the rest of the report, explain any added or removed sites or workforces, and state whether the engagement and complaint data include the changed population for the full year or only from the date of transfer.
How to handle local labels that do not map neatly across countriesGroup similar worker categories under one plain description where local job titles differ, but explain the mapping you used so readers can see which people were counted together and where local practice led to a different split.
Whether to include people just outside the formal workforce but still affectedDecide and disclose whether you have included contractors, agency staff, seasonal workers or other near-boundary groups in the channels and case counts, and make clear the rule used to include or exclude them.
What counts as a channel versus a full complaint routeSeparate simple ways to raise a concern from a structured case-handling route, and explain if a hotline, manager route, union route or digital form is treated as one channel or several in your figures.
How to describe access where language, literacy or disability support differs by locationState the practical access features in each operating area, and if support varies by country or site, explain the main differences rather than forcing a single global description that hides local limits.
Which performance measures are based on actual case records and which are estimatedUse recorded case data where available, but if you need estimates for timing, closure or response measures, say so clearly and explain the method and any material assumptions behind the estimate.
How to set the time cut-off for response and closure measuresChoose one consistent cut-off date and one timing basis for all locations, then explain whether you measure from receipt, acknowledgement or first action, and whether late-open cases are left open or carried into the next period.
How to present very small numbers without exposing individualsRound or combine small counts where needed to protect privacy, but disclose the rule you used and make sure the published totals still reconcile to the underlying case population.
How to report outcomes when a case is partly resolvedDefine whether a matter is counted as resolved only when every action is finished or when the main issue is closed, and explain how you treat cases with follow-up actions, partial fixes or ongoing monitoring.

＋ Show 5 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 processing

We used several routes to hear from workers in our own operations and from people in the supply chain who may be affected, and we set out which groups were reached and how each route worked. Where we had formal arrangements with worker representatives, we noted that they covered our direct workforce and key contractor sites; we also kept a separate complaints route open to all relevant people, with access through site noticeboards, a phone line, email, and a web form, plus language support and options for shift workers and people with limited digital access.
- The complaints route was available across all sites, could be used without charge, and was designed to be reachable by workers, contractors, and other affected people; we tracked the number of matters raised, the share resolved, and the time taken to give an initial reply.
- During the period, 48 matters were logged, 39 were closed through the process, and 44 received a first response within 10 working days; we also used a separate remedy process for confirmed cases, and 12 cases were fully put right.

Illustrative only: shows how to describe who was engaged, the methods used, whether formal arrangements existed and what they covered, the channels open for concerns, how accessible they were, the key measures tracked, the share resolved, the response timing, and how remedy was handled.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Retail logistics

We maintained direct dialogue with warehouse teams, delivery drivers, and labour-hire staff, using different formats so people could speak up in ways that suited their work pattern. We also had written agreements with elected worker representatives for our distribution centres, covering the permanent warehouse workforce and agency staff on those sites; alongside that, we ran a grievance route that was open through kiosks, QR codes, a hotline, and in-person HR drop-ins, with translation support and an option to submit anonymously.
- The route was available at every major site and was designed to be usable by night-shift staff and people without company devices; we monitored how many issues came in, how many were settled, and how quickly people heard back.
- In the year, 27 issues were raised, 20 were resolved, and 24 got an initial reply within 7 working days; for matters needing correction, we used a formal remedy path and completed 9 cases.

Illustrative only: shows a second plausible reporter with different channels and workforce mix, while still covering engagement groups and methods, formal arrangements and scope, open channels, accessibility, tracked measures, resolution share, reply timing, and remediation outcomes.

Quality ladder

Basic
I have a worker and supplier contact route and a complaints process.
Better
I have separate contact routes for workers and suppliers, a complaints process for both, and I track how many cases are closed and how quickly we reply.
Best
I have contact routes for workers and suppliers across our sites and main contractors, a complaints process that is open to both groups, and I report the number of cases closed and our reply times each quarter; the latest period improved because we added a faster triage step and clearer ownership for follow-up.

Check your understanding

Scenarios to work through

A manufacturer has mapped two worker groups for direct dialogue this year: site employees and agency workers at its main plant. It uses toolbox talks for one group and a worker committee for the other, but the committee only covers the day shift.

QHow should the preparer decide whether the description of dialogue routes is complete, and what else needs to be checked before sign-off?

Reveal model answer →

A food processor has a hotline for complaints from workers and contractors, but it is only available in the local language and can be used only during office hours. The team is unsure whether that is enough to describe the route as accessible.

QWhat judgement should the preparer make about the complaint route, and what detail should be included in the disclosure?

Reveal model answer →

A retailer tracks the number of issues raised, the share closed within target, and the average days to first reply. One business unit also reports a separate measure for repeat complaints, and the reporting team wonders whether that extra metric should replace the others.

QHow should the preparer handle the performance measures for the grievance route?

Reveal model answer →

A logistics company says it has a process to fix worker complaints, but in practice supervisors handle issues informally and there is no written path for cases that need escalation. The team has also closed 18 of 30 logged cases this year, but it is unclear whether those 18 were actually put right.

QWhat should the preparer conclude about the remediation description and the case count?

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 S2-2? What data do I need to collect? What mistakes should I avoid?

Framework references

Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures

ESRS

S2-2

within ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain

Open official source →

Guides that settle this question

ESRS S2 Workers in the Value Chain: Due Diligence, Data and Supplier Evidence →

Related & explore

Policies (Value Chain Workers) → Card Actions & Resources → Card Targets → Card Browse all disclosures →

More in ESRS S2 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →

FAQ

Questions this page answers

How do I use the S2-2 page to prepare a first draft disclosure on workers in the value chain engagement and grievance routes?+

What data do I need to collect for S2-2 before I can draft the disclosure?+

How should I decide the scope and methodology for an S2-2 disclosure using this page?+

Who should own the S2-2 data and evidence pack in practice?+

What should go into the S2-2 evidence pack to make the disclosure assurance-ready?+

What are the common mistakes to avoid when drafting S2-2?+

How do I use the synthetic example disclosure on the S2-2 page without copying it blindly?+

Can I use the S2-2 workbook and printable Library Card to build my disclosure?+

What does the draft-output section help me produce for S2-2?+

Where can I find real company examples for S2-2 on the page?+

	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 routes

Stakeholder groups

Engagement approach

Agreed terms

Agreement coverage

Grievance routes

Formal process

Access conditions

Complaint metrics

Resolved share

Reply timing

Fix-up process

Closed remedies

How to prepare it

Request supplier engagement and issue-handling evidence

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

Preparation tools & forms

For each claim, check the evidence

We used a documented method to decide which parts of the disclosed operations were included, and we can show why any exclusions were made.

We based the disclosure on current-year information, with the underlying records traced back to named sources rather than unsupported estimates.

Where we relied on judgement, we recorded the assumptions and applied them consistently across the figure and related narrative.

Before publication, we carried out checks to spot missing items, duplicates, and obvious inconsistencies in the evidence pack.

We kept supporting evidence for the channels, engagement activity, remedy arrangements, and any effectiveness review so an assurer can test what we said.

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 routes

Stakeholder groups

Engagement approach

Agreed terms

Agreement coverage

Grievance routes

Formal process

Access conditions

Complaint metrics

Resolved share

Reply timing

Fix-up process

Closed remedies

How to prepare it

Request supplier engagement and issue-handling evidence

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

Preparation tools & forms

For each claim, check the evidence

We used a documented method to decide which parts of the disclosed operations were included, and we can show why any exclusions were made.

We based the disclosure on current-year information, with the underlying records traced back to named sources rather than unsupported estimates.

Where we relied on judgement, we recorded the assumptions and applied them consistently across the figure and related narrative.

Before publication, we carried out checks to spot missing items, duplicates, and obvious inconsistencies in the evidence pack.

We kept supporting evidence for the channels, engagement activity, remedy arrangements, and any effectiveness review so an assurer can test what we said.

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