Disclosure focus
This disclosure requires the organization to identify operations and suppliers considered to have significant risk of incidents of child labor or young workers being exposed to hazardous work.
For significant child-labor risks, the organization should identify the relevant types of operations and suppliers and the countries or geographical areas in which they are located.
The disclosure should also describe measures taken during the reporting period that were intended to contribute to the effective abolition of child labor.
Child labor should not be confused with all work performed by persons under 18. The applicable minimum working age depends on compulsory-schooling requirements and the rules established under ILO Convention 138. Young workers are persons above the applicable minimum working age and under 18.
The disclosure is risk-based and does not require a confirmed incident. It also does not require quantitative reporting on incidents of child labor, numbers of young workers or percentages of operations and suppliers assessed.
The public disclosure can use appropriate operation types, supplier types and geographical areas. A detailed list of every individual operation or supplier is not automatically required.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official Global Reporting Initiative source.
Before you start
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key information to prepare
| Preparation field | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk-assessment population | Operations and suppliers considered through the child-labor due-diligence process. | Operations register, supplier population and due-diligence scope. | Human Rights / Procurement |
| Significant child-labor risk — operations | Operations considered to have significant risk of child-labor incidents. | Operation-level risk assessment, audits and recognized external sources. | Human Rights / Operations |
| Significant child-labor risk — suppliers | Suppliers considered to have significant risk of child-labor incidents. | Supplier due diligence, audit findings and sourcing-risk assessment. | Procurement / Human Rights |
| Young workers exposed to hazardous work — operations | Operations with significant risk of young workers being exposed to hazardous work. | Age controls, hazardous-task matrices and H&S assessments. | H&S / HR / Operations |
| Young workers exposed to hazardous work — suppliers | Suppliers with significant risk of young workers being exposed to hazardous work. | Supplier audits, labor assessments and corrective-action records. | Procurement / Human Rights |
| Types of operations and suppliers | Relevant operation and supplier types associated with significant child-labor risk. | Risk-classification methodology and item-level mapping. | Human Rights / Procurement |
| Countries or geographical areas | Locations of operations and suppliers considered at significant child-labor risk. | Country-risk analysis and supplier-location records. | Human Rights / Procurement |
| Measures taken | Measures taken during the reporting period to contribute to the effective abolition of child labor. | Implementation, audit, training, engagement and remediation records. | Human Rights / Procurement |
| Definitions and methodology | Applicable minimum age, young-worker definition, hazardous-work criteria, assessment scope and limitations. | Methodology and legal or ILO mapping. | Human Rights / Legal |
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the disclosure evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Please provide the child-labor risk assessment for [reporting period]. For operations and suppliers, include: the operation or supplier type; direct or indirect supplier status, where relevant; country or geographical area; whether significant risk concerns child labor, young workers exposed to hazardous work or both; the applicable minimum-age and hazardous-work basis; the evidence supporting the risk conclusion; and measures taken during the reporting period. Please distinguish significant child-labor risk from general labor, health-and-safety or supplier ESG risk.
Use the organisation's own role and document names, but preserve the defined GRI terms and the scope described above.
Better request
Please provide the child-labor risk assessment for [reporting period]. For operations and suppliers, include: the operation or supplier type; direct or indirect supplier status, where relevant; country or geographical area; whether significant risk concerns child labor, young workers exposed to hazardous work or both; the applicable minimum-age and hazardous-work basis; the evidence supporting the risk conclusion; and measures taken during the reporting period. Please distinguish significant child-labor risk from general labor, health-and-safety or supplier ESG risk.
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
The organization assessed child-labor risk using operation and supplier type, geographical information, applicable minimum-age requirements and hazardous-work criteria. The assessment used [internal sources] and [recognized external sources].
Context note
Keep mandatory GRI Requirements, GRI recommendations and additional LRA preparation controls clearly distinguished. Apply a GRI 1 reason for omission where required information cannot be reported.
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 408-1 — free with verified email access. Enter the code we send you once and use downloads, report links and the LRA AI Assistant for 24 hours.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We applied the GRI definitions of child labor and young worker. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We distinguished child labor from lawful youth employment. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We used the applicable minimum working age rather than one unsupported global age threshold. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We treated persons under 18 as ineligible for hazardous work. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We identified operations considered to have significant risk of child labor. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We identified suppliers considered to have significant risk of child labor. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We separately identified operations with significant risk of young workers being exposed to hazardous work. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We separately identified suppliers with significant risk of young workers being exposed to hazardous work. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| The risk conclusions relate specifically to child labor or hazardous work rather than general ESG risk. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| The assessment was not limited to confirmed incidents. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We did not treat the absence of incidents as sufficient evidence of no significant risk. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| For significant child-labor risks, we identified relevant operation and supplier types. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| For significant child-labor risks, we identified the relevant countries or geographical areas. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| Relevant indirect suppliers identified through due diligence were not automatically excluded. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We described measures actually taken during the reporting period. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| Each reported measure was intended to contribute to the effective abolition of child labor. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We did not present general training or supplier screening as a child-labor measure without establishing the connection. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| We did not present counts or percentages as mandatory GRI 408-1 figures. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| The disclosure can be reconciled to the underlying operation and supplier risk assessment. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
| Any unavailable required information is addressed through the applicable GRI reason for omission. | The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check. | Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source. |
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative synthetic example — Apparel manufacturing
Cut-and-sew and finishing operations in Countries A and B were considered to have significant risk of child labor because of informal recruitment and weak age-verification controls.
Labor agencies, textile processors and trim suppliers in Countries A, B and C were also considered to have significant risk.
Finishing suppliers using hazardous chemicals were identified separately as having significant risk of young workers being exposed to hazardous work.
During the reporting period, the organization strengthened age-verification controls, revised supplier requirements, completed targeted audits and required remediation from affected suppliers.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative synthetic example — Food processing
Seasonal harvesting and packing operations in Country D were considered to have significant child-labor risk.
Labor brokers, farm-gate aggregators and grower groups in Regions E and F were also considered to have significant risk.
Operations and suppliers involving machinery, pesticides, night work or heavy manual handling were separately assessed for significant risk of young workers being exposed to hazardous work.
Measures taken during the period included stronger age verification, targeted training, supplier audits and corrective-action plans.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative synthetic example — No significant risks identified
The organization assessed its operations and suppliers using applicable minimum-age requirements, activity type and geographical risk information. It did not identify operations or suppliers considered to have significant risk under GRI 408-1.
During the reporting period, the organization continued targeted age-verification and supplier due-diligence measures.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Company reports
How companies report GRI 408-1 in practice
Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Review finding
London Luton Airport’s 2024 Sustainability Report explicitly marks GRI 408-1 as N — Not reported in its GRI Index.
View full review Hide full review
Disclosure gap
The report therefore does not provide the GRI 408-1 information.
Assessment
The card must not state that page 71 contains data on operations and suppliers at significant risk. Report page 140, which appears as PDF page 70, expressly classifies GRI 408-1 as not reported.
Disclosure gap
The numbers of suppliers and supplier spend presented elsewhere in the report do not identify:
- operations or suppliers at significant child-labor risk
- young-worker hazardous-work risk
- operation or supplier types and geographical areas
- current-period measures intended to contribute to the effective abolition of child labor
Bottom line
Classify this report as not reported.
Review finding
SK Chemicals’ current card does not establish that GRI 408-1 has been substantively reported.
View full review Hide full review
Assessment
Page 186 appears to be the GRI content index rather than the substantive child-labor disclosure. A reference to the disclosure title in an index is not evidence that all required information is present.
Disclosure gap
Page 118 describes broader supply-chain ESG assessments, corrective action and business-partner capability-building. This information can support the management approach, but it does not by itself establish:
- operations at significant risk of child labor
- suppliers at significant risk of child labor
- operations or suppliers at significant risk of young workers being exposed to hazardous work
- the required operation or supplier types and geographical areas
- measures specifically intended to contribute to the effective abolition of child labor
Disclosure gap
SK Chemicals’ official human-rights materials state that child labor is prohibited, applicant ages are verified and persons under 18 are not assigned hazardous duties. These are relevant controls and management measures, but they do not automatically satisfy the risk-identification elements of GRI 408-1.
Bottom line
Reassess the substantive report pages before classifying the disclosure. Until child-labor-specific risk information is located, classify it as requires substantive reassessment, not full coverage.
Review finding
China Airlines’ 2024 ESG Data and Appendix does not identify significant-risk operations or suppliers under GRI 408-1.
View full review Hide full review
Assessment
The GRI content index lists GRI 408-1 with Note 7 and no page reference. Note 7 states that there were no relevant incidents.
Assessment
This is not the same as reporting that no operations or suppliers were considered to have significant risk. GRI 408-1 is a risk-based disclosure and is not limited to detected incidents.
Disclosure gap
The report’s Supplier Code of Conduct, supplier assessments and geographical supplier information can support the management approach, but they do not automatically provide:
- operation and supplier types at significant child-labor risk
- countries or geographical areas with those significant risks
- young-worker hazardous-work risk
- measures specifically intended to contribute to the effective abolition of child labor
Disclosure gap
Page 184 is part of the GRI index and does not describe significant risk areas, as the current card claims.
Bottom line
Classify the disclosure as partial or insufficient, unless a separate substantive risk assessment is located.
Ask the Study Studio AI Assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context. Your first two answers are free — confirm your email to continue without a limit for 24 hours.
Framework references
Relevant GRI requirements and related disclosures
Available framework references and nearby disclosures relevant to preparing this requirement.
GRI
GRI 408-1
within GRI 408: Child Labor
Related & explore
More in GRI 408 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →
Go deeper · GRI 408-1
Learn to prepare this disclosure end-to-end
This guide covers the three disclosure elements required by GRI 408-1.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Explore GRI training (ESRS bundle) →