Skip to the disclosure focus
Courses

GRI Training Partner GRI 414 · Supplier Social Assessment · Disclosure GRI 414-2

Negative social impacts in the supply chain and actions taken

GRI 414-2 · mandatory · coverage + narrative

This disclosure requires the organization to report:

Legal status

GRI 414: Supplier Social Assessment 2016 remains the applicable published GRI Topic Standard and is effective for reports or other materials published on or after 1 July 2018.

Start preparing ↓ Official Global Reporting Initiative source ↗ Compare 3 real reports

Disclosure focus

the number of suppliers assessed for social impacts;

the number of suppliers identified as having significant actual and potential negative social impacts;

the significant impacts identified;

the percentage of identified suppliers with which improvements were agreed as a result of assessment; and

the percentage of identified suppliers with which relationships were terminated as a result of assessment, together with the reasons for termination.

The two percentages use the number of suppliers identified as having significant impacts as their denominator. They are not calculated from the total supplier base or from all suppliers assessed.

Improvements are counted when they have been agreed as a result of assessment; they do not have to be completed.

The improvement and termination percentages are not necessarily mutually exclusive and do not have to total 100%.

Where it provides useful context, the information should be broken down by supplier location and significant impact.

General supplier policies, assessment coverage rates and high-risk supplier lists do not replace the five required disclosure elements.

This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official Global Reporting Initiative source.

Prepare

What to collect before drafting

Tick each field as the evidence lands. Owners are the teams that usually hold the source files.

  • Suppliers assessed

    Procurement / Supplier Risk

    Unique suppliers assessed for social impacts during the reporting period.

    Evidence Assessment register, audit log and supplier-entity reconciliation.

    Watch for The published response for suppliers assessed is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Suppliers with significant impacts

    Human Rights / Supplier Risk

    Unique assessed suppliers identified as having significant actual or potential negative social impacts.

    Evidence Assessment findings, significance review and approval records.

    Watch for The published response for suppliers with significant impacts is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Impacts identified

    Human Rights / Sustainability

    Significant actual and potential negative social impacts identified in the supply chain.

    Evidence Audit findings, engagement, grievances and impact register.

    Watch for The published response for impacts identified is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Improvements agreed

    Procurement / Human Rights

    Identified suppliers with which improvements were agreed as a result of assessment.

    Evidence Agreed action plans, correspondence and procurement changes.

    Watch for The published response for improvements agreed is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Percentage with improvements

    Sustainability Reporting

    Suppliers with agreed improvements divided by identified-impact suppliers.

    Evidence Controlled calculation and denominator reconciliation.

    Watch for The published response for percentage with improvements is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Relationships terminated

    Procurement / Legal

    Identified suppliers with which relationships were terminated as a result of assessment.

    Evidence Termination approvals, supplier status and contract records.

    Watch for The published response for relationships terminated is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Percentage terminated

    Sustainability Reporting

    Terminated suppliers divided by identified-impact suppliers.

    Evidence Controlled calculation and denominator reconciliation.

    Watch for The published response for percentage terminated is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Reasons for termination

    Procurement / Legal / Human Rights

    Social impacts and assessment results that led to termination.

    Evidence Decision records and assessment findings.

    Watch for The published response for reasons for termination is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Supplier location — recommended

    Procurement

    Location relevant to the assessed supplier or impact.

    Evidence Supplier master and facility records.

    Watch for The published response for supplier location — recommended is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

  • Impact breakdown — recommended

    Sustainability Reporting

    Impact type by supplier location or category.

    Evidence Impact register and reporting matrix.

    Watch for The published response for impact breakdown — recommended is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.

Before you start

  • What constitutes a supplier under the GRI definition?
  • What supplier entity level is used for counting?
  • Which suppliers were assessed for social impacts during the reporting period?
  • Are repeat assessments and duplicate supplier records removed?
  • What social performance expectations or criteria were used?
  • Which suppliers were identified as having significant actual impacts?
  • Which suppliers were identified as having significant potential impacts?
  • What significant impacts were identified?
  • Are general risk scores being confused with identified impacts?
  • Can every supplier in the identified-impact population be traced to assessment evidence?
  • With which identified suppliers were improvements agreed as a result of assessment?
  • Were the improvements actually agreed rather than only recommended?
  • Which identified supplier relationships were terminated as a result of assessment?
  • What were the reasons for each termination?
  • Do both percentages use the identified-impact supplier population as denominator?
  • Can suppliers appear in both action populations?
  • Are supplier locations and impact types available for the recommended breakdown?
  • Can all numbers and statements be reconciled to supplier-level records?
＋ Show GRI 414-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

How to prepare it

Define the supplier entity used for counting.
Compile the complete supplier-assessment register for the reporting period.
Consolidate duplicate records and repeat assessments.
Confirm the social criteria and performance expectations used.
Identify the number of unique suppliers assessed.
Determine which suppliers have significant actual or potential negative social impacts.
Document the impacts identified.
Identify suppliers with which improvements were agreed as a result of assessment.
Identify relationships terminated as a result of assessment.
Document the reasons for termination.
Calculate both percentages using the identified-impact supplier population.
Document any overlap between improvement and termination populations.
Prepare the recommended breakdown by supplier location and impact where appropriate.
Reconcile every count and percentage to supplier-level evidence.
Apply an applicable reason for omission where required information cannot be reported.
Verify the disclosure against GRI 414-2(a)–(e).

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 GRI 414-2 supplier-level information for [reporting period]. For every supplier assessed, include: supplier legal entity or controlled ID; supplier location; assessment date and type; social criteria or performance expectations assessed; actual impacts identified; potential impacts identified; whether an impact was determined to be significant; significance rationale; improvements agreed as a result of assessment; date of agreement; whether the relationship was terminated as a result of assessment; termination date and reason; and source-system and evidence references. Please also provide: the number of unique suppliers assessed; the number identified as having significant impacts; the percentage with improvements agreed; and the percentage with relationships terminated.

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 GRI 414-2 supplier-level information for [reporting period]. For every supplier assessed, include: supplier legal entity or controlled ID; supplier location; assessment date and type; social criteria or performance expectations assessed; actual impacts identified; potential impacts identified; whether an impact was determined to be significant; significance rationale; improvements agreed as a result of assessment; date of agreement; whether the relationship was terminated as a result of assessment; termination date and reason; and source-system and evidence references. Please also provide: the number of unique suppliers assessed; the number identified as having significant impacts; the percentage with improvements agreed; and the percentage with relationships terminated.

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

Suppliers were assessed using [assessment methods and social criteria]. Supplier entities were consolidated using [method]. Significant impacts were determined using [methodology]. Both action percentages use suppliers identified as having significant impacts as their denominator.

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

Download preparation tools for GRI 414-2 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 applied the GRI supplier definition and documented the supplier entity used for counting.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The assessed-supplier count contains unique supplier entities rather than assessment events, contracts or findings.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Repeat assessments and duplicate supplier records were not double counted.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Every supplier included in the assessed count has supporting social-assessment evidence.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The assessments used identifiable social criteria or performance expectations.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • We distinguished supplier risk scores from identified significant impacts.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • We distinguished actual impacts from potential impacts in the supporting register.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The identified-impact supplier population is a subset of the assessed-supplier population.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Suppliers with several impacts were counted once in the supplier total.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The disclosed impacts can be traced to supplier-level findings.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Environmental impacts were not presented as social impacts without a social component.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The improvement percentage uses the identified-impact supplier population as denominator.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The improvement numerator includes suppliers with formally agreed improvements, whether or not implementation was complete.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Unilateral recommendations were not treated as agreed improvements without evidence.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The termination percentage uses the same identified-impact supplier denominator.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Only relationships terminated as a result of assessment were included.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Commercial terminations unrelated to social assessment were excluded.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Reasons for termination are supported by the assessment and decision records.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Suppliers appearing in both improvement and termination populations are treated consistently and disclosed transparently.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The two percentages are not assumed to total 100%.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Where no significant-impact suppliers were identified, the action percentages are reported as not applicable rather than 0%.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • The published figures can be recalculated from supplier-level records.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

  • Recommended location and impact breakdowns are supported where provided.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to 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 requirements.

    Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.

    Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.

Evidence pack to prepare

Common reporting gaps

  • The number of suppliers assessed is missing.
  • Assessment events are reported instead of unique suppliers assessed.
  • The number of suppliers with significant impacts is missing.
  • A high-risk supplier count is reported instead of suppliers with identified significant impacts.
  • Only confirmed actual impacts are reported and significant potential impacts are omitted.
  • The impacts identified in the supply chain are not described.
  • General policies or assessment processes are presented instead of impact information.
  • Environmental and social impacts are combined without a social breakdown.
  • The improvement percentage is calculated using all suppliers assessed.
  • The termination percentage is calculated using all suppliers assessed.
  • Completed improvement plans are counted instead of improvements agreed.
  • Agreed but ongoing improvements are excluded.
  • Recommendations issued unilaterally are treated as agreed improvements.
  • Commercial terminations unrelated to assessment are included.
  • Reasons for termination are omitted or described only as “commercial”.
  • Improvement and termination percentages are forced to total 100%.
  • Suppliers appearing in both populations are treated inconsistently.
  • A supplier with several impacts is counted several times.
  • A supplier assessed several times is counted several times.
  • The action percentages are reported as 0% when no significant-impact suppliers exist.
  • The percentage values cannot be reconciled to supplier counts.
  • Supplier location and impact breakdowns are omitted where they would provide important context.
  • Assessment coverage is presented as though it were the main GRI 414-2 metric.
  • GRI 414-1 new-supplier screening data are presented instead of GRI 414-2 information.

Examples

How it reads on the page

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

Illustrative example 1

Illustrative synthetic example — No significant impacts identified
During 2026, 240 suppliers were assessed for social impacts. No suppliers were identified as having significant actual or potential negative social impacts.
The percentages for improvements agreed and relationships terminated were therefore not applicable.

Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.

Illustrative example 2

Illustrative treatment — Improvement followed by termination
Improvements were agreed with a supplier after the initial assessment. The relationship was later terminated because the agreed measures were not implemented. The supplier was included in both percentage numerators.

Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.

Real reports

How 3 companies report it

Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.

Real published reports

MOEVE, S.A.

Oil and Gas · Spain · 2025

Review finding

Moeve’s Consolidated Management Report 2025 provides a direct quantitative response to GRI 414-2.

Report evidence

The report discloses:

  • 1,698 suppliers screened using sustainability criteria in 2025
  • no suppliers identified as having significant actual or potential negative impacts
  • no applicable improvement percentage
  • no applicable termination percentage
View full reviewHide full review

Assessment

Separately, the report states that 1,938 performance assessments were carried out and that 826 suppliers were assessed because of their criticality. These are not interchangeable with the supplier count presented in the GRI 414-2 table.

Disclosure gap

It also reports 74 suppliers with non-significant non-conformities and states that all had closure plans. These suppliers do not belong in the GRI 414-2(b) denominator because their impacts were classified as non-significant.

LRA review note

The card should:

  • replace 1,938 assessments as the main GRI 414-2(a) figure with 1,698 suppliers
  • distinguish assessment events from supplier entities
  • retain the zero significant-impact result
  • treat the two percentages as not applicable rather than missing
  • remove the statement that narrative on page 154 is needed to complete the disclosure
  • remove recycled-input information completely
  • classify the disclosure as a strong zero-significant-impact response, subject to confirming the social component of the combined sustainability criteria

Bottom line

Moeve’s official report states that no suppliers were identified with significant negative impacts; its detailed table reports 1,698 suppliers screened, while the broader performance section reports 1,938 assessment events.

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited

Retailing · India · 2025

Review finding

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited provides substantial quantitative reporting for GRI 414-2 on report page 149.

View full reviewHide full review

Disclosure gap

The report states that:

  • 113 suppliers were assessed for social and environmental impacts
  • 38 suppliers were identified as having significant actual or potential negative impacts
  • identified impacts included missing regulatory approvals, non-payment of minimum and overtime wages, absence of wage records and environmental impacts
  • improvements were agreed with all 38 suppliers, representing 100%
  • relationships were terminated with 12 suppliers, representing 32%

Assessment

Of the 12 terminated suppliers, the report states that ten were terminated because of social impacts and two because of environmental impacts.

LRA review note

The card should:

  • replace the claim that 38 suppliers were selected for assessment with the correct assessment count of 113
  • identify 38 as the significant-impact supplier population
  • report the 100% improvement percentage
  • report the 32% termination percentage
  • include the impacts identified
  • remove garments with sustainable attributes from the assessment
  • remove third-party-audit percentages that do not answer GRI 414-2
  • use page 149 as the substantive source

Assessment

flag that the figures combine social and environmental assessments, requiring confirmation of the social-only supplier population for strict GRI 414-2 reporting.

Assessment

Classify the report as strong combined environmental-and-social reporting with a social-disaggregation review point.

Bottom line

The official report states that 113 suppliers were assessed, 38 had significant actual or potential impacts, improvements were agreed with those suppliers and 12 relationships were terminated.

Engie Brasil Energia S.A.

Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil · 2025

Review finding

ENGIE Brasil Energia’s 2025 Sustainability Report provides substantive quantitative information relevant to GRI 414-2.

View full reviewHide full review

Assessment

The report identifies 47 companies as causing significant actual or potential social and environmental impacts. It also reports an improvement percentage of 2.13% and a termination result of 0%.

LRA review note

The card should:

  • retain the assessment-scope information concerning active contracts exceeding R$ 1 million as methodology context
  • identify the number of suppliers actually assessed, rather than using only the eligibility rule
  • report the 47 identified suppliers
  • report the disclosed improvement percentage of 2.13%
  • report the termination percentage of 0%
  • identify the significant social impacts separately from environmental impacts
  • clarify the denominator used for 2.13%
  • verify whether 47 represents supplier entities or a combined set of companies with social or environmental impacts
  • confirm whether any assessment-related termination reasons are applicable when the termination percentage is zero
  • remove the current statement that no specific percentages are provided

Assessment

Classify the report as substantial combined social-and-environmental reporting requiring social disaggregation and denominator verification.

Bottom line

The official 2025 report’s indexed content maps GRI 414-2 to substantive pages and reports a 2.13% improvement result; the report also identifies 47 companies in the relevant impact population.

Full evidence map with quotes and page numbers →

✓ Knowledge Hub AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Dr Ross Kurinko

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Get practical answers for your reporting context.

Try How do I prepare GRI 414-2? What data do I need to collect? Where can I see a real-report example? What mistakes should I avoid?

Framework references

Relevant GRI requirements and related disclosures

GRI

GRI 414-2

within GRI 414: Supplier Social Assessment

Open official source →

Related & explore

New suppliers that were screened using social criteria → CardBrowse all disclosures →

More in GRI 414 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →

How this library is built 1,211 published reports indexed 315,012 pages with page-level citations 272 published cards in the active catalogue
/en/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/gri-414-2/