GRI 2: General Disclosures · Universal Standard
Disclosure GRI 2-26
Mechanisms for seeking advice and raising concerns
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
2 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how people can get advice, raise questions, or report concerns about the organisation’s conduct. In practice, it is about the channels that are available, how people are expected to use them, and whether those channels are open to the groups that need them, such as workers, contractors, or other relevant stakeholders.
The practical focus is on coverage and accessibility, not just the existence of a single hotline or policy. An organisation should think about whether the mechanisms work across its operations, locations, and relevant relationships, and whether people can use them in a way that is understandable, trusted, and appropriate to the context.
* This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
| Datapoint | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advice channels | Capture the ways people can ask for guidance on how to apply the organisation’s responsible business policies and working practices, including who can use them and how they are accessed. | Policy documents, intranet pages, hotline or helpdesk procedures, ethics or compliance guidance, and any published contact routes for advice requests. | Compliance / Ethics / Legal |
| Concern reporting routes | Capture the routes individuals can use to report worries about the organisation’s business conduct, including the channels available and how a concern is submitted. | Speak-up or whistleblowing policy, reporting portal screenshots, hotline procedures, case-management process notes, and employee communications on reporting concerns. | Compliance / Ethics / Legal |
Show GRI 2-26 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out how people can raise concerns about the organisation’s conduct in business.
- Set out how people can get guidance on putting the organisation’s responsible-business policies and practices into action.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the scope first: decide which channels, teams, sites, or other parts of the business you will cover in the disclosure, so the write-up matches the organisation’s actual arrangements.
- Separate the two required topics clearly: one part should explain how people can get guidance on putting the organisation’s responsible conduct rules into practice, and the other should explain how they can report worries about business conduct.
- Gather the source material for each channel: policies, procedure notes, intranet pages, hotline details, contact routes, escalation paths, and any other internal records that show how the arrangements work in practice.
- Draft the disclosure in plain language, using a short narrative or bullet list that makes the routes easy to understand and keeps the two mechanisms distinct.
- Record any exclusions, changes, or limits in coverage, and explain them clearly so readers can see what is included and what is not.
- Check the final wording against the official source to confirm you have covered both required points, used the right scope, and not added or left out anything material.
Request the speak-up and advice channels summary
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What channels do people use to get guidance on responsible business conduct and to raise concerns about business conduct, and how are those channels described internally?
Use your organisation’s own names first for the relevant channels, routes and case-handling teams, then map them to the disclosure wording. Keep the request in the language people actually use internally, and check the source material before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the mechanisms for seeking advice and raising concerns for GRI 2:GRI 2-26.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the owner may not know which internal routes, documents or teams to pull together. It also does not specify the period, boundary, source location or the organisation’s own channel names, so the response is likely to be incomplete or hard to verify.
Better request
Please send the current details for our internal advice and speak-up routes for [reporting period]: the channel names we use, what each route is for, who can use it, how people access it, who owns or manages it, and the source document or system link. If there are separate routes for policy guidance and for raising concerns, please include both. Use our own terms first, then I’ll map them for the disclosure draft.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for speak-up and advice channel details for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], I’m preparing the internal evidence pack for [reporting period] and need a short summary of the routes people can use to get guidance on our policies and to raise concerns about business conduct. Please send, for each relevant channel: - the internal name we use - what it is used for - who can use it - how people access it - who owns or manages it - where the supporting source is held - the date it was last reviewed or updated If you have a policy page, hotline summary, case log extract, or intranet screenshot that already covers this, that would be ideal. Please use your own internal terms first, then I’ll map them for the disclosure draft. This is a possible LRA 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/team] — could you share the current details for our advice and speak-up routes for [period]? I need the internal channel names, what each is for, who can use them, how they’re accessed, who owns them, and the source link/file. Please use our own terms first; I’ll map them later. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A group with factories, warehouse sites and a central compliance team uses a hotline, a policy helpdesk and line-manager escalation.
Adapted request. Please share the current details for the factory and office speak-up routes for [period]: hotline, compliance inbox, policy helpdesk and manager escalation. For each one, include the internal name, what it is used for, who can use it, how it is accessed, who owns it, and the source document or intranet page.
Example response. Hotline — used for reporting conduct concerns; open to employees, contractors and suppliers; accessed by phone/web; owned by Compliance; source: hotline provider summary and intranet page; reviewed 12 Feb 2025. Policy helpdesk — used for questions on policy application; open to employees and managers; accessed by email/intranet form; owned by Legal; source: policy page; reviewed 03 Mar 2025.
Financial services
Context. A regulated firm has a whistleblowing line, a conduct mailbox and a compliance advisory team.
Adapted request. Please provide the current details for our conduct advice and concern-reporting routes for [period], including the whistleblowing line, conduct mailbox and compliance advisory route. For each, include the internal name, purpose, user group, access method, owner and source reference.
Example response. Whistleblowing line — for raising conduct concerns; available to staff and third parties; phone and web; owned by Company Secretariat; source: whistleblowing policy and provider dashboard; last updated 21 Jan 2025. Conduct mailbox — for questions on policy interpretation; staff only; email; owned by Compliance; source: intranet guidance page; last updated 08 Apr 2025.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain how the organisation defines each route, what counts as a separate channel, and which people are included in the count or description.
Context note
Set out what the figures or descriptions show about how people can get help with applying the organisation’s conduct rules and how they can report worries about behaviour.
Fluctuation statement
If the number or availability of routes has changed, note whether this reflects new channels, removed channels, wider access, or a change in how the organisation records them.
Content index entry
GRI 2-26 Mechanisms for seeking advice and raising concerns — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 2-26. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| The information reported for this disclosure reconciles to the underlying source records. | What is reported cannot be traced back to the systems or documents it was drawn from, or does not tie out to them. | calculation_workbook reconciling the reported value to source_system_export |
| The information reported for this disclosure is current as at the reporting date. | The disclosure reflects a different period, a cut-off before the reporting date, or stale data carried over from a prior period. | approval_record showing the data cut-off date and the period covered |
| The scope behind the information reported for this disclosure is applied consistently. | Parts of the organisation are silently in or out of scope, or the scope differs from the prior period without that change being explained. | methodology defining the scope and a site_register of what it covers |
| Everything in scope is included in the information reported for this disclosure — nothing material is left out. | Parts of the population that should be reported are omitted, understating or overstating the disclosure. | site_register of the full population vs the calculation_workbook of what was actually included |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes 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.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner
The team asks the wrong business owner for the source material, so the answer comes from a policy lead or hotline operator who cannot explain how people get advice or raise concerns in practice.
- Framework language only
The request is written in reporting jargon instead of the organisation’s own terms, so the source team cannot map it to the actual advice route or concern-reporting channel they run.
- No scope set
The data pull does not define which parts of the organisation, which channels, or which user groups are in scope, so the final evidence mixes unlike arrangements that should have been kept separate.
- Wrong time basis
The collector uses the wrong reporting period or a different cut-off date from the rest of the pack, so the evidence reflects a different point in time from the disclosure being prepared.
- Mixed counting basis
One source counts contacts, another counts people, and a third counts cases, but the team combines them without checking the basis, which makes the figures impossible to compare cleanly.
- Source labels lost
The original names from the system, inbox, or tracker are stripped out during export, so later reviewers cannot trace each item back to the exact record or channel it came from.
- Populations merged
Advice-seeking queries and concern-raising reports are rolled into one bucket even though they need separate handling, so the evidence no longer shows which activity each item belongs to.
- Missing audit trail
The pack is saved without the underlying file names, dates, or reviewer sign-off, so no one can show where the data came from or who checked it before submission.
Where judgement is often needed
- Acquisition or disposal during the reporting period
If a business is bought or sold part-way through the year, decide whether to include the new or exited teams in the description and explain the cut-off date you used.
- Different local names for the same reporting route
Where countries use different labels for the same advice or concern route, group them under one plain description and note the local names only if that helps readers find the right channel.
- Workers, contractors, and other close-in users
Be clear about whether the channels you describe are open to employees only or also to contractors, agency staff, and others who work closely with the organisation, and explain any limits.
- Public-facing versus internal channels
If some routes are open to external parties and others are for internal use, separate them in the narrative so readers can see who can use each route and for what purpose.
- Group-wide route or local route
When a central route sits alongside country or site-level routes, choose a consistent way to present them and explain whether the description covers the whole group or only parts of it.
- Anonymous or named reporting options
If people can speak up without naming themselves in some places but not others, state the difference clearly and avoid implying a wider option than actually exists.
- Privacy limits on detail
If privacy rules mean you cannot give site-level or country-level detail, say that the information has been combined and explain the level at which you have aggregated it.
- Changes in the year
If the way people can seek advice or raise concerns changed during the period, describe the position at the end of the period and briefly note the main change and when it took effect.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Consumer goods manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows two distinct access routes: one for help applying our rules in day-to-day work, and one for reporting worries about conduct. The figures are synthetic and internally consistent.
Synthetic example only. We give employees, contractors and other affected people two routes: one for getting practical guidance on how to apply our responsible business rules, and another for flagging worries about how we are behaving.
- Advice is available through line managers, the ethics team and a confidential helpline; in the year, 184 people used these channels, and 184/184 (100%) received a response within five working days.
- Concerns can be raised through the same helpline, an online form or direct contact with the speak-up team; 27 concerns were logged, including 11 about labour practices, 8 about gifts and hospitality, 5 about supplier conduct and 3 about record-keeping.
Healthcare services · synthetic · written by LRA
This example separates advice-seeking from concern-raising and uses different channels for each. The counts are illustrative and add up consistently.
Synthetic example only. Our group explains where people can go if they need help putting our conduct rules into practice, and where they can go if they want to report a concern about our behaviour.
- Practical guidance is offered by the compliance team, local managers and a staffed advice mailbox; 96 requests for guidance were handled, with 72 from employees, 18 from agency staff and 6 from suppliers, and all 96 were answered.
- Concerns may be raised through a hotline, a web portal or in person to a manager; 14 matters were reported, made up of 7 patient-safety issues, 4 procurement issues and 3 conflicts-of-interest issues.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.
Suggested visuals
- Ways people can get guidance — table: A side-by-side list of the channels or routes available for staff and other affected people to ask for help on applying the organisation’s responsible business rules and procedures.
- Ways people can raise concerns — table: A side-by-side list of the channels or routes available for staff and other affected people to report worries about the organisation’s conduct.
- Support routes versus concern routes — stacked bar: A comparison of how many access points are available for getting advice versus raising concerns, if the reporter has counted distinct channels for each purpose.
- Coverage by audience — bar: A breakdown of which groups can use each route, such as employees, contractors, suppliers or other external parties, where the collected data distinguishes between audiences.
- Access points by location — map: Where the advice and concern routes are available across sites, countries or regions, if the data records geographic coverage.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We have two reporting channels for staff and other people to ask for guidance or flag concerns.
Better
We offer a policy-help route and a concern-reporting route for employees, contractors and suppliers, with both channels available throughout the year.
Best
Across the full year, we kept a policy-advice line and a concern-reporting route open to employees, contractors and suppliers; usage was 42 advice queries and 18 concern reports, and the higher advice volume mainly reflected a new policy rollout that prompted more questions.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 2-26 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Berli Jucker Public Company Limited | Food and Consumer Staples Retailing · Thailand | 2024 | Topic-family | p. 202 →p. 152 →p. 104 → | Sustainability Report 2024 → | LRQA | |||||||||
Evidence in Berli Jucker Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Berli Jucker Public Company Limited’s Sustainability Report 2024 partially covers the disclosure related to responsible business conduct, mentioning robust due diligence processes and a policy framework aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on page 155. The report also references alignment of practices with sustainability goals and long-term business strategy on page 111. However, there is no clear headline value or detailed narrative for item (a-ii), and no quotable evidence was found for that part of the disclosure.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
Meridian Energy Limited | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · New Zealand | 2025 | Partial | p. 164 →p. 133 →p. 27 → | Meridian Integrated Report 2025 → | Deloitte | |||||||||
Evidence in Meridian Energy Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Meridian Energy Limited’s 2025 Integrated Report includes a covered datapoint on the proportion of spending on local suppliers under GRI 204-1, found on page 167. This indicates some disclosure related to procurement practices and local community engagement. However, there is no quotable evidence for other narrative items related to this disclosure, as no additional relevant information was found elsewhere in the report.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
Temenos AG | Software and Services · Switzerland | 2025 | Exact | p. 71 →p. 94 →p. 41 → | Sustainability Report 2025 → | PwC | |||||||||
Evidence in Temenos AG’s reportWhat the report shows Temenos AG’s Sustainability Report 2025 provides specific data on mechanisms for seeking advice and raising concerns related to business conduct and human rights, as noted on page 94. The report also details the number of concerns raised in 2025, including two cases from employees and six from external or anonymous sources, found on page 71. However, the report does not clearly elaborate on the effectiveness or follow-up of these mechanisms beyond these figures.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A group policy says staff can ask for help before they act, but the draft report only mentions the whistleblowing line. The preparer has to decide whether the advice route also needs to be described.Should the disclosure cover both where people can get guidance on applying the organisation’s responsible business rules and where they can report concerns about conduct?
Model answer. Yes. The narrative should cover both channels: one for getting practical guidance on how to apply the organisation’s policies and practices, and another for flagging worries about the organisation’s conduct. If the organisation uses more than one route for either purpose, the description should make that clear in plain language.
Why this matters. Separate the help-seeking route from the concern-raising route, and explain both in ordinary business terms.
The draft says employees can contact their line manager, but contractors and suppliers use a different ethics mailbox. The preparer is unsure whether one channel is enough to describe the process.How should the preparer present the organisation’s arrangements if different groups use different routes?
Model answer. The disclosure should describe the actual arrangements in use, so if different groups have different ways to ask for guidance or raise concerns, those routes should be explained. The wording should be broad enough to show who can use each route and what it is for, without implying that one single channel covers everyone if it does not.
Why this matters. Describe the real set of routes people can use, not just the most familiar one.
A draft paragraph says concerns can be raised, but it does not say whether the organisation also has a way to seek advice before a decision is made. The team wonders if that is acceptable because the hotline can be used for both.Can the preparer rely on one hotline description without making clear that it serves both purposes?
Model answer. Only if the description clearly shows both uses. If one channel is used for both getting advice and raising concerns, the narrative should say so in a way that is easy to understand. A reader should not have to infer that the same route serves two different functions.
Why this matters. If one route does double duty, spell out both functions so the reader is not left guessing.
The organisation has an online form, a phone line, and an ombuds-style contact point. The preparer is deciding whether to list every detail or keep the disclosure high level.What level of detail is appropriate when describing the mechanisms for advice and concern reporting?
Model answer. Give enough detail for a reader to understand how people can seek guidance and how they can raise concerns, but keep it focused on the mechanism rather than every operational feature. The description should be clear, accurate, and aligned to the organisation’s actual practice, with any extra detail added only if it helps explain how the routes work.
Why this matters. Aim for a clear, practical description of the channels people can use, not an exhaustive process manual.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 2-26 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Related & explore
Organizational details Guide ✓Nomination and selection of the highest g… Guide ✓Chair of the highest governance body Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in ov… Guide ✓Delegation of responsibility for managing… Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in su… Guide ✓Conflicts of interest Guide ✓Communication of critical concerns Guide ✓Collective knowledge of the highest gover… Guide ✓Evaluation of the performance of the high… Guide ✓Remuneration policies Guide ✓Entities included in the organization’s s… Guide ✓Process to determine remuneration Guide ✓Annual total compensation ratio Guide ✓Statement on sustainable development stra… Guide ✓Policy commitments Guide ✓Embedding policy commitments Guide ✓Processes to remediate negative impacts Guide ✓Compliance with laws and regulations Guide ✓Membership associations Guide ✓Approach to stakeholder engagement Guide ✓Reporting period, frequency and contact p… Guide ✓Collective bargaining agreements Guide ✓Restatements of information Guide ✓External assurance Guide ✓Activities, value chain and other busines… Guide ✓Employees Guide ✓Workers who are not employees Guide ✓Governance structure and composition Guide ✓
Questions this page answers
GRI 2-26 advice channels and concern reporting routes: what should I collect before drafting the disclosure?
Start with the two datapoints the page says to prepare: advice channels and concern reporting routes. Use the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step preparation section to turn those into a scoped draft, then check the evidence pack so you can support the figures or narrative you include. ↑ section
How do I use the GRI 2-26 step-by-step preparation section to build the disclosure?
Use it as a working sequence rather than a final answer: define the scope, gather the two datapoints, check the common gaps, and then shape the draft output. The page is designed to help you move from raw information to a report-ready disclosure. ↑ section
What evidence do I need for GRI 2-26 advice channels and concern reporting routes if I want the file to be assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and four assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence prompt. Use those to build a clear audit trail showing where the data came from, who owns it, and how it was checked. ↑ section
How do I use the 4 assurance claims on the GRI 2-26 page to test my draft?
Treat the four claims as a review checklist: confirm the claim, identify the risk if it is wrong, and attach the evidence that supports it. That helps you spot weak points before the disclosure goes to assurance or sign-off. ↑ section
What should I put in the GRI 2-26 evidence pack for advice channels and concern reporting routes?
Use the five-item evidence pack on the page as the core support set for the disclosure. It is there to help you show the source material, the checks performed, and the basis for the final wording and numbers. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 2-26 data for advice channels and concern reporting routes in practice?
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person or team that can source, explain and evidence the datapoints. The workbook and preparation steps are there to help you assign that responsibility clearly. ↑ section
How do I avoid common mistakes when reporting GRI 2-26 advice channels and concern reporting routes?
Check the page’s common reporting gaps and mistakes before you finalise the draft. It is especially useful for catching missing scope, weak evidence, or a mismatch between the narrative and the underlying data. ↑ section
Can I use the GRI 2-26 synthetic example disclosure to draft my own wording?
Yes, as a model only. The page says the examples are synthetic and illustrative, so use them to see how the disclosure can be structured, but replace the content with your own company data and evidence. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 2-26 data into a draft disclosure and content-index line?
Use the draft-output section to move from data to report text: it gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. That makes it easier to produce a first draft that is consistent with the evidence pack and the example layout. ↑ section
What is the best way to use the GRI 2-26 Prep & Assurance workbook and printable Library Card?
The workbook is the main working file for preparing the disclosure and checking assurance readiness, while the printable Library Card is a quick reference. Use them together to capture scope, evidence and review notes in one place. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 2-26 advice channels concern reporting routes workbook: what should I fill in first?
- GRI 2-26 evidence pack: how do I build an audit trail for advice channels and concern reporting routes?
- GRI 2-26 common mistakes: what do practitioners usually miss when drafting this disclosure?
- GRI 2-26 synthetic example: how do I adapt the example without copying it?
- GRI 2-26 draft output: what narrative starters are on the page?
- GRI 2-26 content index line: how do I write one from the page?
- GRI 2-26 assurance claims: what are the four claims and how do I test them?
- GRI 2-26 advice channels: what counts as the datapoint I need to collect?
- GRI 2-26 concern reporting routes: how should I scope the routes included in the disclosure?
- GRI 2-26 from company reports table: how do I use the linked published reports as examples?
- GRI 2-26 printable Library Card PDF: when should I use it instead of the workbook?
- GRI 2-26 plain-language explainer: how do I use it to brief HR or the data owner?
✓ LRA AI Assistant · human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
