Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to report how many new suppliers were checked against social criteria before, or as part of, being brought into the supply chain during the reporting period. The focus is on the screening activity itself: whether the organisation applied social checks to new suppliers, and the number of those suppliers that went through that process.
In practice, the key question is coverage across procurement, not just a few selected sites or high-profile suppliers. Organisations should be clear about the scope used for screening, so readers can understand whether the figure reflects all relevant new suppliers or only a limited part of the business.
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
＋ Show GRI 414-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Check what share of newly onboarded suppliers was assessed against social criteria.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first: decide which new suppliers are in scope for the period you are reporting, and make that choice consistent across the whole disclosure.
2Agree the screening rule in plain business terms: define what you will count as a social check, and use the same rule for every supplier included in the calculation.
3Gather the source records: pull together the supplier list, the screening results, and any supporting files that show which new suppliers were assessed and how.
4Calculate the figure: work out the share of new suppliers that went through the social screening process, and present it as a percentage.
5Record any exclusions or methodology changes: note suppliers left out, any data gaps, and any changes in how the measure was compiled compared with the prior period.
6Check the final output against the official source: confirm the number, unit, and supporting evidence align with the disclosure requirement before sign-off.
Request the data
Request the supplier screening data from Procurement
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What share of newly onboarded suppliers went through a social screening step in the reporting period?
Use your organisation’s own supplier-onboarding and due-diligence language first, then map it to the reporting disclosure. For example, if your team talks about vendor checks, onboarding review, or third-party due diligence, use those terms in the request and only translate them afterwards for reporting. Keep the ask focused on the data and evidence your team already holds, and check the source disclosure before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 414-1 data showing the percentage of new suppliers screened using social criteria.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only and does not tell the owner which internal process, system, population, or evidence to pull. It is too abstract for a procurement team to act on quickly and may lead to an incomplete or inconsistent response.
Better request
Please send the supplier onboarding extract for [period] showing all newly approved suppliers, which of those completed the social due diligence step, and the calculation of the screened percentage. Include the source report, extract date, and any exclusions or manual changes. Use your team’s own labels for the review step and status fields, and we will map them for reporting.
Industry examples
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
State how you defined a new supplier, what counted as a social review, and the basis used to calculate the percentage from the supplier population covered in the period.
Context note
Explain what the figure says about how consistently social checks are built into supplier onboarding, and whether the result suggests broad coverage or only partial review of incoming suppliers.
Fluctuation statement
If the percentage moved materially, note whether the change came from a wider onboarding review process, a shift in supplier mix, or a temporary gap in screening capacity.
Content index entry
GRI 414-1 New suppliers that were screened using social criteria — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 414-1 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong data owner
The request goes to the wrong team or person, so the count is pulled from a source that does not actually track supplier checks in the organisation’s own terms.
Framework language used too early
People ask for the figure using disclosure jargon instead of the business’s day-to-day labels, and the source team cannot map the request to its own records.
Scope not fixed
The team starts collecting data before agreeing which supplier population sits inside the boundary, so different contributors include different sets of suppliers.
Period basis mixed up
One source uses a different time window from another, so the final figure blends suppliers from mismatched reporting periods.
Counting basis not aligned
Some teams count supplier records while others count supplier entities or checks, which makes the numerator and denominator incompatible.
Original source labels lost
The first labels from the operational system are stripped away during extraction, so the team can no longer trace each item back to the underlying record.
Separate populations merged
New suppliers and other supplier groups are combined in one extract, even though they should be kept apart for the calculation.
Evidence metadata missing
The file is saved without the date, source system, or owner details, so the team cannot show where the numbers came from.
No sign-off trail
The draft figures move forward without a clear review and approval record, so nobody can show who checked the data before it was used.
Where judgement is often needed
Define the supplier set before counting starts
Set out which newly onboarded suppliers sit inside your reporting boundary for the period, and explain any additions or removals from takeovers, disposals, or other boundary shifts so the percentage is built on one consistent supplier list.
Use one social-check rule across countries, or explain the split
If local onboarding checks differ by country or business unit, state the common rule you used for the metric or describe the separate approaches and how you combined them into one figure.
Decide how to treat borderline suppliers
Explain whether agents, contractors, franchisees, temporary vendors, or other near-boundary parties were included or left out, and keep that treatment consistent with your own supplier population definition.
Choose the timing point for a supplier to count as new
State whether you count at contract signature, first purchase, first delivery, or another internal milestone, and use that same timing rule throughout the period.
Be clear on what counts as a social check
Describe which screening steps you accepted as social criteria review, and note any cases where a lighter check, a risk flag, or a broader due-diligence process was treated as enough for the calculation.
Separate measured records from estimated ones
If some supplier records are incomplete, explain any estimates or proxies used, why they were needed, and how they were applied so the final percentage is not overstated.
Show how you handled partial or mixed screening outcomes
Where a supplier was only partly reviewed, or different parts of the same supplier group were checked differently, explain the rule used to decide whether that supplier was counted as screened.
State the rounding rule and any privacy aggregation
Explain the rounding approach used for the percentage and, where supplier-level detail cannot be shown for confidentiality reasons, describe the aggregation method that still lets readers understand how the figure was built.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — food manufacturing
*Synthetic illustration only.* During the year, we reviewed 120 newly appointed suppliers and applied our social screening to 90 of them, which means 75% were checked before onboarding. - The remaining 30 suppliers were not yet assessed against those social checks at the point of selection. - This figure is calculated as 90 out of 120, rounded to the nearest whole percentage.
This example shows how to report the share of newly engaged suppliers that were reviewed against social factors, using a simple numerator/denominator and a rounded percentage.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — construction materials
*Synthetic illustration only.* In the reporting period, we added 45 new suppliers and carried out social due-diligence checks on 36 of them, giving a result of 80%. - Nine suppliers were brought in without that review completed at the time of reporting. - The percentage is based on 36 divided by 45, rounded to a whole number.
This example demonstrates the same disclosure for a different sector, with internally consistent counts and a rounded share of newly sourced suppliers that underwent social screening.
Company reports
How companies report GRI 414-1
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Cogna Educação S.A.
Education Services · Brazil · 2024
Cogna Educação S.A.'s 2024 Relato Integrado report includes a covered datapoint on the percentage of new suppliers screened using environmental criteria, explicitly referenced on page 150. The report also mentions social assessments of new suppliers on page 160, indicating some coverage of supplier screening processes. However, the exact percentage value and further details about the screening criteria or outcomes are not clearly provided in the available extracts.
Hindustan Zinc Limited
Mining — Iron, Aluminum, Other Metals · India · 2025
Hindustan Zinc Limited's Sustainability Report 2024-25 includes a percentage value related to new suppliers in its supply chain, as indicated on page 117. However, the exact figure or further details about this percentage are not clearly presented in the extract provided. Other specific data points or explanations regarding supply chain disclosures appear to be missing or unclear from the available evidence.
MOEVE, S.A.
Oil and Gas · Spain · 2025
MOEVE, S.A.'s 2025 Consolidated Management Report includes a specific percentage value related to new suppliers screened using social criteria, as indicated on page 155. This is the strongest covered datapoint for the disclosure. However, other details or broader context about the screening process or outcomes are not provided or remain unclear in the report.
✓ 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.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 414-1?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
1 free answer
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A procurement team onboarded 40 new suppliers this year. Before contracts were signed, 30 were checked against labour, human rights and other social risk criteria, while 10 were not because the team used a fast-track process for low-value purchases.
QWhen preparing the disclosure, should the percentage be based on all 40 new suppliers, or only on the 30 that went through the social review?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Use the full set of new suppliers brought in during the period as the denominator, then calculate the share that had a social review. In this case, 30 out of 40 were screened, so the result is 75%. The fast-track route does not change the population; it only affects whether those suppliers count as screened.
Why this matters · The measure is a proportion of all newly added suppliers, not just the ones that were easy to review.
A business added 12 new suppliers in the year. Eight were checked for social issues before onboarding, and four were approved by a group buying card process with no documented social review because the spend was small.
QCan the four small-spend suppliers be left out of the calculation because they were handled differently?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑No. They are still new suppliers and belong in the total count for the period. The question is whether each one was screened using social criteria, not whether the purchasing route was formal or informal. If they were not reviewed on social grounds, they remain part of the denominator and are counted as not screened.
Why this matters · Different buying routes do not create a separate population; the reporting base is every new supplier added in the period.
A preparer has records showing that 18 new suppliers were screened for social matters, but the supplier master file lists 20 new suppliers for the year. Two entries were created late in the year and the reviewer has not yet confirmed whether they were checked before onboarding.
QShould the disclosure wait until those two cases are resolved, or can the team publish the percentage now?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The team should not finalise the figure until it has evidence for all new suppliers in the period. The percentage depends on knowing both the total number of new suppliers and how many of them were screened. If the two late entries cannot be verified before sign-off, the number is not ready for disclosure.
Why this matters · A percentage is only sound when the underlying count of new suppliers and their screening status are both supported by evidence.
A company brought in 25 new suppliers. Fifteen were screened using a standard social checklist, five were reviewed only for modern slavery risk, and five had no social review at all because they were emergency replacements.
QFor the disclosure, do the five suppliers checked only for modern slavery risk count as screened using social criteria?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Yes, if that modern slavery review is part of the organisation’s social screening approach. The preparer should count suppliers as screened when the review used social-related criteria, even if the checklist was narrower than the main template. The five emergency replacements without any social review are not screened and stay in the unscreened portion. That gives 20 screened out of 25, or 80%, provided the organisation’s method treats that review as social screening.
Why this matters · Count a supplier as screened when the review genuinely covered social matters, even if the check was tailored to the risk.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
For GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment, what exactly do I need to prepare before I start drafting the disclosure on this page?+−
Use the page’s plain-language explainer and the step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section to orient yourself, then focus on the datapoint listed for preparation: new supplier screening rate. The page is designed to help you move from source data to a draft disclosure, not to replace your internal process.
What data do I need for the GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment workbook if I only have supplier screening records, not a finished metric?+−
The page says the key datapoint to prepare is the new supplier screening rate, so supplier screening records are the starting point. Use the workbook to organise the inputs, then turn them into the draft output section’s narrative and table format.
How should I decide the scope and method for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment using this page?+−
The page gives a step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section, which is the place to follow for setting up your scope and method in practice. It also includes common reporting gaps, which can help you check whether your chosen approach is clear and complete before drafting.
Who should own the GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment data and evidence pack in my organisation?+−
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 trace the screening data and evidence back to source. Use the evidence pack section to decide who can provide each item and who can sign off the final draft.
What should I include in the evidence pack for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment to be assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, so build your pack around those items rather than relying on the draft narrative alone. The assurance claims section also helps you link each claim to a risk and supporting evidence.
What are the most common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a pre-submission check. It is especially useful for spotting where the disclosure may be incomplete, unclear, or not aligned to the data you actually have.
How do I use the GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment workbook and printable Library Card?+−
The Download Centre provides a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to work through the preparation and assurance steps, and the Library Card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing.
Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on the GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment page as a template for my own draft?+−
Yes, but only as a synthetic illustration of how the disclosure can be presented. The page’s example includes a quantitative table and draft-output ideas, so you can mirror the structure while replacing it with your own internally consistent data.
What does the draft output for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment look like on this page?+−
The page includes draft-output guidance with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a practical starting point for turning prepared data into a report-ready draft.
How does the GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment page relate to ESRS S2, and can I reuse the same data?+−
The page notes ESRS S2 (Workers in the Value Chain) as the closest ESRS correspondence. You can reuse the underlying data where it is relevant, but the page does not say the reporting requirements are identical.
More questions this page can help with
GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment new supplier screening rate: how do I calculate it from my internal records?What evidence do I need to support the new supplier screening rate for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment?How do I turn supplier screening data into a draft narrative for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment?What should I check in the GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment assurance claims before sign-off?Which common reporting gaps should I avoid when preparing GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment?Where can I find the GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment workbook and Library Card download?Is there a worked example for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment on the page?What is the closest ESRS reference for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment data reuse?How do I use the step-by-step preparation section for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment?What does the evidence pack for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment contain?Does the page include a content-index line for GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment?Can the from company reports table help me see how others disclose GRI 414-1 Supplier Social Assessment?
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 414-1 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →