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
＋ 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.
How to prepare it
1Set 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.
2Separate 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.
3Gather 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.
4Draft 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.
5Record any exclusions, changes, or limits in coverage, and explain them clearly so readers can see what is included and what is not.
6Check 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 data
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.
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
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
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 2-26 — 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
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.
Common gaps
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.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — consumer goods manufacturing
*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.
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.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — healthcare services
*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.
This example separates advice-seeking from concern-raising and uses different channels for each. The counts are illustrative and add up consistently.
Company reports
How companies report GRI 2-26
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Berli Jucker Public Company Limited
Food and Consumer Staples Retailing · Thailand · 2024
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.
Meridian Energy Limited
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · New Zealand · 2025
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.
Temenos AG
Software and Services · Switzerland · 2025
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.
✓ 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 2-26?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 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.
QShould 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?
Reveal model answer →Hide 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.
QHow should the preparer present the organisation’s arrangements if different groups use different routes?
Reveal model answer →Hide 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.
QCan the preparer rely on one hotline description without making clear that it serves both purposes?
Reveal model answer →Hide 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.
QWhat level of detail is appropriate when describing the mechanisms for advice and concern reporting?
Reveal model answer →Hide 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.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
Organizational details → Guide ✓Nomination and selection of the highest governance body → Guide ✓Chair of the highest governance body → Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in overseeing the management of impacts → Guide ✓Delegation of responsibility for managing impacts → Guide ✓Role of the highest governance body in sustainability reporting → Guide ✓Show all 29 related disclosures →
FAQ
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 2-26 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 →