GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 403-2
Hazard identification, risk assessment, and incident investigation
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
12 datapoints ↓
6 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it identifies work-related hazards, assesses the risks they create, and investigates incidents when they happen. In practice, the report should show the approach used to spot hazards, judge their significance, and learn from events so that controls can be improved over time. The emphasis is on the process, not just on having a policy in place.
The practical focus is on whether this approach is applied across the organisation’s activities and locations, rather than only at a few well-managed or flagship sites. A useful explanation would make clear how consistently the organisation covers different operations, contractors or work settings where relevant, and how findings from investigations feed back into prevention and risk management.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard and risk scanning | How the organisation identifies work-related hazards and assesses risk for both routine and unusual tasks, covering employees and non-employee workers whose work or workplace it controls. | Risk assessment method, site/task inspection records, hazard registers, contractor/agency inclusion rules, and review logs for routine and non-routine activities. | Health and safety |
| Control selection process | How the organisation decides which controls to use, following the order of preference that starts with removing the hazard and then reducing exposure. | Control selection procedure, risk assessment templates, engineering/administrative/PPE decision records, and sign-off showing the chosen control path. | Health and safety |
| Process quality checks | How the organisation checks that these hazard and risk processes are done properly, including how it confirms the people doing them are competent. | Competency matrix, training and authorisation records, internal review or audit results, and quality assurance checks on risk assessments. | Health and safety / Learning and development |
| Safety system learning | How findings from the hazard and risk processes are fed into reviewing the safety management system and used to drive ongoing improvement. | Management review minutes, action trackers, trend analysis, lessons-learned logs, and evidence of changes made after risk reviews. | Health and safety / Operations |
| Hazard reporting channels | How workers can raise concerns about hazards or unsafe situations, including the channels available and how reports are received and tracked. | Speak-up procedure, hotline or app records, toolbox talk materials, incident/near-miss forms, and escalation workflow. | Health and safety / HR |
| Anti-retaliation protection | How the organisation prevents punishment or disadvantage when workers report hazards or unsafe situations, including the safeguards and escalation route. | Non-retaliation policy, manager guidance, grievance records, investigation outcomes, and communications to workers on protected reporting. | HR / Legal / Health and safety |
| Right to stop work | The rules and steps workers can use to step away from work they reasonably think could cause injury or illness, including who they tell and what happens next. | Stop-work procedure, emergency escalation instructions, training materials, and records of any stop-work events and follow-up actions. | Health and safety / Operations |
| Stop-work protection | How workers are protected from retaliation when they leave a task or area because they believe it is unsafe, including the safeguards and complaint route. | Non-retaliation policy, stop-work case logs, manager briefing notes, and worker communications explaining protection after refusal to continue work. | HR / Legal / Health and safety |
| Incident investigation process | How the organisation investigates work-related incidents, including who investigates, what evidence is gathered, and how findings are recorded and closed out. | Incident investigation procedure, investigation reports, root-cause notes, witness statements, and corrective action tracking. | Health and safety |
| Incident risk review | How the organisation identifies hazards and assesses risk after a work-related incident, so the incident review feeds back into the risk process. | Post-incident risk assessments, updated hazard registers, investigation follow-up actions, and revised task or site controls. | Health and safety |
| Corrective action choice | How the organisation decides what corrective action to take after an incident, using the control order that prioritises removing the hazard before weaker measures. | Corrective action logs, incident close-out forms, control selection notes, and approval records showing why each action was chosen. | Health and safety / Operations |
| System improvement actions | How the organisation turns incident and risk findings into changes to the safety management system, including what needs improving and how it is tracked. | Management review outputs, improvement plans, audit findings, action trackers, and evidence of policy, process, or control updates. | Health and safety / Operations |
Show GRI 403-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Check that the people doing these processes are competent, and that the organisation has controls in place to keep the process quality high.
- Use the findings from these processes to review the health and safety system and keep improving it over time.
- Set out how hazards are controlled by following the control hierarchy to remove dangers and reduce risk.
- Explain the rules and steps that let workers leave a task or place if they think it could harm their health or safety.
- Set out how workers can raise concerns about hazards or unsafe situations at work.
- Describe how corrective actions are chosen by working through the control hierarchy.
- Explain how the organisation decides what changes are needed to improve the health and safety system.
- Set out how hazards are identified and risks assessed for work-related incidents.
- Describe how work-related incidents are investigated.
- Explain how workers are protected from retaliation when they step away from work they believe may cause harm.
- Explain how workers are protected from retaliation when they report hazards or unsafe situations.
- For employees and other workers whose work or workplace is under the organisation’s control, explain how hazards are identified and risks assessed for both routine and non-routine work.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the boundary for the write-up first: confirm which people are covered, including employees and any other workers whose tasks or workplace you control, and make sure the scope is consistent across every part of the disclosure.
- Map the main process areas you need to describe, covering hazard spotting and risk review for normal and unusual situations, the way controls are chosen to reduce or remove risk, the route for reporting hazards and unsafe conditions, the option for workers to step away from dangerous work, and the incident investigation and follow-up process.
- Gather proof that the processes actually operate in practice, such as procedures, records, training or competence checks, reporting logs, investigation files, and examples showing how findings feed into system improvements.
- Draft the narrative so each required process is clearly covered in plain business language, and keep the account specific enough to show how the organisation handles quality, worker protection from retaliation, and the use of results to improve the safety system.
- Record any exclusions, boundary choices, or changes from the prior reporting period, and explain them clearly so a reader can see what is included, what is not, and whether the approach has shifted.
- Check the final text against the official source and your evidence pack to confirm every required element is addressed, the wording is faithful in meaning, and nothing important has been missed or overstated.
Request the safety process evidence from EHS / Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How do we show that our safety checks, incident reviews, worker reporting routes, and follow-up actions are working across the sites and activities we control?
Use your organisation’s own names first for safety checks, incident reviews, stop-work routes, near-miss reporting, corrective actions, and management-system reviews; then map those terms to the disclosure wording before sign-off.
Weak request
Please send anything you have for GRI 403-2 on hazard identification, risk assessment, hierarchy of controls, worker reporting, reprisal protection, stop-work rights, and incident investigation.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the owner has to translate the ask themselves. It also does not say which teams, systems, time period, or internal process names to pull, so the response is likely to be incomplete or inconsistent.
Better request
Please send the safety process pack for [period] across [sites/teams], using your own terms for pre-task checks, hazard spotting, risk reviews, stop-work, near-miss reporting, incident reviews, and action close-out. Include the source system, date range, who is authorised to do the checks, how worker reporting is protected, and how findings lead to improvements.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for safety process evidence for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], I’m preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the safety process evidence for [reporting period] across [boundary/scope]. Please send the materials that show: - how hazards are spotted and risks are assessed for both routine and unusual work; - how controls are chosen and applied to reduce or remove risk; - how we check the quality of these checks, including who is allowed to do them and what makes them competent; - how the results feed into improvements to the safety management system; - how workers can raise hazards or unsafe situations, and how they are protected from retaliation; - how workers can step away from work they believe could cause harm, and how that protection is handled; - how incidents are reviewed, how related hazards and risks are assessed, how follow-up actions are chosen, and how system improvements are identified. Please include the source documents or extracts, the system of record, the date range, and any notes needed to explain the organisation’s own terminology. A possible LRA training template is attached; please adapt this to your organisation’s language and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the safety process evidence for [period] across [sites/teams]? I need the docs or extracts showing hazard checks, risk assessment, control selection, worker reporting/stop-work routes, anti-retaliation steps, incident review, and how the findings feed into improvements. Please include source system, date range, and your internal terms. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant with production lines, maintenance shutdowns, and contractor-led repairs.
Adapted request. Please share the plant safety evidence for [period] covering line work, maintenance, and contractor activities. I need the process notes, forms, and system extracts that show how hazards are identified before and during work, how controls are selected, how supervisors and safety leads are trained to do the checks, how operators can raise concerns or stop work, and how incidents are reviewed and turned into action.
Example response. The EHS manager returns the risk assessment register, permit-to-work procedure, near-miss app screenshots, incident investigation template, training matrix for assessors, and the corrective action tracker with closure dates.
Logistics / Warehousing
Context. A distribution network with warehouses, yard movements, loading bays, and agency staff.
Adapted request. Please send the warehouse and transport safety evidence for [period] across depots and yards. I need the documents and extracts showing how hazards are checked for routine picking and non-routine loading or vehicle movements, how controls are chosen, how workers report unsafe conditions, how they can step away from a task they believe is unsafe, and how incident reviews feed into changes in the safety system.
Example response. The operations lead provides the hazard log, daily walk-through checklist, anonymous reporting route, stop-work escalation note, incident review records, and the action log showing changes to traffic management and training.
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
Describe the practical steps used to spot hazards, assess risk, investigate incidents and decide follow-up actions, including how the organisation checks the quality of those steps and the capability of the people doing them.
Context note
Explain what the disclosed processes mean in practice for workers: how risks are identified and controlled, how concerns can be raised safely, how people can withdraw from unsafe work, and how findings are used to strengthen the safety system.
Fluctuation statement
If the approach changed during the period, note whether that was due to new risks, incident findings, revised controls, or improvements to the safety management process, and explain the effect on the reported arrangements.
Content index entry
GRI 403-2 Hazard identification, risk assessment, and incident investigation — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 403-2. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We documented how we spot work-related dangers and judge the level of risk for both planned activities and unusual situations across the covered workforce. | Assurer may test whether the method actually covers both day-to-day and exceptional situations, and whether the stated coverage matches the disclosed population and sites. | Written hazard-spotting and risk-rating procedure; site/task risk assessments; records showing routine and unusual scenarios were considered; scope list of workers, locations and activities included in the figure. |
| We set out how we decide on controls, starting with removal where possible and then moving through the remaining safeguards in a clear order. | Assurer may probe whether the control-selection approach is real and consistently applied, rather than a generic statement or a list of controls chosen after the fact. | Control-selection procedure; risk assessment templates showing the control order used; examples of completed assessments; approval records for selected controls. |
| We keep the process reliable by using trained people, defined review steps and documented checks on the quality of the work. | Assurer may challenge whether the people doing the assessments were suitably competent and whether quality checks were actually performed before publication. | Training and competence records; role profiles; internal review or sign-off logs; calibration or refresher materials; evidence of supervision or peer review. |
| We use the findings from these assessments to update our safety management approach and to drive ongoing improvements. | Assurer may ask whether the results fed into real management decisions, or whether the disclosure overstates the link between findings and system improvement. | Management review minutes; action trackers; improvement plans; revised procedures or controls; evidence of follow-up on prior findings. |
| We have a route for workers to raise concerns about dangers or unsafe conditions, and we can show how those reports are handled. | Assurer may test whether the reporting route is accessible, used in practice and clearly described, not just stated in policy. | Reporting policy or procedure; hotline/app/poster materials; logs of hazard reports; examples of triage, response and closure; worker communications explaining the route. |
| We explain the safeguards that are meant to stop people being treated badly for speaking up about a danger or unsafe situation. | Assurer may probe whether anti-retaliation protections are specific, communicated and supported by evidence of enforcement. | Non-retaliation policy; grievance or whistleblowing protections; training materials; investigation records for retaliation complaints; communications to workers on protections. |
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 request goes to the wrong team or manager, so the information comes back in the wrong operational language and misses the people who actually run hazard checks, incident reviews, or worker reporting routes.
- Scope not pinned down
The data pull does not state which employees and controlled-site non-employees are in scope, so the team mixes together populations that should be kept separate.
- Routine and one-off work blurred
The collector asks for hazard and risk information without separating day-to-day work from unusual tasks, which makes the source data impossible to map cleanly.
- Counting basis mixed
Different sites or teams report using different counting rules or time bases, and the final extract combines them as if they were the same measure.
- Source labels stripped out
Original system tags, form names, or incident reference codes are removed during collation, so the evidence cannot be traced back to the first record.
- Evidence details missing
The file contains the figures or narrative but not the date, version, author, or system trail needed to show where the information came from.
- No sign-off trail
The draft data set is circulated without a named reviewer or approval record, so nobody can show who checked the numbers and wording before use.
- Wrong timing basis
The team pulls records from the wrong period or at the wrong cut-off point, so the dataset does not match the reporting window being prepared.
- Incident and prevention data merged too early
Incident reviews, hazard spotting, risk checks, and follow-up actions are collapsed into one pool before collection is complete, which hides gaps in the underlying process.
Where judgement is often needed
- Acquired or sold sites during the year
State whether you include newly bought or disposed operations in the description for the period, and if the scope changed, explain the cut-off date and keep the basis consistent across the hazard, incident and improvement processes you describe.
- Different local safety terms across countries
If local teams use different labels or thresholds for the same kind of unsafe condition or event, map them to one internal definition for reporting and say where local practice differs so readers can see how the organisation aligned the data.
- People close to the boundary of control
Decide and explain whether contractors, agency staff and others working at or under your sites are treated as in scope when your organisation controls the work or workplace, and apply that boundary consistently across all process descriptions.
- Routine checks versus one-off or unusual work
Separate everyday inspections and assessments from those done for unusual tasks, shutdowns, maintenance or emergency work, and explain how each feeds into the way you identify hazards and judge risk.
- Reported events versus investigated events
If some incidents are logged but not fully investigated, or only higher-severity cases trigger a formal review, say which events are covered by the investigation process and how you decide when a deeper review is needed.
- Measured data versus informed estimates
Where direct records are incomplete, use a clearly explained estimate method, identify the source of the estimate, and note any material assumptions so readers can judge the reliability of the process description.
- Rounding and small-number presentation
Choose one rounding approach for counts or percentages linked to these processes, apply it consistently, and explain it if rounding changes the apparent picture, especially where small numbers could be misleading.
- Protecting privacy in small teams or rare events
If naming locations, roles or incident details could identify individuals, aggregate the information or remove identifiers, and say how you balanced privacy with enough detail to show how the reporting and protection process works.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Food processing · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only; shows one way a reporter might describe the required processes in plain language.
Synthetic illustration only. We use a mix of planned site inspections, task-based reviews, and checks for unusual or one-off activities to spot dangers and judge risk for both employees and agency staff working under our control.
- We apply a stepwise control approach: first trying to remove the hazard, then substituting, isolating, engineering out, changing procedures, and finally relying on training and protective equipment where needed.
- The people who run these checks are trained and signed off for the task, and we review the findings to tighten our safety system, update controls, and track whether the changes are working.
- Workers can raise unsafe conditions through supervisors, a hotline, or a digital form; they may also stop work if they believe it is unsafe, and our rules prohibit retaliation for either speaking up or stepping away. We also investigate incidents by looking at what happened, what hazards were present, and what fixes are needed, then use the same control hierarchy to decide corrective actions and wider system improvements.
Warehousing and logistics · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only; shows a second plausible reporter with different wording and operational context.
Synthetic illustration only. Our checks cover routine warehouse activity and unusual events such as peak-season overtime, contractor work, equipment breakdowns, and temporary traffic changes, for both our own staff and third-party workers under our day-to-day control.
- We identify risks through walk-throughs, job reviews, incident trend analysis, and pre-task assessments, then choose controls in order of preference from removal of the hazard through to last-line safeguards.
- We keep the process reliable by using trained assessors, refresher training, and periodic quality reviews, and we feed the results into our safety management cycle so that procedures, training, and controls are updated where needed.
- Workers may report hazards through team leads, QR-code reporting, or the safety mailbox, and may leave a task they believe could harm them without penalty; when incidents occur, we investigate the event, reassess the related risks, decide follow-up actions using the same control order, and record any system changes needed.
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
- How the organisation spots and reviews safety risks — table: A side-by-side summary of the main processes used to find workplace hazards and assess risk for both routine activity and unusual or one-off situations.
- Controls used to reduce risk — stacked bar: How the organisation applies different layers of control to remove hazards where possible and reduce remaining risk.
- Assurance over the safety process — table: The checks used to make sure the process works well, including who carries it out and how their competence is confirmed.
- Worker reporting and protection from retaliation — bar: The channels workers use to raise hazards or unsafe situations, alongside the protections in place so they can do so without fear of reprisals.
- Stopping work when conditions feel unsafe — bar: The arrangements that let workers step away from work they believe could harm them, and the safeguards against retaliation for doing so.
- Incident follow-up and system improvement — line: How incident investigations feed into hazard review, corrective action and wider improvements to the health and safety management system over time.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
I use a simple process to spot workplace hazards, assess risks, and review incidents across our sites.
Better
I use a documented process for our staff and other people under our control that covers routine and unusual work, applies layered risk controls, lets people report hazards and step away from danger without penalty, and feeds incident reviews into our safety improvements.
Best
I use a documented process for our staff and other people under our control across all sites and shifts, covering routine and unusual work, layered risk controls, trained reviewers, hazard reporting, safe withdrawal without penalty, and incident reviews; this year we completed 24 reviews, up from 18 last year, because we added two new operating lines and expanded contractor oversight, and we used the findings to update our safety system.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 403-2 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
ReNew Energy Global Plc | Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · United Kingdom | 2025 | Partial | p. 56 →p. 133 →p. 164 → | ReNew Annual Integrated Report 2025 → | ey | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in ReNew Energy Global Plc’s reportWhat the report shows ReNew Energy Global Plc's 2025 Annual Integrated Report provides data on the number of employees and workers in various categories, including gender breakdowns, on page 150. The report also details the management of environmental risks related to the polysilicon supply chain on page 160 and indicates that 275 workers are covered by an occupational health and safety management system on page 164. However, there is no clear narrative on methodology or other specific narrative items, and several expected disclosures are not found or remain unclear 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Zydus Wellness Limited | Food Production — Agricultural · India | 2025 | Partial | p. 52 →p. 46 →p. 132 → | Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 → | EY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Zydus Wellness Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Zydus Wellness Limited’s Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 provides specific data on employee numbers, reporting 20 employees including differently abled workers (p.116), and details on workers covered by an occupational health and safety management system (p.52). The report also outlines processes for internal control of identified risks and business continuity plans (p.98), with some supporting context on risk identification and hazard assessment, though without headline values (p.21, p.131). However, several narrative items relevant to the disclosure are not found or lack quotable evidence, indicating gaps in comprehensive reporting on certain aspects.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Grupo Cibest S.A. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Colombia | 2025 | Topic-family | p. 195 →p. 196 →p. 199 → | Management Report 2025 → | PwC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence in Grupo Cibest S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Grupo Cibest S.A.'s 2025 Management Report provides partial information regarding the disclosure, noting on page 201 that workers have been excluded from the disclosure, including details on the type of worker and reasons for exclusion, covering all subsidiaries. However, the report lacks a clear headline value or comprehensive narrative on the methodology or detailed findings related to the disclosure. Additionally, multiple narrative items relevant to the disclosure are not found or remain unclear throughout 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A warehouse team uses a new pallet wrapper for the first time, while a contractor is also working in the same loading bay. The safety lead has a routine walk-through checklist, but no separate check for unusual tasks or shared work areas.Have we described how we spot dangers and judge risk for both day-to-day work and one-off or unusual situations affecting employees and other people whose work or workplace we control?
Model answer. The write-up should explain the actual steps used to find hazards and assess risk in normal operations and in less typical situations, and it should cover both employees and non-employees whose work or workplace is under our control. If the current description only mentions routine checks or only one group of workers, it is incomplete.
Why this matters. Cover both ordinary and unusual work conditions, and include all people whose work or workplace you control.
After a minor chemical splash, the site manager says the team now uses gloves and eye protection, but the incident note does not show how the fix was chosen or whether the earlier risk review was updated.Does our incident follow-up show how we chose the corrective action and how the findings feed back into improving the safety system?
Model answer. The account should show how the incident was investigated, how the related hazard and risk were reviewed, what action was selected, and how the outcome is used to improve the wider safety management approach. If the record stops at the immediate fix and does not show learning or system improvement, it is not enough.
Why this matters. Incident learning should lead to both corrective action and wider system improvement.
A production worker reports a loose guard on a machine, but the supervisor asks them to keep working until the end of the shift. The worker is unsure whether speaking up could affect their overtime allocation next week.Have we explained how workers can raise a hazard or step away from unsafe work, and how we protect them from negative treatment for doing so?
Model answer. The description should set out the reporting route for hazards and unsafe situations, the option for a worker to remove themselves from a situation they reasonably believe could cause harm, and the safeguards against retaliation for either action. If workers might fear consequences for speaking up or stopping work, the process is not properly described.
Why this matters. People need a safe way to report danger or stop work, without fear of punishment.
A maintenance contractor and an in-house supervisor both investigate a near miss, but neither has formal training in incident review. The resulting note lists what happened, yet it does not show who checked the quality of the review or whether the reviewers were competent for the task.Have we shown how we make sure the hazard and incident processes are reliable, including the skills of the people doing them?
Model answer. The disclosure should explain how the organisation checks the quality of the hazard, risk and incident processes, and how it makes sure the people carrying them out are suitably capable. If the review is done by people without the right competence, or if there is no quality check, the description is not complete.
Why this matters. Good process depends on both quality checks and capable people carrying them out.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 403-2 — 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.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS S1
Own Workforce — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Occupational health and safety management… Guide ✓Work-related ill health Guide ✓Occupational health services Guide ✓Worker participation, consultation, and c… Guide ✓Worker training on occupational health an… Guide ✓Promotion of worker health Guide ✓Prevention and mitigation of occupational… Guide ✓Workers covered by an occupational health… Guide ✓Work-related injuries Guide ✓
Questions this page answers
How do I use the GRI 403-2 page to build a draft disclosure from the datapoints listed for occupational health and safety?
Start with the page’s plain-language explainer and the datapoints to prepare, then follow the step-by-step preparation section to turn your notes into a draft. The page also gives narrative starters, visualisation ideas and a GRI content-index line to help you shape the output. ↑ section
What data do I need to collect for GRI 403-2 on occupational health and safety before I start writing?
The page points you to hazard and risk scanning, control selection, process quality checks, safety system learning, reporting channels, anti-retaliation protection, right to stop work, stop-work protection, incident investigation, incident risk review, corrective action choice and system improvement actions. Use those as your collection checklist so you can assemble a complete evidence trail. ↑ section
How should I decide the scope and methodology for the GRI 403-2 occupational health and safety disclosure?
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation section to set out what is in scope, how the data will be gathered and how the process is checked for quality. The page is designed to help you document the method clearly enough for assurance review. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 403-2 data and sign-off process in practice?
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can evidence the process and explain the data. Use the workbook to assign tasks and keep the evidence pack aligned to those owners. ↑ section
What should I put in the evidence pack for GRI 403-2 to be assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk and evidence. Build the pack around those items so a reviewer can trace the disclosure back to source material and process checks. ↑ section
What are the common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 403-2 occupational health and safety?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to watch for, so it is useful as a pre-submission check. Use it to spot missing datapoints, weak process evidence or unclear drafting before you finalise the disclosure. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 403-2?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format that is meant to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use it to organise the datapoints, evidence and sign-off steps before drafting the disclosure. ↑ section
What can I take from the synthetic example disclosure for GRI 403-2 without copying it?
The page includes synthetic illustrative examples, including a quantitative table, to show how a disclosure can be structured. Treat them as format guidance only and make sure any figures in your own draft are internally consistent. ↑ section
Can I reuse my GRI 403-2 occupational health and safety data for ESRS S1 (Own Workforce)?
The page says ESRS S1 (Own Workforce) is the closest correspondence, so the same underlying data may be useful across both. Use that as a reuse check, but still review the wording and presentation for the framework you are reporting under. ↑ section
How do I turn the GRI 403-2 page into a content-index line and narrative draft?
The draft-output section gives narrative starters and a GRI content-index line, which you can use as a starting point for the report text. Build the narrative from the datapoints and evidence you have already assembled rather than writing it first. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- What is the best order to work through the GRI 403-2 page when preparing an occupational health and safety disclosure?
- How do I map hazard and risk scanning, control selection and process quality checks into a GRI 403-2 draft?
- How do I evidence anti-retaliation protection and the right to stop work for GRI 403-2?
- What should a reviewer look for in the incident investigation and corrective action evidence for GRI 403-2?
- How do I use the common reporting gaps section to quality-check a GRI 403-2 draft?
- What does the GRI 403-2 evidence pack need to contain for assurance readiness?
- How do I use the printable Library Card PDF for GRI 403-2?
- Where can I find real company report examples for GRI 403-2 on the page?
- How do I make sure my GRI 403-2 figures are internally consistent in the example table and in my own draft?
- What should I ask the HR or H&S data owner to provide for GRI 403-2?
- How do I use the page’s assurance claims to build a claim-risk-evidence checklist?
- What is the closest ESRS reference on the page for GRI 403-2 and how should I use it?
✓ 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.
