GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 403-5
Worker training on occupational health and safety
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
1 datapoints ↓
5 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it trains workers on occupational health and safety, and how that training is delivered in practice. The focus is on whether workers receive the knowledge and skills they need to work safely, rather than on describing policies in the abstract.
In practical terms, the report should show the extent of training across the organisation: which worker groups are covered, whether it applies across all operations or only selected sites, and how the organisation ensures the training is relevant to the risks people actually face. The emphasis is on coverage and implementation, not just the existence of a training programme.
* 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health and safety training | A plain-language summary of the occupational health and safety training given to staff and to non-staff workers whose work or workplace the organisation controls, covering both general induction and any training for specific hazards, risky tasks, or dangerous situations. | Training matrix or LMS records, induction materials, hazard-specific course content, attendance/completion logs, and contractor training records. | Health and Safety |
Show GRI 403-5 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Set out the health and safety training given to employees and to non-employee workers whose work or workplace the organisation controls.
- Include both general induction or awareness training and training aimed at particular hazards, risky tasks, or dangerous situations.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: include your own employees and any non-employee workers whose job or workplace you control.
- Decide what counts as training for this disclosure, covering both general safety induction and any instruction tied to particular dangers, risky tasks, or hazardous settings.
- Gather the source material that supports the description, such as training records, course outlines, attendance logs, or other internal evidence showing what was delivered.
- Write the disclosure in plain language, explaining the kinds of health and safety training provided to each covered worker group.
- Note any exclusions, scope changes, or unusual assumptions so a reviewer can see exactly what was included and why.
- Check the draft against the official source to confirm the coverage, wording, and evidence trail still match the underlying requirement.
Request the OHS training evidence from EHS / Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What health and safety training has been given to people working for us, including general induction and role-specific training for hazards, tasks, or site conditions we control?
Use your organisation’s own labels first, then map them to the disclosure. For example, ask for induction, toolbox talks, permit-to-work briefings, site safety briefings, task-specific training, or hazard training if those are the terms your teams use. Keep the request in operational language and only translate it into the reporting label at the end.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 403-5 training disclosure data for all workers, including generic and hazard-specific occupational health and safety training.
Why it fails: It uses framework language instead of the organisation’s own terms, so the owner has to interpret what counts as training, who is in scope, and which records to pull. That increases the chance of missing local labels, incomplete coverage, or a response that is hard to verify.
Better request
Please send the training records for people working in areas or activities we control for [reporting period]. Use your normal internal names for induction, refresher, toolbox talks, task briefings, and hazard training, and include the topic, audience, date, delivery method, and source record.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for OHS training evidence for [reporting period] Hello [name], I’m preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the training records for people working in areas or activities we control. Please send a table covering [reporting period] for [business unit / sites]. Use your normal internal training names, then we can map them later for reporting. Please include: - who was covered - the training title used internally - what the training covered - whether it was general safety training or linked to a specific hazard, task, or site condition - how it was delivered - the date completed - the source record or system - any notes needed to explain the record If you have a current export from [system name], that is ideal. Please also attach any supporting evidence such as a matrix, attendance log, or certificate where available. Please send this by [date]. I’ll check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send the OHS training records for [reporting period] for [sites / teams]? Please use your internal training names and include the training topic, who attended, date, delivery method, and source record. A current export from [system] is perfect. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant with production lines, maintenance teams, and agency labour on site.
Adapted request. Please send the training matrix and supporting records for [reporting period] covering employees, agency staff, and contractors on the plant floor and in maintenance areas. Use your internal labels for induction, machine training, lockout briefings, chemical handling, and refresher sessions, and include date, attendance, assessment result, and source record.
Example response. Export from the site training matrix showing 248 people covered, 248 induction completions, 96 machine-specific training records, 41 chemical handling sessions, and 18 refresher briefings, with links to attendance logs and certificates.
Logistics / Warehousing
Context. A distribution centre with forklift operations, loading bays, and visiting drivers.
Adapted request. Please provide the safety training records for [reporting period] for warehouse staff, supervisors, agency pickers, and any other workers on site. Use your internal names for induction, forklift training, loading-bay briefings, manual handling, and incident refreshers, and include the date, trainer, delivery method, and record source.
Example response. Spreadsheet export from the LMS and local sign-in sheets showing 132 workers covered, 132 inductions, 27 forklift courses, 54 manual handling briefings, and 9 incident refreshers, with file references for each record.
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 which worker groups were included, how the organisation distinguished broad health and safety training from sessions aimed at particular risks or tasks, and what evidence was used to count training as provided.
Context note
Set out what the figures indicate about how the organisation prepares people for safe work, including whether coverage is limited to general awareness or also extends to more targeted risk areas.
Fluctuation statement
If the pattern changed from the prior period, note whether that was driven by new risk controls, changes in work activities, revised training plans, or a different mix of worker groups.
Content index entry
GRI 403-5 Worker training on occupational health and safety — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 403-5. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We prepared the coverage figure by first deciding which people and sites to include, then checking that the same rule was applied consistently across the disclosed operations. | An assurer will test whether the inclusion and exclusion choices were made consistently, and whether any exceptions could materially change the figure. | Scope note or methodology paper; list of included entities/sites/workforce groups; boundary decisions and approvals; reconciliation between source lists and the reported figure. |
| We used internal records to describe the training given, and we separated general induction from role-specific or hazard-specific learning so the figure reflects the type of training actually delivered. | An assurer will probe whether the description matches the underlying records and whether training categories were defined and applied consistently. | Training matrix or learning management system extracts; course catalogues; attendance/completion records; definitions used for training categories; sample checks from records to the reported description. |
| Before publication, we checked that the data covered both employees and other workers under our control where relevant, and that no included group was omitted from the final write-up. | An assurer will look for gaps in population coverage, especially where non-employee workers or controlled workplaces may have been missed. | Workforce population listing; contractor or agency worker records where applicable; site/control register; completeness check signed off by the preparer and reviewer. |
| We relied on source documents held by the business, rather than estimates, and we kept enough evidence to show what training was delivered and to whom. | An assurer will test whether the figure is supported by traceable evidence and whether any estimates or manual adjustments were used without clear justification. | Source documents such as attendance sheets, certificates, training logs, toolbox talk records, and contractor induction records; audit trail from source to disclosure; notes explaining any manual adjustments. |
| We carried out a final review for obvious errors, including duplicate entries, missing records, and mismatches between the underlying data and the published wording. | An assurer will check whether basic data-quality controls were performed and whether the published statement is consistent with the underlying evidence. | Validation checks, exception reports, duplicate testing, review sign-off, version control, and the final draft compared with the underlying dataset. |
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
Chasing the H&S lead alone can miss training records held by HR, site managers, contractors’ coordinators, or local supervisors who actually keep the attendance logs.
- Framework language only
Asking for the disclosure in GRI terms can leave teams unsure which internal course names, toolbox talks, inductions, or hazard briefings they should pull together.
- Scope left vague
If you do not pin down which employees and which non-employee workers under the organisation’s control are in scope, people may send an incomplete or overbroad set of records.
- Wrong time basis
Using the wrong reporting window, such as a calendar year when the organisation tracks training by financial year or campaign cycle, can shift the evidence away from the period being reported.
- Mixed counting basis
Combining headcount, course completions, and session counts in one extract can make the training picture impossible to read and can double count the same people.
- Source labels lost
Copying data into a new sheet without keeping the original course titles, hazard categories, or site names can break the link back to the underlying training record.
- Populations merged
Putting office staff, site crews, and controlled non-employees into one bucket can hide which groups received general safety training and which got hazard-specific sessions.
- No evidence trail
Collecting figures without file names, dates, owners, or approval notes leaves no clear path to show where the numbers came from or who checked them.
Where judgement is often needed
- Acquisition and disposal cut-off
Set a clear cut-off date for joining or leaving the group, then explain whether training delivered before a deal closes or after a business is sold is kept in the year’s description or left out.
- Different local safety-training labels
Where countries use different names or categories for the same learning, map them to one internal set of training types and say how those local labels were grouped for reporting.
- Contractors and agency staff at the boundary
Decide whether people who are not on payroll but work under your control are included, and state the rule used for any mixed or borderline cases.
- Shared sites and split control
For workplaces run with another party, explain whether training is counted only where your organisation controls the work area or also where you influence the safety arrangements, and keep the approach consistent.
- General induction versus task-specific learning
Separate broad safety induction from training tied to a particular hazard, activity, or situation, and disclose the basis used when one session covers both.
- Central records versus local logs
Choose one source of truth for the year, such as a central register or site records, and explain how gaps, duplicates, or late updates were handled.
- Estimated versus directly recorded training
If some sites cannot provide complete attendance evidence, use a stated estimate method, label it clearly, and note which parts of the figure were measured and which were inferred.
- Timing of refresher and repeat sessions
State whether training is counted when delivered, when completed, or when refreshed, and explain how repeat sessions for the same person were treated.
- Privacy-driven grouping of small teams
Where headcounts are small enough to risk identifying individuals, combine data into broader groups and say that the published description was aggregated to protect privacy.
- Rounding and partial attendance
Apply one rounding rule across the organisation, disclose it, and explain how partial attendance or split sessions were treated so the total remains internally consistent.
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 how to describe training for employees and controlled non-employee workers, covering both general and hazard-specific content, with internally consistent counts.
We provide health-and-safety learning to both our employees and contractor staff working under our site controls. In the year, 180 of 200 employees and 72 of 80 contractor workers completed general safety induction, while 150 employees and 60 contractor workers also took role-specific sessions on machine guarding, chemical handling, and emergency response.
- This synthetic example shows both broad induction and hazard-focused training for people we employ and for non-employees working in areas we control.
Construction · synthetic · written by LRA
Illustrative only. Shows how to report training for employees and other workers whose workplace is controlled by the organisation, including general and task/risk-specific topics, with consistent figures.
Our training programme covers our own staff and subcontracted workers on sites we manage. During the reporting year, 95 of 100 employees and 38 of 40 subcontracted workers attended general safety training, and 88 employees plus 34 subcontracted workers completed extra sessions on working at height, lifting operations, and confined spaces.
- This synthetic example is intended to illustrate a plain-language narrative that includes both routine safety learning and training tied to specific site risks for workers under our control.
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
- Training coverage by worker group — table: A side-by-side summary of the training given to direct employees and to other workers whose day-to-day work or workplace is under the organisation’s control.
- General and hazard-specific training mix — stacked bar: How the training offer splits between broad health and safety induction or refresher content and sessions focused on particular dangers, tasks, or situations.
- Training topics covered — bar: The main subject areas addressed in the health and safety programme, such as general awareness and any targeted hazard-related topics.
- Worker group comparison of training types — stacked bar: Whether each worker group received only broad training, only hazard-focused training, or a combination of both.
- Training provision overview — donut: The overall share of training activity represented by broad training versus training aimed at specific risks or activities.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We provided occupational health and safety training to 1,240 workers.
Better
We trained 1,240 workers, including 980 employees and 260 other workers under our control, with both general safety induction and task-specific hazard training.
Best
We trained 1,240 workers this year, covering 980 employees and 260 other workers under our control, through general safety induction plus role-specific hazard and high-risk activity sessions; the total was higher than last year because we expanded site coverage and added refresher training after two incident reviews.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 403-5 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd. | Semiconductors · Taiwan | 2024 | Partial | p. 262 →p. 79 →p. 37 → | 2024 CSR Report → | Deloitte | ||||||
Evidence in ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows ASE Technology Holding Co., Ltd.'s 2024 CSR Report includes a narrative item related to occupational health and safety, with a reported value found on page 254. However, the specific details or metrics related to occupational health and safety are not clearly described beyond the brief mention. Other aspects of the disclosure appear to be missing or 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
|
|||||||||||||
 |
SCB X Public Company Limited | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Thailand | 2024 | Exact | p. 121 →p. 122 →p. 129 → | 2024 Sustainability Report → | EY | ||||||
Evidence in SCB X Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows SCB X Public Company Limited’s 2024 Sustainability Report includes a covered narrative on its occupational health and safety management system, referencing pages 107-108, and provides data on work-related injuries on page 122, as noted on page 129. However, the report does not clearly present detailed quantitative data or specific outcomes related to these topics within the evidence provided. The extent of coverage beyond these references remains unclear from the supplied information.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||
 |
WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd. | Pharmaceuticals / Biotech / Life Sciences · China | 2024 | Exact | p. 106 →p. 78 →p. 21 → | Environmental, Social and Governance Report 2024 → | — | ||||||
Evidence in WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd.’s reportWhat the report shows WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd.'s Environmental, Social and Governance Report 2024 includes a covered narrative on occupational health and safety management, specifically referencing work-related injuries and related performance data on page 106. The report provides a value or data point associated with these topics, indicating some level of disclosure on this aspect. However, the evidence map does not clarify the extent or detail of other related occupational health and safety metrics, leaving some elements unclear or missing.
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 facilities team uses a mix of payroll staff and agency cleaners. The site manager has records for induction, fire drills, and chemical handling sessions for payroll staff, but the agency provider only confirms that its own people were briefed off-site.Should the disclosure cover the agency cleaners’ safety learning as well, and if so, what level of detail is needed?
Model answer. Yes. Include the safety learning for people whose work or workplace the organisation controls, even if they are not on payroll. Describe the training in plain terms, covering both general safety learning and any sessions tied to particular dangers, risky tasks, or hazardous settings, and make clear what was actually provided rather than assuming the provider’s separate briefing is enough.
Why this matters. The disclosure should reflect training for controlled non-employees as well as employees, using a clear description of what was given.
A warehouse has one standard induction for all starters, plus extra refresher sessions for forklift operation and spill response. The draft report only mentions the induction because the team thinks the specialist sessions are too detailed for a narrative disclosure.Can the report stop at the general induction, or should the task-specific sessions also be described?
Model answer. It should describe both. A complete account covers broad safety learning and also any training aimed at particular hazards, risky activities, or dangerous situations. Leaving out the forklift and spill-response sessions would understate the training actually provided.
Why this matters. Do not limit the narrative to general induction if people also received training for specific risks or activities.
A contractor-controlled maintenance crew works on the organisation’s premises. The H&S lead has attendance sheets for toolbox talks, lockout briefings, and confined-space training, but the draft wording groups everything under one phrase: 'safety training delivered during the year'.Is that wording specific enough for the disclosure, or should the preparer separate the types of training?
Model answer. It should be more specific. The narrative needs to explain the kinds of safety training given, so readers can see whether it was broad awareness training, hazard-focused training, or training for particular tasks or situations. A single catch-all phrase does not show that distinction.
Why this matters. Use enough detail to show the mix of general and risk-specific training, not just a broad label.
A site has no formal classroom courses, but supervisors give short on-the-job briefings before higher-risk jobs, and those briefings are logged. The reporting team is unsure whether these count because they are not called 'training' in the internal system.Should these briefings be included in the disclosure if they were part of how workers were prepared for the work?
Model answer. Yes. If the briefings were part of the organisation’s safety learning for workers, they belong in the description, even if the internal system uses another label. The key is to explain the actual training or instruction provided, including any short sessions linked to specific hazards, activities, or situations.
Why this matters. Include practical safety instruction where it forms part of worker training, even if the organisation uses a different internal name.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 403-5 — 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 ✓Hazard identification, risk assessment, a… Guide ✓Occupational health services Guide ✓Worker participation, consultation, and c… 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 403-5 page to prepare an occupational health and safety training disclosure from scratch?
Start with the plain-language explainer, then follow the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section to define scope, gather the training data point, and build the draft. The page is designed to help you move from source data to a report-ready disclosure, not to replace your own internal process. ↑ section
What data do I need for GRI 403-5 on occupational health and safety training?
The page says the key datapoint to prepare is health and safety training. Use that as the starting point for collecting the underlying figures and any supporting records needed for your draft and evidence pack. ↑ section
How should I set the scope and methodology for GRI 403-5 training data?
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation section to work through scope and method before drafting the disclosure. The page is meant to help you make those choices consistently so the data can be explained and evidenced later. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 403-5 occupational health and safety training data 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 collect the training data and provide the evidence. The workbook is there to help you organise that handover and keep the process clear. ↑ section
What should I put in the evidence pack for GRI 403-5 to be assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside five assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to assemble the records that support the training data and the way you have reported it. ↑ section
What are the common mistakes people make when reporting GRI 403-5 occupational health and safety training?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you avoid weak scope, missing support, or an unclear link between the data and the narrative. Check those before finalising the draft so the disclosure is easier to review and assure. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 403-5?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format that supports the preparation and assurance process. Use it to organise the data point, evidence, and draft output in one place. ↑ section
What can I do with the synthetic example disclosure for GRI 403-5?
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure can be turned into report text. Treat them as examples only and adapt the structure to your own data. ↑ section
How do I turn GRI 403-5 training data into a draft disclosure?
Use the draft-output section for visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That section is there to help you convert prepared data into a clear draft rather than starting from a blank page. ↑ section
Can I reuse GRI 403-5 occupational health and safety training data for ESRS S1 (Own Workforce)?
The page notes ESRS S1 (Own Workforce) as the closest correspondence, so the same underlying data may be reusable across both. You would still need to check the reporting context and present it in the way each framework expects. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 403-5 occupational health and safety training: what is the first thing to check before drafting?
- GRI 403-5 health and safety training data: what records should I ask HR for?
- GRI 403-5 how to define scope for training disclosure in a sustainability report
- GRI 403-5 assurance checklist: what evidence should I keep for the training figure?
- GRI 403-5 common reporting gaps and mistakes to avoid
- GRI 403-5 workbook download: how do I use the .xlsx file?
- GRI 403-5 printable library card PDF: what is it for?
- GRI 403-5 example disclosure: how should I adapt the synthetic example to my company?
- GRI 403-5 content index line: how do I draft it?
- GRI 403-5 evidence pack: what should an assurance reviewer expect to see?
- GRI 403-5 occupational health and safety training and ESRS S1: can I reuse the same dataset?
- GRI 403-5 who should sign off the training data before publication?
✓ 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.
