GRI 403-8 — Workers covered by an occupational health and safety management system

Disclosure focus

This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how much of its workforce is actually covered by a formal occupational health and safety management system. In practice, the focus is on the extent of coverage, not just whether a system exists somewhere in the business. You should describe the workers included, the parts of the organisation or activities covered, and whether coverage applies across the whole operation or only to selected sites, functions, or worker groups.

The practical question is whether the system reaches the places and people where health and safety risks arise. A report that only refers to flagship sites or head office would not give the full picture if other operations are outside the system. The emphasis is therefore on scope and completeness: who is covered, where coverage applies, and any material gaps or exclusions that affect the organisation’s overall health and safety management.

Before you start

A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.

Which parts of the business are you counting as covered by the health-and-safety system, and which worker groups are you leaving out, if any?
Is the system in place because you follow legal duties, a recognised framework, or both?
What source will you use for the headcount and the percentage, and does it match the reporting period you are using?
Can you trace the number and percentage back to a named internal record or dataset without gaps?
If anyone is excluded, have you already settled the reason and the type of worker involved?
What extra context do you need to explain how you compiled the figures so someone else can follow the method?

Preparation

Key datapoints to prepare

Datapoint	What to capture	Evidence hint	Owner
Safety system in place	Whether the organisation has put in place a workplace health and safety management approach that is built on applicable law and/or recognised guidance.	Policy or management-system documentation, implementation records, and any internal approval showing the approach is in use.	Health and safety / Operations
Basis for safety system	The specific legal duties and/or recognised guidance used as the basis for the workplace health and safety management approach.	Register of applicable legal duties, standards list, or internal mapping that shows which external basis was used.	Health and safety / Legal / Compliance
Worker count	The number of workers covered by the disclosure, using the organisation’s chosen counting basis consistently.	HR or workforce headcount report, payroll extract, or contractor roster used for the count.	HR / People analytics
Worker share	The percentage share for the reported group, calculated from the same population and period as the related count.	Calculation workbook showing numerator, denominator, and the source population used for the percentage.	HR analytics / Reporting
Excluded workers flag	Whether any workers were left out of this disclosure.	Disclosure scope note, population reconciliation, and any exclusion log or sign-off.	HR / Reporting / Compliance
Exclusion explanation	Why any workers were left out, and which worker types were left out.	Exclusion register, scope memo, and supporting notes naming the excluded worker categories.	HR / Reporting
Compilation notes	Any extra context needed to understand how the figures were assembled, including key assumptions, filters, or aggregation steps.	Method note, calculation workbook, and sign-off comments that explain the compilation approach.	Reporting / Data owner

Show GRI 403-8 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

Add any context needed so readers can understand how the figures were prepared.
If any worker groups are left out, explain why and identify which groups they are.
State whether an occupational health and safety management system is in place, and note whether it follows legal duties and/or recognised guidance.
Confirm whether any workers were left out of this disclosure.
Refer to the relevant legal duties and/or recognised guidance used as the basis.
Report the count.
Report the share as a percentage.

LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source

How to prepare

Set the boundary first: decide which parts of the business, sites, and worker groups are in scope for this disclosure, and make sure the same boundary is used throughout the figures and narrative.
Confirm the basis for the safety system: record whether it is built on statutory duties, recognised guidance, or both, and keep the source documents that support that basis.
Count and calculate carefully: gather the underlying workforce records needed to show the number covered and the share covered, and check that the percentage is derived from the same population as the count.
Check for any exclusions: identify whether any workers are left out of the disclosure, then explain who they are and why they are outside the reported scope.
Add the context needed to read the data: note any assumptions, definitions, timing choices, or consolidation rules that affect how the information was compiled.
Review the final pack against the source material: verify that the reported answer, supporting text, exclusions, and context all match the official disclosure basis and that nothing material is missing or inconsistent.

Request the site safety coverage data from EHS / Operations

Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.

Which parts of the workforce sit inside the organisation’s safety management arrangements, and what share of the total workforce does that represent for the reporting period?

Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. For example, you may talk about site safety, H&S coverage, safety certification, or local safety programmes rather than framework language. Keep the boundary, worker groups, and calculation basis aligned to how your business actually tracks safety oversight.

Weak request

Can you send the GRI 403-8 data showing whether we have an occupational health and safety management system, the legal or recognised basis for it, the number and percentage covered, any exclusions, and contextual information?

Why it fails: It uses framework wording that many operational teams do not track day to day, so the owner may not know which internal report to pull. It also bundles several different asks without telling the team how they record coverage, what boundary to use, or which source system should be treated as the reference point.

Better request

Please send the current safety coverage extract for [reporting period] from [source system/file]. We need the worker groups your team counts as covered by the site safety arrangement, the total in scope, the number covered, the percentage covered, any groups left out with reasons, and a short note on the basis used to compile the figures. Please use your normal internal terms and include the boundary and counting method.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for safety coverage data for [reporting period]

Hi [name/team],

We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the safety coverage figures for [reporting period].

Please send a short table showing:
- the worker groups you include in your safety coverage view;
- the total number of workers in scope under your method;
- the number of workers covered by the current safety management arrangement;
- the percentage covered;
- any worker groups left out, with a brief reason;
- any notes needed to explain how the figures were built.

Please use the terms your team normally uses, and include the source system or file, the boundary used, and the counting basis. If you have more than one version of the data, please indicate which one should be used for reporting.

A possible LRA training template only — please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.

Thanks,
[preparer name]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [name/team] — could you share the safety coverage figures for [reporting period]?

Please include the worker groups in scope, total workers, covered workers, % covered, any exclusions with reasons, and the source file/system. Use your team’s usual terms and note the counting basis. Thanks.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A multi-site plant operator tracks safety coverage by factory, warehouse, and maintenance teams in an EHS dashboard.

Adapted request. Please share the latest site safety coverage report for [reporting period]. Include each plant and warehouse group, the total workers in scope, the number covered by the safety programme, the coverage percentage, any groups excluded, and the reason for each exclusion. Please also note the source system, the counting basis, and any site-level assumptions.

Example response. The EHS team returns a table from the safety dashboard showing 4,820 workers in scope, 4,560 covered, and 94.6% coverage. It notes that 120 agency workers at one temporary overflow site were excluded because the site was outside the managed safety programme during the period.

Professional services

Context. A services firm tracks office-based staff and contractors through a central H&S register and local office safety leads.

Adapted request. Please send the office safety coverage summary for [reporting period]. We need the staff groups your team includes, the total number of people in scope, the number covered by the office safety arrangements, the percentage covered, any exclusions, and a short explanation of how the figures were compiled from the register.

Example response. The facilities and EHS team provides a register extract showing 2,140 people in scope, 2,090 covered, and 97.7% coverage. It explains that 50 short-term contractors were excluded because they were managed under a client-controlled site process rather than the firm’s own office safety arrangement.

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

State how the organisation defined the worker population, what counted as coverage by a health and safety system, and which legal or recognised references were used as the basis for the approach.

Context note

Explain what the count and percentage show about the reach of the safety system across the workforce, and note any exclusions so readers understand the scope of the figures.

Fluctuation statement

If the coverage level, excluded groups, or basis used changed from the prior period, briefly explain what drove the change, such as a revised scope, a different workforce mix, or updated reporting assumptions.

Content index entry

GRI 403-8 Workers covered by an occupational health and safety management system — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 403-8. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.

XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints + per-datapoint risk, evidence to check, owner & evidence pack XLSData-request packEHS / Operations request — email & message templates, response form, sign-off & industry examples PDFLibrary CardPrintable summary (PDF)

Assurance readiness

For each claim, check the evidence

Claim	Risk	Evidence to check
We can show the coverage figure was built from a defined set of workers and sites, using a documented method for deciding who was in and who was out.	The assurer will test whether the population behind the figure was chosen consistently, whether any exclusions were justified, and whether the method could change the result.	Population definition note; inclusion/exclusion rules; site or workforce list used for the calculation; management sign-off on scope decisions; reconciliation between the source population and the reported figure.
We prepared the figure using our own internal records and any external references we relied on, and we kept evidence of the rules or benchmarks used to support the approach.	The assurer will probe whether the basis for the figure is traceable, whether the supporting references are current and relevant, and whether the team relied on unsupported judgement.	Policy or procedure describing the calculation basis; copies or links to the legal or recognised guidance used; source data extracts; version-controlled working papers; review notes showing how the basis was applied.
The number reported was taken from a controlled calculation file, with the arithmetic checked before publication and any manual adjustments explained.	The assurer will look for calculation errors, broken formulas, unsupported overrides, and weak controls over spreadsheet or system outputs.	Calculation workbook or system report; formula checks; audit trail for any manual edits; reviewer checklist; evidence of independent recalculation or sample testing.
Where we reported a percentage, we used the same underlying population for both the numerator and denominator and kept the method consistent with the rest of the report.	The assurer will test whether the percentage is mathematically sound, whether the denominator is appropriate, and whether the method is applied consistently across periods or entities.	Working paper showing numerator and denominator; calculation logic; prior-period comparison; explanation of any changes in method; sign-off confirming consistency.
We identified any workers left out of the disclosed figure and recorded the reason for each exclusion before the report was finalised.	The assurer will ask whether exclusions were complete, whether the reasons were valid, and whether omitted groups could materially affect the result.	Exclusion log; workforce lists showing omitted groups; rationale for each exclusion; approval from the report owner; evidence that exclusions were reviewed for completeness.
Our explanation for exclusions names the worker groups affected and sets out why they were not included in the count.	The assurer will check whether the explanation is specific enough, whether the excluded groups are described accurately, and whether the narrative matches the underlying records.	Draft disclosure text; supporting HR or operational records; mapping of excluded groups to the reason given; review comments confirming the wording matches the data.

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

A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).
The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.
Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.
One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.
Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.
Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.

Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data

Wrong owner
Chasing the H&S team alone can miss the person who holds the headcount, contractor, or site roster used to build the figures.
Using framework language with the business
Asking for the data in disclosure terms instead of the organisation’s own job, site, or workforce labels can leave teams unsure which population to pull.
No clear boundary
If you do not define which entities, sites, or worker groups sit inside the count, different teams may each include a different slice of the workforce.
Wrong period basis
Pulling a snapshot from the wrong date, or mixing year-end and average-period records, can make the count and percentage refer to different populations.
Mixed counting method
Combining full-time, part-time, agency, and contractor records without one agreed counting rule can distort both the number and the percentage.
Source labels lost
Copying figures into a summary sheet without keeping the original file names, report titles, or system labels makes it hard to trace where each figure came from.
Separate groups merged
Putting included workers and excluded workers into one pool can hide which types of worker were left out and why.
Missing evidence trail
Saving the final numbers without the supporting extract date, source owner, and approval record leaves no clear path back to the underlying evidence.
No sign-off trail
If the draft is not checked and signed off by the data owner before it moves on, later changes can be made without anyone knowing who agreed the figures.

Where judgement is often needed

Newly bought or sold businesses during the year
Set a clear cut-off for acquisitions and disposals, then explain whether you counted people only for the period they were in the group or on a year-end basis, so the coverage figure can be read in the right context.
Different country rules and local safety schemes
Where local law or a recognised framework is used in some places but not others, describe the basis used in each country and how you combined them into one group-wide view.
People on the boundary of the workforce
State upfront how you treated agency staff, contractors, interns, and other near-boundary groups, and list any groups left out with a short reason.
Sites with partial safety-system coverage
If only some locations, business units, or job families sit inside the safety system, explain the scope rule you used and how you turned that into the number and percentage reported.
Using estimates where records are incomplete
When headcount or coverage data are not fully measured, say which parts were estimated, what source data or assumptions were used, and whether the estimate changed the reported percentage.
Timing of the population count
Choose and disclose the date or period used for the worker count, especially if staffing moved materially during the year, so readers can compare the numerator and denominator on the same basis.
Rounding and percentage presentation
Apply one rounding rule consistently across the disclosure, and if rounding changes the displayed percentage, note that the underlying figures were calculated before rounding.
Protecting small-team privacy
If a small group would make individuals identifiable, aggregate the data to a safer level and explain the grouping approach so the omission or roll-up is understandable.

Examples

Illustrative examples

Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.

Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA

Illustrative coverage of workers under the health and safety management approach (people)
Worker group	Covered by the approach	Not covered	Total
Employees	420	0	420
Agency workers	35	5	40
Contractors	18	12	30

Synthetic example only: we say our health and safety arrangements are built on national legal duties and an external management framework, and we note the share of workers covered by that approach. We also state whether any worker groups are left out, and explain the exclusion and the data-collection basis used for the figures.

This example shows how to describe the management approach, the coverage rate, any exclusions, and the method used to compile the numbers without naming a real organisation.

Logistics and warehousing · synthetic · written by LRA

Illustrative coverage of workers under the health and safety management approach (people)
Worker group	Covered by the approach	Not covered	Total
Direct employees	260	0	260
Agency staff	22	3	25
Outsourced drivers	0	15	15

Synthetic example only: we report that our safety system is aligned to legal duties and a recognised framework, then show how many workers fall inside and outside that scope. We also clarify that some outsourced drivers are left out because their employer reports them separately, and that the counts come from the latest site roster and contractor register.

This example shows a second way to present the same disclosure, with a different sector, a different coverage pattern, and a clear note on excluded workers and the source records used.

Draft output & visualisation ideas

How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. The charts below are drawn from the illustrative figures above — swap in your own data.

Food manufacturing — Illustrative coverage of workers under the health and safety management approach

Logistics and warehousing — Illustrative coverage of workers under the health and safety management approach

Other views you could build

Coverage of the workforce in the safety system — bar: How many workers are covered by a formal health and safety arrangement, shown as a count and as a share of the workforce.
Basis used for the safety arrangement — table: Which legal duties and/or recognised guidance the organisation says it relied on when setting up its health and safety approach.
Workers left out of the disclosure — stacked bar: The number and proportion of workers included versus excluded from the reported figures, with the excluded group broken out where relevant.
Reasons for any exclusions — table: The types of workers not covered by the disclosure and the explanation given for leaving them out.
How the figures were compiled — table: Any notes needed to understand the data collection method, scope, assumptions, or other context behind the reported numbers.

From a number to a disclosure

What separates a figure from a disclosure.

Basic

I report that 1,200 workers are covered by our health and safety management system.

Better

I report that 1,200 of our 1,500 workers, or 80%, are covered by our health and safety system, which is built on legal duties and recognised guidance, and no workers were left out.

Best

I report that 1,200 of our 1,500 workers, or 80%, were covered at year-end by our health and safety system, which we compile from site-level headcount records against legal duties and recognised guidance; no workers were excluded, and the coverage rate rose because we extended the system to two newly acquired sites.

From company reports

Real published reports Compare side by side →Get it free

Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 403-8 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.

Company

Sector · Country

Year

Match

Page

Report

Assurance

Aleatica

Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · Mexico / Spain

2024

Partial

p. 91 →p. 94 →p. 96 →

Sustainability Annual Report 2024 →

—

Evidence in Aleatica’s report

What the report shows

Aleatica’s Sustainability Annual Report 2024 covers several relevant aspects, including references to Health and Safety Management Systems and certifications such as ISO 14001 and ISO 39001 on page 94. The report also provides data on the percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements by country on page 207 and discusses prioritised sustainability topics on page 57. However, there are notable gaps with several narrative items not found or unclear in the report, limiting a full understanding of the company’s approach in some areas.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

Datapoint	Status	Page
Safety system in placeA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 94
Basis for safety systemNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Worker countNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Worker shareA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 207
Excluded workers flagNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Exclusion explanationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Compilation notesA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 57

Source trail

p. 94Health and Safety Management Systems), ISO 14001 (Environmental Management Systems), and ISO 39001 (Road Traffic Safety Management
p. 207Subsection Law section GRI Page Employment Implementation of work disconnection actions. GRI 3-3 Management of material topics 166 People with disabilities. GRI 405-1 Diversity of governance bodies and employees 33, 34, 160, 161 (a) (iii) other indicators of diversity, where appropriate (such as minority or vulnerable…
p. 208Subsection Law section GRI Page Social relations Reviewing collective bargaining agreements, particularly regarding occupational health and safety. GRI 403-4 Worker involvement, consultation and communication on occupational health and safety 99 Training Policies implemented on training. GRI 404-2 Programs to…
p. 57islation and regulations 35. Management of actual and potential ESG impacts 36. Stakeholder involvement 37. Taxation 38. Respect for property rights MATERIAL TOPICS LATENT TOPICS ESG IMPACTS AND RISKS RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP BUSINESS & STRATEGY SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY…
p. 210legal and other requirements. 3 Planning, objectives and reporting. 4 Internal organisation. 5 Education, training and onboardings. 6 Communication, participation
p. 206Subsection Law section GRI Page Sustainable use of resources Energy: direct and indirect consumption; actions taken to improve energy efficiency, renewable energy source use. GRI 302-1 Energy consumption within the organisation 75 GRI 302-4 Reduction of energy consumption 75 Climate change Greenhouse Gas Emissions.…
p. 96have nearly doubled (100% increase) compared to 2023, the percentage of HPE cases has decreased by one percentage point
p. 207personnel. GRI 2-29 Approach to Stakeholder Engagement 23-24 Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, by country.
p. 57have prioritised 18 that we consider key to consolidating our sustainability strategy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16 22 23 24 17 34 32 33 35 36 37 38 31 21 18 19 20 27 26 25 29 30 28 9 10 12 14 11 13
p. 162legal requirements in all geographies were assessed and included, together with an audit, all of which will allow us to pinpoint

KGI Financial Holding Co., Ltd.

Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Taiwan

2024

Partial

p. 129 →p. 97 →p. 98 →

2024 ESG Report →

Deloitte

Evidence in KGI Financial Holding Co., Ltd.’s report

What the report shows

KGI Financial Holding Co., Ltd.'s 2024 ESG Report covers its Occupational Health and Safety Management System, noting implementation of ISO 45001:2018 since 2021 (p.97), and provides data on work-related injuries and safety training, including zero severe occupational injuries and mandatory safety training every three years (pp.80, 101). The report also references governance structure related to diversity and inclusion (p.127) and mentions contract termination policies for unethical behavior, though without headline values (p.107). However, the report lacks clear percentage values or comprehensive narrative details on some aspects of occupational health and safety, with several datapoints not found or only partially addressed.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

Datapoint	Status	Page
Safety system in placeA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 97
Basis for safety systemNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Worker countNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Worker shareNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Excluded workers flagA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 127
Exclusion explanationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Compilation notesSupporting context was found, but no headline value.	partial	p. 107

Source trail

p. 97Occupational Health and Safety Management System (ISO 45001: 2018): Since 2021, the Group has been
p. 100have a balanced diet. • Organize health promotion activities such as walking and weight loss competitions. • 59% of employees have
p. 129Workers covered by an occupational health and safety management system 4.5.1 Safe Workplace 097 403-9 Work-related injuries
p. 96have dedicated 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 years to the Group are publicly recognized. Professional Qualification
p. 80n health checks exceeds 50%. • Min. 3 hours of occupational safety and health training every 3 years for each employee. • The percentage of employees with normal BMI value in health checks exceeds 55%. 080 / 138 Preface 1 Sustainability Strategy 2 Corporate Governance 3 Intelligent Finance 4 Talent Development…
p. 1010 0 0 0 0 No. of Severe Occupational Injuries 0 0 0 0 0 Severe Occupational Injury Rate (%) 0 0 0 0 0 Total No. of Work Injuries 46 65 5 13 18 Total Days of Work Injuries 273 695 19 65 84 Annual Scheduled Working Hours 18,894,120 18,689,280 7,644,000 11,500,000 19,144,000 Work Injury Rate (%) 2.43 3.48…
p. 80percentage of employees with normal BMI value in health checks exceeds 55%. 080 / 138 Preface 1 Sustainability Strategy 2 Corporate
p. 129Percentage of employees receiving regu- lar performance and career development reviews 4.3.3 Performance and Individual Development 092 Management of Influence
p. 127Workers who are not employees 4.1.1 Diversity and Inclusion 081 2-9 Governance structure and composition 2.1.1 Board of Directors
p. 84h Risk to Extremely High Risk. 2. The mitigation measures and remediation actions cover all sites and 100% of employees. Additionally, starting from 2024, dispatched personnel have been included in the assessment targets to ensure no discrimination, no bullying, and no harassment. 3. The number of employees with…
p. 27have established long-term financial key performance indicators that are closely tied to long-term incentives. 1. The Chairman
p. 107have completed improvements.) As a result, no suppliers were terminated or suspended due to signifi- cant human rights or environmental
p. 84have been included in the assessment targets to ensure no discrimination, no bullying, and no harassment. 3. The number
p. 107have unethical behavior, KGI Financial may terminate or cancel the contracts between KGI Financial and us in accordance with
p. 133GRI Standards were fairly stated. Methodology Our work was designed to gather evidence on which to base our conclusion. We undertook the following activities:  a review of issues raised by external parties that could be relevant to KGI Financial’s policies to provide a check on the appropriateness of statements…

SITC International Holdings Company Limited

Water Transportation · Hong Kong

2025

Partial

p. 183 →p. 142 →p. 143 →

2025 Environmental, Social and Governance Report →

Bureau Veritas

Evidence in SITC International Holdings Company Limited’s report

What the report shows

SITC International Holdings Company Limited’s 2025 Environmental, Social and Governance Report shows that the company has implemented an occupational health and safety management system covered with the ISO 45001 standard (p.143). It also reports the percentage of employees trained by gender and employee category, as well as the average training hours completed per employee (p.178). However, there is no clear or quotable evidence regarding other specific health and safety metrics or detailed methodology 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

Datapoint	Status	Page
Safety system in placeA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 143
Basis for safety systemNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Worker countNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Worker shareA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 178
Excluded workers flagA reported value was found on this page.	covered	p. 98
Exclusion explanationNo quotable evidence was found in this report.	not found	—
Compilation notesNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative).	unclear	—

Source trail

p. 143has implemented an occupational health and safety management system and complied with the ISO 45001 standard
p. 183workers 145 403-6 Promote worker health 142-144, 161-163 403-7 Prevent and mitigate occupational health and safety
p. 178Percentage of total products sold or shipped subject to recalls for safety and health reasons Responsible Operations 57 6.2 Number
p. 183127-134 405-2 Ratio of basic wages and remuneration for men and women 134-135 GRI 406:Anti-Discrimination 2016 406-1 In cidents of discrimination and corrective actions taken 123-125 GRI 408:Child Labour 2016 408-1 Operations and suppliers at significant risk of child labour incidents 58-61, 123, 125 GRI 409:Forced…
p. 178Appendix II: HKEX ESG Reporting Code Index 177 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE REPORT 2025 Areas, Aspects, and KPIs Section/Reference Guideline Page B2 Health and Safety General Disclosure Harmonious Development 141 2.1 Number and rate of work-related fatalities occurred in each of the past three years…
p. 178percentage of employees trained by gender and employee category Harmonious Development 138 3.2 The average training hours completed per employee
p. 186Percentage categorized as very serious TR-MT-540a.1 Number of times; percentage Quantification (1) Number of accidents: 2; (2) Percentage
p. 182Percentage of executives hired from local communities 134 GRI 204: Procurement Practices 2016 204-1 Proportion of purchase expenditure from
p. 98have emerged as critical issues. In line with Sustainable Development Goal 6 of the United Nations, it is our responsibility
p. 30have a comprehensive reflection of the level of satisfaction of our employees. 4) Implementation rate of action plans: this
p. 182have undergone a corruption risk assessment 46-51 205-2 Communication and training on anti-corruption policies and procedures

Check your understanding

A manufacturer has one safety framework for its main plant, but contractors at a separate warehouse are managed under a different site rulebook and are not included in the central count. The reporting team is deciding whether the warehouse group should be counted in the coverage figure.Should the team include those warehouse contractors in the number and percentage, or explain why they are left out?

Model answer. They should only count workers who are actually within the safety system being reported. If the warehouse contractors are outside that system, the team should exclude them from the coverage figure and clearly explain who was left out and why, so the reader can see the basis of the calculation.

Why this matters. Count only the people covered by the safety arrangement being described, and explain any exclusions plainly.

A services group has a company-wide safety framework built around UK legal duties, plus an internal standard used across all offices. The preparer is unsure whether to describe both or only the legal basis in the disclosure.What should be stated about the basis of the safety system?

Model answer. The disclosure should identify the legal basis, the recognised guidance, or both, if those are what the organisation used to build its safety system. The wording should make clear what the system is founded on, rather than leaving the reader to infer it from internal documents alone.

Why this matters. State the foundation of the safety system in practical terms, using the legal and/or recognised guidance actually relied on.

A group has 1,200 workers in total. Of these, 900 are covered by the safety system and 300 agency workers are not included because their host employer manages their health and safety arrangements. The draft currently shows only the 900 and 75%, with no explanation.What else needs to be added so the disclosure is understandable?

Model answer. The team should add a note explaining that 300 agency workers were left out, and why. The percentage is fine only if it is based on the full workforce total of 1,200, which would make the covered share 75%; the narrative should also explain the method used so the figures can be interpreted correctly.

Why this matters. Give the calculation basis and any exclusions so the percentage can be checked against the underlying headcount.

A preparer has the headcount and coverage percentage ready, but the source files are spread across HR, site safety logs and a contractor register. The team is unsure whether a short note about how the data were assembled is needed.Should the disclosure include context on how the figures were compiled?

Model answer. Yes. If the numbers were built from several sources or required judgement about who counted as covered, the disclosure should include enough context for a reader to understand the compilation method. That might cover the source records used, the treatment of contractors or temporary staff, and any assumptions applied.

Why this matters. Add enough methodological context for someone else to follow how the coverage figures were put together.

Analyse this disclosure across real reports

See how companies actually report GRI 403-8 — 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.

Compare across reports → Open in the Cabinet → What is LRA Community? →

Related framework references

How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.

GRIPrimary

GRI 403-8

within GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018

Open official source →

→

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 ✓Worker training on occupational health an… Guide ✓Promotion of worker health Guide ✓Prevention and mitigation of occupational… Guide ✓Work-related injuries Guide ✓

More in GRI 403 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →

Questions this page answers

How do I use the GRI 403-8 page to prepare the disclosure draft from scratch?

Start with the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section, then work through the listed datapoints and the draft-output section. The page is designed to help you move from scope and data collection to a usable draft, not just a checklist. ↑ section

What data do I need to collect for GRI 403-8 on occupational health and safety?

The page says to prepare the safety system in place, the basis for that system, worker count, worker share, whether any workers are excluded, the explanation for any exclusion, and compilation notes. Use those items as your minimum data set before drafting. ↑ section

How should I decide the scope for GRI 403-8 worker coverage?

Use the page’s datapoints on worker count, worker share, excluded workers flag, and exclusion explanation to define who is included and who is not. The compilation notes are there to record the basis you used so the scope is clear in the draft and in assurance review. ↑ section

What should I put in the ‘basis for safety system’ field for GRI 403-8?

The page treats this as one of the core datapoints to prepare, alongside the safety system itself. In practice, use it to explain the basis you used for describing the system, and keep the compilation notes aligned with that approach. ↑ section

Who should own the GRI 403-8 data collection and sign-off process?

The page does not assign roles, so you need to set ownership internally. A practical approach is to have the HR, ESG, or operational data owner gather the datapoints, with a separate reviewer checking the evidence pack and draft before sign-off. ↑ section

What evidence pack should I build for GRI 403-8 assurance readiness?

The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, plus six claims to verify with claim, risk, and evidence. Use those materials to assemble support for the draft and to show how each reported point was compiled. ↑ section

What are the common mistakes to avoid when reporting GRI 403-8?

The page has a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is meant to help you spot weak scope, missing explanations, or incomplete support before you finalise the draft. Use that section as a pre-submission check against your own data and notes. ↑ section

How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 403-8?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use it alongside the page’s datapoints, claims to verify, and evidence pack so your working papers stay organised. ↑ section

What can I take from the synthetic example disclosures for GRI 403-8?

The page includes synthetic illustrative examples, including a quantitative table, so you can see how the disclosure may look when drafted. Treat them as examples only and make sure any figures in your own draft are internally consistent. ↑ section

Can I reuse my GRI 403-8 data for ESRS S1 Own Workforce reporting?

The page says ESRS S1 (Own Workforce) is the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across both. It does not say the reporting requirements are identical, so you still need to check the other framework separately. ↑ section

Workers covered by an occupational health and safety management system

Contattaci