Negative social impacts in the supply chain and actions taken

Moeve’s Consolidated Management Report 2025 provides a direct quantitative response to GRI 414-2.

The report discloses:

1,698 suppliers screened using sustainability criteria in 2025;

no suppliers identified as having significant actual or potential negative impacts;

no applicable improvement percentage; and

no applicable termination percentage.

Separately, the report states that 1,938 performance assessments were carried out and that 826 suppliers were assessed because of their criticality. These are not interchangeable with the supplier count presented in the GRI 414-2 table.

It also reports 74 suppliers with non-significant non-conformities and states that all had closure plans. These suppliers do not belong in the GRI 414-2(b) denominator because their impacts were classified as non-significant.

The card should:

replace 1,938 assessments as the main GRI 414-2(a) figure with 1,698 suppliers;

distinguish assessment events from supplier entities;

retain the zero significant-impact result;

treat the two percentages as not applicable rather than missing;

remove the statement that narrative on page 154 is needed to complete the disclosure;

remove recycled-input information completely; and

classify the disclosure as a strong zero-significant-impact response, subject to confirming the social component of the combined sustainability criteria.

Moeve’s official report states that no suppliers were identified with significant negative impacts; its detailed table reports 1,698 suppliers screened, while the broader performance section reports 1,938 assessment events.

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited provides substantial quantitative reporting for GRI 414-2 on report page 149.

The report states that:

113 suppliers were assessed for social and environmental impacts;

38 suppliers were identified as having significant actual or potential negative impacts;

identified impacts included missing regulatory approvals, non-payment of minimum and overtime wages, absence of wage records and environmental impacts;

improvements were agreed with all 38 suppliers, representing 100%; and

relationships were terminated with 12 suppliers, representing 32%.

Of the 12 terminated suppliers, the report states that ten were terminated because of social impacts and two because of environmental impacts.

The card should:

replace the claim that 38 suppliers were selected for assessment with the correct assessment count of 113;

identify 38 as the significant-impact supplier population;

report the 100% improvement percentage;

report the 32% termination percentage;

include the impacts identified;

remove garments with sustainable attributes from the assessment;

remove third-party-audit percentages that do not answer GRI 414-2;

use page 149 as the substantive source; and

flag that the figures combine social and environmental assessments, requiring confirmation of the social-only supplier population for strict GRI 414-2 reporting.

Classify the report as strong combined environmental-and-social reporting with a social-disaggregation review point.

The official report states that 113 suppliers were assessed, 38 had significant actual or potential impacts, improvements were agreed with those suppliers and 12 relationships were terminated.

ENGIE Brasil Energia’s 2025 Sustainability Report provides substantive quantitative information relevant to GRI 414-2.

The report identifies 47 companies as causing significant actual or potential social and environmental impacts. It also reports an improvement percentage of 2.13% and a termination result of 0%.

The card should:

retain the assessment-scope information concerning active contracts exceeding R$ 1 million as methodology context;

identify the number of suppliers actually assessed, rather than using only the eligibility rule;

report the 47 identified suppliers;

report the disclosed improvement percentage of 2.13%;

report the termination percentage of 0%;

identify the significant social impacts separately from environmental impacts;

clarify the denominator used for 2.13%;

verify whether 47 represents supplier entities or a combined set of companies with social or environmental impacts;

confirm whether any assessment-related termination reasons are applicable when the termination percentage is zero; and

remove the current statement that no specific percentages are provided.

Classify the report as substantial combined social-and-environmental reporting requiring social disaggregation and denominator verification.

The official 2025 report’s indexed content maps GRI 414-2 to substantive pages and reports a 2.13% improvement result; the report also identifies 47 companies in the relevant impact population.