ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain·Disclosure Requirement S2-2
Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms
Практическое руководство по подготовке этого раскрытия. Используйте карточку, чтобы определить, какую информацию подготовить, проверить утверждения и организовать подтверждающие доказательства. За точными требованиями всегда обращайтесь к официальному источнику European Commission.
Опубликованный паспорт
Проверка ожидаетсяСтандарт
ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain
Disclosure Requirement S2-2 · 2026-5010-final
Последняя проверка
—
Учебные материалы LRA · Не выпущено и не одобрено European Commission
Суть раскрытия
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it engages with workers in its value chain and how those workers can raise concerns or complaints. In practice, the report should show whether the organisation has arrangements that are available to the relevant workers, how those arrangements work, and whether they are used to identify and address issues affecting people in the value chain.
The practical focus is on coverage and accessibility, not just on describing a policy or a few flagship examples. An organisation should be clear about which parts of its operations and value chain are covered, whether the mechanisms are available in the places and contexts where workers are actually located, and how it knows the process is functioning in reality rather than only on paper.
Это учебное руководство LRA помогает в подготовке раскрытия. За точными требованиями всегда обращайтесь к официальному источнику European Commission.
Прежде чем начать
Прежде чем начать
Короткий чек-лист перед подготовкой этого раскрытия — отмечайте пункты по мере их закрытия.
Подготовка
Ключевая информация для подготовки
| Поле подготовки | Что зафиксировать | Подсказка по доказательствам | Ответственный |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement routes | List the ways people can raise views or concerns with the organisation, and note which groups each route is meant to reach. | Stakeholder engagement plan, consultation logs, channel inventory, website or hotline records. | Sustainability / stakeholder engagement |
| Stakeholder groups | Identify the groups the organisation has chosen to engage with for this topic, using the organisation’s own grouping logic. | Stakeholder map, materiality or engagement register, consultation plan, board or management papers. | Sustainability / stakeholder engagement |
| Engagement approach | Describe the methods used to engage those groups, such as meetings, surveys, forums or other direct contact methods. | Engagement logs, meeting notes, survey records, consultation summaries, facilitator reports. | Sustainability / stakeholder engagement |
| Agreed terms | State whether there are agreed arrangements with the relevant groups for how engagement is carried out. | Signed agreements, memoranda, community protocols, supplier codes, meeting minutes. | Legal / sustainability / stakeholder engagement |
| Agreement coverage | If such arrangements exist, describe which groups or relationships they cover and the practical scope of those arrangements. | Agreement schedules, annexes, stakeholder lists, contract or protocol references. | Legal / sustainability / stakeholder engagement |
| Grievance routes | Set out the ways people can raise complaints or concerns, including the channels available to them. | Grievance procedure, hotline details, web forms, posters, employee handbook, supplier portal. | HR / legal / ethics / compliance |
| Formal process | Confirm whether there is a formal process for handling complaints or concerns. | Policy approval, procedure document, case management workflow, governance sign-off. | HR / legal / ethics / compliance |
| Access conditions | Explain how easy it is for people to use the complaint routes, including any language, location, cost, timing or other practical barriers. | Accessibility review, hotline scripts, translation records, user testing, policy notes. | HR / legal / ethics / compliance |
| Complaint metrics | Report the measures used to track how the complaint process is performing, such as volumes, ageing, outcomes or other chosen indicators. | Case management reports, dashboard extracts, KPI definitions, management packs. | HR / legal / ethics / compliance |
| Resolved share | Show the proportion of complaints or cases that were brought to a close through the process, using the organisation’s chosen calculation basis. | Case closure report, KPI workbook, complaints register, dashboard calculation notes. | HR / legal / ethics / compliance |
| Reply timing | Report how long it takes to respond to complaints or concerns, including the timing basis used for the measure. | Case timestamps, service-level reports, workflow logs, KPI definitions. | HR / legal / ethics / compliance |
| Fix-up process | Describe the process used to put things right after a complaint or concern is upheld or otherwise needs action. | Remediation procedure, case workflow, corrective action tracker, policy documents. | HR / legal / ethics / compliance |
| Closed remedies | Report the cases that were actually put right during the period, using the organisation’s closure and remedy definitions. | Case closure report, remediation tracker, complaints register, management dashboard. | HR / legal / ethics / compliance |
Как это подготовить
Запросить данные
Request supplier engagement and issue-handling evidence
Переведите раскрытие на язык внутреннего бизнес-вопроса, а затем адаптируйте его под терминологию вашей организации.
How do we show which supplier groups we engage, what channels they can use to raise issues, and how those issues are tracked, resolved and remediated?
Use your team’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting fields. For example, if you talk about supplier forums, hotline cases, site visits, escalation logs or corrective actions, keep those labels in the request and only translate them afterwards for the disclosure pack. This is a training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.
Слабый запрос
Please provide the ESRS S2-2 engagement and grievance mechanism data for the period, including stakeholder groups, channels, accessibility, KPIs, response times, resolution rates, remediation processes and remediated cases.
Почему он не работает: It uses framework language that many operational teams do not use day to day, so the owner may not know which records to pull. It also bundles several ideas together without pointing to the team’s actual trackers, logs or process names, which makes the request harder to action and harder to evidence.
Более удачный запрос
Please send the supplier engagement and issue-handling records for [reporting period] covering [business boundary]. I need the groups you work with, the ways they can raise concerns, whether there is a formal route and what it covers, the channels available, how accessible they are, the KPIs you already track, how you calculate response time and closure rate, and any remediation notes for cases closed in the period. Please use your own tracker or case log names and attach the source file or link.
Шаблон официального письма
Subject: Request for supplier engagement and issue-handling evidence for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], I’m pulling together the disclosure pack for [reporting period] and need your help with the supplier engagement and issue-handling information for [business boundary]. Please send the following in your own team’s language, with any supporting files or links: - the supplier groups you actively engage with; - the ways you engage them; - whether there is a formal route for raising concerns, and what it covers; - the channels available for raising issues; - how accessible those channels are; - the measures you already track for this process; - how you calculate response time and closure rate; - the process used to fix issues and any examples of cases closed during the period. If you have a dashboard, tracker, policy, procedure note, or case log, that would be ideal. Please include the period covered, the system or file name, and who owns the record. This is a training template only; please adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Короткая версия для Teams / Slack
Hi [name] — I’m pulling the [reporting period] pack and need your supplier engagement / issue-log evidence for [business boundary]. Please share the groups you work with, the channels they can use, whether there’s a formal route, the KPIs you track, how you measure response/closure, and any remediation examples. A tracker, policy, dashboard or case log is fine. Please use your team’s own terms and include the source file/system. Training template only — adapt to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.
Отраслевые примеры
Manufacturing
Контекст. A plant uses supplier audits, site meetings and a shared corrective-action tracker for logistics and component suppliers.
Адаптированный запрос. Please share the supplier forum notes, audit follow-up tracker and complaints log for [reporting period]. I need the supplier groups covered, the engagement routes used, the issue-reporting channels, whether the plant has a formal escalation route, the accessibility notes, the KPIs tracked, the response and closure measures, and the cases remediated during the period.
Пример ответа. Attached: supplier engagement tracker, complaints register export, and corrective-action log. Supplier groups: tier 1 components, packaging, and transport providers. Channels: site visits, portal form, dedicated inbox. Formal route: yes, covers commercial and conduct issues. KPIs: average first response days, closure rate. Remediated cases: 12 closed, 9 with corrective actions completed.
Retail / Food Service
Контекст. A retailer manages supplier concerns through a vendor portal, buyer meetings and a central case-management inbox.
Адаптированный запрос. Please provide the vendor portal report and the supplier concern log for [reporting period]. Include the supplier groups you engage, the channels they can use, whether there is a formal concern route, how accessible it is, the measures you track, how you calculate response time and closure rate, and any remediation completed for closed cases.
Пример ответа. Attached: portal report, concern log, and closure summary. Supplier groups: fresh produce, own-brand manufacturers, logistics partners. Channels: portal, email inbox, buyer meetings. Formal route: yes, covers payment, quality and conduct concerns. Accessibility: available in English and local-language support for key suppliers. Remediated cases: 7 closed, 5 with supplier action plans completed.
Составьте раскрытие
Заметки, которые превращают данные в раскрытие
Учебные шаблоны LRA — адаптируйте их под вашу организацию и сверьтесь с официальным источником перед утверждением.
Примечание о методике
Explain how the organisation identified the affected groups, what it counts as an engagement route or complaint channel, and how it measured coverage, accessibility, performance and case handling.
Примечание о контексте
Set out what the figures show about how people can raise issues, how the organisation responds, whether arrangements are formalised, and how many matters are resolved through remediation.
Заявление о колебаниях
If the figures moved materially, note whether the change came from adding or removing channels, changes in who was covered, shifts in accessibility, or differences in how many cases were received and resolved.
Запись в указателе содержания
S2-2 Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms — [location / page] / [notes]Центр загрузок
Инструменты и формы для подготовки
Профессиональные инструменты подготовки для S2-2 — бесплатно с членством в LRA Community. Зарегистрируйтесь один раз (это бесплатно), и откроются все загрузки, а вместе с ними Библиотека раскрытий, шаблоны и AI-ассистент LRA.
Готовность к заверению
Для каждого утверждения проверьте доказательства
| Утверждение | Риски | Доказательства для проверки |
|---|---|---|
| We used a documented method to decide which parts of the disclosed operations were included, and we can show why any exclusions were made. | The coverage figure may be overstated, selectively framed, or based on an inconsistent boundary. | ['Boundary-setting memo or methodology note', 'List of included and excluded entities, sites, functions, or worker groups', 'Approval record for any exclusions or scope changes'] |
| We based the disclosure on current-year information, with the underlying records traced back to named sources rather than unsupported estimates. | The reported information may be incomplete, outdated, or not traceable to source records. | ['Source data extracts and system reports', 'Data lineage or traceability file', 'Version-controlled working papers showing the reporting period used'] |
| Where we relied on judgement, we recorded the assumptions and applied them consistently across the figure and related narrative. | Judgement may have been applied inconsistently or without a clear audit trail. | ['Assumption log', 'Calculation workbook with formula checks', 'Internal review notes showing consistent application'] |
| Before publication, we carried out checks to spot missing items, duplicates, and obvious inconsistencies in the evidence pack. | Basic data-quality issues may remain undetected, weakening the reliability of the disclosure. | ['Data validation checklist', 'Exception report and follow-up actions', 'Sign-off from the preparer and reviewer'] |
| We kept supporting evidence for the channels, engagement activity, remedy arrangements, and any effectiveness review so an assurer can test what we said. | The narrative may not be supportable because the underlying evidence is thin, fragmented, or not retained. | ['Meeting notes, logs, or correspondence', 'Copies of channel descriptions, process maps, or policy documents', 'Evidence retention index linking each statement to source material'] |
Пакет доказательств для подготовки
Типичные пробелы в отчётности
Типичные пробелы
Ошибки, которых стоит избегать при сборе данных
Где часто требуется профессиональное суждение
Примеры
Иллюстративные примеры
Синтетические, написаны LRA — это не выдержки из отчёта компании и не текст какого-либо стандарта.
We used several routes to hear from workers in our own operations and from people in the supply chain who may be affected, and we set out which groups were reached and how each route worked. Where we had formal arrangements with worker representatives, we noted that they covered our direct workforce and key contractor sites; we also kept a separate complaints route open to all relevant people, with access through site noticeboards, a phone line, email, and a web form, plus language support and options for shift workers and people with limited digital access.
- The complaints route was available across all sites, could be used without charge, and was designed to be reachable by workers, contractors, and other affected people; we tracked the number of matters raised, the share resolved, and the time taken to give an initial reply.
- During the period, 48 matters were logged, 39 were closed through the process, and 44 received a first response within 10 working days; we also used a separate remedy process for confirmed cases, and 12 cases were fully put right.
Illustrative only: shows how to describe who was engaged, the methods used, whether formal arrangements existed and what they covered, the channels open for concerns, how accessible they were, the key measures tracked, the share resolved, the response timing, and how remedy was handled.
We maintained direct dialogue with warehouse teams, delivery drivers, and labour-hire staff, using different formats so people could speak up in ways that suited their work pattern. We also had written agreements with elected worker representatives for our distribution centres, covering the permanent warehouse workforce and agency staff on those sites; alongside that, we ran a grievance route that was open through kiosks, QR codes, a hotline, and in-person HR drop-ins, with translation support and an option to submit anonymously.
- The route was available at every major site and was designed to be usable by night-shift staff and people without company devices; we monitored how many issues came in, how many were settled, and how quickly people heard back.
- In the year, 27 issues were raised, 20 were resolved, and 24 got an initial reply within 7 working days; for matters needing correction, we used a formal remedy path and completed 9 cases.
Illustrative only: shows a second plausible reporter with different channels and workforce mix, while still covering engagement groups and methods, formal arrangements and scope, open channels, accessibility, tracked measures, resolution share, reply timing, and remediation outcomes.
Отчёты компаний
Как компании раскрывают S2-2 на практике
Примеры полного и частичного раскрытия на практике. Это разборы на основе доказательств, а не готовые шаблоны для копирования.
Спросите AI-ассистента Study Studio об этом раскрытии
Получайте практические ответы для вашего контекста отчётности. Первые два ответа бесплатны — вступите в LRA Community бесплатно, чтобы продолжить без ограничений.
Проверьте себя
Сценарии для разбора
A manufacturer has mapped two worker groups for direct dialogue this year: site employees and agency workers at its main plant. It uses toolbox talks for one group and a worker committee for the other, but the committee only covers the day shift.
A food processor has a hotline for complaints from workers and contractors, but it is only available in the local language and can be used only during office hours. The team is unsure whether that is enough to describe the route as accessible.
A retailer tracks the number of issues raised, the share closed within target, and the average days to first reply. One business unit also reports a separate measure for repeat complaints, and the reporting team wonders whether that extra metric should replace the others.
A logistics company says it has a process to fix worker complaints, but in practice supervisors handle issues informally and there is no written path for cases that need escalation. The team has also closed 18 of 30 logged cases this year, but it is unclear whether those 18 were actually put right.
Ссылки на стандарты
Соответствующие требования ESRS и смежные раскрытия
Доступные ссылки на стандарты и близкие раскрытия, полезные при подготовке этого требования.
ESRS
S2-2
в составе ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain
Связанное и другое
Больше в ESRS S2 → Открыть полный каталог → Главная Библиотеки раскрытий → Искать по всем раскрытиям →
FAQ
Вопросы, на которые отвечает эта страница
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints list. The page is designed to help you turn those inputs into a draft narrative and, where relevant, a simple table or content-index line.
The page lists the datapoints to prepare, including engagement routes, stakeholder groups, engagement approach, agreed terms, grievance routes, formal process, access conditions, complaint metrics, resolved share, reply timing, fix-up process and closed remedies. Use that list as your collection checklist so you can gather the right inputs before drafting.
Use the step-by-step preparation section to define what is in scope and then align your data collection to the listed datapoints. The page does not set a one-size methodology, so the practical approach is to document your own scope choices clearly and keep them consistent across the narrative, table and evidence pack.
The page is aimed at sustainability and ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can explain the data and provide evidence. In practice, assign a named owner for the disclosure, a data owner for the underlying metrics, and a reviewer for assurance readiness.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside five assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to show how the figures and narrative were built, and keep the supporting documents organised so a reviewer can trace each claim back to source evidence.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful as a pre-submission check. A practical use is to compare your draft against the datapoints, the evidence pack and the assurance claims to spot missing detail, weak support or inconsistent wording.
Treat the example as a model for structure and level of detail, not as a template to copy. The page says the example is synthetic and includes a quantitative table, so you can use it to see how a draft might read while still tailoring the content to your own data.
Yes. The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format, which are there to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use them to organise inputs, track evidence and shape the draft output.
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That makes it easier to turn collected data into a usable draft rather than starting from a blank page.
The page includes a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed. Use it to see how others have presented similar information, but keep your own disclosure grounded in your organisation’s data and scope.
Другие вопросы, с которыми поможет эта страница
Углубиться · S2-2
Научитесь готовить это раскрытие от начала до конца
This guide covers one Disclosure Requirement. The ESRS / CSRD Reporting course walks the full European workflow — double materiality, datapoints, evidence and assurance — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Получите инструменты для S2-2 — бесплатно
Инструменты подготовки бесплатны для участников LRA Community и студентов. Зарегистрируйтесь один раз (это бесплатно), и ваша загрузка начнётся сразу же — плюс Библиотека раскрытий, шаблоны и AI-ассистент LRA.
Готово — загрузка начинается
Файл загружается. Ваш кабинет Community — с Библиотекой раскрытий, шаблонами и AI-ассистентом LRA — тоже готов.
Открыть кабинет →