S2-3 – Processes to remediate negative impacts and channels for value chain workers to raise concerns

🗂️ ESRS S2 Workers in the value chain, page 6

The undertaking shall describe the processes it has in place to provide for or cooperate in the remediation of negative impacts on value chain workers that the undertaking is connected with, as well as channels available to value chain workers to raise concerns and have them addressed.
The objective of this Disclosure Requirement is to enable an understanding of the formal means by which value chain workers can make their concerns and needs known directly to the undertaking and/or through which the undertaking supports the availability of such channels (for example, grievance mechanisms ) in the workplace of value chain workers, how follow up is carried out with these workers regarding the issues raised, and the effectiveness of these channels.
The undertaking shall describe:

(a) its general approach to and processes for providing or contributing to remedy where it has caused or contributed to a material negative impact on value chain workers, including whether and how the undertaking assesses that the remedy provided is effective;

(b) any specific channels it has in place for value chain workers to raise their concerns or needs directly with the undertaking and have them addressed, including whether these are established by the undertaking itself and/or whether they are third-party mechanisms;

(c) the processes through which it supports or requires the availability of such channels in the workplace of value chain workers; and

(d) how it tracks and monitors issues raised and addressed, and how it ensures the effectiveness of the channels, including through involvement of stakeholders who are the intended users.

The undertaking shall disclose whether and how it assesses that value chain workers are aware of and trust these structures or processes as a way to raise their concerns or needs and have them addressed. In addition, the undertaking shall disclose whether it has policies in place regarding the protection of individuals that use them against retaliation. If such information has been disclosed in accordance with ESRS G1-1, the undertaking may refer to that information.
If the undertaking cannot disclose the above required information because it has not adopted a channel for raising concerns and/or does not support the availability of such a channel in the workplace of value chain workers, it shall disclose this to be the case. It may disclose a timeframe in which it aims to have such a channel or processes in place.

Application Requirements

AR 21. In fulfilling the requirements set out by Disclosure Requirement ESRS S2-3, the undertaking may be guided by the content of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises focused on remediation and grievance mechanisms.

AR 22. Channels for raising concerns or needs include grievance mechanisms, hotlines, trade unions (where workers are unionised), dialogue processes or other means through which value chain workers or their legitimate representatives can raise concerns about impacts or explain needs that they would like the undertaking to address. This could include both channels provided by the undertaking directly and channels provided by the entities where the value chain workers are working, in addition to any other mechanisms the undertaking may use to gain insight into the management of impacts on workers, such as compliance audits. Where the undertaking is relying solely on information about the existence of such channels provided by its business relationships to answer this requirement, it may state that.

AR 23. To provide greater insight into the information covered in Disclosure Requirement ESRS S23, the undertaking may explain whether and how value chain workers that may be affected are able to access channels at the level of the undertaking they are employed by, or contracted to work for, in relation to each material impact.

AR 24. Third party mechanisms could include those operated by the government, NGOs, industry associations and other collaborative initiatives. The undertaking may disclose whether these are accessible to all workers who may be potentially or actually materially impacted by the undertaking, or individuals or organisations acting on their behalf or who are otherwise in a position to be aware of negative impacts.

AR 25. In relation to the protection of individuals that use the mechanisms against the retaliation, the undertaking may describe whether it treats grievances confidentially and with respect to the rights of privacy and data protection; and whether the mechanisms allow for workers to use them anonymously (for example, through representation by a third party).

AR 26. In disclosing whether and how the undertaking knows that value chain workers are aware of and trust any of these channels, the undertaking may provide relevant and reliable data about the effectiveness of these channels from the perspective of value chain workers themselves. Examples of sources of information are surveys of workers that have used such channels and their levels of satisfaction with the process and outcomes.

AR 27. In describing the effectiveness of channels for value chain workers to raise concerns, the undertaking may be guided by the following questions, based on the “effectiveness criteria for non-judicial grievance mechanisms”, as laid out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, in particular Principle 31. The below considerations may be applied to individual channels or to a collective system of channels:

(a) do the channels hold legitimacy by providing appropriate accountability for their fair conduct and building stakeholder trust?

(b) are the channels known and accessible to stakeholders?

(d) do the channels ensure reasonable access for stakeholders to sources of information, advice and expertise?

(e) do the channels offer transparency by providing sufficient information both to complainants and, where applicable, to meet any public interest?

(f) do outcomes achieved through the channels accord with internationally recognised human rights?

(g) does the undertaking identify insights from the channels that support continuous learning in both improving the channels and preventing future impacts?

(h) does the undertaking focus on dialogue with complainants as the means to reach agreed solutions, rather than seeking to unilaterally determine the outcome?