Search this site

The regulatory floor stops at Tier 1. The exposure sits upstream. Buyers moving there now are ahead of the law and closer to the risk. The 2025 sustainability reporting cycle is showing the direction of travel. Buyers are naming Tier 2 as a 2026 priority and disclosing the worker engagement tools they use at Tier 1. ASICS' 2025 Sustainability Report is one public example — announcing expansion of human rights risk management to Tier 2 suppliers (Asics Sustainability Report 2025, p. 24) and naming Labor Solutions' WOVO app as part of its Tier 1 grievance and complaint mechanism at strategic factories in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Taiwan (p. 29). It is not the only such example. It is a signal of where the field is going. Regulation is not driving this. The CSDDD, the German Supply Chain Act (LkSG §8), and the EU Forced Labour Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/3015) all set Tier 1 as the compliance floor. Tier 2 is not required. Buyers going upstream are choosing to, because that is where a growing share of the risk actually sits. And Tier 2 is where grievance mechanisms are thinnest. Tier 2 grievance mechanisms carry a different load than Tier 1 At Tier 1, a buyer has a direct commercial relationship, a named site, contract language, and — usually — a grievance channel workers can be told about during onboarding. Even at that level, effectiveness is uneven: worker voice surfaces serious risks in 35% of sites that had already passed audit. Tier 2 introduces four structural changes at once. The buyer has no direct contract with the site. The workforce is often more migrant, more contracted, and more linguistically fragmented. The channel — if one exists — is usually operated by the Tier 1 supplier, not the buyer. And the workers are less likely to know the buyer exists, let alone which channel connects to it. Every one of UNGP Principle 31's eight effectiveness criteria — legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, engagement and dialogue, rights-compatible, and continuous learning — has to be evidenced under these conditions. None of them get easier upstream. CSDDD sets Tier 1 as the floor. The exposure sits upstream. The regulatory picture is precise, and it is worth being precise back. CSDDD Article 9 requires effective grievance mechanisms across the chain of activities, with the strongest obligations at Tier 1 and a risk-based extension beyond. LkSG §8 requires a complaints procedure accessible to workers in the buyer's own operations and direct suppliers. The EU Forced Labour Regulation, effective 14 December 2027, applies to any product placed on the EU market — meaning risk originating at Tier 2 or beyond can still trigger enforcement at the border, and a buyer has 30 working days in the preliminary phase to respond with evidence. The pattern across all three is the same: mandate at Tier 1, exposure at Tier 2 and beyond. A buyer who meets the Tier 1 floor and stops has closed the compliance gap and left the risk gap open. Accessibility fails first when the site isn't your direct supplier. Under Principle 31, accessibility means workers can find the mechanism and use it without barriers. At Tier 2, four barriers stack. Language coverage. Tier 2 workforces routinely include languages Tier 1 channels do not serve — migrant languages, minority languages, and dialects that do not appear in the buyer's HR materials. A channel that runs in the site's official language reaches management. A channel that runs in the languages workers actually speak reaches workers. Channel operator. If the channel is operated by the Tier 1 supplier that also holds the commercial relationship with the Tier 2 site, workers raising a concern are raising it to someone with a business interest in resolving it quietly. UNGP Principle 31 requires the channel to be trusted — trust is not asked of workers, it is evidenced by them. Line of sight to the buyer. A worker who does not know which brand ultimately buys the product cannot raise a concern to that brand's system, even where one exists. Buyer visibility is a design decision that has to be made at deployment, not assumed. Retaliation exposure. Tier 2 workers are often on shorter contracts and less visible to the buyer's own oversight. The consequence of raising a concern is closer to the surface. Anonymity and independence of the channel matter more here, not less. Predictability and engagement have to cross a contractual layer. Principle 31's predictability criterion asks that workers understand the process and experience it consistently. At Tier 2, the process usually runs through the Tier 1 supplier before it reaches the buyer, if it reaches the buyer at all. A worker who raises a concern does not see what happens after it leaves the site. Consistency across cases is difficult to establish and harder to evidence. Engagement and dialogue is the criterion that most often fails silently at Tier 2. Worker representation structures at Tier 2 are less mature. Collective mechanisms are less common. The dialogue channel between workers and management is weaker, and the dialogue channel between Tier 2 workers and the buyer typically does not exist at all. Closing these gaps is not a matter of extending a Tier 1 policy document to Tier 2. It requires a channel designed for the upstream context — its own accessibility work, its own trust-building, its own reporting flow that returns grievance data to the buyer rather than around it. Grievance data at Tier 2 has to flow back to the buyer, not around it. The output of a working Tier 2 grievance mechanism is not just resolution at the site. It is intelligence at the portfolio. A buyer extending grievance mechanisms upstream is building a data flow that surfaces where in the value chain the exposure sits, which Tier 2 sites are producing signals that Tier 1 audits missed, and where remediation resources should go first. This is what WELL Cycle is designed to produce: a site and portfolio risk view grounded in worker voice, layered with site context and structured self-reflection. It is where grievance data stops being a compliance record and becomes strategic intelligence. ASICS' 2025 disclosure describes the WOVO app — a Labor Solutions platform — as one such tool at Tier 1, noting that it "aims to improve communication between factory management and employees, leading to reduced human rights risks and improved factory performance" (ASICS Sustainability Report 2025, p. 29). Under CSDDD, that intelligence is disclosable. Under the EU Forced Labour Regulation, it is what a buyer will need to produce in the 30-working-day preliminary phase. Under CBP's June 2026 consolidated forced labor enforcement guidance, it is the documentation that meets the clear-and-convincing evidence standard. The buyers building this flow now are not doing it because the law requires it. They are doing it because the risk is already there, and the record is not. Tier 2 grievance integrity uses the same instruments as Tier 1, adapted for the upstream context. Labor Solutions has run the WELL Cycle across 50 strategic and high-risk manufacturing sites in six countries at Tier 1, reaching more than 100,000 workers and evidencing all eight UNGP Principle 31 criteria. Six months after WELL Action Plans were issued, 83% of sites had completed their assigned actions and 72% had progressed to the next maturity level on grievance mechanisms. The same instruments — the WELL Worker Survey for worker experience, the WELL Self-Diagnostic Tool for management systems — extend to Tier 2 with adaptations for the upstream context. Language coverage. Migrant worker sampling. Buyer visibility built into channel design. Grievance data structured to flow back through the Tier 1 relationship without being filtered by it. This is the next round of the WELL Cycle for buyers who have completed Tier 1 and are extending upstream. Listen. Diagnose. Improve. Educate. Repeat — one tier further out each time. The buyers moving upstream are moving toward the risk. The 2025 reporting cycle is showing which buyers are doing this work. The next reporting cycle will show which of them can evidence it. → Talk to us about evidencing grievance mechanism effectiveness across your value chain. Human rights is a practice, not a project. FAQs Does CSDDD require Tier 2 grievance mechanisms? CSDDD Article 9 requires effective grievance mechanisms across the chain of activities, with the strongest obligations at Tier 1 and a risk-based extension beyond. Tier 2 mechanisms are not mandated as a blanket requirement, but exposure at Tier 2 can still trigger CSDDD obligations where risk is identified. What does the EU Forced Labour Regulation require at Tier 2? Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 applies to any product placed on the EU market from 14 December 2027 onward, regardless of where in the value chain the forced labor risk sits. A buyer whose Tier 2 supplier is implicated can be required to respond with evidence within 30 working days in the preliminary phase. The regulation does not prescribe method, but the June 2026 implementation guidelines name worker interview transcripts, worker surveys conducted by trusted third parties, and grievance mechanism records as accepted evidence categories. What makes Tier 2 grievance mechanisms harder to run than Tier 1? Four structural factors: no direct commercial relationship between buyer and site, more linguistically fragmented and migrant-heavy workforces, channels typically operated by the Tier 1 supplier rather than the buyer, and lower worker awareness of the buyer's existence. Each of these compounds the effectiveness gap that Principle 31 asks buyers to close. What is a "trusted third party" under the EU Forced Labour Regulation guidelines? The Commission's June 2026 implementation guidelines state that workers should be interviewed by trusted third parties to protect confidentiality and safety. In practice this means an operator independent of the site and the buyer, running the channel with worker-facing accessibility work and confidentiality protection built in. How do you assess grievance mechanism effectiveness at Tier 2? Effectiveness under UNGP Principle 31 is evidenced from two sides at once: worker experience of the channel and the management systems supporting it. Labor Solutions' WELL Grievance Integrity Program measures both — the WELL Worker Survey captures whether workers know the channel exists, trust it, and see change when they use it, and the WELL Self-Diagnostic Tool captures whether the site has the systems to receive, process, and act on grievances. Neither alone is sufficient. What is the difference between a grievance channel and grievance integrity? A grievance channel is a mechanism a site has built. Grievance integrity is evidence that the mechanism works — that workers can reach it, trust it, and see resolution when they use it. Under CSDDD, LkSG, and the EU Forced Labour Regulation, existence is documented easily. Integrity has to be evidenced by workers.

The EU decided the test. Workers hold the proof. On 26 June 2026, the European Commission published the implementation guidelines for the EU Forced Labour Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/3015), alongside the new Forced Labour Single Portal. From 14 December 2027, any product made with forced labour — in whole or in part, at any stage — is barred from the EU market, regardless of a company's size or sector. Read closely, the Regulation turns on a single question: can a company demonstrate that its product is clean? The evidence that answers it is held by workers. Know what the EU Forced Labour Regulation requires The Forced Labour Regulation is not a due diligence law. It sets an obligation of result — a product free of forced labour — and leaves the method of meeting it to the company. The guidelines are explicit that the Regulation imposes no due diligence obligation beyond what already exists in EU or national law. Due diligence is not mandated; it is how a company reaches the result and shows it has. That distinction governs enforcement. Cases are decided by public authorities, who carry the burden of proof, through a preliminary phase in which a company has 30 working days to respond to a request for information. The guidelines describe full, timely cooperation in that window as the best way to allay an authority's concern before a formal investigation opens. Thirty working days rewards the company that already holds an organised, credible record — and exposes the one that has to assemble it under pressure. Which companies come under scrutiny in the first place is risk-based — screened by sector, geography, volume and the share of a suspect input — and will sharpen once the European Union's upcoming public database on forced labour risks goes live, naming the sectors and geographies authorities will focus on first. No single method is prescribed. But the guidelines name three categories of evidence an authority may draw on: Worker interview transcripts and testimonies Surveys conducted by trade unions or worker representatives Records from grievance mechanisms On method, the guidelines state that workers should be interviewed by trusted third parties to protect confidentiality and safety. The evidence that survives scrutiny is the evidence a site cannot stage - Worker Voice as Evidence The logic is consistent throughout. The strongest evidence of conditions in a value chain is what workers themselves report — confidentially, to someone the site does not control. It is the one input a site cannot prepare in advance. This cuts both ways. A site cannot fabricate what workers report — and a buyer cannot credibly be the one to collect it either. The guidelines discount a social audit wherever workers are supervised by management or cannot speak freely; the condition, not the label, is what strips the evidence of weight. A survey a buyer runs across its own value chain reproduces that condition — workers are being asked to describe the party they answer to. The guidelines recommend that workers be interviewed by trusted third parties to protect confidentiality, accuracy and safety — the same protections self-collection removes. The guidelines' own examples of credible worker evidence point the same way — the surveys they name are those run by trade unions or worker representatives, not by the company under assessment. The guidelines don't require third-party collection — but they don't treat worker evidence gathered by the assessed party as credible either. Worker voice carries evidentiary weight only when the party collecting it is not the party being assessed. This is where most programs are thin, and where a common assumption fails. A grievance mechanism can exist on paper, be documented, and still say nothing about whether workers can reach it, trust it, or see anything change when they raise a concern. Existence is not effectiveness. Under an obligation of result, that difference is the exposure — and only workers can evidence it. See it built: 50 sites, one buyer, six months Consider what that record looks like in practice. A global electronics buyer ran Labor Solutions' WELL Grievance Integrity program — our framework for assessing grievance mechanisms against the UN Guiding Principles' effectiveness criteria, run inside the WELL Cycle — across 50 strategic and high-risk manufacturing sites in six countries, reaching more than 80,000 workers. On paper, the mechanisms existed. Two Operational Grievance Mechanisms, one in-house and one third-party, had received fewer than 20 worker cases across an entire year from all strategic sites combined. Low volume is easy to read as low risk. It is more often a signal that workers cannot access the channel or do not trust it — and that reading only comes from asking them. The WELL Worker Survey did. More than 65% of workers responded — a rate that itself signals readiness to speak when a trusted channel exists. Workers reported that they did not know how to seek help outside the company, that management rarely acted on feedback, and that formal channels were out of reach. WELL Grievance Integrity mapped those findings against all eight UNGP Principle 31 effectiveness criteria; the WELL Self-Diagnostic Tool then examined the management competency behind each gap — not whether a procedure existed, but whether supervisors handle reports without retaliation and whether feedback loops close. Each site received a WELL Action Plan. Six months on, 83% of sites had completed their assigned actions — manager training on grievance handling, more worker-centric reporting channels, and communicating external grievance options back to workers — and 72% had advanced a maturity level. The buyer now holds, per site, a criterion-by-criterion record of what workers experienced, the competency gap behind it, and the action taken to close it. That is the shape of an obligation-of-result record: not a snapshot, but a standing, improving account, grounded in worker evidence and documented over time. It is what the WELL Cycle produces each year as WELL Intelligence — a body of evidence that deepens with every stage and compounds because the cycle repeats. Three frameworks that point in one direction The EU is not moving alone. CBP's June 2026 forced labor guidance names stakeholder engagement first among its eight due-diligence elements. The UN Guiding Principles have set the expectation since 2011 — the responsibility to respect turns on meaningful consultation with affected workers (Principles 18 and 19, Pillar 2), and the effectiveness of a grievance mechanism (Principle 31, Access to Remedy) can only be established by asking workers directly - setting worker voice as evidence. CSDDD and ESRS S2 build on the same architecture. The capability that answers one answers them all: a worker-grounded, criterion-level record of what is happening and what has been done about it. Test your evidence file The Regulation did not change what credible due diligence looks like. It changed the cost of not holding the evidence — and set a 30-working-day clock on producing it. The question worth testing now is a simple one: if an authority asked today, could you show what workers themselves report about the risks in your value chain, and what you did in response? Where the answer is not yet, the place to start is where the WELL Cycle starts — by listening. To run the WELL Cycle on grievance mechanisms or other salient topics across your value chain — Human rights is a practice, not a project.

A Labor Solutions Case Study As expectations around human rights due diligence rise, seafood companies need tools that move beyond compliance and deliver real insight into worker experience. This case study demonstrates that the WELL Survey is effective in the seafood industry, capturing credible worker voice at scale and translating it into actionable labor insights. The pilot revealed seafood-specific risks, exposed inequities within workplaces, and generated clear priorities for action—showing how worker-centered measurement can strengthen due diligence in complex supply chains. Pilot Objective Testing Whether Worker Voice Delivers Actionable Insight in Seafood Operations The WELL Survey was piloted in the seafood industry to assess whether a worker-centered, cross-sector tool could effectively capture worker voice and generate actionable labor insights in a complex supply chain context. The primary objective of the pilot was to assess whether the WELL Survey could, in the seafood industry: Accurately reflect workers’ lived experiences Surface labor and wellbeing risks specific to seafood operations Reveal differences across gender, job type, and work location Produce insights that are relevant and actionable for seafood companies The pilot tested two deployment models — fully remote and hybrid — across sites with different workforce profiles. Deployment windows in seafood operations need to be built around workforce availability, not client timelines. Seasonal and migrant worker profiles mean the window for meaningful data collection is set by the operational calendar — scoping and stakeholder alignment have to happen well in advance to hit it. Findings The WELL Survey is Effective at Uncovering Risks in the Seafood Industry The WELL Survey Works in the Seafood Context The pilot confirmed that the WELL Survey is effective when applied in the seafood industry. Specifically, it demonstrated that the tool can: Engage seafood workers meaningfully, generating credible and differentiated responses Capture authentic worker voice across roles, genders, and work environments. The variation in results across worker groups confirms that the survey is sensitive to the realities of seafood workplaces, rather than producing uniform or superficial findings. Identify labor and wellbeing risks specific to seafood operations Reveal inequities within seafood workplaces that are often obscured in aggregate data Support informed decision-making and continuous improvement through actionable insights Seafood-Specific Risks Were Clearly Identified The pilot surfaced risk patterns that are particularly relevant to the seafood industry, including: Worker fatigue and exhaustion linked to production demands Harassment and psychological safety concerns, especially among women Unequal access to opportunity and voice across job types These risks appeared even where traditional compliance indicators performed relatively well. Disaggregation Added Critical Value in Seafood Operations By disaggregating results, the pilot highlighted how worker experience differs significantly within seafood workplaces, particularly between: Production and non-production roles Supervisory and non-supervisory workers Women and men These differences are especially relevant in seafood supply chains, where hierarchy and job segregation are common. Results Were Actionable for Seafood Companies The pilot generated clear, sector-relevant priorities for improvement, including: Strengthening harassment prevention mechanisms Addressing workload and fatigue management Improving worker participation in decision-making Closing gender-based gaps in opportunity and voice The findings were specific enough to inform corrective actions within seafood operations. Next Steps Scaling Within the Seafood Industry Based on the pilot results, the WELL Survey will now be rolled out at scale within the seafood industry. Scaling will enable: Consistent benchmarking across seafood operations Identification of systemic, sector-wide risks Tracking of improvement over time Stronger integration of worker voice into seafood-specific due diligence In seasonal operations, remediation planning needs to start before the deployment closes. Because the workforce may be entirely different by the next cycle, there is no continuity to build on — improvements need to be ready before the next group of workers arrives, not designed after they do. Why This Matters Strengthening Seafood Supply Chains Through Worker Voice The pilot confirms that worker-centered tools, when validated in the seafood industry, can generate reliable insights and support stronger, evidence-based due diligence across complex seafood supply chains. Ready to find out how the WELL Survey can support you? Human rights is a practice, not a project.

Executive Summary As part of a strategic shift toward more effective Human Rights Due Diligence, Carter’s, Inc. moved beyond traditional compliance audits to adopt a data-driven worker voice model. By incorporating the scores from supplier worker surveys into their Vendor Scorecard, Carter’s is able to take a scalable, yet locally-tailored approach to supporting supplier standards focused on ensuring worker wellbeing and continuous improvement rather than audit and policing. By deploying the Labor Solutions WELL (Worker Wellbeing, Engagement and Livelihoods) Survey across its global supply chain, Carter’s heard from more than 65,000 workers across 24 suppliers in five major manufacturing hubs: Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Thailand, and Cambodia. Carter’s selected the WELL Survey for its indicator-based structure, which the company described as helping them “build a comprehensive understanding of workers’ experiences across each topic, ensuring we focus on the issues that matter most.” This deployment supports Carter’s broader Raise the Future commitment to improve the lives of one million workers by 2030. Scope of the Initiative Scaling Worker Voice Across Multiple Regions The deployment was designed to capture a representative, high-volume dataset across Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers, while minimizing operational burden on factories. Geographic Reach: Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Thailand, and Cambodia Supplier Participation: 24 manufacturing partners Worker Engagement: Over 65,000 anonymous responses Methodology: Mobile-based, anonymous deployment using QR codes Carter’s emphasized that the WELL Survey questions are “simple, easy for workers to understand, and effective at capturing the reality on the production floor.” Combined with a streamlined deployment model, the process was “quick and highly scalable, allowing us to engage key suppliers simultaneously without creating operational burden.” Key WELL Survey Indicators The WELL Survey’s modular design enabled Carter’s to measure 12 core dimensions of worker experience, providing what the company described as “fast, structured insights that help identify areas of risk and opportunities for improvement.” The indicators include Access to Remedy, Fair Pay and Working Hours, Gender Equity, Responsible Recruitment, Harassment and Abuse, Occupational Health and Safety, Wellbeing, and Workplace Climate, among others. Together, these indicators move beyond surface-level compliance to capture lived worker experience across facilities, scaling worker voice in varying local contexts. Why Carter’s Uses Worker Survey Data Incentivizing Worker Wellbeing Beyond Audits By adding a worker survey to their supplier engagement toolkit, Carter’s signals to suppliers that how workers experience their rights and working conditions is a key indicator of supplier performance. By aligning with suppliers before the first deployment on the objectives of the survey and what lower results than expected mean in terms of support Carter’s will provide to help suppliers improve, Carter’s creates an environment of alignment, where all supply chain parties work towards improvement instead of perfection. Strengthening Human Rights Due Diligence Worker survey data has become, in Carter’s words, “an important part of our Human Rights Due Diligence strategy.” The WELL Survey enables Carter’s to “validate conditions beyond traditional audits,” strengthening supplier risk assessments with direct worker input rather than relying solely on documentation and scheduled interviews. Enabling More Meaningful Supplier Engagement Rather than functioning as a compliance scorecard, the survey data helps Carter’s “guide more meaningful conversations with suppliers about worker well-being and responsible workplace practices.” Indicator-level results allow suppliers to identify specific gaps and implement targeted remediation actions. By listening directly to the voices of more than 65,000 workers, Carter’s has strengthened its ability to identify risk, validate working conditions, and engage suppliers in continuous improvement. As Carter’s summarized, the WELL Survey “provides clear, reliable insights into workers’ experiences,” supporting a more effective, worker-centered approach to Human Rights Due Diligence at scale. Turn worker voice into actionable due diligence. The WELL Survey helps brands move beyond audits to gain clear, reliable insight into worker experience at scale. Learn how WELL can strengthen your Human Rights Due Diligence, improve supplier engagement, and surface risks that traditional tools miss. → Explore the WELL Survey

Organizations: GIZ Responsible Business Hub (RBH) Network; Labor Solutions Launch Date: July 2025 | Geographic Scope: Global (23 countries) Why This Matters Compliance Expectations Are Rising — But Most Suppliers Still Lack the Tools to Act Suppliers across global value chains are under increasing pressure to demonstrate compliance with Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HREDD) requirements. While expectations are rising, many suppliers — particularly in sourcing countries — lack access to affordable, practical, and localized training that enables them to translate due diligence standards into day-to-day operational practice. To address this gap, the GIZ Responsible Business Hub (RBH) Network and Labor Solutions co-developed HREDD in Action: A Practical Approach for Suppliers, a free, scalable, multilingual e-learning program designed to build supplier implementation capacity rather than awareness alone. The course is delivered via the atingi learning platform and WOVO Educate, expanding access for suppliers, brands, and ecosystem partners. The Gap Suppliers Face Cost, Language, and Complexity Are Blocking Suppliers From Implementing HREDD Suppliers face recurring structural challenges, including: Limited access to affordable, high-quality training Language and localization gaps Difficulty translating international standards into operational processes Misalignment between buyer expectations and supplier realities Without targeted and practical support, these barriers slow progress on responsible business conduct and increase compliance and reputational risk for both suppliers and buyers. Turning Expectations Into Action We Built a Free, Multilingual Program to Turn Expectations Into Action The RBH Network and Labor Solutions designed a supplier-centric, practice-oriented e-learning program focused on operationalizing HREDD requirements. Key design principles included: Free and scalable access to remove cost barriers Multilingual delivery to support suppliers in sourcing countries Practical, application-first content embedded with tools and templates Alignment with buyer expectations through multinational peer review The program enables suppliers to apply HREDD concepts through e-learning directly within existing business processes. Designed for Application, Not Theory 17 Modules, Real Scenarios, Embedded Templates — Built for Operational Use, Not Theory The course was developed using a learner-centered methodology, including: Needs-based design informed by pre-survey data on supplier challenges across RBH countries Modular structure enabling flexible, self-paced learning Scenario-based learning and country-specific case studies reflecting real operating environments Embedded implementation tools, including: Risk identification and assessment templates Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) integration checklists Sample grievance mechanism components and remediation pathways Monitoring, documentation, and communication templates Peer review by 11 multinational enterprises to ensure alignment with buyer expectations Localization and translation to enhance relevance and comprehension Delivery via atingi and WOVO Educate enables open access, learner tracking, and certification. What the Program Covers From HREDD Foundations to Country-Specific Practice The program consists of 17 interactive modules, covering: Foundations of HREDD Introduction to HREDD Business relevance and resilience Human rights and environmental risks and impacts The HREDD Process (Supplier Perspective) Embedding Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) Risk identification and assessment Prevention and mitigation of adverse impacts Grievance mechanisms and access to remedy Monitoring and communication of performance Country-Specific Case Studies Cambodia Tunisia Pakistan Türkiye Bangladesh Vietnam Serbia Responsible Contracting Introduction to Supplier Model Contract Clauses Assessment and Certification Participants complete a knowledge assessment and receive an official certificate upon successful completion. Built for Global Access Free in 10 Languages, Available to Suppliers in 23 Countries The course is available free of charge in: English; Khmer; Mandarin; Spanish; Turkish; Vietnamese; Urdu; French; Serbia; Bangla. This multilingual approach supports supplier learning in local business and regulatory contexts. What Changed Hundreds of Suppliers Trained Across 23 Countries Within Months of Launch Within months of launch: Suppliers reached in 23 countries Hundreds of suppliers trained on practical HREDD implementation 17 modular learning units delivered at scale 11 multinational enterprises engaged as peer reviewers Strong uptake across sourcing regions, signaling demand for practical, supplier-focused capacity building How It Was Built Built With Buyers and Suppliers Together The program was developed through collaboration between: GIZ Responsible Business Hub (RBH) Network Labor Solutions Responsible Contracting Project 11 multinational enterprises serving as peer reviewers This ensured technical credibility, operational feasibility, and alignment across buyers and suppliers. Use It Standalone or Integrate It Into Your Due Diligence System The program works as a standalone capacity-building intervention — or as part of an integrated approach: Supporting Supplier Improvement The course builds practical understanding of roles, responsibilities, and implementation steps, increasing readiness for corrective action, remediation, and continuous improvement. Responding to Worker Insights Insights from worker voice and survey data, including WELL Survey results, can guide targeted deployment when gaps are identified in grievance mechanisms, access to remedy, or due diligence processes. Strengthening Grievance Handling When paired with CONNECT, the course ensures that individuals receiving worker messages understand: Worker rights and supplier responsibilities under HREDD How grievance mechanisms should function in practice Appropriate response, escalation, and remediation pathways This ensures worker messages are not only received, but understood and acted upon appropriately. Complementing Worker Education Supplier training can be paired with worker-focused education on rights awareness and grievance use, strengthening shared understanding, trust, and system effectiveness. Put It to Work Get Started: The Course Is Free Organizations seeking to strengthen supplier due diligence implementation, improve grievance mechanism effectiveness, or translate worker insights into action can deploy HREDD in Action: A Practical Approach for Suppliers as a standalone intervention or as part of an integrated approach. The course is available free of charge via: atingi: https://lnkd.in/gFr-W-TA WOVO Educate To learn more about implementing custom eLearning curricula at your organization with WOVO Educate or your own LMS, get in touch with us. Worker first always.

Regulatory expectations on human rights due diligence are increasing across jurisdictions. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and related legislation make clear that companies must identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for adverse impacts on workers throughout their supply chains. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) provide the governance framework. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) articulate the social and economic outcomes. How can companies generate credible, comparable evidence about workers’ lived experience across global supply chains? The WELL Survey (Wellbeing, Engagement and Livelihoods Survey) was developed to address this gap. Led by Labor Solutions and co-created through a multi-stakeholder group of brands, advisors, and industry actors - including early contributors such as adidas, H&M, Decathlon, carter’s, Lake Advisory and others - the WELL Survey provides a standardized, modular worker survey framework designed for global benchmarking and local relevance. It functions as: A supply chain worker survey A labor rights survey tool A human rights due diligence survey A workforce listening platform Most importantly, it captures structured, experience-based worker data aligned with internationally recognized standards. Worker Voice as a Core Element of Human Rights Due Diligence Under the UNGPs, companies must: Identify actual and potential human rights impacts Integrate findings into decision-making Track effectiveness Provide access to remedy Meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders - particularly workers - is central to this responsibility. The WELL Survey operationalizes that engagement requirement. Rather than assessing policy intent or documentation alone, it collects worker-reported experience across standardized indicators. This enables organizations to evaluate whether management systems function as intended in practice. The framework directly supports alignment with: SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth SDG 16 – Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions SDG 5 – Gender Equality SDG 3 – Good Health and Well-being SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 4, SDG 6 and SDG 11 where relevant Comprehensive Indicator Framework of the WELL Survey The WELL Survey includes a standardized Core Questionnaire, with optional modules and limited customization capacity. Each indicator represents a fixed grouping of experience-based questions, ensuring comparability across suppliers, brands, and geographies. Governance, Voice and Institutional Accountability Engagement - Worker trust in management, perception of responsiveness Communication - Access to information and ability to raise questions Leadership - Fair, inclusive, and accountable management Access to Remedy - Confidence that concerns are addressed Grievance Mechanism Accessibility - Safe and barrier-free reporting channels Grievance Mechanism Process + Transparency - Clear and consistent complaint handling Freedom of Association - Ability to organize and participate collectively These indicators align particularly with SDG 8 (worker participation and labor rights) and SDG 16 (transparency, accountability, institutional effectiveness). Livelihoods, Economic Security and Labor Conditions Fair Pay + Compensation - Transparent wage calculation and income sufficiency Fair Working Hours - Predictable schedules and voluntary overtime Responsible Recruitment - No recruitment fees, clear contracts, absence of debt bondage Freedom of Movement - No coercion or restriction of employment mobility Child Labor Prevention - Protection of education and development These indicators align primarily with SDG 8 (decent work), SDG 1 (income security), SDG 4 (education), and SDG 10 (protection of vulnerable groups). Equality, Protection and Opportunity Gender Equity - Addressing structural barriers and ensuring equitable access Equality (Non-Discrimination) - Equal treatment across demographic groups Professional Development - Fair access to training and advancement Harassment + Abuse - Protection from physical and psychological harm Sexual Harassment - Protection from gender-based violence These align with SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), and SDG 16 (protection from violence and discrimination). Health, Safety and Living Conditions Occupational Health + Safety – Safe working environments and injury prevention Workplace Climate + Environment – Access to sanitation, water, and dignified facilities Dormitories + Accommodation – Safe, clean, and adequate housing Wellbeing – Emotional, physical, and financial health Family + Work Balance – Policies supporting caregiving and work-life balance Social Connection – Ability to build relationships and community These indicators align with SDG 3 (health and wellbeing), SDG 6 (water and sanitation), SDG 11 (adequate housing), and SDG 8 (dignified work). Standardization with Local Relevance A persistent challenge in supply-chain worker surveys is duplication and fragmentation. Suppliers are often asked to respond to multiple overlapping surveys, reducing efficiency and worker trust. The WELL Survey was designed as a shared framework to streamline this landscape. Its structure includes: A fixed Core Questionnaire for global benchmarking Optional modules addressing specific risk areas (e.g., grievance systems, recruitment, working hours) Up to three custom questions to reflect local priorities Because each indicator is standardized, results remain comparable across industries and countries while still allowing contextual relevance. Experience-Based Design and Reporting The survey uses experience-based questions to encourage candid responses and reduce abstract or perception-only metrics. All surveys are multilingual, supporting accessibility across diverse regions. Participating organizations receive structured reporting, including: Indicator rankings Employee Net Promoter Scores (eNPS) Demographic breakdowns Year-over-year tracking This enables trend analysis, benchmarking, and targeted corrective action planning. Participating workplaces may also earn the annual WELL Seal, demonstrating commitment to structured worker voice measurement. From Measurement to Alignment The SDGs define development objectives. The UNGPs define corporate governance responsibilities. The WELL Survey provides a structured mechanism to assess whether workplace conditions align with those expectations in practice. It does not duplicate what audits assess — physical facility conditions, policy existence, building safety. It reaches what audits were never designed to access: what workers actually experience. In an environment where regulators, investors, and consumers increasingly require demonstrable due diligence, structured worker voice is no longer optional. It is a governance necessity. The WELL Survey was designed to meet that need - through multi-stakeholder collaboration, standardized methodology, and globally comparable indicators. Workplaces improve when worker experience is systematically measured, analyzed, and acted upon. Workers first always.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have been the global standard for corporate human rights responsibility since 2011. Most large brands reference them in their sustainability reports. Most compliance teams can point to a policy that cites them. What very few can do is demonstrate, with structured evidence, that those principles are being respected in practice — in the facilities, with the workers, across their value chain. That gap is precisely where regulators are looking. And it's the gap that the WELL Survey and WOVO Improve are built to close. Audits Show You a Day. Workers Tell You the Truth. The UNGPs are built around three pillars: the state duty to protect, the corporate responsibility to respect, and access to remedy. For brands operating through complex global supply chains, the second and third pillars are where the compliance work lives — and where the evidence is hardest to collect. Facility audits capture a snapshot. Supplier self-certifications capture a statement. Neither captures what workers actually experience — whether they feel safe raising a concern, whether a grievance mechanism is genuinely accessible to them, whether a policy that exists on paper has reached the factory floor. CSDDD and LkSG make this distinction legally explicit: the law requires worker participation, access to remedy, and operational grievance mechanisms — not audit compliance. Two Products, One Mapping Architecture: Worker Voice Meets Supplier Systems The WELL Survey and WOVO Improve are designed as complementary instruments — two different lenses on the same question. The distinction that drives the architecture is this: some UNGP principles can only be assessed by asking workers directly. Others require examining what suppliers have built. The WELL Survey captures the worker voice side. It produces evidence against the principles that depend on lived experience — whether core internationally recognized rights are being respected (P12), whether adverse impacts are being avoided or addressed (P13), whether meaningful consultation is taking place (P18), whether remediation is genuinely accessible (P22). These are not questions a supplier can answer on a worker's behalf. WOVO Improve captures the supplier system side. It assesses whether policy commitments are real (P16), whether human rights due diligence is actually being conducted (P17), whether findings are being integrated into operational decisions (P19), and whether suppliers are meeting their accountability obligations to external stakeholders (P21). Neither instrument alone produces a complete picture. Deployed together, they generate the kind of structured, cross-referenced evidence that CSDDD, LkSG, and equivalent frameworks require — evidence that can withstand regulatory scrutiny and investor review. Every indicator in both products is mapped in our WELLBank, the single source of truth for all question-level, indicator-level, and competency-level UNGP mappings across our product suite. When the Stakes Are Highest, the Scoring Reflects That Not all rights violations carry the same weight — and our indicator architecture doesn't treat them as if they do. Across the full indicator suite — covering Occupational Health and Safety, Harassment and Abuse, Responsible Recruitment, Freedom of Movement, Child Labour, and Grievance Mechanisms, among others — the indicators that measure the most severe potential violations are designated as salient. A low score on a salient indicator doesn't simply flag a gap in a dashboard. It triggers an elevated risk classification and a defined response protocol, reflecting how the UNGPs themselves approach severity: adverse impacts that are grave, widespread, or irreversible require prioritized attention (P24) and a proportionate due diligence response (P17, P19). UNGP Principle 31: The Eight Criteria Most Brands Have Never Actually Measured One of the most consequential — and most overlooked — elements of the UNGP framework is Principle 31, which sets out eight effectiveness criteria that any company-level grievance mechanism must meet to be considered functional. These criteria appear in regulatory guidance, investor questionnaires, and sustainability commitments across the industry. They are almost never measured directly. For the full legal definition of what makes a mechanism ‘operational-level’ under CSDDD — including the distinction between a corporate hotline and a genuine mechanism accessible at the point of work — see the legal breakdown. The WELL Survey and WOVO Improve both include Grievance Mechanism indicators that map individually to each of the eight P31 criteria — distinguishing between what workers report experiencing and what supplier systems are designed to provide. When both instruments are deployed together, the combined output produces a structured finding against each criterion: not a general impression, but an evidenced position on whether the mechanism is actually working for the people it is supposed to serve. The UN Guiding Principles - Built for CSDDD, LkSG, and the Regulatory Landscape You're Already Operating In The UNGP mapping doesn't sit in isolation. Every WELL indicator and every WOVO Improve competency is also mapped to the relevant ILO conventions, SDG targets, and — critically — the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. As mandatory human rights due diligence obligations expand across jurisdictions — CSDDD in the EU, LkSG in Germany, the UK Modern Slavery Act, and equivalent frameworks emerging across Asia and the Americas — the question for brands is no longer whether to conduct due diligence. It's whether the due diligence they're conducting is demonstrably meaningful. A survey score in isolation is not a compliance artefact. But a structured programme of worker voice measurement, combined with supplier self-assessment, cross-referenced against a documented framework mapping — that is what due diligence looks like in practice. The WELL and WOVO Improve mappings are designed to produce exactly that kind of documentation, in language aligned with how regulators and auditors expect to see it presented. The Signal That No Audit Will Reliably Surface The most valuable output of running the WELL Survey and WOVO Improve together is not a score. It's the divergence. When a supplier demonstrates strong systems in WOVO Improve — policy commitments in place, due diligence processes documented — but WELL Survey results show workers reporting a different experience, that gap is telling you something critical: the system exists, but it isn't reaching the people it is supposed to protect. That divergence — policy present, practice absent — is precisely the scenario that human rights due diligence frameworks are designed to surface. It is also the scenario that audit-only approaches will routinely miss. Evidence That Works Across Every Audience A structured UNGP mapping also makes your compliance evidence portable. Whether you're completing a CSDDD due diligence record, responding to an investor ESG questionnaire, preparing for a regulatory submission, or communicating findings to a civil society stakeholder, the same underlying data can be presented in the language each audience expects — without starting from scratch for every reporting cycle. Human rights due diligence is not a project, its a practice. The value of a rigorous mapping architecture is that it keeps that practice grounded in what matters: the experiences of workers, the systems suppliers are building, and the global standards that both are accountable to. Ready to Build an Evidence Base That Holds Up? Explore the WELL Survey, explore WOVO Improve, or talk to the Labor Solutions team about building a due diligence program that produces evidence regulators, investors, and auditors will accept. Human rights is a practice, not a project.

A Labor Solutions Analysis | Based on adidas Annual Reports 2017–2025 Eight Years of Public Data From adidas Is the Clearest Answer Available to CSDDD CSDDD doesn't ask for evidence of existence — it asks for evidence of effectiveness. Most brands fall short: channels exist, policies are written, boxes are ticked. But the data that would show whether workers are using those channels, whether complaints resolve, and whether trust is building over time is rarely collected or disclosed. Since 2017, adidas has done exactly that — making it one of the most concrete answers available to the question CSDDD is asking. CSDDD Doesn't Ask If You Have a Grievance Mechanism — It Asks If Workers Actually Use It CSDDD requires mechanisms that are accessible (including anonymously), trusted (workers believe raising a concern leads to a real outcome), effective (complaints resolved in a timely manner), and demonstrable through monitoring and disclosure. These requirements describe a program with measurable inputs, outputs, and outcomes — not a policy document. One Platform, Three Systems, 400,000+ Workers, One Integrated Due Diligence System Since 2017, adidas has deployed WOVO across 100% of its strategic Tier 1 manufacturing partners — reaching 400,000+ workers across up to 17 countries annually. Three CSDDD-relevant components: the WOVO grievance mechanism, the Worker Pulse survey (biannual, rights-focused), and targeted surveys on specific rights issues including gender equality. All three feed into adidas' human rights due diligence systems and supplier S-KPI ratings. The Full Record: Grievances, Resolution Rates, and Satisfaction From 2019 to 2025 100% Tier 1 Coverage, Every Year — Coverage Has Never Been the Gap adidas has maintained 100% Tier 1 coverage every year with access consistently above 400,000 workers across multiple countries — even as its value chain consolidated. Coverage has never been the gap. What the data shows is whether the mechanisms behind that coverage are working. 99% Resolution Rate, Held at Scale: The Floor, Not the Ceiling Resolution rate has held at 99% every year since 2021. This is the most basic measure of whether a grievance mechanism functions at all — and it is also the floor. A 99% resolution rate tells you complaints are being processed. Satisfaction and response time tell you whether they are being processed well. 39% to 79% in Six Years: Satisfaction Gains at This Scale Don't Happen by Accident Worker satisfaction with complaint resolution has risen 40 points over six years, with gains in almost every year. This is the metric CSDDD cares about most and that most brands have the least data on. A mechanism that resolves complaints on paper but leaves workers dissatisfied is not providing meaningful access to remedy. Response Times Fell 80%: Workers Now Hear Back in Under Half a Business Day Average response time fell from 49 hours in 2020 to under 11 hours in 2025 — a reduction of nearly 80%. Workers are not just getting responses; they are getting them fast enough to matter. Volume Dropped, Then Jumped 32%: What the Rebound Actually Measures Volume reflects both program maturity and value chain size. As adidas consolidated its supplier base, fewer facilities produced fewer absolute grievances. The 32% rebound to 47,200 in 2025 — against further facility reduction — is the meaningful signal: more workers per facility chose to use the system. That is the clearest evidence of growing trust. Reactive Isn't Enough: How Worker Pulse Meets CSDDD's Stakeholder Engagement Requirement The Worker Pulse now runs across 96 facilities in 13 countries, with favorable responses rising from 78% to 91% since 2020. CSDDD's stakeholder engagement requirements go beyond reactive grievance handling — brands must proactively engage workers to understand their experiences and risks. The Gender Equality survey (51,000 workers, 87/100 in 2025) demonstrates the same infrastructure can target specific rights categories. Three Things Eight Years of adidas WOVO CSDDD worker engagement Data Proves — That Most Brands Haven't Learned Yet Effectiveness is built, not installed. The improvement from 58% satisfaction in 2020 to 79% in 2025 happened because adidas invested consistently in supplier capability, KPI tracking, and worker communication over years — not because the platform was deployed. The metrics that matter most are the ones most brands don't collect. Resolution rate is table stakes; satisfaction, response time, and sentiment trends are what regulators will ask for. Coverage and integration are separate problems. 100% Tier 1 coverage is a coverage achievement. WOVO data feeding into S-KPI ratings and due diligence priorities is an integration achievement. CSDDD requires both. CSDDD Compliance Isn't Built at Deadline. It's Built Over Years. Eight years of publicly disclosed adidas WOVO CSDDD worker engagement data makes a clear case: technology-enabled worker engagement, consistently governed and properly integrated into due diligence systems, produces measurable, compounding improvements in the outcomes CSDDD demands. Satisfaction doubles. Response times fall 80%. Coverage scales to hundreds of thousands of workers without quality erosion. The brands that will find CSDDD compliance straightforward are not the ones with the simplest value chains — they are the ones that started building their evidence base early. Want to learn more? Human rights is a practice, not a project. *All data cited in this report is drawn exclusively from adidas' publicly available annual sustainability reports for the years 2019–2025. Labor Solutions is the provider of the WOVO platform deployed across adidas' Tier 1 value chain.

Why high use of workplace grievance mechanisms signals trust, and why third-party helplines should be a backstop, not the starting point. As human rights due diligence requirements expand under laws such as Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) and the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), grievance mechanisms have become a core expectation for buyers sourcing from global value chains. But in practice, the challenge is rarely whether a supplier has a grievance mechanism. The real question is whether workers trust it enough to use it — and whether buyers know how to interpret what they see. Grievances Don’t Start as Complaints - They Start as Questions For most workers, raising a concern is intimidating. Calling a third-party helpline or reporting an issue outside the workplace often feels extreme — something people do only as a last resort. In reality, most grievances begin as questions, not accusations: Is this allowed? Was my pay calculated correctly? Can my supervisor speak to me this way? Who can I talk to if something doesn’t feel right? When workers have no safe way to ask these questions, concerns either remain hidden or escalate unnecessarily. This is why operational-level grievance mechanisms are so important. Two channels. Different Purposes. Both Necessary. What Is an Operational Grievance Mechanism? An operational grievance mechanism is the system that exists inside a workplace — at the factory, farm, or site level — that allows workers to raise concerns directly with their employer. When done well, it allows workers to: Ask questions anonymously Raise concerns early Receive explanations and follow-up See issues addressed close to where they occur For employers, this enables faster resolution and clearer communication.For buyers, it is often the earliest and most reliable signal of risk. Why Third-Party Helplines Are Still Necessary, but Not Enough Third-party grievance mechanisms and helplines play a critical role, especially when: Workers do not trust local management There is fear of retaliation Serious abuse or exploitation is involved Independent oversight is needed However, these channels are typically used only when workers feel they have no other option. Operational grievance mechanisms and third-party helplines serve different but complementary purposes: Operational mechanisms support early dialogue and everyday problem-solving Third-party mechanisms act as a safeguard when internal systems fail or feel unsafe The strongest grievance ecosystems include both — and workers understand when and how to use each. What an Effective Operational Grievance Mechanism Looks Like From a worker’s perspective, an operational grievance mechanism works when it is: Safe Workers can raise concerns anonymously or confidentially, without fear of retaliation. Known The system is clearly explained, regularly promoted, and discussed during onboarding and team meetings. Accessible It reflects workers’ realities — their language, literacy levels, and access to technology. Open-door policies are helpful, but they are not enough on their own. Many workers will not raise sensitive issues face-to-face, especially where power dynamics exist. From an employer’s perspective, effective mechanisms allow for: Two-way communication and clarification Clear tracking and follow-up Identification of recurring or systemic issues Why Utilization Matters and How Buyers Should Interpret It One of the most common mistakes buyers make is assuming that fewer grievances mean lower risk. In practice, the opposite is often true. What “Good” Utilization Looks Like High utilization of operational grievance mechanisms is usually a positive sign. It suggests that workers: Trust their employer enough to speak up Feel safe asking questions Believe they will receive a response Low utilization of third-party grievance mechanisms can also be a healthy signal when operational systems are trusted and effective. In these cases, third-party channels function as a backstop, not the primary entry point. A Simple KPI Framework for Buyers When assessing grievance mechanisms, buyers should focus on patterns, not just numbers. Operational Mechanism Utilization High use generally reflects trust, accessibility, and effective communication. Types of Issues Raised A healthy system captures both questions and complaints across topics such as pay, supervision, and health and safety. Response Time and Follow-Up Fast acknowledgment and clear communication strongly correlate with worker trust and continued use. Escalation Patterns Occasional escalation to third-party mechanisms is expected. Frequent escalation may indicate gaps in operational systems. What Buyers Should Not Assume “Zero grievances” does not mean zero problems. In many cases, it means workers do not feel safe, informed, or confident enough to speak up. Buyers should apply healthy skepticism when suppliers report no grievances at all, especially in higher-risk contexts. Why This Matters for Buyers Under HRDD laws now in force, buyers are increasingly expected to understand how risks are identified and addressed — not just whether policies exist. Operational grievance mechanisms are one of the most practical tools buyers have to: Detect risk early Prevent harm Reduce escalation Strengthen supplier relationships The goal is not silence.The goal is trusted systems, early dialogue, and problems solved before they become crises. Turning Insight Into Action Buyers often understand why grievance mechanisms matter — but need support implementing and assessing them in practice. If you are: Assessing supplier grievance mechanisms and need a framework to understand the gap between what employers think is happening and what workers actually experience, our survey and improvement tools can help. Looking for an effective operational grievance mechanism, WOVO Connect allows workers to anonymously message their employer while giving buyers appropriate oversight into how concerns are handled and resolved. Working to strengthen operational grievance mechanisms across your supply chain, we support buyers and suppliers in building systems that encourage early dialogue rather than last-resort escalation. If you’d like to discuss how to assess, design, or strengthen operational grievance mechanisms in your supply chain, we’re happy to continue the conversation. Workers First Always

A Labor Solutions Case Study | adidas 2025 Sustainability Report The adidas 2025 Annual Report, published under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) section on Workers in the Value Chain, contains a number that would alarm most compliance teams: a 32% increase in worker grievances. This post unpacks why adidas counts it as a milestone — and what six years of WOVO data reveal about what a functioning operational grievance mechanism actually looks like. More Complaints, Same 99% Resolution Rate: Why Volume Growth Is the Metric adidas Wanted When grievance volumes rise, most brands get nervous. At adidas, a 32% increase is a sign the system is working. In 2025, workers submitted close to 47,200 complaints through WOVO — up from 35,700 in 2024 — and 99% were resolved by year-end. Higher volume, same near-perfect resolution rate: that is proof of trust, not a problem. Satisfaction Rose From 39% to 79% in Six Years — and the Trajectory Is Still Improving Worker satisfaction with grievance resolution has risen from 39% in 2019 to nearly 79% in 2025 — a 40-point transformation over six years of consistent WOVO investment. Average response time fell from 49 hours in 2020 to under 11 hours in 2025. Workers who raise a concern today can expect a response in less than half a business day. The Supplier Base Shrank. Worker Coverage Didn't. 402,500 Workers Still Have Full Access. In 2025, more than 402,500 workers across 92 manufacturing facilities in ten countries had access to WOVO — covering 100% of adidas' core Tier 1 manufacturing partners. The reduction from 105 facilities in 2024 reflects value chain consolidation, not a reduction in WOVO coverage. From Miscommunication to Missing Benefits Workers Finally Have a Channel For Everyday Worker Grievances The 47,200 grievances in 2025 spanned internal communication (~13,300 cases), benefits (~8,300), and general facilities (~5,800). These are the everyday friction points that go unvoiced when workers don't trust the channel — and that quietly erode morale and retention when left unaddressed. The 99% resolution rate means nearly every complaint gets closed; the 79% satisfaction rate means workers find the outcomes fair. 91% Favorable Across 96 Facilities: How adidas Listens Before Problems Escalate The Worker Pulse survey ran across 96 facilities in 13 countries in 2025, with favorable responses reaching nearly 91% — up from 78% in 2020. The Gender Equality survey reached 51,000 workers with an average favorable score of 87/100. Together with the grievance mechanism, these create a three-channel listening infrastructure: reactive, proactive, and targeted. Every Complaint Feeds a Supplier KPI: How Worker Voice Becomes Management Consequence adidas does not treat WOVO data as a reporting metric — it treats it as an operational input. Grievance satisfaction ratings, response time data, and KPI dashboards feed directly into adidas' supplier social impact (S-KPI) rating. Workers who use WOVO know that what they say influences how their factory is rated. Six CSDDD Requirements. Six Data Points. An Evidence Base Built Over Six Years. CSDDD requires access to remedy that is effective, not just available. adidas' 2025 model: Accessible (402,500+ workers), Used (47,200 grievances), Trusted (79% satisfaction), Fast (<11 hours), Measured (supplier KPIs), Proactive (Worker Pulse + Gender Equality surveys). This is the standard CSDDD expects — and a didas has built an evidence base showing consistent improvement year over year. Ready to build a program like this? Contact Labor Solutions to discuss how WOVO can support your due diligence and worker engagement program. Source: adidas 2025 Annual Sustainability Report (ESRS S2). All data drawn from adidas' public disclosures.