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 Neccessary. 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, get in touch  — we’re happy to continue the conversation.

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 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 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. 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.

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. Without worker-level evidence, you cannot know whether your human rights due diligence is working. You can only know that it exists. 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 recognised 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 prioritised 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. A grievance mechanism must be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, a source of continuous learning, and based on engagement and dialogue. These criteria appear in regulatory guidance, investor questionnaires, and sustainability commitments across the industry. They are almost never measured directly. 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. 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 programme that produces evidence regulators, investors, and auditors will accept.

Labor Solutions is the only provider focused exclusively on engaging value chain workers and suppliers — delivering Worker-Driven Due Diligence at scale by connecting, engaging + educating at scale to surface actionable data and drive meaningful change. Founded in 2013, headquartered in Singapore. Women-founded, women-led. Employee-owned. The company's platform is called WOVO. Labor Solutions exists to embed worker voice into global supply chain compliance. It is the only provider focused exclusively on worker and supplier engagement across complex, multi-tier value chains. Its tools are used by global brands to meet obligations under the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the German Supply Chain Act (LkSG), and UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) — specifically Principle 31 (operational grievance mechanisms). Key Facts Founded: 2013 Headquarters: Singapore Structure: Women-founded, women-led, employee-owned social enterprise Platform: WOVO Workers reached: 3.8M+ active workers Countries: 180+ Languages: 41+ Regulatory frameworks supported: CSDDD, LkSG, UNGP Principle 31, ILO Conventions Key clients: adidas, Nike, H&M, Dell, Cisco, Diageo, Carter's + Decathlon Contact: info@laborsolutions.tech WOVO — The Platform WOVO is a single integrated platform — one app for workers, one platform for suppliers, one dashboard for brands — designed to support the needs of all value chain stakeholders. Our approach, design and implementation deliver proven outcomes: WOVO is trusted by more workers and suppliers than any other tool in the industry. Platform impact statistics: 780% increase in worker feedback engagement Workers are 9x more likely to use WOVO than traditional grievance channels Workers who receive rights education via WOVO Educate are 2x more likely to speak up 40K+ grievance cases handled weekly through WOVO Connect Module 1: WELL Worker Survey (Engage) The WELL Worker Survey generates primary data sets directly from workers through a safe + accessible channel — more effective than audits at identifying risk, because workers know what audits can't. Industry-built, modular and globally aligned, it surfaces root causes — from wages to safety risks to management behavior — and delivers actionable reports that give buyers + suppliers the evidence they need to act. Co-created through a multi-stakeholder design process, it is the industry's first modular survey framework with global comparability and local relevance. Available via mobile app, SMS, and paper-based channels. Core WELL Worker Survey indicators (22 questions, 8 indicators, UNGP-aligned, industry-tested): Engagement Fair Pay + Compensation Professional Development Occupational Health + Safety Access to Remedy Harassment + Abuse Workplace Communication Wellbeing Module 2: WOVO Improve WOVO Improve is a supplier self-diagnostic tool that translates worker insights from The WELL Worker Survey into structured self-assessments + actionable improvement plans with real, trackable actions — worker-driven, not audit-driven, and owned by the supplier, not imposed from the outside. Suppliers focus on just 3 priority actions at a time, incentivizing honesty and ensuring realistic follow-through. Worker Led Improvement Cycle: Listen to Workers (survey) → Drill Down with Suppliers' Self-Assessment to Identify Gaps → Act → Measure Progress. Module 3: WOVO Connect WOVO Connect is a trusted, scalable, and effective operational grievance mechanism — not a hotline. It gives workers a confidential channel to speak up whenever they need to, closing the feedback loop between workers and management. Workers can ask, suggest, and report anonymously via a multi-language, audiovisual-supported system. Important: WOVO Connect is an Operational Grievance Mechanism — NOT a hotline. It is a structured case management system aligned with UNGP Principle 31. Scale: 3.8M+ workers served, 40K+ cases handled weekly, operating across 41+ countries. Workers are 9x more likely to use WOVO Connect than any other grievance channel. Beyond grievance management, WOVO Connect enables two-way communication between facility management and workers via newsletters, broadcast announcements, pay slips, event calendar, shared files, and FAQ boards. Module 4: WOVO Educate WOVO Educate delivers rights-based eLearning for workers and managers — available in multiple languages, designed for low-literacy environments, and built around the issues that matter most on the ground. It builds the awareness and confidence workers need to speak up, and the skills managers need to respond. Impact: Workers who receive rights education through WOVO Educate are 2x more likely to speak up through grievance channels. Regulatory Context CSDDD (EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive): Requires large companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for actual and potential adverse human rights impacts in their supply chains. Operational grievance mechanisms aligned with UNGP Principle 31 are a core requirement. WOVO Connect is specifically designed as a Principle 31-compliant operational grievance mechanism. LkSG (German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act): Requires German companies and large foreign companies with German operations to conduct human rights due diligence across direct and indirect suppliers. Worker surveys and grievance mechanisms are required components. UNGP Principle 31: Establishes criteria for effective operational grievance mechanisms: legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, a source of continuous learning, and based on engagement and dialogue. WOVO Connect is designed against all these criteria. Evidence of Impact adidas 2024 + 2025 Annual Reports describe WOVO as 'highly effective' and 'trusted by workers,' noting 'consistent, widespread sustained usage' and 'high volume of cases received through the app.' Academic study finds WOVO delivers 'sizeable economic returns' for businesses. WELL Survey uncovered illegal recruitment fee charging in a factory that had passed traditional social audits. One factory decreased fire safety accidents by 80% using WOVO. Decathlon uses WOVO Improve for supplier autonomy programs starting with worker surveys. Workers are 9x more likely to engage via WOVO than traditional grievance channels. 780% increase in worker feedback when workers have access to WOVO. Key Pages Homepage: https://www.laborsolutions.tech WOVO platform overview: https://www.laborsolutions.tech/wovo WELL Survey: https://www.laborsolutions.tech/well WOVO Improve: https://www.laborsolutions.tech/improve WOVO Connect: https://www.laborsolutions.tech/connect WOVO Educate: https://www.laborsolutions.tech/educate Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD): https://www.laborsolutions.tech/hrdd Impact and case studies: https://www.laborsolutions.tech/insights Contact: https://www.laborsolutions.tech/contact

From Case Study to Action Inspired by adidas’ Global Deployment of WOVO The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) requires companies to engage affected stakeholders, including workers, as part of human rights due diligence.  Many companies understand the requirement. Fewer understand how to implement worker engagement at scale across hundreds of supplier facilities and hundreds of thousands of workers.  This blueprint translates adidas’ real-world implementation of WOVO by Labor Solutions - reaching 400,000+ workers across 95 factories in 10 countries - into a practical, repeatable plan that other companies can follow.  Proven Scalability What adidas Achieved through Worker Engagement Before outlining the steps, it is important to understand the scale this model has already proven:  400,000+ workers active workers 92 supplier facilities  100% of strategic Tier 1 suppliers covered  10 manufacturing countries  47,200 grievances handled digitally in one year  99% grievance resolution rate  <11-hour average response time  These outcomes demonstrate that tech-enabled worker engagement can operate at enterprise scale, not just in pilot programs. Step 1: Establish Worker Engagement as a Due Diligence System  Objective : Formally embed worker engagement into your human rights due diligence (HRDD) framework. How adidas did this at scale   adidas defined worker engagement as a core element of its social compliance and due diligence strategy, applying it consistently across 90+ supplier sites rather than limiting it to high-profile factories.  Actions for replication   Define worker engagement as part of ESG, compliance, and HRDD governance  Identify priority labor and human rights risks across your supply chain  Assign ownership across compliance, sourcing, sustainability, and local teams  Ensure worker data feeds into risk assessment and remediation processes  Result: Worker voice becomes a structured input into decision-making across large supplier networks.  According to adidas’ 2024 Annual Report WOVO is "highly effective" and "trusted by workers" throughout the supply chain, evidenced by the “consistent, widespread”, “sustained usage" and "the high volume of cases received through the app.”    Step 2: Deploy Worker Technology Across Strategic Suppliers  Objective : Enable consistent engagement and comparable data across geographies and suppliers.  How adidas did this at scale   adidas deployed WOVO across 100% of its strategic Tier 1 suppliers, reaching 400,000+ workers in 92 facilities across 10 countries.  Actions for replication   Roll out worker technology across:  All strategic Tier 1 suppliers  High-risk Tier 2 suppliers where relevant  Prioritize regions with known labor risks or weak protections  Set Year-1 targets for:  Number of facilities  Number of workers reached  Geographic coverage  Result : Worker engagement becomes enterprise-wide, not fragmented.  Step 3: Operationalize a Digital Grievance Mechanism  Objective : Ensure access to remedy at scale, as required under CSDDD.  How adidas did this at scale   All strategic Tier 1 suppliers were required to operate a digital grievance mechanism through WOVO Connect , handling 47,200 grievances in 2025 alone.  Actions for replication   Mandate a standardized digital grievance mechanism at supplier level  Train supplier HR teams on grievance handling  Actively promote the system to workers in local languages  Monitor grievance performance centrally  Benchmark KPIs (based on adidas’ experience)   Utilization rate: ~9%  Resolution rate: ≥95% (adidas achieved 99%)  Response time: ≤11 hours  Worker satisfaction: ≥70% (adidas reached 79%)  “We are attentive to worker concerns and issues and continuously review and assess the feedback received through the WOVO platform...“It helps us understand the main challenges and labor rights issues... and undertake timely interventions where necessary.”— adidas 2024 Annual Report Result:  Grievance mechanisms function as real accountability tools, even across hundreds of thousands of workers.  Step 4: Launch Regular Worker Surveys at Scale  Objective : Capture worker sentiment continuously and proactively identify risks.  How adidas did this at scale   adidas conducts biannual worker surveys across all strategic supplier facilities, with favorable responses increasing from 78% in 2020 to nearly 90% in 2024.  In addition, targeted surveys reached 46,000 workers in a single year on gender equality alone.  Actions for replication   Conduct surveys at least twice per year  Use short, focused surveys that scale across languages and regions  Deploy targeted surveys for specific risks or worker groups  Result : Worker sentiment becomes measurable, trackable, and comparable at scale.  Step 5: Integrate Worker Data Into Due Diligence Systems  Objective : Turn worker feedback into actionable due diligence intelligence.  How adidas did this at scale   WOVO data feeds directly into adidas’ human rights due diligence systems and supplier social compliance scores, enabling real-time visibility across 90+ facilities.  Actions for replication   Integrate grievance and survey data into compliance dashboards  Flag facilities with repeated or unresolved issues  Use insights to trigger targeted remediation or supplier support  Result : Due diligence shifts from periodic review to continuous monitoring.  Step 6: Make Worker Engagement a Supplier Performance Standard  Objective : Create accountability across large supplier networks.  How adidas did this at scale   adidas embeds worker engagement metrics - such as grievance resolution and survey participation - into supplier KPIs across all strategic suppliers.  Actions for replication   Embed worker engagement indicators into supplier scorecards  Set minimum performance thresholds  Incentivize strong performance with preferred sourcing or support  Share comparative benchmarks across suppliers  Result : Worker engagement becomes a measurable, enforceable expectation.  Step 7: Communicate Results to Meet Regulatory Expectations  Objective : Demonstrate compliance, transparency, and impact.  How adidas did this at scale   adidas publicly reports worker engagement outcomes - covering hundreds of thousands of workers and thousands of cases - in its annual reporting.  Actions for replication   Publish aggregate metrics (workers reached, grievances resolved, survey participation)  Share examples of improvements driven by worker feedback  Report outcomes to regulators, investors, and auditors  Result : Companies can evidence CSDDD compliance with data, not narratives.  Outcomes What Six Years of This Model Proves This blueprint has already been tested at enterprise scale - not in a pilot, and not for a single year. adidas has run the WOVO program continuously since 2017, across hundreds of supplier facilities, in more than a dozen countries, reaching hundreds of thousands of workers. What that sustained commitment has produced is not just scale. It's a measurable, compounding improvement in every dimension that matters for worker engagement. Metric 2019/2020 Baseline 2025 Worker satisfaction with case resolution 39% (2019) ~79% Average grievance response time 49 hours (2020) <11 hours Worker Pulse: favorable responses ~78% (2020) ~91% Grievances resolved 98% (2020) 99% Satisfaction has doubled. Response time has fallen by nearly 80%. Favorable survey sentiment has risen 13 points. Resolution has held at or above 99% throughout. None of these are one-year results - every metric improved across every year of the program. The 2025 grievance volume figure captures what this trajectory ultimately produces: close to 47,200 complaints were submitted in a single year - up 32% from 2024 - while the number of covered facilities actually decreased. More workers, per facility, chose to use the system. Not because conditions worsened, but because trust in the outcome grew. That is the clearest signal a grievance mechanism can send. This is what program maturity looks like at scale: not just access, but use. Not just use, but confidence in what happens next. Worker engagement should not live in pilots, audits, or standalone initiatives. As adidas' experience across six years demonstrates, when worker voice is embedded into systems, KPIs, and due diligence processes, the returns compound. Faster response times build trust. Higher trust drives usage. Greater usage surfaces more issues earlier. Earlier intervention improves outcomes. Better outcomes raise satisfaction - which builds more trust. That cycle is not automatic. It requires consistent governance, the right technology, and a genuine commitment to acting on what workers say. But once it is running, it becomes one of the most durable assets a brand can have in its human rights due diligence program. As adidas’ experience shows, when worker voice is embedded into systems, KPIs, and due diligence processes, it becomes a driver of resilience, accountability, and continuous improvement.  Want to learn how to apply this blueprint to your own supply chain? Talk with us about scaling worker engagement under CSDDD.

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?

Treat global helplines as a checkbox. Invest your energy in tools that actually reach workers. What the Law Actually Requires Buyers Must Maintain Independent Helplines — and Remain Responsible for Risk, Even in Silence HRDD regulations, including LkSG , CSDDD ,, and the U.S. National Action Plan — require companies to establish complaints procedures that are accessible across their value chains. Buyers must therefore maintain an independent helpline or complaints mechanism as part of their human rights due diligence obligations. This responsibility exists regardless of whether complaints are received. Under HRDD frameworks, access to remedy is not conditional on usage; it is a structural requirement. A buyer cannot assume that silence indicates the absence of harm. The absence of complaints does not equal the absence of risk. In fact, regulations hold companies accountable not only for harms they know about, but for risks they should have reasonably identified. A helpline alone will never surface the full spectrum of those risks. Given that buyer-led complaints mechanisms often experience extremely low utilization and limited worker trust, companies should implement them to meet regulatory obligations — but shift serious attention and resources toward tools that actively engage workers and proactively identify risk. This is where stronger local tools — including supplier-owned operational grievance mechanisms and proactive engagement tools such as worker surveys — become essential. While a supplier's own internal operational grievance mechanism does not alone satisfy the buyer's obligation to operate a complaints mechanism under LkSG , CSDDD, or the UNGPs, effective operational grievance mechanisms at a site level is critical for risk reduction and worker safety. They are where issues can be raised early, addressed quickly, and prevented from escalating. Proactive Approaches Unlike complaints lines, which rely on individuals choosing to report harm, surveys systematically engage the broader workforce and generate insight regardless of whether workers are prepared to file a complaint. They can surface patterns related to wages, harassment, excessive hours, retaliation fears, or lack of trust in management, issues that may never reach a formal grievance channel or show up in an audit . Surveys help buyers proactively engage workers and identify leading indicators of risk rather than waiting for crises to emerge. The most effective due diligence systems combine independent helplines, strong supplier-level operational grievance mechanisms, and proactive engagement tools to meaningfully support and protect workers. Together, these layers create a more complete system of prevention, escalation, and remedy. However, many teams operate with limited resources, requiring a strategic — rather than purely holistic — approach to implementation. In these cases, global helplines should be treated as a compliance baseline: necessary to meet regulatory expectations, but insufficient as a standalone risk identification tool. The greater investment of time, budget, and leadership attention should be directed toward mechanisms that actually reach workers, build trust, and surface risk in real time. Tools that proactively engage workers and strengthen site-level resolution capacity are far more likely to reduce harm than complaint channels that sit unused. What Actually Makes a Grievance Mechanism Work Effective Grievance Mechanisms Are a Form of Due Diligence and Early Risk Identification Effective grievance mechanisms need to be known, trusted, transparent, rights-aligned, accessible, two-way, and fast to respond ( UNGPs set out eight effectiveness criteria ) . Most importantly workers who see their feedback lead to action keep using the system. Those who don't, stop. ( Read a Case Study ) This is straightforward in principle. It's extraordinarily hard to deliver at a global level — and this is precisely why globally managed helplines fall short. Building worker awareness requires consistent, local promotion. Building trust requires cultural and linguistic fluency, local credibility, and evidence that issues actually get resolved. Two-way communication requires local capacity to investigate and follow up. None of this scales cleanly across dozens of countries and languages from a central helpline. Regulations require global complaints channels — and you should have one. But the honest reality is that meeting the letter of that requirement and actually reaching workers are two different things. A report from the Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI) found that "while many companies report the existence of grievance mechanisms, there is often little evidence that these are used by workers, demonstrating a gap between policy and practice.” The mechanisms that work are the ones embedded in how suppliers operate, supported by local engagement, and backed by real follow-through. Helplines vs. Operational Grievance Mechanisms Helplines and operational grievance mechanisms are often used interchangeably, but they serve distinct purposes — and confusing them can create serious gaps in both legal compliance and worker protection. Buyers should require both operational grievance mechanisms and independent HRDD complaints processes in order to effectively support and protect workers. Helplines (Buyer's Obligation) Under Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) frameworks, including emerging regulations such as CS3D and LkSG, buyers are expected to provide access to remedy across their value chain. This obligation is typically fulfilled through buyer-level complaints processes or third-party helplines. These mechanisms should be designed to be accessible not only to direct employees, but to workers throughout the supply chain, as well as farmers, contractors, and affected community members. They are independent from site management and should be backed by clear investigation procedures, escalation pathways, protection against retaliation, and meaningful remediation processes. Importantly, this is the buyer’s responsibility — not the supplier’s. In theory, these helplines exist to fill gaps where state-based grievance systems are weak or inaccessible. In practice, however, they are difficult to design and manage effectively. Many brands rely on country-specific NGO channels, multi-stakeholder initiative grievance lines, or large third-party providers such as Navex or SpeakUp. While these systems can provide independence and formal structure, they often risk becoming compliance mechanisms in form rather than function — technically available, but rarely trusted by workers or poorly integrated with site-level resolution processes. Treat global helplines as a checkbox. Invest your energy in tools that actually reach workers. Operational Grievance Mechanisms Operational grievance mechanisms, by contrast, are internal to a facility and are essential for day-to-day worker voice. These include HR complaint channels, tech tools and apps like WOVO Connect , worker committees, suggestion boxes, supervisor reporting structures, union representatives, and internal hotlines. When designed and supported well, they are where real resolution should occur: close to the issue, embedded in daily operations, and capable of addressing concerns quickly. However, they are often constrained by power imbalances, fear of retaliation, weak documentation practices, and limited escalation pathways. Workers may know these channels exist, but confidence erodes when complaints stall, require escalation, or fail to result in visible remedy. Operational mechanisms alone are insufficient to satisfy buyer HRDD obligations. At the same time, buyer-level helplines cannot compensate for weak site-level systems. The most common failure point is the gap between system design and worker experience. Many facilities can describe their grievance procedures in detail, yet far fewer can demonstrate worker trust, safe escalation, consistent follow-through, and meaningful remedy. Low complaint volume is frequently interpreted as success, when in reality it may signal fear, futility, or lack of awareness. In a functioning system, steady and diverse utilization is often a healthier indicator than silence. For buyers, the key is not simply verifying that both types of mechanisms exist, but assessing how they function and interact. ( What Buyers Should Look For — and Why Utilization Matters ). In Practice: adidas requires WOVO's operational grievance management platform at all Tier 1 supplier facilities. According to their 2024 Annual Report, WOVO is "highly effective" and "trusted by workers," evidenced by "consistent, widespread, sustained usage and the high volume of cases received." adidas uses performance metrics to monitor engagement in real time and intervene where necessary. In Practice: Getting suppliers to close the gap between policy and practice is harder than it looks. Read our case study on assessing grievance mechanism effectiveness →   What's Out There? Mechanisms Worth Knowing Several sectors have established their own mechanisms — including the Ethical Toy Program, Fair Wear Foundation, RMG Sustainability Council, Responsible Jewellery Council, Ethical Trading Initiative, Fair Labor Association, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, and the Responsible Minerals Initiative. Where relevant to your sector, these are worth knowing about — though like global helplines, their effectiveness varies and they should not be treated as a substitute for direct worker engagement.   Country-specific mechanisms tend to outperform global helplines — they're more likely to be known by workers and trusted over time. Where one exists, prioritize it.   Bangladesh: Amader Kotha Helpline  · RSC OSH Complaints Mechanism Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Haiti, Jordan: Better Work — ILO-IFC joint program providing factory-level grievance advisory services A Note on Global Helplines Globally managed helplines often struggle to build worker trust — especially when they're not locally embedded or backed by real engagement. Low trust leads to low use, and low use means the risks you're trying to surface stay hidden. Put one in place if regulations require it — Speak Up and Navex are common options. Then focus where it counts: active risk identification, direct worker engagement, and grievance systems embedded in how suppliers operate. A helpline is a starting point. Worker-driven due diligence is the goal.

Why workers’ 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 its effective. Do workers trust it enough to use it? Setting the stage 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.  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  Here are some good third-party helplines. 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. Understanding Effectiveness 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 Operational Grievance Mechanism 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.  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. 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.  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.  Here's an example. 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.  Here's an example. 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, get in touch — we’re happy to continue the conversation.

The WELL Survey Most supply chain engagement and risk management is top-down, causing duplication, resistance, and misalignment. With governments, consumers, and investors demanding greater supply chain transparency , accountability, and proof that companies are protecting workers’ rights, having effective strategies and tools to engage with workers is more important than ever. Whether for forced labor bans, Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD)  laws, or to comply with other standards for ethical and responsible business, global businesses must now demonstrate both that they understand risks and also that they are taking steps to mitigate, remedy and prevent harm to workers.  The WELL Survey (Worker Wellbeing, Engagement, and Livelihoods)  is designed to help companies meet this moment, with a tool focused on hearing worker perspectives, aligning the interests of suppliers and customers, and creating actionable insights that lead to real improvement in workers’ lives.  Listening to Workers, Driving Change Worker Voices Drive Results Trust and communication create lasting change and better outcomes for workers. Ensuring trust is at the heart of the WELL Survey. The WELL Survey uses experience-based questions  to encourage open, honest feedback from workers, listening to their perspectives rather than using them against their employers .  Our worker-centered approach results in reliable data because there are no wrong answers, and no pitting workers against their employers. When workers feel heard, they engage. When suppliers listen, they improve. When customers support, they improve resiliency and become leaders.  The WELL Survey transforms worker voices into actionable insights, empowering companies and suppliers to strengthen relationships, reduce risks, and improve worker wellbeing regardless of industry or supply chain tier. Inclusive + Accessible Worker voices matter everywhere and language should never be a barrier.  The WELL Survey is Multilingual , covering every language that workers in global supply chains speak and read fluently, with expert translation and local adaptation to ensure understanding and comparable answers. This ensures that all workers, regardless of geography, literacy level, role or background, can share their experiences confidently and confidentially.   Comparable and Credible Data Built through collaboration with leading global companies and experts, the WELL Survey’s standardized indicators enable cross-industry+ cross-country aggregation with evidence-based scoring bands.  Indicators are groups of questions about one specific topic or issue that help to provide a multi-dimensional understanding of all of the aspects of that issue. Single questions alone can be misleading or taken out of context, but indicators provide a reliable way of holistically understanding worker experiences of an issue.  Choose our Core WELL Indicators, or a mix of Core and Risk-based indicators that best reflect by seeing differences in the survey and indicator scores year-on-year, changes in worker sentiment that indicate issues with wellbeing and rights in the workplace are clear.   Clear, Actionable Insights Companies that deploy the WELL Survey receive in-depth reports that include:  Employee Net Promoter Scores (eNPS)  Demographic breakdowns and insights (including by role, self-identified gender and tenure)  Key Indicator Scores  Year-on-year comparisons  Areas to focus on for support and improvement  These insights help companies measure progress, demonstrate compliance with human rights due diligence   obligations, and communicate how risks are being managed confidently to stakeholders and regulators.  Ongoing Relevance The WELL Survey will evolve as workplaces and risks do. Through regular updates, the tool remains aligned with emerging global standards and real-world challenges from gender equity and mental health to climate change and labor migration. This ensures the survey stays relevant, enabling continuous improvement rather than one-off assessments.  In doing so, the WELL Survey helps companies move beyond compliance, embedding responsibility and resilience into supply chain operations.  Recognition for Commitment Each year, workplaces participating in the WELL Survey can earn the WELL Seal,  a mark of transparency and commitment to worker wellbeing. The seal shows customers, partners, and investors that they are not only monitoring worker wellbeing and working conditions but taking action to improve it.  The WELL Survey seal is a tangible way to communicate leadership in ethical supply chain and worker engagement.  Building Better Workplaces, Together By transforming worker surveys into a tool to build trust and active worker feedback in global workplaces, the WELL Survey provides the foundations for companies to proactively identify risks, remedy issues, and strengthen wellbeing across the entire supply chain.  With the WELL Survey, companies like yours can take an evidence-based, risk-based, and worker-centered approach to building better workplaces - where listening leads to learning and learning leads to lasting impact.  Want to learn more or receive information on how to deploy the WELL Survey?

When Workers are Heard, Workplaces Improve.  For over a decade, Labor Solutions has been building tools to give workers a voice and help organizations act on collected data. Today, we’re proud to launch The WELL Survey (Wellbeing, Engagement and Livelihoods Survey) - a smarter, more adaptable way to capture and understand workers’ experiences across global supply chains. This worker engagement survey doubles as a digital worker wellbeing survey and workforce listening platform, helping brands capture worker voices at scale. Workplaces Thrive When Workers Thrive. Leading the Future of Worker Surveys Across industries regulators, investors and consumers are demanding greater supply‑chain transparency and ethical operations. Europe’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and other emerging human‑rights laws make it clear that companies must protect workers’ rights. Co-Created, Trusted and Used Globally The WELL Survey is the result of collaboration across the industry. Contributors and early adopters include adidas , H&M , Decathlon , carter's , Lake Advisory , and others. Together, we’re streamlining surveys, strengthening worker trust, and enabling cross-industry comparisons. Its functions as a supply chain worker survey and labor rights survey tool is ideal for human rights due diligence worker surveys and ESG due diligence surveys that benchmark conditions across countries. By combining a standardised core with optional modules and "build‑your‑own" questions, it provides global comparability with local relevance. Built for Global Benchmarks and Local Impact The survey’s modular design enables cross‑industry collaboration and reduces duplication. Organizations can start with a fixed set of standardized questions - The WELL Core Questionnaire - on themes like safety, pay, wellbeing, equality and more. To focus on local needs, locally relevant indicators - such as grievance mechanisms, recruitment or fair working hours - or up to three custom questions for specific risks or priorities, can be added. The WELL Survey is a workplace wellbeing monitoring solution that scales from a factory worker feedback system to a multinational program. Because each indicator is a fixed grouping of questions, results remain comparable across users and suppliers. Experience-based questions build trust and uncover real issues Turning Insights Into Action Worker Voices Drive Results: Experience-based questions encourage open, honest feedback. Ongoing Relevance: Biannual updates ensure the survey reflects workplace realities. Recognition: Participating workplaces earn the annual WELL Seal, demonstrating their commitment to worker wellbeing. All surveys are multilingual, ensuring accessibility and comparability across diverse regions. Organizations receive in‑depth reports featuring indicator rankings, employee Net Promoter Scores (eNPS), demographic breakdowns and year‑over‑year tracking - turning worker voices into actionable insights. These are best practices for worker engagement surveys and highlight how to collect worker feedback digitally in ethical supply chains. Ready to Lead with Worker Wellbeing? The WELL Survey offers a structured way to listen, measure and improve. Whether your goal is regulatory compliance or genuine worker wellbeing, this tool gives you the data and benchmarks to drive meaningful change. To learn more or deploy the survey, visit The WELL Survey website and join the movement to create better, safer workplaces. Workplaces Thrive when Workers Thrive.