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.

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   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 replace audits or compliance programs. It strengthens them by grounding oversight in worker-reported evidence.  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.

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.

A Labor Solutions Case Study This case study examines how targeted, role-specific training can function as a practical preventive measure within human rights due diligence systems. Designed and delivered by Labor Solutions in partnership with the Clean Electronics Product Network (CEPN) , the pilot addressed chemical safety risks in electronics manufacturing through training—particularly in lower-tier suppliers where awareness and access to remedy are often limited. Implemented across facilities in Vietnam and Malaysia, the initiative directly engaged 922 workers, managers, and supervisors, with an estimated 7,000 indirect beneficiaries. Following the training, 95% of workers  reported improved understanding of chemical safety practices, 97%  indicated they would use grievance mechanisms to raise safety concerns, and 89% of managers  committed to system-level improvements in chemical safety controls. The results demonstrate well-designed, accessible training  can measurably strengthen risk awareness, prevention, access to remedy, and management accountability—while supporting alignment with emerging expectations under the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)  and international HRDD standards. From Policy to Practice: Strengthening HRDD Under CSDDD Under CSDDD, companies are required to identify, prevent, and mitigate human rights risks across their operations and supply chains. Occupational health and safety—including chemical exposure—is a recognized material risk in electronics manufacturing. Effective due diligence requires more than policies and audits. It depends on accessible information, worker and manager awareness, and operational systems that support safe practices and access to remedy. Targeted, scalable training plays a critical role in translating due diligence commitments into preventive action on the factory floor. The Approach Role-Specific, Scalable, Chemical Safety Risk Prevention Training for Electronics Supply Chains Labor Solutions, in partnership with CEPN, developed a Chemical Safety Training Series  designed to address chemical safety risks at both the individual and system level.  Target Groups  Workers who handle or are exposed to chemicals  Managers and supervisors responsible for chemical safety systems The Lessons Chemical Safety for Workers   5 lessons focused on rights, responsibilities, and safe handling practices  Chemical Safety for Managers   3 lessons plus a practical toolkit focused on oversight, prevention systems, and worker engagement  Delivery The trainings were delivered using a blended classroom approach to support scalability, accessibility, and repeatability  across supplier tiers and geographies. Learners received training in person, via webinars and digital learning platforms. Key Outcomes Training Drove Measurable Improvements in Risk Awareness, Reporting, and Prevention Improved Risk Awareness and Prevention  95% of workers  reported the training would be beneficial to their work  Workers demonstrated increased understanding of:  Chemical labeling and Safety Data Sheets (SDS)  Proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE)  Emergency procedures  This supports risk prevention , a core requirement under CSDDD. Strengthened Access to Remedy and Worker Voice  97% of workers  indicated they would use grievance mechanisms if they had chemical safety concerns  92%  expressed willingness to participate in safety committees and worker surveys  This reflects improved awareness of reporting channels and collective mechanisms , supporting access to remedy and stakeholder engagement obligations. Managerial Commitment to System-Level Improvements  89% of managers  found the training useful and relevant  88–92%  plan to review and improve chemical labeling and SDS processes  80%  intend to strengthen or establish:  Joint safety committees  Worker surveys  Grievance channels  These actions directly support mitigation and continuous improvement  under HRDD.  Next Steps Continuous Improvement and Localization  As part of ongoing due diligence and learning from the pilot, Labor Solutions and CEPN further strengthened the program by expanding language accessibility .  Following the pilot, training materials were further localized beyond Vietnamese and Malay. Additional languages now include: Simplified Chinese  Filipino  Thai  Expanding language coverage reduces barriers to understanding, strengthens worker access to information, and improves the effectiveness of risk prevention measures—particularly for migrant and contract workers.  Want to find out more about customizing trainings for your LMS? Why this Matters Training as a Strategic Lever for Human Rights Due Diligence This case demonstrates that well-designed, accessible training can function as a practical and scalable preventive measure within human rights due diligence systems. When embedded into broader worker engagement and compliance processes, training strengthens awareness, reinforces grievance mechanisms, and supports systemic improvement rather than operating as a standalone intervention. Specifically, the case shows that: Training can prevent risk , not just respond to it, by strengthening worker and manager awareness Language accessibility is essential  for meaningful worker engagement and effective implementation Scalable training models can be iterated and strengthened over time  as part of continuous improvement Increased awareness reinforces grievance mechanisms and collective processes , improving access to remedy Training supports alignment with international standards  when integrated into existing HRDD frameworks By embedding chemical safety training into due diligence systems, this approach supports companies in meeting CSDDD expectations by reducing occupational health and safety risks, strengthening supplier capacity, and improving worker awareness and access to remedy. In this way, training becomes a strategic lever for responsible sourcing and worker protection—rather than a one-off compliance activity. Get in touch to see  how integrated training strengthens safety, supplier capability, and CSDDD compliance for you.

A Labor Solutions Case Study Closing the Gap Between Grievance Mechanism Effectiveness + Worker Experience This case study examines how a global electronics supply chain assessed the practical effectiveness of grievance mechanisms across supplier facilities using triangulated worker voice data. The WELL Worker Survey , focus group discussions, and WOVO Improve ’s Supplier Self-Assessments (SAQ)  were combined to compare formal grievance system design with worker experience. The results showed a consistent pattern: workers generally recognize grievance channels and feel comfortable raising routine issues, but confidence drops when issues require escalation, transparency, or consistent follow-through. Suppliers largely reported mature systems on paper, while worker inputs highlighted uneven application across supervisors and uncertainty about what happens after a concern is raised.   All assessed suppliers entered a tracked corrective action phase, demonstrating how triangulation strengthens evidence of grievance mechanism effectiveness in line with UNGP criteria and emerging EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive ( CSDDD ) expectations. Context Regulatory Expectations Increasingly Focus on Grievance Mechanism Effectiveness in Practice Human rights due diligence frameworks, including CSDDD and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), require companies to demonstrate that grievance mechanisms function effectively for workers. This requires evidence beyond policy existence, including worker awareness, trust, use, and access to remedy. To respond to these expectations, a global electronics supply chain conducted a multi-site assessment of grievance mechanism effectiveness across supplier facilities. The Assessment Examined Access, Trust, Predictability, and Remedy The assessment evaluated whether grievance mechanisms were: Accessible and known to workers Trusted and used without fear Applied consistently across supervisors and departments Capable of delivering timely and credible outcomes The analysis focused on identifying gaps between formal system design  and worker experience . Triangulated Data Enabled Comparison Between Policy and Practice The assessment combined three sources of evidence: WELL Worker Survey , capturing awareness, comfort speaking up, and perceptions of fairness at scale Facilitated Focus Group Discussions , providing insight into worker behavior, trust, and escalation dynamics WOVO Improve 's Supplier Self-Assessments , documenting grievance system structure and procedures Triangulation allowed inconsistencies between documented systems and lived experience to be identified and validated. Results Worker Surveys Show Broad Awareness but Low Confidence in Escalation Survey results indicated high awareness of grievance channels and strong comfort raising routine operational issues, typically through immediate supervisors. However, confidence declined when survey questions related to escalation, response timelines, and outcomes beyond the first level of resolution. These patterns suggested that while access to grievance mechanisms was established, predictability and follow-through were less certain in more complex cases. Focus Groups Revealed Uneven Experience Within Facilities Focus group discussions clarified grievance mechanisms often worked well for day-to-day concerns but were less consistently trusted for sensitive or higher-stakes issues. Workers described uncertainty around escalation, uneven application across supervisors, and reluctance to use formal channels due to fear of identification or perceived performance consequences. These findings showed that grievance mechanism effectiveness varied within the same facility, depending on department and supervisor. Supplier Self-Assessments Confirmed System Design but Not Worker Experience Supplier self-assessments generally reported established grievance systems with defined channels and procedures. However, when compared with worker inputs, a consistent gap emerged. Workers reported limited visibility into timelines and outcomes and inconsistent application in practice. The assessment identified a recurring divergence between system existence  and system effectiveness as experienced by workers . Triangulation Produced Credible Evidence of Effectiveness Gaps Viewed together, the data showed that grievance mechanisms existed and functioned adequately for routine issues, but were less predictable and transparent when escalation or sensitive concerns were involved. Triangulation enabled the assessment to move beyond isolated perspectives and produce evidence aligned with UNGP effectiveness criteria , particularly predictability, transparency, and equity. Corrective Actions Targeted Predictability, Consistency, and Communication All assessed suppliers entered a corrective action phase using the Labor Solutions Improve Action Plan , with progress tracked over time. Actions focused on closing the specific gaps identified through triangulation and commonly included: Clarifying grievance steps and response timelines Strengthening escalation pathways beyond immediate supervisors Improving communication on case status and outcomes Training supervisors on consistent grievance handling Strengthening documentation and closure tracking Conclusion Triangulation Strengthens Due Diligence and Improves Worker Outcomes This case study demonstrates triangulating worker surveys, focus group discussions, and supplier self-assessments provides a practical and defensible method for assessing grievance mechanism effectiveness in practice. By converting findings into tracked corrective action, the approach strengthens human rights due diligence and supports grievance mechanisms that deliver more predictable and trusted outcomes for workers, consistent with UNGP criteria and the direction of CSDDD implementation.   Want to learn how to assess grievance mechanism effectiveness in practice? Explore our approach to worker-verified grievance assessment.

Digital Learning Modules for Due Diligence to Action  Introducing Labor Solutions’ Updated eLearning Learning Paths for HREDD Implementation  As Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HREDD) requirements continue to evolve, brands and suppliers are increasingly expected to demonstrate not only commitments and assessments, but effective implementation across operations and value chains. A persistent challenge is ensuring that learning is relevant, proportionate, and clearly linked to the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders.  Too often, training is delivered as a one-size-fits-all exercise, making it difficult to translate due diligence requirements into daily practice or to demonstrate how learning supports risk prevention, mitigation, and positive outcomes.  To address this gap, Labor Solutions has updated its eLearning structure to better align with HREDD expectations. The revised catalog is organized into role-based learning paths designed to support the practical operationalization of HREDD for workers, line leaders and supervisors, and company managers and practitioners across value chains.  A Role-Based eLearning Structure Aligned with HREDD   The updated eLearning catalog is organized into three purpose-driven categories, reflecting core HREDD principles such as risk-based prioritization, stakeholder relevance, and impact-oriented action.  Within each category, learning is delivered through structured learning paths. Each learning path consists of multiple lessons, with content differentiated by target learner group:  Workers  Line leaders and supervisors  Company managers and practitioners  Modular eLearning Curriculum This approach allows brands and suppliers to assign learning according to role and responsibility, while maintaining consistency in messaging and expectations across stakeholder groups.  Core Human Rights  Building a Shared Foundation for HREDD  Core Human Rights learning paths establish a common baseline of understanding on fundamental rights, responsibilities, and access to remedy. These learning paths ensure that all stakeholders understand internationally recognized human rights and how they relate to workplace practice.  From an HREDD perspective, these learning paths:  Supports policy commitment and communication requirements  Builds common understanding of internationally recognized human rights Strengthens awareness of grievance mechanisms and access to remedy  Learning paths include:  Workplace Communication & Access to Remedy  ILO’s Fundamental Rights & Responsibilities  HREDD in Action: A Practical Approach for Suppliers ( in Collaboration with GIZ and RBH )  Each learning path contains role-specific lessons for workers, line leaders and supervisors, and company managers or practitioners, ensuring that core human rights concepts are understood from the perspective of each stakeholder’s responsibilities.  Risk-based  Targeted Learning for Salient Risks  Risk-Based learning paths focus on salient human rights and workplace risks, r eflecting the risk-based and proportional nature of HREDD. These learning paths are designed to align directly with risk assessments, audit findings, and impact evaluations.  From an HREDD perspective, these learning paths:  Aligns learning with risk assessments, audits, and impact findings  Supports prevention and mitigation of adverse impacts  Enables targeted deployment based on site- or sector-specific risks  Learning paths include:  Chemical Safety ( by Clean Electronics Production Network )  Workplace Safety  A Gender-Inclusive Workplace  Forced Labor & Responsible Recruitment  Within each learning path, lessons are differentiated by learner group - from worker-level awareness and safe practices, to supervisory responsibilities, and management or practitioner roles related to systems, monitoring, and corrective action.  Impact Supporting Well-Being and Sustainable Performance  Impact learning paths focus on how workplace conditions affect people’s lives, supporting positive outcomes alongside risk prevention. These learning paths recognize that effective HREDD not only prevents harm, but also contributes to worker well-being, resilience, and sustainable performance.  From an HREDD perspective, these learning paths:  Contributes to continuous improvement and impact monitoring  Supports worker well-being, resilience, and retention  Strengthens the effectiveness of prevention and remediation efforts  Learning paths include:  Workplace Stress  Balancing Work & Family  Personal Emotional & Physical Well-being  Financial Well-being  Each learning path includes differentiated lessons by target learner group, recognizing that workers, line leaders, and managers play distinct roles in supporting well-being and positive workplace outcomes.  Designed for Practical HREDD Deployment at Scale    This modular, role-based structure enables brands and suppliers to:  Select learning paths based on risk profile and HREDD priorities  Assign role-appropriate lessons within a single learning path  Scale learning consistently across sites and value chains  Demonstrate proportionate, risk-based training aligned with HREDD expectations  Rather than treating training as a standalone compliance activity, learning is structured to directly support responsibility, accountability, and action.  What This Means for HREDD-Focused Brands and Suppliers    This updated structure enables brands and suppliers to:  Demonstrate risk-based and role-appropriate learning  Link training directly to identified risks, responsibilities, and outcomes  Assign learning clearly across workers, line leaders, supervisors, and management  Provide evidence of ongoing implementation and continuous improvement  eLearning is positioned not as a standalone activity, but as a core enabler of effective HREDD systems.  Whether responding to regulatory requirements, buyer expectations, or internal HREDD commitments, Labor Solutions’ updated eLearning learning paths are designed to help brands and suppliers translate due diligence into action — across people, roles, and risk areas.  Brands and suppliers seeking to align learning with their HREDD strategy are encouraged to explore how these role-based learning paths can be integrated into their due diligence processes and management systems.

How Food & Beverage Brands Are Scaling Worker Voice Beyond Audits  Implementing worker voice in food and beverage supply chains requires more than surveys and audits. Agriculture, seafood, and food processing depend heavily on seasonal, migrant, and informal labor—often in low-literacy, low-access contexts where traditional compliance tools struggle to capture real working conditions.  As brands strengthen human rights due diligence expectations, worker voice must be designed for these realities.  Labor Solutions works with global food and beverage companies to implement scalable, low-barrier worker voice systems that generate credible, decision-ready insight. Our approach combines worker surveys, grievance mechanism assessment, and targeted capacity-building to move from listening to action. At the center of this work is the WELL Worker Survey , deployed through WOVO and adapted to each supply chain’s operational context.  This article shows how worker voice in agriculture provides sector-specific evidence that strengthens human rights due diligence beyond audits. Context Designing Worker Voice for How Agriculture Actually Works  We begin by mapping how the supply chain functions in practice—farms, collection points, processing facilities, and seasonal gathering locations—and aligning deployment to production realities such as harvest cycles and peak processing periods.  Surveys are delivered through QR codes where feasible, and through human-led, in-person deployment where literacy, language, or access barriers exist.  Because limited literacy requires more support—not more automation—we do not rely on IVR. In agricultural and migrant worker settings, IVR consistently reduces understanding, engagement, and data quality. Trained deployment leaders are essential to ensure informed consent, trust, and meaningful participation.    What This Looks Like in Practice  Across agriculture, seafood, and food processing, worker-verified data revealed risks that audits alone did not surface—and enabled earlier, more targeted action.  Agriculture : Worker and farmer surveys deployed across multiple countries achieved 92% worker and 87% farmer participation, uncovering wage, working-hours, debt bondage, and safety risks missed by audits.  Migrant Labor (Southeast Asia) : Nearly 60% response rates revealed overtime coercion risks reported by 85% of workers, prompting contract revisions, management training, and strengthened worker committees.  Seafood : Worker surveys captured role- and gender-specific risks, including fatigue and psychological safety concerns, translating worker feedback into targeted improvement priorities.  Across these contexts, worker voice data strengthened supplier engagement, enabled earlier risk detection, and supported more credible human rights due diligence.    Why This Matters Beyond Agriculture Focusing on real worker experience While these examples focus on food and beverage supply chains, the lesson is broader: worker-centered due diligence depends on systems designed around workers’ realities—not audit convenience.  When worker voice is embedded into supply chain governance and linked to follow-up, remediation, and capacity-building, it becomes an operational asset rather than a reporting exercise.  Learn how brands use worker voice beyond audits.

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