Search this site

A Labor Solutions Case Study Case Study Snapshot Client: Global electronics company Scope: 50+ Tier-1 & Tier-2 sites (India, Vietnam, Romania, Malaysia) Method: The WELL Worker Survey deployed via the WOVO Dashboard Why: Validate audit findings + gain between-audit visibility Key findings: 35% sites: workers reported illegal recruitment fees 27% sites: low engagement/mistrusted grievance mechanisms Additional risks: retaliation concerns, supervisory misconduct, harassment, hours How the WELL Survey Uncovered Hidden Risks Missed by Audits in Over 50 Electronics Sites A multinational electronics company deployed the WELL Survey across more than 50 sites that had already passed traditional social audits. The goal was to compare audit findings with direct worker experience. The Challenge Positive Audits, Lingering Doubts Although audit results suggested strong compliance, the brand suspected critical gaps in visibility. Across sites, grievance channels varied widely, worker trust in reporting mechanisms was low, and audit interviews were failing to surface systemic issues—particularly around recruitment fees. The brand needed a way to validate audit findings and gain “between-audit” visibility into real, day-to-day risks experienced by workers. Our Solution Deploying the WELL Worker Survey at Scale Labor Solutions implemented the WELL Worker Survey—a worker-centric, globally consistent human rights survey designed to capture lived experience while remaining sensitive to regional risk. The survey combined standardized core indicators for cross-supplier comparability with localized modules tailored to country-specific risks. Questions were experience-based and written in clear, worker-friendly language to encourage trust and honest participation. Labor Solutions provided full deployment support across all countries, with real-time analytics delivered through the WOVO Engage Dashboard. WOVO Engage Dashboard Results: The WELL Survey Revealed Significant Issues that Audits had Entirely Missed. Despite strong audit performance, the WELL Survey exposed systemic risks that audits had failed to detect in almost every supplier. What audits missed (worker-reported): At 35% of sites, workers reported paying illegal recruitment fees—issues that audits had failed to detect. At 27% of sites, low worker engagement pointed to unclear or mistrusted grievance mechanisms. Reported barriers: fear of retaliation, inaccessible channels, supervisory misconduct, harassment, working hours risks. These insights enabled targeted remediation planning and faster prioritization across the supply base. Actions Moving Data into Real Impact Fast Actions taken Results reviewed in real time in the dashboard (heatmaps / supplier comparisons) Findings shared with sites immediately Brand launched supplier self-diagnostic + action plans Real-Time, Actionable Insight Through WOVO Dashboard Using the WOVO Dashboard, the brand accessed survey results in real time as surveys were launched simultaneously across countries and languages. This provided immediate visibility into priority issues, risk levels across sites, and patterns across sites, regions, and supplier tiers—visualized through intuitive heatmaps and dashboards. With worker-level insights that had previously been inaccessible, the brand moved quickly from data to action. Findings were shared directly with sites, enabling targeted remediation within days rather than after the next audit cycle. As a result, the brand initiated site self-diagnostics and action plans to address identified risks. Immediate Impact + Remediation As a result, the brand was able to: Identify high-risk sites within days, not months Launch targeted remediation plans faster Compare risks across regions and supplier tiers Equip sites with actionable, worker-backed insights Using worker-level insights that were previously inaccessible, the brand has decided to conduct site self-diagnostic and action plans, using the WELL Cycle. This project demonstrated that even well-established audit programs can miss systemic, persistent issues—and reaffirmed that worker-driven data is essential to effective, modern due diligence. Why it Worked How the WELL Survey Turned Worker Voice into Comparable, Country-Specific Intelligence Global Consistency, Local Relevance The WELL Survey provided a standardized global structure covering core human rights topics—health and safety, access to remedy, harassment and abuse, and worker engagement—while allowing tailored indicators based on regional risks: Working hours focus for China Responsible recruitment for Malaysia and Romania Working environment and supervisory conduct for India This combination ensures comparability across countries and actionable insights within each region. Worker-Centric, Industry-Refined Questions: Revealing the Reality Behind Compliance Experience-based Questions Unlike audits, the WELL Survey relies on neutral, experience-based questions written in clear language and supported by scenario prompts. This approach helps workers reflect on real situations and share feedback they may otherwise withhold—revealing issues that often remain invisible during formal interviews. Deployment Support That Ensured High Engagement + Powered True Insights Labor Solutions managed the full rollout across all sites, onboarding each site in local languages and launching surveys simultaneously across regions. Workers participated anonymously via QR codes, increasing trust and response quality. Responses were analyzed and visualized in the WOVO Dashboard, allowing the brand to quickly spot patterns, compare sites, and prioritize action. Real-Time, Actionable Insight Through WOVO Dashboard The brand’s team accessed results instantly via the WOVO Dashboard, enabling them to launch surveys simultaneously across multiple countries and languages to gain immediate visibility into: Priority issues across countries Visualize risk levels through a supplier heatmap Compare priority issues across sites and regions Share insights directly with sites for follow-up This enabled action plans within days, not after the next audit cycle. What this Case Study Shows From Audit Validation to Continuous, Worker-Driven Due Diligence Audits can validate documentation and controls, but they may not capture lived experience — especially on sensitive issues like recruitment fees or fear of retaliation. Worker-reported data adds a complementary layer of risk visibility. Between-audit visibility changes the operating model from periodic compliance to continuous risk detection. Real-time survey feedback can surface systemic issues early and guide faster interventions. Standardization enables comparability across sites, while localization ensures relevance. A consistent core survey paired with country-specific modules supports both global oversight and local action. Trust and participation are the signal—not just the outcome. Low engagement can indicate mistrusted or unclear grievance mechanisms, which is itself a due diligence risk worth addressing. Actionability matters more than data volume. When results are delivered in a format teams can interpret quickly (heatmaps, supplier comparisons), it becomes easier to prioritize remediation and engage sites immediately. Curious about what you might find with worker surveys?

Key Takeaways Worker voice is an operating model, not a tool. Selecting a survey platform and expecting results is the most common implementation failure. The most common failure point is deployment — when sites distribute a survey through factory management, workers do not respond honestly. Build the grievance mechanism alongside the survey, not after it. The survey surfaces what workers are experiencing; the WELL Operational Grievace Mechansim is what workers use when they need something to change. Sites buy-in is the single biggest predictor of program success. adidas has deployed WOVO for over eight years — worker satisfaction rose from 39% to 79%, response time fell from 49 hours to under 11 hours. Before implementation, two questions need answered: what worker voice is and whether the business case justifies the investment. A program deployed without clarity on both typically produces data nobody acts on. The question ‘how do we implement worker voice’ almost always starts in the wrong place. The instinct is to find a survey tool, run a pilot, and see what happens. The problem is that worker voice is not a tool. It is an operating model. The tool is only useful if the infrastructure around it — deployment, trust-building, site engagement, case management, and follow-through — is built to make it work. Step 1: Align internally before you go anywhere near workers Worker voice programs fail most often not because the technology is wrong but because the organization behind it is not aligned. Before deployment, brands need to agree on what questions they are actually trying to answer, what they will do with the answers, and who owns the follow-through. If survey findings surface a serious issue and there is no agreed process for what happens next, the program produces data that goes nowhere. Workers notice when nothing changes. Trust erodes. The program dies. If leadership needs the financial case before committing, the business case for worker engagement covers the ROI evidence, regulatory penalty exposure, and board-level disclosure requirements that make this a risk management decision, not only an ethical one. Step 2: Choose a methodology aligned to international standards Not all worker surveys are equal. The WELL Worker Survey is co-designed through a multi-stakeholder process, aligned to UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Principle 31. Its core question set — 22 questions across 8 indicators — covers wages, safety, management behavior, freedom of association, and working hours. Validated methodology also matters for worker trust: workers who have participated in poorly designed surveys are harder to re-engage. Step 3: Solve the deployment problem, not just the technology problem The most common failure point is deployment. A brand selects a survey platform and then leaves deployment to the site. The site asks managers to distribute it. Workers complete it in a group, on a shared device, in full view of the person whose behavior they are being asked to evaluate. The result is unusable data — and workers who are less likely to engage honestly in future. Effective deployment requires direct outreach to workers in their language, through channels they control, in a context where anonymity is credible. Labor Solutions handles deployment directly — including real-time participation monitoring so brands know not just that the survey ran, but that it ran with genuine reach. Step 4: Build the grievance mechanism alongside the survey, not after it The survey surfaces what workers are experiencing. The grievance mechanism is what workers use when they need something to change — not once a year when the survey runs, but continuously. The WELL Operational Grievance Mechanism is always-on infrastructure, not a periodic reporting tool. Workers who complete a survey and then see no mechanism for raising the concerns they surfaced become less likely to engage in the future. The survey and the grievance mechanism are parts of the same system and need to be built together. Step 5: Engage sites as partners, not compliance subjects Site buy-in is the single biggest predictor of program success. The framing that works is operational, not moral: sites who engage workers effectively have lower turnover, fewer grievances that escalate, and more stable production. The WELL Self-Diagnostic Tool is designed with this in mind — self-assessments completed by the site, action plans limited to three priorities at a time, a maturity framework that gives sites visible progression rather than a pass/fail. The commercial argument — 1:3 ROI, 44% reduction in absenteeism, 33% improvement in retention — belongs in the site conversation too, not just the brand's internal business case. See the business case for worker engagement for the evidence to bring to that conversation. Step 6: Repeat annually. Human rights is a practice, not a project. A one-time survey tells you something. An annual survey, with a continuous grievance mechanism running alongside it, tells you whether things are actually changing. Read how adidas has deployed WOVO for over eight years — worker satisfaction rising from 39% to 79%, response time on grievances falling from 49 hours to under 11 hours. To discuss how to scope a worker voice program for your value chain. FAQs How long does it take to deploy a worker voice program across a Tier 1 value chain? adidas achieved 100% Tier 1 coverage — 402,500 workers across 92 facilities — and was generating meaningful grievance data within its first year of deployment. Timeline depends on the number of sites, language complexity, and deployment model. Labor Solutions handles deployment directly, including real-time participation monitoring. What is the difference between a worker survey and a worker voice program? A worker survey is a single data collection event. A worker voice program is the operating infrastructure that runs continuously: a validated annual survey, an always-on grievance mechanism, rights-based education, and a supplier improvement framework. The survey generates data; the program generates change. How do you ensure workers respond honestly to a survey in a factory setting? Workers respond honestly when anonymity is credible, deployment is independent of factory management, and the survey reaches them through channels they control. Labor Solutions deploys the WELL Survey directly to workers — not through factory administration — and provides audiovisual support for low-literacy environments in 41+ languages. How does the WELL Self-Diagnostic Tool support site engagement in an implementation? The WELL Self-Diagnostic Tool is the site self-diagnostic element of the WOVO platform. Sites complete the self-assessment themselves rather than receiving externally imposed corrective action plans. Action plans are limited to three priorities at a time. The maturity framework gives sites visible progression rather than a pass/fail, which makes them substantially more likely to engage honestly in the next cycle.

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 A whistleblower hotline and an operational grievance mechanism are not the same thing — and for value chain workers, the difference determines whether the system gets used at all. 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.

The EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) is a regulation that is commonly referred to as the "EU Directive on Due Diligence", "CSDDD" or "CS3D". It requires certain businesses to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for the potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts of their operations and value chains. The CSDDD is expected to be finalized in 2025 and will apply to businesses that have significant operations or sales in the EU, as well as businesses that sell products or services in the EU. It is important to note that the CSDDD is not the same as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which is a broader reporting framework that encourages companies to report on their sustainability activities. The CSDDD focuses specifically on corporate due diligence on human rights and the environment, including prevention and remedy, and will feed into CSRD reporting. If you want to find out if your company is affected by the CSDDD and how to comply with it, keep reading. This is important information for both European companies and their suppliers. Brief Overview The CSDDD, just like other recent human rights and environmental due diligence laws such as the LkSG (German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act), requires businesses to follow a due diligence process that aligns with the OECD Guidelines and UN Guiding Principles. These laws aim to address the potential impacts of your business and supply chain partners' operations and sourcing on workers and other people who might be affected. However, they do not require you to identify and remedy the risks of these operations to your business. The scope of these laws and the companies directly impacted, as well as the supply chain partners included, vary from law to law. It's important to note that EU Directives must be implemented by national law to be effective, so please check with your legal counsel about your legal requirements. This summary is intended to provide a general overview for informational purposes. Does CSDDD affect your business? The EU Directive on Due Diligence will affect fewer companies than originally planned. However, many large companies based in the EU or with significant EU operations will be covered. The regulation will apply to both European and foreign companies with 1,000 employees and a turnover of €450 million during the five-year phase-in period. Companies with 5,000 employees and €1,500 million turnover will be impacted first and should expect changes within the next three years. The high-risk sector approach has been removed temporarily, but it may be considered in the future as part of the CSDDD. If your business does not sell or operate in the EU, you may not be directly affected by the CSDDD. However, you may still be impacted due to your association with value chain partners. If you are a contractor, subcontractor, manufacturer, service provider, distributor, or retailer for a European business (or other business that falls under the CSDDD), you may notice changes in your contractual relationships that enable regulated businesses to comply with their obligations. These new regulations make each business responsible for human rights and environmental issues in its supply partners, distributors, and customers. Therefore, any company that conducts business with a company that has a significant European presence, or operations could be affected indirectly. By being prepared, the impact of these new laws can be minimized, as explained below. After the EU Directive is finalized, each EU member state will have to pass national legislation to implement it, which may vary slightly from the original directive. The national legislation is expected to be passed by 2025, and each company will have to consider which national laws apply to its operations and what specific requirements they entail. You can keep track of the progress of the EU Directive on Due Diligence. Are you ready for the upcoming CSDDD? Don't let the changes catch you off guard. Allow us to help you kickstart to ensure a seamless transition. Practical Guide for CSDDD Compliance Requirements: To work with EU buyers, it's important to be prepared for their requirements, which may vary slightly across member states implementing their version of the CSDDD. Direct Requirements: HRDD Process, Internal Governance + Supply Chain Grievance Businesses that are directly regulated will be obligated to implement a human rights due diligence process that is similar to the LkSG and other HREDD regulations. This process consists of six steps: design, assess, identify, prevent, remediate, and report. The goal is to identify and manage human rights and environmental risks, establish internal governance standards, and implement a human rights policy with a grievance mechanism for impacted individuals to report issues or complaints. Labor Solutions has covered these in detail in eBook "Strategies for Effective Human Rights Due Diligence in Your Supply Chain". Indirect Requirements: Support Identification, Prevention, Remedy and Reporting Indirectly regulated businesses must collaborate with their directly regulated supply chain partners to comply with new regulations. This involves updating contractual obligations and codes of conduct, providing training and support, fulfilling reporting requirements, and implementing other mechanisms that satisfy the law. Obligations: Scope of Risks Responsible New in the CSDDD (and different from some other HRDD) is the scope of the risks and operations that are covered. For example, the LkSG requires that only the risks presented by direct suppliers (and risks posed by indirect suppliers if known) must be addressed, prevented, and remedied. On the other hand, the CSDDD proposes that partners both upstream and downstream be included in the scope of responsibility, which is likely to encompass indirect suppliers. Scope of Actions Required These regulations pertain to business practices rather than reporting requirements or compliance laws. As such, they call for a distinct approach from what may be accustomed to. To comply with these regulations, it's necessary to continually monitor and proactively engage with customers and suppliers to ensure a focus on preventing and minimizing the negative impact of human rights and environmental issues on people. Labor Solutions assists suppliers and regulated businesses in collecting quality data for better business and purchasing decisions. Labor Solutions offers tools like advisory and consulting work, as well as the HRDD Starter Kit that provides scalable solutions to meet CSDDD and HRDD requirements. The most important thing is to start, and you don’t have to do it all alone. First Steps to Compliance: HRDD Process Regulated businesses must perform due diligence, including risk assessment, identification, prevention, remediation, and reporting. More details about this process can be found here. The scope of risks and operations may differ, but it is always advisable to start understanding the general risks associated with the countries and industries you source from. This will help you identify specific risks in your value chain through surveys, grievance tools, audits, and assessments. When working with your suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders, start engaging with your supply chain partners. The suppliers should be responsible for conducting identification efforts, operating their grievance management system, implementing prevention methods, and remediating complaints. The objective is not to micromanage but to build trust and support mechanisms for suppliers when needed. Grievance or Complaints Process Businesses that are directly regulated must establish a complaints process or grievance mechanism that is accessible by workers and other individuals who may be affected by any company within your value chain. There are several service providers available that offer hotlines and grievance tools. However, it is essential to ensure that not only is there a communication channel, but it is also effective in collecting complaints and providing effective solutions. Our eLearning library offers a comprehensive range of courses to help you understand the requirements better. For example, our practitioner training on Access to Remedy provides detailed information on the elements of effective remedies and how to choose an appropriate service provider. We also recommend that you educate your suppliers about the new requirements. Our online modules on human rights due diligence can be customized to meet your company's specific needs and can assist you in communicating the due diligence process to all your direct and indirect suppliers effectively, across various risk-based categories. Suppliers and indirectly regulated businesses can prepare for the new due diligence requirements of their CSDDD buyers by following a few simple steps. We have helpful blog posts on this topic. Contact our advisory team if you need assistance in creating a risk management system. Start with conducting a Worker Survey to help identify the potential risks. Implement WOVO's Operational Grievance Mechanism features to ensure that you have an effective grievance mechanism and case management system in place to identify and prevent issues. Deploy our digital learning courses on rights and responsibilities or responsible recruitment to ensure that workers and managers know their responsibilities and rights, thus helping mitigate the risks. Collaborate with our advisory team to design a remediation plan. Use your WOVO dashboard to report and track trends. What CSDDD Requires for Grievance Mechanisms in Value Chains CSDDD requires companies to establish or participate in operational-level grievance mechanisms that are accessible to value chain workers and other affected stakeholders, protect against retaliation, and are aligned with the effectiveness criteria set out in UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Principle 31. A central corporate helpline is not sufficient. The mechanism must be accessible at the point of work — in workers' languages, through channels workers can actually use, in a context where workers credibly believe they will not face retaliation for using it. Companies must also produce documented evidence that the mechanism works — through case resolution records, longitudinal trends in worker conditions, and evidence of remediation. Non-compliance carries fines of up to 5% of global net turnover. What ESRS S2 Requires on Worker Engagement Reporting ESRS S2 — the social standards under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive — requires companies to report publicly on their approach to worker engagement across their value chain, including the grievance mechanisms in place and evidence of their effectiveness. For companies subject to CSRD, this is mandatory. Board-level disclosure requirements mean this is no longer a sustainability team issue. It sits at the same level as financial disclosure. Worker survey data, case resolution records, and supplier improvement outcomes are the forms of evidence that satisfy this standard. Labor Solutions' supplier ownership, empowerment, and improvement approach is not only scalable but also allows companies to tackle the problem at the source and collect unparalleled data sets. Our solutions go beyond tick-box solutions and are designed to help your business meet the intent of labor laws while creating customized, sustainable solutions built around respect and trust between workers, buyers, suppliers, and brands. For more information, here are some of our previous posts on HRDD and how to work with your suppliers to meet the new requirements.

A Labor Solutions Analysis | MIT Research, Nelson & Wilmers (2025) Worker voice drives productivity. Not symbolically — measurably. New causal evidence from MIT shows that when manufacturers actively integrate worker input into production decisions, output rises by up to 15%, earnings increase, and turnover falls. For brands under CSDDD and human rights due diligence obligations, this is not a social outcome. It is a value chain capability. Key Takeaways Active worker voice is associated with productivity gains of up to 15% (Nelson & Wilmers, 2025, Table 3) Wage and retention effects persist even after controlling for productivity — indicating a genuine shift in worker bargaining power, not just an output effect Zero grievances at a supplier is not a safety signal. It is usually a sign the system is not trusted or accessible CSDDD requires evidence of grievance mechanism effectiveness — not just existence. Worker-generated data is the only way to provide that evidence The adidas WOVO programme — 402,500 workers, 47,200 grievances, 99% resolution, 79% satisfaction — is the published proof of what a functioning system produces at scale Worker Voice Produces Measurable Business Outcomes — Not Just Compliance Data Dylan Nelson and Nathan Wilmers at MIT have produced something rare in the labor space: causal evidence. Their study, Earnings Effects of Direct Worker Voice in Production (May 2025), examines what happens when manufacturers move from low to high use of worker input in production decisions. The findings are not subtle. Moving from low to high use of worker input is associated with productivity gains of up to 15% (Table 3, pp. 19–20). Earnings increase. Turnover decreases. These are not correlation findings — the study uses quasi-experimental methodology to isolate the effect. For brands, the downstream implication is direct. Factories that perform better produce more reliably: fewer last-minute production crises, more stable output, better absorption of demand volatility. When factories run more smoothly, downstream partners feel it. This is what Labor Solutions has measured in the adidas WOVO programme for eight years. Worker satisfaction at adidas Tier 1 facilities rose from 39% in 2019 to 79% in 2025 — a 40-point gain built through consistent programme investment, not a one-time survey cycle. The Distinction That Matters: Using Worker Input, Not Just Collecting It Nelson & Wilmers make a finding that should change how every brand evaluates its worker voice programme. It is not the existence of a mechanism that drives performance gains — it is whether worker input is actively used in decisions. Many programmes do the first. Very few do the second. Workers speak. Responses are logged. A PDF is produced at the end of a cycle. Nothing changes. A grievance mechanism that is not trusted, not used, and not acted upon is not a compliance asset — it is a liability, because CSDDD Article 9 requires evidence of effectiveness, not just existence. Are workers' insights shaping decisions — or just filling reports? The adidas WOVO programme demonstrates what an effective system looks like in practice. In 2025, 47,200 grievances were submitted by workers across 92 facilities — a 32% increase from 35,700 in 2024. The 99% resolution rate was maintained for the fourth consecutive year. Rising volume alongside a sustained resolution rate is not a problem. It is proof that workers trust the system enough to use it. Zero Grievances Is Not a Safety Signal — It Is Usually a Sign of a Broken System One of the most persistent misconceptions in human rights due diligence is that silence is good news. It is not. Zero grievances at a supplier almost always means one of three things: workers do not know the mechanism exists, they do not trust it, or they have learned from experience that speaking up carries risk. The MIT study reinforces why this matters. The earnings and retention effects it documents persist even after controlling for productivity — meaning the benefit of worker voice is not simply that workers produce more and therefore earn more. It reflects a structural shift in how knowledge and influence are distributed at the facility level. Workers whose input shapes decisions become indispensable contributors. That indispensability shows up in wages and in retention. A programme that workers do not trust cannot produce this effect. Which is why consistent usage, rising volume, and sustained resolution rates are not just a headline — they are evidence of a programme that workers have decided to rely on. Frontline Workers See What Audits Cannot — and They See It First Audits document the past. Workers report the present. Frontline workers are typically the first to notice deteriorating conditions, abusive supervision, wage inconsistencies, safety shortcuts, and the kind of operational friction that becomes a quality or compliance incident months later. The WELL Worker Survey's electronics sector case study found that 35% of suppliers who passed their most recent social audit had workers paying illegal recruitment fees. Seventy-three percent of workers in the same cohort had low rights awareness — none of it visible to auditors. Audits check systems. Workers experience them. When worker feedback is integrated into operational decisions — not logged and filed — those signals are captured early, interpreted in context, and acted on before they become non-compliances. That is real-time risk mitigation. It is also, as the MIT study shows, associated with measurably better facility performance. Worker Voice Is a Value Chain Capability. Here Is What That Requires. The Nelson & Wilmers study gives empirical backing to what practitioners in this field have observed for years: when worker voice is real, factories perform better and workers do better. For brands, that means worker voice belongs in sourcing strategy, risk management, HRDD and CSDDD reporting, and supplier selection criteria — not in a CSR workstream that sits beside the business. If you are: Building or assessing a worker survey programme — the WELL Worker Survey generates primary data directly from value chain workers, surfacing root causes that audits cannot see. Learn about WELL. Looking for an operational grievance mechanism that workers actually use — WOVO CONNECT is an always-on, in-app mechanism that workers can access anonymously, with structured case management for suppliers and live dashboards for buyers. It is not a hotline. Learn about WOVO CONNECT. Working to turn worker feedback into supplier-owned action plans — WOVO IMPROVE translates findings into structured, trackable improvement plans that suppliers own rather than manage. Learn about WOVO IMPROVE. Ready to build the full programme — get in touch . We are happy to continue the conversation. All findings from the MIT study cited in this post are drawn from Nelson, D. & Wilmers, N. (2025), "Earnings Effects of Direct Worker Voice in Production," ILR Review (May 2025). All adidas programme data is drawn from adidas' publicly available annual sustainability reports 2019–2025. Labor Solutions is the provider of the WOVO platform deployed across adidas' Tier 1 value chain. Further Reading Worker Grievances Up 32% — Here's Why That's adidas' Biggest WOVO Milestone Yet What Is Worker Voice — and Why Audits Can't Replace It Operational Grievance Mechanisms: What Buyers Should Look For Worker-Driven Due Diligence vs EcoVadis Worker Voice Connect: What Brands Need to Know Frequently Asked Questions Does the MIT research apply to value chains specifically? Nelson & Wilmers (2025) studied manufacturing facilities — the same operational context as most Tier 1 and Tier 2 value chain suppliers for fashion, electronics, and consumer goods brands. The productivity, earnings, and retention effects documented are directly relevant to the supplier facilities where brands have the most leverage and the most compliance exposure. What is the difference between having a worker voice tool and actually using worker voice? The MIT study is explicit: it is the active use of worker input in decisions — not the existence of a mechanism — that produces the performance effects. A survey that generates a report no one acts on does not qualify. An always-on grievance mechanism with consistent annual usage, 99% resolution, and rising year-on-year volume — like the adidas WOVO deployment — does. How does this research connect to CSDDD compliance requirements? CSDDD Article 9 requires companies to establish or participate in effective grievance mechanisms and demonstrate their effectiveness through usage data, resolution rates, and worker satisfaction — reported under ESRS S2. The MIT study provides independent academic evidence for why this matters operationally, not just legally: a functioning worker voice system produces measurable business performance, not just a compliance paper trail.

If you've run worker surveys before and walked away wondering what to do with the results, you're not alone. That gap between data and action defined the first decade of worker voice technology across the industry. Brands had reports they couldn't act on. Suppliers felt measured, not supported. Workers answered surveys and never saw anything change — which, over time, eroded the trust that makes worker voice work at all. The problem wasn't the surveys. That's the context you need to evaluate any worker voice platform today. What worker voice technology actually is — and what it isn't Worker voice technology gives workers in global value chains a direct, anonymous channel to report conditions, raise concerns, and respond to surveys — independent of management. Done well, it surfaces what audits cannot: the gap between documented policy and lived experience on the factory floor. But worker voice is not the same as worker-driven due diligence. The distinction matters enormously for HRDD. Worker-driven due diligence means the entire process — from risk identification to remediation — is structured around what workers actually report. Audits assess what's been built: systems, policies, procedures. Worker surveys verify whether those systems are working for the people inside them. And a structured action framework — built on what workers said — drives improvement. That full loop is what CSDDD and the UN Guiding Principles require. How the industry got here — and where it got stuck The early days of worker voice were genuinely exciting. Mobile phones made it possible to hear directly from workers in factories and farms that had previously been impossible to reach at scale. The question the industry — Labor Solutions included — was focused on was: how do we get to workers, and what should we ask them? That was the right question to start with. Survey design, language access, anonymity, delivery — these are hard problems, and solving them opened up a genuinely new source of information about conditions in global value chains. What the industry hadn't yet figured out was what to do with the data once it arrived. There was no standard framework for turning findings into action. Brands received reports. Suppliers received scores. The question of what happened next — who was responsible, what the priority should be, how progress would be tracked — was largely left unanswered. That gap is where worker voice programs stalled, and where worker trust began to erode. Where Labor Solutions started — and why it matters Labor Solutions was founded as a human resources company, working directly inside factories with human resources managers, worker welfare officers, and production supervisors. That origin shaped everything — not just what the technology does, but what problem it was designed to solve. When you start from the factory floor, you understand that a survey finding is only useful if the supplier knows what to do with it. You understand that workers won't trust a grievance channel that management controls. You understand that anonymity isn't a feature — it's the foundation of everything. Ulula's founders built a credible, purpose-built worker voice tool and brought genuine expertise to the space. But Ulula was built from a compliance and technology starting point. Those are different design philosophies, and they produce different answers to the "now what" problem. What the EcoVadis acquisition changed If you used Ulula before 2024, the product you would engage with now is not the same one. EcoVadis acquired Ulula and relaunched the product as Worker Voice Connect (formerly known as Ulula) — integrated into a platform whose core business is supplier ratings and scorecards. That is the critical distinction. EcoVadis is doing due diligence with workers as an afterthought. Worker voice was added to a ratings platform — it was not the foundation one was built on. When a tool is absorbed into a platform designed for a fundamentally different purpose, the product roadmap, the incentives, and the priorities change. EcoVadis serves thousands of companies at scale. That model requires standardization, volume, and simplicity. For a rating platform, that's the right design. For worker voice, it's a fundamental mismatch. Effective worker voice depends on long-term, trusted engagement — not volume. There is also a structural question any procurement or legal team should ask: EcoVadis rates suppliers, and those ratings are purchased by both brands and suppliers. Introducing a worker voice layer into that same commercial ecosystem creates a tension between the rating business and genuine worker feedback. Labor Solutions has no supplier rating business. Its only commercial interest is in the quality and volume of worker engagement. Audits assess. Surveys verify. IMPROVE acts. This is the framework that separates worker-driven due diligence from everything else. Audits assess compliance from the outside — they tell you what systems exist. Worker surveys verify whether those systems are working for the people inside them — they tell you what workers actually experience. WOVO IMPROVE drives action from the finding — it tells you what to do next, and tracks whether you did it. When a survey runs through WOVO , the lowest-scoring indicators automatically trigger IMPROVE — a structured supplier self-assessment that diagnoses root cause and generates a prioritized action plan, capped at three focus areas so suppliers aren't overwhelmed. The assessment adapts to the supplier's maturity level. Evidence upload and progress tracking create an auditable loop from finding to fix. IMPROVE was built because Labor Solutions saw, in real factories with real human resources managers, what happened when data arrived without a structure for action. Regulators don't ask whether you collected data. They ask whether the data led to remediation. IMPROVE creates the evidence trail. Grievance mechanisms that workers actually use A grievance mechanism that workers don't trust is not a grievance mechanism — it's a liability. WOVO Connect is built on a principle most grievance tools miss: the goal is not to manage complaints, it's to build a channel workers believe in enough to use. Workers can raise issues anonymously via app, SMS, QR code, WhatsApp, or WeChat — in their language, on a device they already have. Human resources managers and brand teams receive, sort, and respond through a case management dashboard. An unused grievance mechanism is a red flag, not a neutral outcome. The adidas partnership shows what this looks like over time: response time dropped from 49 hours to under 11 hours between 2019 and 2025, and grievance volume increased significantly — because workers trusted the channel enough to use it. The evidence base A randomized control trial across 7,500 workers at Shahi Exports in India — conducted by the University of Michigan, the University of Hawaiʻi, and Good Business Lab — found WOVO delivered a 52% net rate of return, with workers 44% less likely to be absent and 33% more likely to be retained. MIT research found worker voice programs linked to up to 15% productivity gains. After COVID factory closures in Vietnam, factories using WOVO achieved near-full workforce return in one month — versus 54% industry-wide. The adidas 2024 Annual Report cites WOVO by name as their primary worker data layer for CSDDD compliance. Labor Solutions reports 3.8 million active workers across 180 countries and 41 languages — active meaning within a defined engagement period, not registered accounts. The full HRDD stack — in one platform CSDDD compliance requires more than a survey. It requires: Ongoing worker risk intelligence — WOVO WELL Survey and Engage Accessible, trusted grievance mechanisms — WOVO Connect Documented remediation — WOVO IMPROVE Stakeholder training on rights and responsibilities — WOVO Educate These are not modular add-ons. They are an integrated system designed to function together — because HRDD is a process, not a project. Questions to ask any worker voice provider If you are evaluating worker voice platforms — including EcoVadis Worker Voice Connect (formerly known as Ulula) — these are the questions that surface the differences that matter: What happens after a survey? Is there a structured action pathway built into the platform, or does the client manage that independently? How is anonymity enforced — and can workers verify it independently of management? What is the provider's commercial model, and are there any structural conflicts with genuine worker feedback? Are reported worker numbers active users within a defined period, or registered accounts? Has the product's ownership or strategic direction changed recently, and what does that mean for implementation quality and long-term support? Does the platform track grievance mechanism utilization — not just volume — to confirm workers are actually engaging? Frequently asked questions What is worker-driven due diligence? Worker-driven due diligence is an approach to HRDD where identifying, prioritizing, and remediating risks is structured around what workers directly report — not what suppliers disclose or audits document. It requires a full loop: listening to workers, verifying findings, and driving structured action from the results. What is EcoVadis Worker Voice Connect? EcoVadis Worker Voice Connect (formerly known as Ulula) is a worker survey and grievance tool integrated into the EcoVadis supplier ratings platform. EcoVadis acquired Ulula in 2024 and relaunched the product as part of its broader sustainability ratings offering. How does WOVO differ from EcoVadis Worker Voice Connect? WOVO was built from the factory floor up, by a team with human resources and worker engagement backgrounds — not compliance or ratings. The core difference is structural: WOVO includes IMPROVE, a built-in action framework that turns survey findings into supplier action plans with progress tracking. Worker voice without a structured action pathway leaves brands with data and no clear next step. That gap is what IMPROVE was built to close. What does CSDDD require for worker voice? CSDDD requires brands to demonstrate ongoing meaningful engagement with workers in their value chains as part of human rights due diligence. That means not just collecting data, but showing that worker feedback led to documented action and remediation. A survey tool alone does not meet this standard — brands need evidence of the full loop from finding to fix. What is WOVO Connect? WOVO Connect is Labor Solutions' grievance mechanism module — an anonymous, multi-channel reporting tool available via app, SMS, QR code, WhatsApp, and WeChat in 41 languages. It includes a case management dashboard for human resources managers and brand teams, with utilization tracking to confirm the channel is functioning and trusted. The bottom line EcoVadis entering the worker voice space confirms what the regulatory environment already requires: worker engagement is no longer optional. But there is a meaningful difference between a ratings platform that added a survey tool and a platform built from the beginning to answer the question workers are actually asking: does anyone hear me, and did anything change? Labor Solutions has been doing worker-driven due diligence for 13 years — in real value chain environments, at scale, in ways that workers actually use, and in ways that lead to documented change. Audits assess. Surveys verify. IMPROVE acts. That full loop is what HRDD requires.

A Labor Solutions Case Study Grievance Intergrity Program: Closing the Gap Between Grievance Mechanism Effectiveness + Worker Experience This case study examines how a global electronics supply chain  ran the Grievance Integrity  program — Labor Solutions' structured assessment of grievance mechanism effectiveness — across supplier facilities. T WELL Worker Survey , focus group discussions, and WOVO Improve ’s Supplier Self-Assessment (SAQ) were combined to verify that mechanisms were not just in place, but actually accessible and known by workers. 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 deployed the Grievance Integrity  program across supplier facilities — a structured, four-part assessment designed to verify grievance mechanism effectiveness in practice, mapped against all eight UNGP Principle 31  effectiveness criteria. 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 a Corroborated Gap pattern: management-reported systems and worker experience both pointed to the same shortfalls. Grievance mechanisms 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 structured findings against the eight UNGP Principle 31  effectiveness criteria — particularly Predictable, Transparent, and Equitable — supporting credible due diligence disclosure. Actions Targeted Predictability, Consistency, and Communication All assessed suppliers entered the action plan phase of the Grievance Integrity  program, using the WOVO Improve's Action Plan , for buyer-facing tracking. Each action plan addressed a maximum of three priority competency gaps per cycle — with salient indicator gaps addressed first, regardless of overall site score. 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 that the Grievance Integrity  program provides a practical and defensible method for assessing grievance mechanism effectiveness in practice — structured against all eight UNGP Principle 31  effectiveness criteria and aligned with CSDDD expectations. 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. A single result is a signal. A trend is evidence. The program runs on an annual cycle — because conditions change, workforces change, and management changes. Verification is not a document. It is workers reporting that their experience has changed. Want to learn how to assess grievance mechanism effectiveness in practice? Explore our approach to worker-verified grievance assessment.

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.

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?