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.

Turning Supply Chain Transparency into Action: Labor Solutions Integrates Worker Voice Data with Open Supply Hub Labor Solutions is partnering with Open Supply Hub  to integrate worker voice data directly into production location profiles. Launching Q1 2026, users can now see worker voice tools — including our operational grievance channel, WOVO Connect  — mapped to specific facilities on Open Supply Hub's open-source map of 150,000+ production locations worldwide. Benefits for Workers Worker Rights Shouldn't Be Invisible — This Integration Makes Them Visible Open Supply Hub connects production facilities to the brands that source from them. By mapping Labor Solutions' worker voice data to those facilities, we make it possible to confirm the existence and quality of operational grievance mechanisms at a glance — without relying on audits or self-reported supplier assessments. For Workers: Visibility Drives Remedy, Not Just Reporting Having a grievance channel isn't enough — what matters is whether grievances are actually managed and remediated. Our data shows that when visibility is combined with aligned internal KPIs for grievance handling and remediation, working conditions measurably improve. As the industry moves toward making grievance mechanisms that reach all workers the norm, we can finally shift focus to what happens after a worker speaks up. Responsible Employers Are Good Employers — and Now It Shows Facilities with strong operational grievance mechanisms and responsive management tend to get other things right too. With this integration, positive worker voice data becomes a verifiable competitive advantage — rewarding suppliers who invest in their workforce with better buyers, which in turn creates the conditions for workers to be well paid and genuinely empowered at work. Benefits for Suppliers Show Buyers You're Serious About Worker Rights Suppliers using WOVO Connect can now showcase their use of digital grievance tools with documented transparency. Beyond simply having the tool in place, they can choose to share data and have direct conversations with buyers about responsiveness and workplace improvements — turning compliance into a business differentiator. Attract the Buyers Who Value Ethical Production As brands increasingly prioritize human rights due diligence, facilities with transparent worker voice data and documented improvements stand out. This integration helps responsible suppliers connect with buyers who value ethical production. See How You Compare — and Where to Improve Access to aggregated industry data helps suppliers understand where they stand and identify areas where they are falling behind. We hope that factories that do not have digital grievance channels will consider it when they see their competitors have WOVO Connect or other tools in place.   Benefits for Brands Stop Asking Whether a Grievance Channel Exists — Start Asking Whether It Works If a site has a digital grievance tool like WOVO Connect, brands don't need to rely on audits or supplier self-assessments to confirm the basics. The focus shifts to quality: how cases are managed, how quickly issues are resolved, and what improvements result. Better grievance data means better risk assessment and better outcomes for workers. This Is What Supply Chain Collaboration Actually Looks Like This partnership reflects our belief that transparency requires the whole ecosystem to contribute. By integrating our worker voice data into Open Supply Hub's open platform, we're joining partners including Climate TRACE, Living Wage Institute, WageIndicator Foundation, amfori, Apparel Impact Institute, EcoVadis/Ulula, PEFC, SLCP, and Worldly — building a comprehensive, multi-dimensional view of production locations worldwide. Ready to Put Worker Voice on the Map? Learn more about Open Supply Hub's data integrations here . Already using WOVO Connect and want to be listed on Open Supply Hub’s website? Get in touch. Interested in implementing worker voice in your supply chain? Contact Labor Solutions to learn how our WOVO platform delivers tangible outcomes for workers while strengthening your due diligence.

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

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

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

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

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

The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive requires companies to provide access to remedy for workers in their value chains — and to demonstrate that grievance mechanisms are effective, not just available. Labor Solutions' WOVO platform is purpose-built to meet every CSDDD worker engagement requirement, with eight years of publicly disclosed evidence to prove it. More workers than any other tool in the industry. 3.8M+ active workers across 180+ countries in 41+ languages. Grievance resolution rate: 99%. Worker satisfaction: 79% (up from 39% in 2019). Average response time: under 11 hours (down from 49 hours in 2020). Eight years of publicly disclosed data. One platform. Six CSDDD requirements. WOVO meets all of them. CSDDD Article 9 requires companies to establish or participate in operational-level grievance mechanisms for workers in their value chains. The six core requirements — and how WOVO addresses each one: 1. Accessible to all workers, including anonymously. WOVO Connect is accessible via smartphone app, SMS, QR code, and IVR — in 41+ languages. Workers do not need a personal device, data plan, or literacy to use it. 2. Known and trusted by workers. adidas’ 2025 sustainability report describes WOVO as “highly effective” and “trusted by workers,” evidenced by “consistent, widespread, sustained usage.” Worker satisfaction has risen from 39% in 2019 to 79% in 2025. 3. Timely response and resolution. Average response time is under 11 hours — down from 49 hours in 2020. The 99% resolution rate has held for four consecutive years. 4. Access to remedy. WOVO Connect 's structured case management assigns each complaint to a responsible party, tracks resolution, and closes the loop with the worker. Full audit trail included. 5. Ongoing monitoring and effectiveness review. Real-time dashboards surface grievance rates, resolution times, satisfaction scores, and supplier-level KPIs. Monitoring is continuous, not periodic. 6. Proactive stakeholder engagement. The WELL Survey program give brands a proactive, structured way to understand worker sentiment — capturing risk signals before they become grievances. Four tools. One integrated system. Each WOVO module addresses a distinct CSDDD requirement. Together they create a continuous evidence base that regulators, investors, and auditors can verify over time. WOVO Connect — Operational grievance mechanism. Aligned to UN Guiding Principles Principle 31. Workers submit via app, SMS, QR code, or IVR. Structured case management with full audit trail. Used by adidas across 400,000+ workers. Meets CSDDD Article 9. WELL Survey — Validated worker voice surveys. Collects primary human rights risk data on working conditions, recruitment fees, safety, discrimination, and rights awareness. Aligned to UNGPs and CSDDD. Meets CSDDD stakeholder engagement requirements. WOVO Improve — Supplier self-assessment and action planning. Suppliers assess HRDD maturity, generate automated improvement plans, and track remediation. Creates documented evidence of continuous improvement for CSDDD monitoring requirements. WOVO Educate — Rights-based eLearning. Digital training for workers and suppliers in 41+ languages. Covers labour rights, safety, anti-harassment, and HRDD obligations. Tracked completion for reporting. adidas called it ‘highly effective.’ Here’s eight years of data. Worker satisfaction: 39% (2019) → 58% (2020) → 71% (2021) → 77% (2022) → 79% (2025). A 40-point improvement built over six years. Response time: 49 hours (2020) → 11 hours (2025). An 80% reduction in five years. Resolution rate: 99% every year since 2021, across 35,000–52,000 annual grievances. Worker Pulse favorable responses: 78% (2020) → 91% (2025) across 96 facilities in 13 countries. Read the adidas WOVO case study or the eight-year longitudinal analysis to see the full evidence base. One platform. Every major HRDD framework. The same WOVO program that meets CSDDD requirements also supports compliance with Germany’s LkSG, France’s Duty of Vigilance Law, Norway’s Transparency Act, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and ESRS S2 reporting requirements. EU CSDDD: Grievance mechanisms, stakeholder engagement, access to remedy, ongoing monitoring. Germany LkSG: Complaints procedure, risk assessment, preventive and remediation measures. France Duty of Vigilance: Effective alert and reporting mechanisms for affected parties. UN Guiding Principles: Principle 31-aligned grievance mechanism effectiveness criteria. Why audits won’t get you there — and what CSDDD actually asks for. Does our existing audit program satisfy CSDDD grievance mechanism requirements? No. Social audits provide snapshots in time but do not satisfy CSDDD’s requirement for accessible, ongoing mechanisms that workers actively use. The directive requires evidence of usage, resolution, and worker satisfaction — data that audits do not generate. Read more: Operational grievance mechanisms: why utilisation matters What’s the difference between a global helpline and a CSDDD-compliant grievance mechanism? Global helplines satisfy a regulatory checkbox but rarely work in practice for supply chain workers who may lack private phone access, trust in the channel, or local language support. CSDDD requires effectiveness, not just existence. Read more: Grievance mechanisms: what the law requires and what actually works How long does it take to deploy WOVO across a Tier 1 supply chain? adidas achieved 100% Tier 1 coverage and was generating meaningful grievance data within its first year. Read the adidas 2025 case study for full deployment and outcome data. Which industries use Labor Solutions for CSDDD compliance? Labor Solutions works across apparel and footwear, electronics, FMCG, agriculture, seafood, and retail. Brands include adidas, Nike, H&M, Dell, Cisco, HP, Diageo, Carter’s, Puma, OVS, and Decathlon. See all case studies . CSDDD compliance is a program management question, not a technology question. The brands that will find CSDDD compliance straightforward are not necessarily the ones with the most workers or the most complex value chains. They are the ones that started building their evidence base early. WOVO gives you the tools, the data, and the documented outcomes to demonstrate effectiveness to regulators, investors, and auditors from day one. Book a demo to see WOVO in action — or read the adidas case study to see what eight years of WOVO deployment looks like in practice.

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

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.