ESRS S1-17 Discrimination Incidents
ESRS S1-17 requires companies to disclose the number of discrimination and harassment incidents in the workplace — including the status of each case. This is one of the most sensitive CSRD disclosures, revealing the lived experience of employees beyond the aggregate diversity statistics. Legal review before first publication is strongly recommended.
ESRS S1-17 requires companies to disclose the number of discrimination and harassment incidents in the workplace — including the status of each case. ESRS S1-17 requires disclosure of: the total number of incidents of discrimination and harassment in the workplace reported during the period; and for each confirmed incident, its status at the reporting date.
What ESRS S1-17 requires
ESRS S1-17 requires disclosure of: the total number of incidents of discrimination and harassment in the workplace reported during the period; and for each confirmed incident, its status at the reporting date.
Discrimination grounds: incidents related to race, colour, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion or belief, disability, age, or any other ground protected by applicable law. The scope should include all legally protected characteristics in each jurisdiction of operation.
Harassment: physical, verbal, or psychological harassment in the workplace — including bullying, intimidation, and sexual harassment. Workplace harassment incidents are included alongside discrimination incidents in S1-17.
Status categories: For each confirmed incident, disclose its status as: incident reviewed and remediation plan implemented; incident under review; no action required (for example, allegation found to be unsubstantiated after investigation); or incident ongoing — in legal proceedings.
The distinction between reported and confirmed: S1-17 focuses on confirmed incidents — those investigated and found to have occurred, not merely alleged. Where investigations are ongoing, the status reflects that. Where allegations were unsubstantiated after investigation, they are not confirmed incidents.
For the qualitative narrative: describe the company's anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, the reporting and investigation process, and the support available to affected employees. This context allows readers to assess whether the incident count reflects genuine low incidence or under-reporting due to inadequate reporting mechanisms.
Investigation and case management — the compliance process
A credible S1-17 disclosure requires a robust case management process behind it — not just a count of reported incidents.
Reporting mechanisms: Employees must have accessible, confidential channels to report discrimination and harassment. Mechanisms include: dedicated HR reporting line; ethics hotline (internal or external); online reporting portal; union representative referral; and direct reporting to a manager above the alleged perpetrator. Multiple channels increase the likelihood that incidents are reported rather than suppressed.
Investigation process: Every report should trigger a structured investigation — not a discretionary decision on whether to investigate. Investigation standards: independence (investigator not in the management line of the accused); confidentiality (information shared only on need-to-know basis); timeliness (investigation completed within a defined period, typically 30–60 days); and documentation (written report with findings and recommendations).
Case status tracking: Maintain a central case management register — tracking each report from receipt through investigation to resolution. The register should capture: date reported; protected ground; nature of complaint (discrimination type, harassment type); investigation outcome (confirmed, unsubstantiated, ongoing); actions taken; and case closure date.
For S1-17 data: extract the annual summary from the case management register — confirmed cases by status. The register is the primary evidence source for assurers. Where cases are managed in a legal case management system (for matters in litigation) and an HR system (for pre-litigation matters), consolidate both sources.
Legal sensitivity and disclosure approach
S1-17 discrimination incident disclosure requires careful legal review — particularly for cases involving current litigation, regulatory proceedings, or settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions.
Active litigation: Disclosing the existence and status of active discrimination litigation is generally permissible — and in many jurisdictions, public filings already reveal this. However, disclosing specific details (allegations, evidence, settlement terms) may prejudice ongoing proceedings. Disclose aggregate counts and general status; avoid case-specific details for active litigation.
Confidential settlements: Many discrimination and harassment cases are resolved through settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions. The company cannot typically disclose the terms of such settlements. However, the existence of a resolved case — disclosed as 'incident reviewed and remediation plan implemented' — is generally disclosable without violating confidentiality. Legal review of whether settled cases count as 'confirmed incidents' for S1-17 is recommended.
Employee privacy: Disclosure of incident details that could identify the victim or the accused creates privacy and employment law risks. Aggregate counts by status are the appropriate disclosure format — not individual case descriptions. ESRS S1-17 requires aggregate counts, not case-by-case narratives.
The zero-incident disclosure challenge: A company with zero confirmed discrimination incidents may have: genuinely no incidents; a strong deterrent culture; or inadequate reporting mechanisms. Investors and assurers distinguish between these interpretations — contextualise zero by describing the robustness of reporting mechanisms and the volume of unsubstantiated reports investigated.
Frequently asked questions
Do we include incidents involving contractors in S1-17?
S1-17 covers the company's own workforce — employees and supervised workers. Discrimination or harassment incidents involving contractors working under company supervision are included. Incidents at supplier sites (without company supervision) are S2 value chain scope, not S1-17. Where a discrimination incident involves both an employee (perpetrator) and a contractor (victim) or vice versa, include it in S1-17.
What if the same person files multiple complaints that are all found unsubstantiated?
Each complaint triggers a separate investigation — each is a separate case in the register. If all are found unsubstantiated, none are 'confirmed incidents' under S1-17. However, a pattern of complaints from one individual against the same person may indicate a systemic issue requiring management attention beyond the individual case outcomes. This is a qualitative governance observation, not a quantitative S1-17 disclosure.
We have zero confirmed incidents — should we be concerned about how this looks?
Zero confirmed incidents with a robust reporting system, a transparent investigation process, and a credible anti-harassment culture is a positive indicator. Zero confirmed incidents with no reporting channel, no investigation process, and no training is a red flag. Contextualise your zero with: the number of reports received (including unsubstantiated); the number of investigations completed; the accessibility and promotion of reporting channels; and any training delivered on anti-discrimination and respect at work.