A social compliance dashboard gives leadership a regular view of workforce conditions, contractor and supplier controls, unresolved concerns and the evidence behind them. Each metric should have a definition, an owner, a reporting period and an action when the result requires attention.
For a manufacturer or exporter, this can answer practical questions before the next buyer request arrives. Are overtime exceptions increasing? Are contractor payments being checked? Which corrective actions remain overdue? Can workers access grievance channels, and does management know whether those channels work?
OECD guidance recommends tracking the implementation and results of due diligence, using suitable qualitative and quantitative indicators. [1] The twelve metric groups below translate that approach into a manageable monthly review. They are SVEGA’s recommended starting set, not a mandatory legal dashboard or a universal buyer-audit scorecard.
What you need to know
- Use a consistent site, workforce scope and reporting period.
- Report exceptions and missing data alongside headline results.
- Separate overlapping workforce characteristics from employment categories.
- Track whether controls work, alongside whether activities were completed.
- Set thresholds from applicable requirements and assessed risk.
- End the review with decisions, named owners and deadlines.
Define the dashboard before collecting numbers
Write a short data dictionary for each metric. Record what is included, how it is calculated, where the evidence comes from, who checks it and when it is updated.
Use the same definitions from month to month. If the scope changes, explain the change rather than presenting the difference as improved performance. A new contractor or additional site can change both the numerator and denominator.
For percentages, display the underlying counts. “90% complete” means something different when it represents nine of ten items rather than ninety of one hundred. Use not available for missing information and not applicable where there is no eligible population. Neither should become zero or a green status.
Ownership should follow the decisions and source records. Use SVEGA’s social compliance roles and responsibilities guide to assign those handovers.
1. Workforce mix by employment category
Definition and calculation: Count unique active workers at the month-end cut-off, using mutually exclusive categories such as direct permanent, direct fixed-term, direct temporary and contractor-supplied. Define the categories to fit the actual arrangements. Category share equals the category count divided by total in-scope workers, multiplied by 100.
Record migrant status separately. A migrant worker may also be permanent, temporary or contractor-supplied, so those counts should not be added into the employment-category total.
Owner and source: HR, with site and contractor input; workforce registers, joiner and leaver records and deployment lists.
Frequency: Monthly, with operational updates when workers join or leave.
Trigger and action: Investigate differences between the register and the workforce actually deployed. Significant changes should prompt a review of induction, supervision and record coverage. Workforce composition is context, not an automatic compliance rating.
2. Contract-worker share by site and contractor
Definition and calculation: Unique contractor-supplied workers at the cut-off divided by all in-scope workers at the same cut-off, multiplied by 100. Show the count by site and contractor, including peak deployment where month-end figures would conceal it.
Owner and source: HR and procurement; contractor registers, deployment records and site access information.
Frequency: Monthly, with more frequent checks during rapid staffing changes.
Trigger and action: Review unapproved contractors, unexplained deployment and gaps in oversight. A higher contractor share is not itself proof of poor practice. The ETI Base Code states that contracting arrangements should not be used to avoid labour or social-security obligations. [2] Check the controls supporting the arrangement through the contract labour governance guide.
3. Maximum and average weekly working hours
Definition and calculation: For each defined seven-day reporting week, total each worker’s recorded hours worked, including overtime. Report the maximum and the average across eligible worker-week records. Keep the week boundary and break treatment consistent, and include weeks crossing a month boundary without truncating them.
Owner and source: Operations with HR review; attendance, shift and overtime records.
Frequency: Weekly monitoring, summarised monthly.
Trigger and action: Compare results against applicable law, collective agreements and buyer requirements. The ETI Base Code addresses working hours, voluntary overtime and rest. [2] An acceptable average can conceal excessive hours for a small group. Review the highest-hour cases and the production decisions behind them.
4. Overtime and rest-day exceptions
Definition and calculation: Count unique worker-week records breaching the applicable hours or rest rule, and divide by eligible worker-week records if reporting a rate. Show overtime and rest exceptions separately, with an unduplicated combined total where needed.
Owner and source: Operations and HR; schedules, actual attendance, overtime approvals and applicable-rule register.
Frequency: Weekly, with monthly trend review.
Trigger and action: Investigate confirmed breaches promptly. Review staffing, order commitments, approval practices and recurring shift patterns. A threshold for management review must never redefine an unlawful practice as acceptable.
5. Wage, deduction and statutory-payment exceptions
Definition and calculation: Report affected workers, unique worker-pay-period records and unresolved amounts for wage shortfalls, late payment, unexplained deductions and missing applicable contributions. If using an exception rate, divide affected worker-pay-period records by records actually reviewed. State review coverage so a small sample is not presented as a full-workforce result.
Owner and source: Payroll, HR and finance, with procurement for contractor issues; wage sheets, attendance, payment confirmations and applicable contribution records.
Frequency: Each payment cycle, summarised monthly.
Trigger and action: Confirm the affected population and remediate identified problems. The ETI Base Code sets expectations for wage information and deductions. [2] A paid contractor invoice does not establish that individual workers received the correct payment.
6. Worker awareness of grievance and POSH channels
Definition and calculation: Workers in a defined awareness check who can identify the relevant reporting channel divided by workers checked, multiplied by 100. Report grievance and POSH awareness separately, using suitable questions and coverage for each. Show sample size and results by shift, language and employment category where confidentiality permits.
Owner and source: HR and the appropriate authorised process owners; communication records and voluntary awareness checks.
Frequency: Monthly review of coverage, with checks after induction or channel changes.
Trigger and action: Follow up groups that cannot access or explain the channel. The UN Guiding Principles identify accessibility and predictability as grievance-mechanism effectiveness criteria. [3] Awareness is one indicator, not proof that workers trust the process. POSH cases must retain their statutory route and confidentiality protections. [5]
7. Grievance volume, age and resolution time
Definition and calculation: Report opening cases, new cases, closed cases and closing open cases. Reconcile the balance and explain reopened or transferred cases. For open cases, calculate age from receipt to the reporting cut-off. For cases closed during the month, show median days from receipt to closure and the number of cases used.
Owner and source: Authorised grievance administrators; restricted case registers and process records.
Frequency: Ongoing case follow-up and anonymised monthly reporting.
Trigger and action: Review overdue cases, repeated themes and feedback about outcomes. Separate statutory complaint processes from general grievances and follow their applicable deadlines. The UN Guiding Principles include continuous learning among effectiveness criteria. [3] Zero complaints may reflect low incidence, low awareness or reluctance to report. It needs interpretation, not automatic praise.
8. Serious safety incidents and overdue safety actions
Definition and calculation: Count serious incidents using a documented classification. Show fatalities separately, distinguish actual injury outcomes from high-potential near misses, and count overdue safety actions at the cut-off. Keep employee and relevant non-employee coverage visible.
Owner and source: EHS and site leadership; incident records, investigations and corrective-action trackers.
Frequency: Immediate response to serious events, with monthly management review.
Trigger and action: Escalate serious harm and uncontrolled hazards immediately. GRI 403 distinguishes work-related injury outcomes and specifies scope and hours-worked bases for injury rates. [4] If rates are added, use a consistent basis and documented coverage. Do not treat unlike incident categories as interchangeable or assume zero recorded incidents proves an effective reporting system.
9. Training coverage by worker category
Definition and calculation: Workers who completed a defined required training module within its due period divided by workers due for that module, multiplied by 100. Measure modules separately and distinguish completion from demonstrated understanding.
Owner and source: HR, EHS and operating supervisors; training requirements, attendance and appropriate learning checks.
Frequency: Monthly, with induction monitored when workers arrive.
Trigger and action: Address overdue critical training before exposing workers to the relevant task. The ETI Base Code calls for recorded safety training, repeated for new or reassigned workers. [2] A signed attendance sheet does not establish that someone can perform the work safely.
10. Assessment coverage by supplier or contractor risk tier
Definition and calculation: Entities with a completed, still-valid assessment under the approved programme divided by entities requiring assessment in that risk tier, multiplied by 100. Define validity, the eligible population and the accepted assessment method before calculating coverage.
Owner and source: Procurement or supplier-governance lead; supplier register, risk segmentation and assessment records.
Frequency: Monthly progress review, with risk updated when circumstances change.
Trigger and action: Address overdue high-risk assessments and missing risk information. OECD guidance supports risk-based due diligence. [1] A self-assessment, desk review and independent audit are different methods; report them separately rather than implying identical assurance. Coverage does not demonstrate remediation quality.
11. Open corrective actions by severity and age
Definition and calculation: Count unique open actions by agreed severity, age since creation and overdue days against the due date. Separately identify actions awaiting effectiveness checks or external acceptance. Show actions older than 90 days as an age band, not a universal closure deadline.
Owner and source: Coordinator and named action owners; findings, actions, evidence and verification tracker.
Frequency: Weekly follow-up where needed, with monthly escalation.
Trigger and action: Review overdue serious actions and repeated problems. OECD guidance includes tracking results and supporting appropriate remediation. [1] Administrative closure should not hide incomplete implementation or a pending buyer verification.
12. Evidence overdue for update or review
Definition and calculation: Evidence items past their agreed update or review date at the cut-off divided by all evidence items tracked with such a date, multiplied by 100. Report missing critical items separately, even if no review date was assigned.
Owner and source: Evidence owners and coordinator; controlled evidence index, review dates and version records.
Frequency: Monthly, with critical evidence maintained at its required operating frequency.
Trigger and action: Prioritise missing, inconsistent and outdated evidence according to the risk it supports. Sedex explains that SMETA examines records alongside workplace practices and conditions. [6] A current file date alone cannot establish that the record is accurate or the control works.
Separate early warning signals from outcomes
Training gaps, overdue reviews and incomplete assessments can indicate that protection or oversight is weakening. Incidents, payment failures and recurring grievances show outcomes that need investigation. Workforce mix provides context.
Use them together. High training coverage alongside recurring injuries should prompt a review of training quality and actual controls. A fall in complaints alongside declining channel awareness should prompt a review of access. These are interpretation examples, not reported SVEGA client results.
The dashboard should include a short explanation from the owner, not just a coloured cell.
A compact monthly management view
Use the layout below with actual values and the definitions above. “Pending” means the information has not yet been validated; it must not appear green. The row descriptions are prompts, not targets or sample results.
| Metric group | Current result | Review signal | Accountable owner | Action and due date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce mix | Pending | Unreconciled workforce records | HR head | Assign after review |
| Contract-worker share | Pending | Unapproved or unverified deployment | Site head | Assign after review |
| Weekly hours | Pending | Highest-hour cases and trend | Operations head | Assign after review |
| Overtime/rest exceptions | Pending | Confirmed breaches | Operations head | Assign after review |
| Payment exceptions | Pending | Worker impact and outstanding amounts | Payroll approver | Assign after review |
| Channel awareness | Pending | Groups unable to access channels | Authorised process owner | Assign after review |
| Grievances | Pending | Overdue cases and recurring themes | Authorised process owner | Assign after review |
| Safety incidents/actions | Pending | Serious harm and overdue protection | Site head | Assign after review |
| Training coverage | Pending | Critical training gaps | Relevant functional head | Assign after review |
| Risk-tier assessments | Pending | Overdue high-risk reviews | Procurement head | Assign after review |
| Open corrective actions | Pending | Serious, overdue or recurring issues | Relevant action approver | Assign after review |
| Evidence currency | Pending | Missing critical or outdated evidence | Relevant evidence owner | Assign after review |
Use red for urgent action, a confirmed breach or an uncontrolled serious risk; amber for a developing risk or incomplete action; and green only where validated evidence meets the defined review criteria. Use grey for unavailable or unvalidated data. Pair every colour with a text status for accessibility.
Set thresholds by metric. Contract-worker share has no universal acceptable percentage. Grievance volume has no universal ideal number. Legal duties, buyer commitments and statutory timelines take precedence over an internal colour rule. Urgent worker concerns must not wait for the monthly meeting.
Make the meeting produce decisions
Before the meeting, data owners should validate the period, coverage and exceptions. Review serious risks first, then overdue actions, material changes and data gaps.
For each issue, ask what changed, what evidence supports the result and what decision is needed. Record the action, accountable owner, deadline and evidence expected at follow-up.
Start with the records you can support and improve coverage openly. If an audit is approaching, use the buyer social audit readiness plan to prioritise the immediate work. The monthly dashboard then helps maintain the controls beyond audit preparation.
Frequently asked questions about social compliance dashboard
What should a social compliance dashboard include?
Include workforce context, hours and payment exceptions, worker-voice access, safety, training, supplier or contractor oversight, corrective actions and evidence currency. Each metric needs a definition, owner, source, period and action trigger. The twelve groups in this article are a recommended starting set.
Is a social compliance dashboard legally mandatory for every manufacturer?
This particular dashboard is not presented as a statutory requirement. It is an internal management tool. Applicable record-keeping, reporting and legal duties must be checked separately for the establishment and workforce concerned.
Does zero grievances mean that the grievance mechanism is effective?
No. Interpret the count alongside awareness, accessibility, worker feedback and confidence in reporting. The UN Guiding Principles emphasise access and effectiveness, rather than prescribing a target complaint count. [3]
Should contract workers appear in the dashboard?
Include the workforce relevant to each metric and clearly distinguish categories and scope. Contractor arrangements should not obscure worker risks. GRI 403 also distinguishes employees and relevant non-employee workers in occupational-safety reporting. [4]
How should leadership set red, amber and green thresholds?
Begin with applicable requirements and risk. Define the trigger and required action for each metric, avoiding universal targets for contextual measures such as contractor share or complaint volume. Missing data should have its own status, not be treated as a successful result.
Can a spreadsheet be used for the monthly dashboard?
Yes. A controlled spreadsheet can support the review if definitions, evidence links, access permissions and version ownership are clear. The reliability of the records and decisions matters more than the software used.
Who should own the social compliance dashboard?
Assign a coordinator to assemble it and functional owners to validate their data. An accountable executive should review significant exceptions and resolve blocked decisions. OECD guidance recommends senior-management oversight of due diligence. [1]
Keep the monthly view connected to the work
A useful dashboard lets leadership see which controls need attention and whether agreed actions have worked. Begin with clear definitions and reliable records, then use the monthly review to decide what happens next.
SVEGA’s Governance Retainer Advisory supports ongoing governance reviews, KPI reliability, ownership and evidence discipline. Discuss the gaps in your current monthly view and the support needed to keep the process operating.
References
[1] OECD. OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. 2018. Section II: embedding due diligence in management systems, identifying and prioritising impacts, tracking implementation and results, and remediation. Read the guidance.
[2] Ethical Trading Initiative. ETI Base Code. Clauses 3, 5, 6 and 8: safety training, wages, hours and employment relationships. These are code expectations alongside applicable law. Read the Base Code.
[3] OHCHR. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. 2011. Principles 29 and 31: operational grievance mechanisms and effectiveness criteria. Read the Guiding Principles.
[4] Global Reporting Initiative. GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018. Disclosures 403-8 and 403-9, including worker scope, injury categories and rate calculation. Used as a reporting reference, not as a claim that every reader must report under GRI. Read the standard.
[5] Government of India. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Committee and complaint provisions and section 16 on confidentiality. Read the Act.
[6] Sedex. SMETA audit. Scope and assessment of records, practices, workers and conditions. Read the overview.
References checked: 5 October 2026. Metric definitions, the monthly cadence and the status framework are SVEGA’s recommended management approach. They are not prescribed legal formulas or an official audit scoring system. Confirm site-specific obligations and reporting requirements when implementing them.
