Review grievance-process data without turning case counts into a success score
Reconcile opening cases, new cases, reopened cases and closures before interpreting the period's totals. Keep case categories, status definitions and the reporting boundary clear. Use aggregate figures alongside evidence of accessibility, handling and outcomes, while protecting the people behind the records.
This guide is for reporting and management teams reviewing a grievance process through authorised aggregate information. It does not investigate individual allegations, determine their merits or replace required legal, safeguarding or specialist handling.
Define which process and which cases are included
Record the mechanism, intended users, covered entities, reporting dates and case unit. A message, a contact, an allegation and a case are not necessarily the same unit. Explain how repeat contacts, duplicate reports, transfers, withdrawals and reopened matters are treated.
GRI 2:2021 distinguishes grievance/remediation processes (2-25) from advice and business-conduct concern mechanisms (2-26). If one channel serves both, state which function each count covers. Sources: 2-25, pages 40–42; 2-26, page 43.
Build a controlled aggregate schedule
Ask the authorised custodian to provide opening and closing balances, new and reopened cases, closures and any adjustments. Retain the cut-off date, status definitions and an explanation of exclusions. Keep a controlled reconciliation to the case system so changes can be investigated without circulating individual case details.
Specify what “closed” means in the system. It might describe a completed response, a referral, a duplicate record or a resolution under the relevant process. Those outcomes should not automatically be treated as equivalent. A reporting status alone does not prove remedy, satisfaction or absence of continuing harm.
A fictional quarterly reconciliation
For 1 July to 30 September 2026, one defined process starts with eight open cases. It receives twelve new cases and reopens two cases closed before the quarter. The reopened cases are distinct from both the opening and new cases. Fourteen cases close during the quarter, with no transfers, duplicate adjustments or other movements.
Fictional case movements within one defined process
Opening balance
Cases: 8.
Treatment: Open at the start of 1 July.
New cases
Cases: 12.
Treatment: First received during the quarter.
Reopened earlier cases
Cases: 2.
Treatment: Returned to open status during the quarter.
Closures
Cases: 14.
Treatment: Six opening cases, seven new cases and one reopened case.
Closing balance
Cases: 8.
Treatment: 8 + 12 + 2 − 14; two opening, five new and one reopened case remain open.
Dividing fourteen closures by twelve new cases gives 116.7%, rounded to one decimal place. That does not mean the process achieved a 116.7% success rate: the numerator includes cases from different groups.
If the question is how many of the quarter's new cases were closed by 30 September, the matched calculation is seven divided by twelve, or 58.3%. State that definition and cut-off. This still says nothing by itself about resolution quality, the time each case took, whether a remedy was effective or whether users felt safe raising concerns.
The example is fictional. In a live system, a case can move between statuses more than once. Define the event-counting and case-counting rules and reconcile them; do not force the data into this simplified pattern.
Look beyond volumes
GRI 2-25(e) asks how effectiveness is tracked and for examples including stakeholder feedback. Review access, response times, recurring concerns and outcomes alongside case totals. GRI 2:2021, pages 40–42.
Low reported volumes can have several explanations, including the population served, awareness, access and willingness to use the process. Higher volumes can also reflect changes in those conditions. Investigate the context instead of treating either direction as automatic proof of better or worse practice.
If reporting response times, define the start and end events and which cases enter the calculation. Do not silently exclude open cases and present a closed-case average as the experience of everyone who raised a concern. Ageing of open cases may need a separate view.
Keep aggregation from exposing individuals
Use only the categories and detail needed for the reporting purpose. Small groups or combinations of site, role, date and subject can reveal a person even when names are removed. Ask the responsible privacy or case owner to review the proposed breakdowns and narrative before wider sharing.
Keep case narratives, identities and supporting files with authorised custodians. If a reviewer needs to examine underlying evidence, agree a controlled route suited to the sensitivity of the matter. No universal small-cell threshold or public-disclosure permission is supplied by this guide.
Prepare a management review with clear questions
Present the reconciled totals, definitions, exclusions and the remaining questions together. Keep alleged, investigated, substantiated and resolved statuses distinct where the process uses them. Do not imply that an unsubstantiated matter was raised in bad faith or that an administrative closure disproves the concern.
Nitium's sustainability and GRI reporting support can help organise reporting evidence, disclosure mapping and narrative gaps. Discuss your reporting needs with the reporting objective and available aggregate schedules, keeping individual case information out of the initial enquiry. Nitium does not provide grievance adjudication, legal opinions or independent assurance through the services described here.
Sources checked 10 October 2026. The schedule is a reporting aid and does not establish a complete GRI disclosure, statutory return or effective grievance mechanism.
Comments