������Ƶ

The “S” in ESG is having a moment — and not the glossy, feel-good kind. Across Europe, workforce topics are moving from internal conversations into external reporting. CSRD and the ESRS standards, especially ESRS S1 (Own Workforce), are asking companies to describe what working life looks like inside their organisations: working conditions, health and safety, development, fairness, and whether people can perform without grinding themselves down.

For HR leaders, this can feel like a new tax on time. Another reporting cycle. Another set of disclosures. Another project where everyone wants a number — and nobody wants the cultural fallout that numbers can bring. But there’s a more useful way to treat this shift: as a chance to build a stronger operating system for performance and wellbeing at the same time.

If you’ve ever tried to fix burnout by launching a wellbeing program while workload stayed chaotic, you already know the lesson. The levers that actually protect wellbeing are often structural: clarity, pace, decision quality, manager habits, and fair, consistent processes. CSRD and ESRS S1, done well, push companies toward exactly those levers — not because regulators want your yoga class schedule, but because stakeholders want evidence that the way you run work is sustainable.

This article is written for European HR teams, people leaders, and executives who want to be ready for workforce disclosures without creating a surveillance vibe, panic, or another wave of cynicism. We’ll keep it practical: what ESRS S1 is really asking, how to choose metrics that lead to action, how to handle multi-country realities, and how to turn reporting into a routine that strengthens trust instead of eroding it.

Why workforce wellbeing is becoming “material” — and why that matters to HR

In reporting language, “material” can sound abstract. In HR reality, it’s brutally concrete. Workforce wellbeing becomes material when it affects the organisation’s ability to deliver — and when the organisation’s choices clearly affect people’s health, safety, and opportunity.

Hybrid work made this more visible. In many companies, the real work now happens in a blur of meetings, chat messages, and asynchronous threads. That can be productive when norms are strong. It can also quietly create the conditions for chronic stress: always-on responsiveness, unclear boundaries, fragmented attention, and “invisible overtime” that nobody officially asks for but everyone feels pressured to do.

That pressure tends to surface later as slower execution, rising sick leave, higher turnover, and weaker innovation — and the cost is rarely spread evenly. High-responsibility roles, under-resourced teams, and certain locations often carry the heaviest load. Averages hide the story. ESRS-style thinking forces you to tell it more clearly.

The other reason this matters is credibility. European employees and candidates increasingly expect companies to be honest about how work is organised. Investors and customers are also watching. Reporting is essentially a promise: “This is how we manage people-related risks and outcomes.” If the internal experience contradicts the reporting story, trust breaks — and trust is hard to rebuild.

So the goal isn’t to produce a perfect set of numbers. The goal is to show that you have a system: you know what the risks are, you have mechanisms to manage them, you track whether those mechanisms work, and you improve them over time.

ESRS S1 in plain English: what you’ll be expected to explain

Most HR teams don’t need another technical summary. They need a translation. ESRS S1 (Own Workforce) is essentially pushing organisations to connect three things:

What you believe and commit to (policies, principles, codes, expectations)
How you run the work (processes, management practices, protections, escalation paths)
What happens in reality (metrics, outcomes, progress, gaps, corrective actions)

In practical terms, that means being able to answer questions like these with consistency across countries and business units:

• How do we define fair working conditions here — and how do we keep workload sustainable?
• How do we prevent health and safety risks, including psychosocial risks, not just react to them?
• How do we ensure people have access to development and progression, not only those with the loudest managers?
• How do we make opportunity and inclusion measurable in processes, not just a statement on the website?
• How do we listen to employees and respond when we see early warning signals?

Notice what’s not on the list: “Which wellbeing app do you use?” Tools can help, but reporting is increasingly about management reality, not brand choices.

Governance: who owns workforce wellbeing and how decisions get made

One of the most underestimated parts of workforce reporting is governance. Stakeholders want to know whether workforce topics are managed deliberately. Internally, governance is the difference between “HR cares” and “the company cares.”

A strong setup makes ownership visible across functions. HR can’t carry it alone. Health & Safety, Legal, Finance (because resourcing is a budget decision), and business leadership need to share accountability. The simplest healthy pattern is a regular review rhythm (quarterly works for many organisations) where a small number of workforce signals are reviewed alongside corrective actions. That rhythm is also what makes reporting easier later — because you’re not trying to reverse-engineer a year of decisions two weeks before a disclosure deadline.

Working conditions: defining “sustainable pace” without infantilising employees

Working conditions sound like an industrial-era term, but for knowledge work they translate to the everyday conditions of attention and time. Do people have enough uninterrupted time to do the work they’re responsible for? Are priorities stable enough to plan? Is the meeting load reasonable? Do teams spend evenings catching up because the day is too fragmented?

If your organisation can talk about these conditions honestly — and show that you have practices to improve them — you’ve already made workforce reporting safer and more credible.

Health and safety: psychosocial risks are no longer optional to mention

In Europe, psychosocial risk isn’t a fringe topic. Chronic stress, fatigue, anxiety, and burnout-related outcomes are increasingly treated as workplace risks that organisations should manage proactively. A reporting-ready approach doesn’t diagnose individuals. It focuses on drivers and prevention: workload design, manager training, clear escalation, and credible support.

Skills, development, and employability: wellbeing has a career component

A workforce can be physically safe and still psychologically drained if growth is opaque. Career stagnation is a quiet wellbeing killer: uncertainty about progression, inconsistent promotions, and a sense that development is reserved for a few. If you treat skills and development as part of your workforce wellbeing story, you improve retention while also strengthening your reporting narrative.

Inclusion and equal opportunity: process quality, not slogans

Many organisations are tired of performative DEI statements. Reporting culture pushes you toward something more durable: making opportunity visible in processes. Hiring pipelines, promotion criteria, access to training, and internal mobility — these are the areas where inclusion becomes real or remains marketing.

The biggest risk: turning wellbeing reporting into surveillance

Once reporting enters the picture, some organisations instinctively reach for “more data.” That’s where things can go wrong fast — especially in Europe, where employee privacy expectations are high and workplace monitoring can trigger both legal and cultural backlash.

The safer approach is not “no data.” It’s right-sized data designed for improvement, not control.

A good workforce wellbeing measurement system follows a few principles:

Measure systems, not personalities. Most wellbeing problems are systemic: workload, coordination friction, unclear priorities, poor handoffs. Measure those. Avoid “mood scores” or anything that tries to infer internal states.

Aggregate early and default to anonymity. If a metric can be useful without identifying individuals, it should be designed that way. Team-level and function-level signals usually provide enough clarity to act.

Be brutally clear about purpose. Every metric should answer: “What decision does this support?” If you can’t name a decision, you’re collecting vanity data.

Keep wellbeing separate from performance evaluation. If employees suspect wellbeing data will influence promotions, bonuses, or layoffs, you’ll get silence and distrust. You can’t build a truthful reporting system on top of fear.

Design transparency into the measurement itself. People are far more comfortable when they understand what is collected, how it’s used, and what it will never be used for.

This is also where social dialogue matters. In many European contexts, involving works councils or employee representatives early isn’t only compliance — it’s good product design. It surfaces concerns before rumours do.

Metrics that actually help: building a lean set that connects to action

A common mistake in ESG reporting projects is metric sprawl. Teams collect dozens of indicators, publish them, and then don’t change anything. The metrics become theatre.

A better approach is to build a small set that reflects three layers: outcomes, drivers, and capabilities.

Outcomes are what you ultimately want to protect: retention, absenteeism patterns, safety outcomes, internal mobility, and consistent progression. Outcomes matter, but they are often lagging.

Drivers are the day-to-day conditions that create those outcomes: workload predictability, meeting intensity, after-hours communication norms, role clarity, and manager behaviours that either stabilise or destabilise people’s week.

Capabilities are what allow improvement: training coverage, manager enablement, employee listening mechanisms, and clear escalation and support pathways.

The most useful driver metrics in hybrid organisations tend to be surprisingly operational. Think about the “shape of the week” rather than abstract wellbeing scores. For example: whether teams have protected focus time, whether meeting load leaves space to do real work, and whether work routinely spills into evenings. These signals are closer to work design, which means they are closer to actions HR and leaders can take.

Listening data can complement operational signals when it’s done well. Short pulse questions can reveal whether people feel clarity, support, and sustainable pace. The trick is restraint: ask fewer questions, ask them consistently, and show what changes as a result. If employees see a “you said / we did” loop, they keep answering. If they don’t, surveys become noise.

Segmentation matters too. Workforce metrics become meaningful when broken down by groups that reflect how work is organised: job family, level, location cluster, and contract type where relevant. This helps you spot risk pockets early. Averages are comforting; pockets are actionable.

Data governance in Europe: how to keep reporting credible under GDPR expectations

Even when you avoid surveillance, workforce reporting expands the number of people touching workforce data. That increases the risk of accidental misuse. HR teams need governance that feels solid, not improvised.

Start with a simple map: what data exists, where it comes from, who owns it, who can access it, how long it’s kept, and for what purposes it can be used. Make sure access is proportional. Not everyone who reads the sustainability report needs access to raw workforce datasets.

Be clear about retention. Reporting doesn’t require keeping raw data forever. Keep what you need, delete what you don’t, and make that practice real — not just a sentence in a policy.

Most importantly, align the story you tell employees with the system you build. If you promise aggregated signals but allow manager-level individual views “just in case,” trust will eventually break.

Turning reporting into a real operating rhythm (so it doesn’t become an annual headache)

If you want workforce reporting to improve wellbeing, you need a rhythm that turns metrics into action. A report is a snapshot. A rhythm is a habit.

A practical rhythm looks like this: quarterly reviews of a small set of workforce signals, with a focus on trends and corrective actions. When a signal shifts in the wrong direction, the next question isn’t “Who caused it?” It’s “What changed in the system?” New product launch? Resourcing gap? Management churn? A process change that added coordination friction? A location-specific workload spike?

Then you commit to a small intervention and review the impact next quarter. That’s how reporting becomes management, not theatre.

Manager enablement is the engine here. You can’t “report” your way to healthier work. Managers need repeatable practices: how to plan workloads, how to protect focus time, how to run meetings that leave room for thinking, how to spot overload early, and how to respond without shame or blame. If you equip managers, many wellbeing drivers improve automatically without extra programs.

Employee communication completes the loop. Don’t only publish results externally. Translate them internally into a clear narrative: what we saw, what we’re changing, and what employees can expect to feel different. That narrative is a trust multiplier.

Multi-country reality: how to keep consistency without crushing local nuance

Most European organisations operate across different labour cultures. The temptation is either to over-standardise (which can clash with local realities) or to over-localise (which creates inconsistency and internal equity issues).

A balanced approach standardises core definitions and principles while localising implementation.

Standardise how you define job families, levels, manager roles, and basic workforce categories. Without consistent definitions, your reporting will be fragile and comparisons will be misleading.

Localise the details of communication and practices. A wellbeing ritual that lands well in one country can feel awkward in another. Working-time patterns differ. Collective agreements differ. Hybrid norms differ. Local HR teams should adapt language and cadence while keeping the underlying commitments stable: sustainable pace, fair opportunity, and clear support.

Also, build space for social partner involvement where it’s part of the reality. In works-council environments, early engagement tends to reduce delays and prevent distrust.

Avoiding the pitfalls that make workforce reporting backfire

A few mistakes tend to repeat across organisations.

Publishing values without mechanisms is the quickest route to cynicism. If employees experience constant overload and the report says “we prioritise wellbeing,” credibility evaporates.

Confusing participation with impact is another trap. A wellbeing initiative with high sign-ups can coexist with worsening workload. The meaningful measure is whether work is becoming more sustainable in practice.

Ignoring parts of the workforce creates reputational and internal fairness problems. Contractors, agency workers, and outsourced roles may sit outside certain systems, but they are still part of delivery. If your workforce story excludes them entirely, it will look incomplete.

Finally, metric whiplash is real. If you introduce too many indicators at once, you create measurement fatigue. Start small. Prove usefulness. Expand only when you can show that measurement leads to improvement.

A pragmatic “start this quarter” plan for HR teams

If you’re not sure where to begin, don’t start with a report template. Start with capability.

First, agree on the handful of workforce topics that are clearly material for your organisation: working conditions, health and safety (including psychosocial risks), development, retention, equal opportunity. Then map your scope: countries, legal entities, and data sources.

Next, build the taxonomy backbone: job families and levels, so segmentation is coherent and comparisons make sense. This work is not glamorous, but it unlocks clarity.

Then pick a minimal metric set that includes an outcome, a driver, and a capability indicator — and write down what action each one triggers. This alone will prevent 80% of metric sprawl.

Finally, enable managers with one or two practical habits that address the most common stress drivers in your organisation. In many hybrid companies, the biggest immediate win is reducing coordination friction: clearer priorities, fewer unnecessary meetings, better decision capture, and more protected focus time. These are wellbeing interventions disguised as good management.

A brief note on ������Ƶ

Once your reporting backbone exists, the next challenge is helping teams maintain energy and healthy routines during demanding periods. ������Ƶ supports corporate wellbeing through a customizable app with gamification, physical activity tracking, and rewards — useful for encouraging participation in positive habits and team challenges while the organisation improves deeper systems like workload design and manager practices.

Conclusion: treat CSRD/ESRS S1 as a chance to make wellbeing real

CSRD and ESRS S1 are pushing European organisations to describe workforce reality with more discipline than before. That can be uncomfortable — especially if wellbeing has lived mostly in programs rather than in operations. But it’s also an opportunity.

When workforce reporting is designed around trust, it becomes a management system: clearer working conditions, earlier detection of stress drivers, more consistent development and opportunity, and better manager practices that protect attention and sustainable pace. You don’t need to measure everything. You need to measure what you can change — and then actually change it.

Do that, and the report becomes the least interesting part of the project. The real value is the organisation you build: one where people can perform and grow across countries and hybrid setups without paying for success with their health.