Disclosure focus
In practical terms, the reporting should look beyond a few well-known sites or flagship teams and consider coverage across the organisation’s own operations. The key question is whether work-life balance measures are embedded broadly, how they differ by location, role, or contract type if relevant, and whether there are any material gaps between what is offered and what employees can actually access.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official European Commission source.
Prepare
What to collect before drafting
Tick each field as the evidence lands. Owners are the teams that usually hold the source files.
-
Employee entitlement share
HR / Total rewardsCapture the percentage of employees who are entitled to the item described in the source clause, using the same employee population and period basis used for the underlying workforce data.
Evidence HR policy or benefits rules, plus the workforce count used for the reporting period and the calculation showing the numerator and denominator.
Watch for The percentage is calculated on a different employee base than the workforce total, so the numerator and denominator do not reconcile to the same period or population.
Before you start
- Have you decided which employee groups count for this check, and which groups sit outside it?
- Have you fixed the date or period you will use for the headcount and the entitlement figure?
- Can you trace the percentage back to a source record, such as HR or payroll data, without manual guesswork?
- Have you agreed what counts as being entitled in your organisation, so the same rule is used for everyone in scope?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the employee entitlement data from HR
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What share of our workforce is covered by our work-life balance entitlement, using the organisation’s own employee categories and reporting cut-off?
Use your organisation’s own wording first, then map it to the disclosure label. For example, ask for the relevant leave, flexibility or time-off entitlement measure in the terms your people team already uses, rather than using framework language in the request.
Weak request
Please provide the ESRS S1:S1-14 work-life balance data for the disclosure.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, gives no internal definitions, and does not tell the owner which employee groups, systems, dates or calculation basis to use. That makes the response hard to prepare and hard to trace.
Better request
Please provide the people-team data on which employees are covered by our leave, flexibility or time-off arrangements for the reporting period. Use the categories and system names your team already uses, include the cut-off date, the population in scope, the calculation basis, and any exclusions or assumptions, and return the result as a simple table.
Formal email template
Subject: Data request for work-life balance entitlement reporting Hi [Name], Could you please provide the people data we need for our sustainability reporting pack on work-life balance? We are looking for the measure of employees who are covered by the relevant leave, flexibility or time-off arrangement, using the way your team already tracks this internally. Please send: - the reporting period and cut-off date used - the employee population included - the internal category names you used - the source system or file used - the count or percentage, with the basis used for the calculation - any notes on exclusions, assumptions or data gaps If helpful, you can return this in the table format below. Please adapt the wording to your own internal terms and check the source records before sign-off. Thanks, [Preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [Name] — could you share the people data for our work-life balance reporting? Please use your team’s own terms for the relevant leave/flexibility arrangement, and include the period, population, source system, basis used, and the count or percentage covered. A simple table is fine. Please adapt to your internal wording and check the source records before sign-off. Thanks, [Preparer name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. Shift-based workforce with a mix of plant staff, office staff and agency workers
Adapted request. Please share the workforce data for our work-life balance reporting, using the categories your team already uses for plant, office and agency populations. Include the period, cut-off date, source system, the basis used, and the count or percentage of employees covered by the relevant leave or flexibility arrangement.
Example response. Plant staff: 820 entitled out of 900 in scope (91.1%); office staff: 210 out of 220 (95.5%); agency workers excluded from the policy and shown separately as not in scope. Basis: headcount at 31 Dec 2025. Source: HRIS and leave policy register.
Professional services
Context. Office-based workforce with hybrid working and enhanced family leave arrangements
Adapted request. Please provide the people data for our work-life balance reporting, using your internal terms for hybrid working, flexible hours and family leave. Include the reporting period, employee groups, source system, calculation basis and the number or share of employees covered by each arrangement.
Example response. Consulting staff: 1,140 entitled out of 1,200 in scope (95.0%); support staff: 260 out of 270 (96.3%); interns excluded from the scope. Basis: active headcount at year-end. Source: HRIS and policy tracker.
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain how the workforce was defined, what counted as being covered by the entitlement, and whether the figure is based on headcount, full-time equivalent, or another internal basis used consistently in the report.
Context note
State what the percentage means in practice for the organisation’s workforce, such as the share of employees who can access the benefit and how broad or limited that coverage is across the business.
Fluctuation statement
If the figure moved materially, describe the operational reason behind the change, such as a workforce expansion, restructuring, or a change in eligibility rules, and note whether the same basis was used in both periods.
Content index entry
S1-14 Work-life Balance — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for S1-14 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We set out the context for the coverage figure so readers can see what it relates to, how we defined the population, and any key boundaries or exclusions we used.
Risk An assurer will check that the context is complete and not misleading, and that the figure is not presented without the surrounding explanation needed to understand it.
Evidence to check Draft narrative explaining the basis of the figure; internal methodology note; boundary and exclusion decisions; review comments showing the context was checked before publication.
We explained how the figure links to our stated aims, including how current performance compares with any relevant internal goal or milestone.
Risk An assurer will probe whether the reported progress is actually supported by the underlying data and whether the comparison point is clearly defined.
Evidence to check Target or milestone document; working papers showing the comparison calculation; management review pack; evidence that the same basis was used consistently across the period.
Where the figure changed from the prior year, we described the main reasons for the movement and whether anything material affected comparability.
Risk An assurer will test whether the change explanation is complete, balanced, and supported by records rather than being a narrative added after the fact.
Evidence to check Prior-period and current-period calculations; variance analysis; notes on changes in policy, workforce mix, or reporting boundary; sign-off evidence for the explanation.
We documented the calculation approach we used for the figure, including the data inputs, any formulas or conversion steps, and the basis for key judgements.
Risk An assurer will look for whether the method is reproducible and whether the calculation basis matches the data actually used.
Evidence to check Calculation workbook; methodology paper; source-system extracts; reviewer checks on formulas, mappings, and any manual adjustments.
If a business combination or disposal affected the figure or the progress narrative, we identified that effect separately so readers can see what changed because of the transaction.
Risk An assurer will check whether transaction effects were isolated properly and whether the reported trend is distorted by the change in group structure.
Evidence to check Transaction accounting papers; consolidation boundary changes; before-and-after population reconciliations; management assessment of the impact on the figure and any related target movement.
We recorded the estimation approach, the main assumptions we relied on, and the limits of the data where the figure was not taken directly from a complete source.
Risk An assurer will probe whether estimates are reasonable, whether assumptions are disclosed clearly, and whether limitations could materially affect the result.
Evidence to check Estimation memo; assumption log; sensitivity or reasonableness checks; evidence of approval for any judgement calls; notes on data gaps or incomplete records.
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
- The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
- The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
- Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
- Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
- Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
- Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Where drafts go wrong
Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed
The left column is what preparers get wrong while collecting; the right column is where you will have to make and explain a judgement.
Mistakes to avoid
- Wrong data ownerChasing the policy team or HR generalists instead of the payroll, benefits, or local people-ops owner leaves the figure unconfirmed in the system that actually holds it.
- Framework language, not business languageAsking for the metric in ESRS terms rather than the organisation’s own leave or flexibility labels makes teams search the wrong report and miss the source record.
- Scope left vagueCollecting the number without fixing which employee groups, countries, or contracts are in scope leads to a figure that cannot be tied back to the intended population.
- Wrong time basisPulling a snapshot from the wrong date or mixing a current headcount view with a prior-period policy check produces a result that does not match the reporting period being used.
- Mixed counting basisCombining full-time, part-time, and other worker groups without keeping the same counting method throughout can inflate or understate the share of people covered.
- Source labels stripped outCopying the number into a spreadsheet without keeping the original system field names, report titles, or extract labels makes later trace-back to the source much harder.
- Separate groups mergedLumping together populations that should stay apart, such as different countries or contract types, hides real differences in who is covered by the arrangement.
- No evidence trailSaving the final figure without the extract date, file version, and reviewer sign-off leaves no clear audit path for how the number was assembled.
Judgement needed
- Acquisitions and disposals during the yearDecide whether to report only the people in the business at the year end or to include bought-in and sold-on teams for the period they were in scope, and explain the cut-off used so readers can see how the headcount base moved.
- Different local leave rules across countriesWhere countries give different time-off entitlements or use different employment categories, set out the local rule used for each population and explain any grouping or simplification used to make the group-wide figure.
- Workers near the boundary of the workforceState how you treated people whose status is not straightforward, such as agency staff, contractors, interns, or part-time staff, and explain whether they were included or left out of the count.
- Choosing the population basisBe clear whether the percentage is built from all people on payroll, only active employees, or another internal workforce view, and explain why that basis best matches your organisation’s people data.
- Timing of the countIf the figure comes from a point-in-time snapshot, an average over the year, or another date, say which timing was used and keep it consistent with the rest of your people metrics or explain any change.
- Estimated figures versus system recordsWhen the people system does not hold a clean entitlement field, use a documented estimate method, label it as such, and explain the main assumptions and any known limits on accuracy.
- Rounding and presentationAgree a rounding rule before publication, apply it consistently across the group, and make sure the rounded percentage still matches the underlying employee count logic.
- Privacy-driven grouping of small teamsIf small locations or teams are combined to avoid identifying individuals, explain the aggregation rule and show that the combined figure still reflects the underlying workforce mix without exposing personal data.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative only: we have prepared this synthetic example to show how we might report this point. In our workforce of 2,400 employees, 2,160 are covered by the leave arrangements we provide, which is 90% of our employees.
- The remaining 240 employees are not yet covered under the same leave terms.
- We would use the same approach to show the share of our people who can access this benefit in future reporting periods.
This example shows how to state the share of employees who can access the leave arrangement, using a simple headcount and a matching percentage.
Illustrative only: we have prepared this synthetic example to show how we might report this point. Our group employs 850 people, and 765 of them are eligible for the leave entitlement we offer, equal to 90% of our workforce.
- The other 85 employees are outside the current eligibility scope.
- We would present the same type of calculation each period so readers can see how broad the coverage is across our staff.
This example shows how to express the proportion of employees who are eligible for the leave arrangement, with figures that are internally consistent.
Quality ladder
- Basic
I report that 78% of our employees are eligible for our flexible working arrangements.
- Better
I report that 78% of our employees are eligible for flexible working, based on our current headcount at year-end, and I split that figure by permanent and fixed-term staff in our internal records.
- Best
I report that 78% of our employees were eligible for flexible working at year-end across all sites, measured against our total workforce on that date, and the share was unchanged because our eligibility rules stayed the same and we did not change the roles covered.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A group of office staff can use flexible start and finish times, but the HR draft only describes the policy for full-time employees. Part-time staff and people on fixed-term contracts are not mentioned anywhere in the draft.
The people team has counted employees who can request compressed hours, but the draft note says only that the company offers a family-friendly policy. It does not say how many employees are actually entitled to use it.
A business unit has different work-life arrangements in different countries: some staff can take flexible hours, while others can use a formal leave option. The draft disclosure combines everything into one sentence without separating the entitlement basis.
The draft report says the organisation supports balance between work and personal life, and it includes examples such as hybrid working and extra leave. However, no one has checked whether the underlying HR data can support the stated entitlement percentage.
Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context.
Check your text
Paste one or two paragraphs. The fragment is used for this check only and is not stored in your conversation.
Peer comparison uses examples on this card, not prevalence in the report corpus.
Advice, not assurance
Framework references
Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures
ESRS
S1-14
within ESRS S1: Own Workforce
Guides that settle this question
Related & explore
More in ESRS S1 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
Start with the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section, then use the datapoint list to confirm what needs to be collected. The page is designed to help you turn the disclosure into a practical preparation task rather than a legal interpretation exercise.
The page says the key datapoint to prepare is employee entitlement share. Use that as the starting point for your data request and make sure the figures you collect line up with the disclosure narrative and any table you plan to draft.
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation section to define what is in scope before you draft the disclosure. Keep the methodology consistent with the datapoint you are reporting and document it clearly enough for review and assurance.
The page is aimed at sustainability and ESG managers, HR teams, data owners and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person who can source, explain and evidence the employee entitlement share data. The workbook and evidence-pack approach are there to help you make that ownership clear.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk and evidence. Use those materials to build a file that shows where the data came from, how it was checked and what supports the final draft.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a pre-submission check. It is especially useful for spotting missing support, weak methodology notes or a draft that does not match the underlying data.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to help you organise preparation and assurance work. Use it alongside the page’s step-by-step guidance, evidence pack and assurance claims to build a cleaner draft and review trail.
The Download Centre also provides a printable Library Card in .pdf format, which is useful as a quick reference while you prepare the disclosure. It can sit alongside the workbook when you are checking scope, evidence and draft wording.
Yes, the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table where relevant. Treat them as examples of structure and presentation only, and make sure any numbers in your own draft are internally consistent.
Use the draft-output section, which gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That section is meant to help you move from collected data to a readable draft without having to start from a blank page.
More questions this page can help with