Skip to the disclosure focus
Free · Community members
＋ Show 5 more− Show fewer
＋ Show 5 more− Show fewer
Real published reports
Open report →
Open report →
Open report →
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Open official source →
Explore the ESRS / CSRD course →
ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain·Disclosure Requirement S2-1
Policies (Value Chain Workers)
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify the information to prepare, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official European Commission source.
Published passport
Review pending
···
Under review
Editorial review in progress
Prepared from official source material and published report evidence. No named approver is recorded yet, so this page carries no byline.
Use it alongside the official European Commission source while that review is in progress.
Standard
ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain
Disclosure Requirement S2-1 · 2026-5010-final
Last reviewed
—
LRA educational guidance · Not issued or endorsed by European Commission
To prepare this disclosure
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain the policies it has in place for workers in its value chain, and how those policies are used in practice. In plain terms, it is about showing whether the organisation has clear rules or commitments that cover the people who make, handle, transport, sell, or otherwise support its products and services outside its own workforce, and what those rules are meant to achieve.
The practical focus is on whether those policies are broad enough to apply across the relevant parts of the value chain, rather than only to a few visible or high-profile sites or suppliers. The organisation should make clear where the policies apply, who they cover, and whether they are embedded in day-to-day management of supplier and contractor relationships, not just stated at a high level.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official European Commission source.
Before you start
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key information to prepare
| Preparation field | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forced labour flag | Record whether the organisation has identified any forced labour risk or incident for the reporting period, using the same basis applied in internal monitoring and case tracking. | Human rights due diligence findings, incident logs, audit or investigation records, and the period-end compliance status used by legal or sustainability reporting. | Legal / Human Rights / Sustainability reporting |
| Child labour flag | Record whether the organisation has identified any child labour risk or incident for the reporting period, based on the organisation’s own monitoring and case records. | Audit findings, grievance or incident logs, remediation records, and the period-end status held by legal, compliance, or sustainability teams. | Legal / Human Rights / Sustainability reporting |
| Trafficking flag | Record whether the organisation has identified any trafficking risk or incident for the reporting period, using the same internal source used to track allegations, investigations, and outcomes. | Investigation files, hotline or grievance records, audit reports, and the period-end status maintained by legal, compliance, or sustainability reporting. | Legal / Human Rights / Sustainability reporting |
| Supplier code adoption | Record whether suppliers are expected to follow a formal supplier code or equivalent supplier-facing standard, as applied in procurement and supplier onboarding. | Supplier code document, procurement policy, onboarding pack, contract templates, and supplier compliance records. | Procurement / Legal / Sustainability reporting |
| Supplier coverage rate | Capture the share of suppliers that are within the stated supplier code or equivalent standard, using the organisation’s defined supplier population and the same counting basis throughout. | Supplier master data, procurement coverage analysis, contract repository, and the calculation file showing numerator, denominator, and period. | Procurement / Supply chain / Sustainability reporting |
| Enforcement actions | Describe the actions used when suppliers do not follow the supplier code, such as review, escalation, remediation, suspension, or termination, in the way procurement actually applies them. | Supplier code, escalation procedure, contract clauses, remediation logs, and records of supplier breaches and follow-up actions. | Procurement / Legal / Sustainability reporting |
| Policy title | Capture the exact name of the policy that sets the organisation’s approach to the topic, as it appears in the approved policy library. | Approved policy register, document control system, board or management approval record, and the current published policy file. | Legal / Sustainability / Policy owner |
| Policy reach | State which parts of the organisation’s value chain the policy applies to, using the organisation’s own business description of where it operates and where the policy is intended to apply. | Policy text, scope statement, supplier or customer standards, and internal guidance showing whether it applies before or after the organisation’s own operations. | Legal / Sustainability / Policy owner |
| Covered worker groups | List the worker groups the policy is meant to cover, using the organisation’s own categories for employees and any other people included in the policy. | Policy text, HR or workforce definitions, contractor or agency worker guidance, and any implementation notes showing which groups are included. | HR / Legal / Sustainability reporting |
| Geographic coverage | State the countries or regions where the policy applies, using the organisation’s own operating footprint and the locations named in the policy. | Policy text, country list, regional operating map, and any implementation guidance that limits or extends the policy by location. | Legal / Compliance / Sustainability reporting |
＋ Show S2-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
State whether child labour is present or not.
State whether forced labour is present or not.
State whether trafficking is present or not.
Show what share of suppliers is covered.
Describe the ways supplier compliance is enforced.
State whether a supplier code exists.
Set out the countries or regions the policy applies to.
Give the policy’s name.
Say whether the policy applies upstream, downstream, or both.
Identify which worker groups are included.
How to prepare it
Start by pinning down the policy you are reporting on: record its name, then state whether it applies to activities before your own operations, after them, or both. Add the worker groups it reaches and the countries or regions it covers, so the reporting boundary is clear from the outset.
Decide what counts as covered for the three labour-risk topics. Use a consistent internal definition for each one, and make sure the team applying the disclosure understands which cases are treated as forced labour, child labour, or trafficking for this report.
Gather the source material that supports the yes/no answers and the descriptive fields. Pull together the policy document, any supplier standards, and any records that show how the policy is applied across the relevant parts of the value chain and workforce groups.
Complete the disclosure by entering the three boolean answers and the related narrative or figures. For the supplier standard, state whether one exists, give the share of suppliers it reaches, and describe the ways it is enforced.
Explain any gaps, exceptions, or changes in approach. If a field is not fully covered in the period, or if the scope has shifted, note that clearly so readers can understand what the numbers and statements do and do not include.
Check the draft against the source records and the official ESRS wording before sign-off. Confirm that the policy name, scope, worker groups, geography, labour-risk topics, supplier standard coverage, and enforcement details all match the underlying evidence.
Request the data
Request the supplier policy evidence pack
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What policy and control evidence do we have for labour-rights expectations across our supplier and other value-chain worker relationships?
Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting categories. For example, if you talk about supplier standards, vendor rules, contractor requirements or partner conduct, use those labels in the request and only translate them afterwards for reporting. Keep the ask in the language the owner already uses internally, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the ESRS S2-1 policy disclosures for value chain workers, including the policy, coverage, scope, and enforcement mechanisms.
Why it fails: It uses reporting-framework language that many operational owners will not use day to day, so the recipient has to translate the ask before they can answer. It also does not tell them which internal documents, systems, or business labels to pull from, which makes the request slower and more likely to come back incomplete.
Better request
Please send the current supplier and third-party labour policy pack for [period], including the policy name/version, the supplier groups and worker groups it covers, the countries or regions in scope, the share of suppliers covered, and the controls used to apply it. Use your own internal labels first, then we will map them for reporting.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for supplier policy evidence for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name],\n\nWe are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the evidence for our supplier and other third-party labour expectations. Please send the current policy or standard, plus the supporting details below, for [reporting period] and the in-scope business areas.\n\nPlease include:\n- the policy or standard name and version\n- the parts of the business and supplier types it covers\n- the worker groups it applies to\n- the countries or regions covered\n- whether it applies to upstream, downstream, or both parts of the value chain\n- the share of suppliers covered, and how that share was calculated\n- the controls used to apply it in practice, such as contract wording, onboarding checks, audits, follow-up actions, or escalation steps\n- the source file or system link\n- the owner, approver, and approval date\n\nIf you use different internal labels, please keep your own wording and add a short note so we can map it later. Please send this in a table or short pack by [date].\n\nThanks,\n[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send the current supplier / third-party worker policy pack for [period]? Please include the policy name/version, who it covers, where it applies, the share of suppliers covered, and how it is enforced in practice. Use your team’s own terms; we’ll map them later. Thanks — [name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. The business buys components from direct suppliers and uses logistics contractors and labour agencies at some sites.
Adapted request. Please send the current supplier standards pack for [period], including the code or supplier rules, the supplier and contractor groups it covers, the sites and countries in scope, the share of active suppliers covered, and the checks used to apply it in practice.
Example response. Policy: Supplier Standards v3.1; Scope: direct material suppliers, logistics contractors and labour agencies; Coverage: 87% of active suppliers by count and 92% of annual spend; Enforcement: contract clauses, onboarding review, annual audits and corrective-action follow-up; Source: procurement policy library.
Retail / Wholesale
Context. The business sources finished goods from overseas suppliers and uses fulfilment partners and franchise-style arrangements in some markets.
Adapted request. Please share the current supplier conduct pack for [period], including the policy name/version, the supplier and partner groups it applies to, the countries covered, the share of suppliers covered, and how breaches are handled.
Example response. Policy: Responsible Sourcing Code v5.0; Scope: merchandise suppliers, fulfilment partners and selected franchise partners; Coverage: 74% of active suppliers and 81% of purchase value; Enforcement: supplier onboarding, contract terms, periodic reviews, escalation to remediation, and suspension for unresolved issues; Source: supplier portal and contract repository.
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 organisation defined the policy scope, the worker groups included, the geographic boundaries used, and how supplier coverage and enforcement were assessed from the underlying records.
Context note
Set out what the figures show about how far the policy reaches across the business, which supplier groups are covered, and whether the controls are designed to address forced labour, child labour, and trafficking risks.
Fluctuation statement
If coverage or enforcement changed from the prior period, note whether this was driven by a revised policy scope, a wider supplier population, or a change in how the organisation applies its controls.
Content index entry
S2-1 Policies (Value Chain Workers) — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for S2-1 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI Assistant.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| I checked that the policy note names the relevant policy or policies we use to manage the material issues for workers in the value chain, rather than relying on a generic statement. | An assurer may question whether the disclosure is specific enough to show which policy documents actually exist and whether they are the ones used for the reported topic. | Approved policy documents, policy register or inventory, cross-reference to the report draft, and sign-off showing the named policies match the current internal documents. |
| I confirmed that the write-up says whether we have a broad human rights policy and, if so, that it is framed as a commitment to apply the three named international frameworks. | The assurer may probe whether the company has overstated the existence or scope of a group-wide human rights commitment, or whether the statement is supported by the underlying policy text. | The policy text, board or management approval records, legal or sustainability review notes, and a mapping showing where the three frameworks are reflected in the policy. |
| I verified that the coverage statement explains which parts of the business and value chain are in scope, and where we have left things out, including the relevant locations and worker groups. | The assurer may challenge whether the stated scope is complete, internally consistent, and aligned to the actual boundaries used in the underlying assessment. | Scope memo, boundary-setting paper, organisational and value-chain maps, list of included and excluded sites or activities, and the working papers used to prepare the disclosure. |
| I checked that the policy section explains how we took account of the interests of affected people when setting the rules for value-chain workers. | The assurer may ask whether this is a genuine description of how stakeholder views informed the policy, or just a generic assertion with no traceable basis. | Stakeholder engagement records, consultation summaries, meeting notes, grievance or feedback logs, and evidence showing how those inputs influenced policy wording or revisions. |
| I confirmed that the disclosure states whether our worker-related policies cover trafficking, forced labour and child labour, and that the wording matches the actual policy content. | The assurer may test whether the report overstates coverage by implying these topics are addressed when the policy only mentions them indirectly or partially. | Relevant policy clauses, supplier standards or code provisions, legal review notes, and a topic-to-policy mapping showing where each issue is addressed. |
| I checked that the supplier code section says whether such a code exists, and that any coverage figure is calculated from the same supplier population used in the supporting analysis. | The assurer may probe whether the existence claim is supported and whether the percentage is based on a clearly defined denominator with no double counting or omitted suppliers. | Supplier master data, the code distribution or acceptance log, calculation workbook, definition of the supplier population, and reconciliation to procurement records. |
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).
The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.
Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.
One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.
Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.
Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong ownerChasing the policy team alone can miss the people who actually run supplier controls, so the answer comes from the wrong desk.
Framework language onlyAsking for the data in ESRS-style terms can confuse colleagues, because they know the process by their own internal policy names and control labels.
Scope left vagueIf you do not pin down which parts of the supply chain are in scope, teams may mix upstream and downstream coverage or leave out a whole segment.
Wrong worker group splitCombining different groups of external workers into one bucket can hide which group is covered by which policy and blur the result.
Wrong timing basisUsing a different cut-off date or reporting period from the one used in the source records can make the collected data inconsistent with the underlying evidence.
Mixed counting basisIf one source counts suppliers by legal entity and another by site or contract, the coverage figure will not match the same population throughout.
Source labels lostCopying figures without the original file names, system tags, or document titles makes it hard to trace where each value came from.
Evidence trail missingWhen the team keeps the numbers but not the supporting notes, approvals, and version history, no one can show how the data was checked before sign-off.
Where judgement is often needed
Defining the policy boundary after a deal closesIf a business is bought, sold or restructured during the year, decide whether the policy description and coverage figures follow the opening set-up, the closing set-up, or a weighted view, and explain the cut-off used.
Reconciling local labour-law labels to one group policyWhere country-level terms for prohibited work or protected worker groups do not line up neatly, map them to a single internal wording and state how the local differences were handled.
Including workers near the edge of the supply chainFor contractors, agency staff, seasonal labour, home-based workers or other borderline groups, set out whether they are treated as in scope and why that call was made.
Choosing which parts of the chain the policy coversIf the policy applies only to selected buying, production or sales activities, describe the business areas included and excluded, and make clear whether the scope is upstream, downstream or both.
Using a snapshot date or an average viewWhen the covered population changes through the year, pick one basis for the coverage percentage and say whether it reflects a point-in-time count, a period average, or another consistent method.
Mixing direct records with estimatesIf complete headcounts or supplier counts are not available, use a clear estimate method, identify which figures are measured and which are approximated, and explain the main assumptions.
Rounding the coverage percentageAgree a rounding rule for the supplier coverage figure, apply it consistently, and note it if the published percentage differs slightly from the underlying calculation.
Aggregating sensitive workforce informationWhere naming a worker group, country or supplier could expose personal data or create confidentiality issues, combine the information at a higher level and explain the aggregation approach.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Apparel manufacturing
We have a group-wide human-rights policy for our upstream supply chain, covering factory workers, home-based workers, migrant labour, and temporary agency staff across our sourcing countries in Asia, Europe, and North Africa. We also require a supplier code for 92% of direct suppliers by count, and we use audits, corrective-action follow-up, and contract remedies where breaches are found.
- In our latest review, we did not identify any confirmed cases of forced labour, child labour, or trafficking in the covered scope.
This is a synthetic, illustrative narrative showing how a reporter might describe a policy, its reach, supplier-code coverage, enforcement approach, and a zero-incident outcome for the three labour-abuse indicators.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing
Our group applies a labour-rights policy across both our own operations and selected downstream distribution partners, with the main focus on warehouse staff, transport workers, seasonal workers, and agency labour in the UK, Ireland, and Spain. A supplier code is in place for 78% of relevant suppliers, and we back it with training, site visits, escalation to senior management, and suspension of business where needed.
- We recorded no confirmed instances of forced labour, child labour, or trafficking in the reporting period.
This is a synthetic, illustrative narrative showing a second plausible reporter with a different sector, broader scope, partial supplier-code coverage, a different enforcement mix, and a zero-incident outcome for the three labour-abuse indicators.
Company reports
How companies report S2-1 in practice
Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Terna S.p.A.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Italy · 2025
Terna S.p.A.'s 2025 Annual Report includes a Supplier Code of Conduct summarised on page 337, indicating some guidelines related to supply chain practices. There is related context on page 172 about policies concerning value chain workers and processes for engaging with them, but this is not a clear or detailed disclosure. Several expected narrative items on human rights and value chain worker engagement are not found or are unclear in the report, limiting the completeness of the disclosure.
DSV A/S
Air Freight Transportation and Logistics · Denmark · 2025
DSV A/S’s 2025 Annual Report includes references to human rights policies addressing forced labour, human trafficking, and modern slavery, with specific mention of a Human Rights Policy, Code of Conduct, and Supplier Code of Conduct on pages 72-73. The report notes ongoing awareness campaigns to support compliance and states that in 2025, no cases of severe human rights impacts were identified (p.72-73). However, there is no clear or detailed disclosure specifically quantifying or describing labour or forced labour issues in the value chain, and relevant numeric data is unclear (p.47).
Covivio
Real Estate · France · 2025
Covivio's 2025 Sustainability Report provides some related context on policies concerning workers in the value chain, mentioning scope of application, group supervision, and references to third-party standards on page 150, though it does not clearly disclose specific details for this datapoint. The report also references policies related to affected communities across all activities with supervision and third-party standards on page 159, and outlines actions to prevent accidents on construction and operating sites with objectives and delivery dates on pages 151 and 156. However, no clear or quotable evidence was found explicitly addressing the disclosure in question, leaving key narrative details missing or unclear.
Ask the Study Studio AI Assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context. Your first two answers are free — join LRA Community for free to continue without a limit.
Try
How do I prepare S2-1?
What data do I need to collect?
Where can I see a real-report example?
What mistakes should I avoid?
2 free answers
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A preparer is drafting the policy note for a group that buys components from Asia and sells finished goods through distributors in Europe. The draft policy covers labour risks in the supply base, but it does not yet say which worker groups are in scope or which countries are covered.
QShould the note stay at that high level, or should it also spell out the policy name, whether it applies upstream, downstream, or both, which worker groups it covers, and the geographic reach?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑
It should be more specific. For this disclosure, the policy description needs to identify the policy by name and make clear where along the value chain it applies, which categories of workers it is meant to protect, and the places it is intended to cover. A vague summary is not enough if those details are available.
Why this matters · Give enough context for a reader to see what the policy is, who it is meant to cover, and where it applies.
A company has a supplier standard that bans forced labour, child labour, and trafficking in its direct sourcing network. The same document also says suppliers must pass the rule on to subcontractors, but the preparer is unsure whether to report the policy as covering only direct suppliers or the wider chain.
QHow should the scope be described when the policy reaches beyond first-tier suppliers through contractual flow-down?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑
Describe the scope in line with the actual reach of the policy, not just the first layer of suppliers. If the wording and controls extend to subcontractors or other linked parties, the disclosure should reflect that broader upstream coverage. If the policy also touches sales channels or other downstream relationships, that should be stated too.
Why this matters · State the real reach of the policy, including any wider chain coverage, rather than narrowing it to the easiest part to describe.
The legal team confirms the group has a supplier code, and procurement says 82% of suppliers by spend have accepted it. However, there is no clear process for what happens when a supplier breaches the code beyond a general statement that issues are reviewed case by case.
QIs naming the code and giving the coverage percentage enough, or does the disclosure also need to explain how the code is put into practice when breaches occur?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑
It needs both. The disclosure should identify the supplier code, show how much of the supplier base it reaches, and explain the practical ways it is enforced. A coverage figure alone does not show whether the code is actually backed by follow-up actions when problems are found.
Why this matters · Pair the policy with its reach and the real-world steps used to make it effective.
A preparer has three separate internal documents: one on labour standards, one on supplier conduct, and one on human rights due diligence. The team is unsure whether to present them as one combined policy or as separate items, and whether to mention that the labour standard is the main document used for value chain workers.
QHow should the policy name be handled if several documents together shape the approach to workers in the chain?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑
Use a clear name that matches how the organisation actually frames the approach, and do not force unrelated documents into one label unless that is how the policy set is managed in practice. The key is that the reader can tell which policy or policy set is being referred to, and how it relates to workers in the chain.
Why this matters · Choose a policy label that reflects the organisation’s real structure and makes the disclosure understandable.
Framework references
Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures
Available framework references and nearby disclosures relevant to preparing this requirement.
ESRS
S2-1
within ESRS S2: Workers in the Value Chain
Related & explore
Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms → CardActions & Resources → CardTargets → Card
Browse all disclosures →
More in ESRS S2 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
How do I use the S2-1 page to prepare a disclosure on workers in the value chain without treating it as an official standard?+−
Use the page as practitioner guidance only: start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the datapoints to prepare, the step-by-step preparation section, and the draft-output section. It is designed to help you assemble a draft and evidence pack, not to replace your organisation’s own reporting judgement or review process.
What datapoints do I need to collect for S2-1 on workers in the value chain?+−
The page lists the datapoints to prepare: forced labour flag, child labour flag, trafficking flag, supplier code adoption, supplier coverage rate, enforcement actions, policy title, policy reach, covered worker groups, and geographic coverage. Use that list to define your data request and check that each item has an owner and source.
How should I set the scope for S2-1 workers in the value chain?+−
The page points you to policy reach, covered worker groups, and geographic coverage as the main scope-setting datapoints. In practice, use those fields to make clear which workers, suppliers, and locations are included in the draft disclosure.
Who should own the S2-1 data collection and sign-off process?+−
The page is built for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can confirm the underlying data and evidence. Use the workbook and evidence pack to assign each datapoint to a named owner before drafting.
What evidence pack do I need to make an S2-1 disclosure assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside six assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to build a file that links each reported point back to source evidence and a clear reviewer trail.
What are the six assurance claims on the S2-1 page and how do I use them?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk, and evidence. Use them as a checklist to test whether the draft disclosure is supported by the underlying records before it goes to review.
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for S2-1 workers in the value chain?+−
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you avoid weak or incomplete drafting. Use that section as a pre-submission check, especially where a datapoint is missing, unclear, or not backed by evidence.
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for S2-1?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the datapoints, track ownership, and assemble the evidence needed for a draft and assurance review.
What is the printable Library Card for S2-1 and when should I use it?+−
The Download Centre also includes a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use it as a quick reference while you are preparing the disclosure, checking the evidence pack, or reviewing the draft output.
How do I turn the S2-1 page into a draft disclosure?+−
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. Use those prompts to turn your collected data into a short narrative and a structured draft that matches your internal reporting format.
More questions this page can help with
What does the S2-1 plain-language explainer cover?Which S2-1 datapoints are qualitative and which are quantitative?How do I check supplier coverage rate for S2-1 before drafting?How do I document policy title and policy reach for S2-1?How do I evidence enforcement actions for S2-1 workers in the value chain?What should I include in an S2-1 evidence pack for assurance review?How can I use the synthetic illustrative example disclosures on the S2-1 page?What visualisation ideas does the S2-1 draft-output section suggest?How do I use the content-index line in the S2-1 draft-output section?Where can I find real published reports linked from the S2-1 page?How do I avoid the most common S2-1 reporting gaps before sign-off?Can I use the S2-1 page to map to ESRS or IFRS requirements?
Go deeper · S2-1
Learn to prepare this disclosure end-to-end
This guide covers one Disclosure Requirement. The ESRS / CSRD Reporting course walks the full European workflow — double materiality, datapoints, evidence and assurance — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63,171 pages with page-level citations
272 practitioner-built Disclosure Cards
/en/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/esrs-s2-1/
Free · LRA Community
Get your S2-1 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI Assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI Assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →