Skip to the disclosure focus
Free · Community members
＋ Show 6 more− Show fewer
＋ Show 7 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 S4: Consumers and End-users·Disclosure Requirement S4-2
Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms
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 S4: Consumers and End-users
Disclosure Requirement S4-2 · 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 how it engages with affected consumers and end-users, and how those people can raise concerns or complaints. In practice, the report should show whether the organisation has ways to listen, respond and follow up across the parts of the business where consumers are affected, not just at a few visible or flagship locations.
The practical focus is on whether these channels are available, usable and relevant in the places and services where impacts can happen, and whether the organisation uses the feedback to identify and address issues. A good explanation should make clear the scope of coverage, how people can access the mechanism, and how the organisation handles and tracks what comes in.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Available reporting routes | List the ways people can raise an issue or ask for help, such as phone, email, web form, in-person desk, hotline, or other internal route. Note which routes are open to which groups and whether any are only for certain locations or languages. | Policy or procedure, intranet/public contact page, hotline setup, case-management intake options, local site notices. | Grievance/complaints team |
| Complaint route in place | Confirm whether there is a formal way to submit complaints, and capture the yes/no position used for reporting. Keep the decision tied to the organisation’s actual process, not to informal escalation paths. | Complaints policy, process map, case-management workflow, governance approval for the mechanism. | Grievance/complaints team |
| Access arrangements | Describe how people can use the reporting route without undue barriers, including language support, disability access, alternative formats, anonymity options, or local adaptations where relevant. | Accessibility review, website/app checks, translated materials, disability access assessment, user guidance. | Grievance/complaints team |
| Complaint metrics | Capture the measures used to track the reporting route, such as counts, volumes, trends, or other performance indicators the organisation uses to monitor use and handling of complaints. | Case-management reports, dashboard extracts, KPI pack, management reporting schedule. | Grievance/complaints team |
| Resolved case rate | State the proportion or count of matters that were brought to a close within the reporting period, using the organisation’s chosen basis consistently and explaining the basis if needed. | Case closure report, case-management export, calculation workbook, reporting methodology note. | Grievance/complaints team |
| Reply timing | Capture how quickly the organisation responds to complaints, including the measure used, the time basis, and any split between first reply and later updates if the organisation reports both. | Case timestamps, service-level report, workflow logs, reporting calculation file. | Grievance/complaints team |
| Fixing approach | Describe the organisation’s approach to putting things right after a complaint or issue is upheld, including the types of remedy used and how decisions are made about them. | Remediation policy, case notes, decision matrix, closure templates, governance approvals. | Grievance/complaints team |
| Remedied matters | Capture the cases that were actually put right during the period, using the organisation’s definition of addressed or remediated cases and the basis for counting them. | Case-management export, closure status report, remediation tracker, calculation workbook. | Grievance/complaints team |
| Stakeholder contact methods | List the ways the organisation engages with stakeholders, such as support lines, surveys, meetings, interviews, forums, or digital feedback tools, and note which groups each method reaches. | Engagement plan, survey schedule, meeting logs, stakeholder map, communications records. | Stakeholder engagement team |
| At-risk groups | Identify the groups the organisation has recognised as needing extra care or tailored engagement, and record the basis used to classify them as vulnerable or at risk. | Stakeholder assessment, risk register, inclusion review, engagement plan, issue logs. | Stakeholder engagement team |
| Engagement approach | Describe the methods used to engage stakeholders, including how the organisation gathers views, tests issues, and follows up, with enough detail to show the practical approach rather than a generic statement. | Engagement methodology, consultation plan, workshop notes, survey instruments, meeting records. | Stakeholder engagement team |
＋ Show S4-2 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
State whether the complaint route can be used by the relevant people and groups.
List the ways people can reach the complaint route.
Confirm whether a formal complaints process exists.
Set out the measures used to track performance.
Show the share of matters that were closed out.
State how quickly matters are answered.
List the matters that were dealt with.
Describe the way issues are put right.
List the channels used to engage, such as support and surveys.
Describe the methods used to engage.
Identify any groups that may need extra care or support.
How to prepare it
Map the reporting boundary first. Confirm which customer groups, products, services, and locations sit inside the scope for this disclosure, so you know whose feedback, complaints, and follow-up actions need to be captured.
Set the definitions you will use for the report. Decide what counts as an engagement route, a complaint route, a vulnerable group, a case that has been handled, and the measures you will use for performance tracking, so the team applies the same rules throughout.
Gather the source records behind each required item. Pull together the lists of engagement routes, the details showing which groups were identified as more exposed or less able to participate, and the records for complaint handling, response timing, closure, and any remedy provided.
Build the disclosure content from those records. Prepare the narrative on how the company engages with customers, how the complaint route works, whether it is available, how accessible it is, how issues are resolved, and the figures or summaries for the key performance measures.
Record any gaps, exclusions, or changes in method. If a route, case, group, or metric is left out, or if the way you measured or classified something changed from the prior period, note that clearly so readers can understand the basis of the disclosure.
Check the draft against the official source before sign-off. Make sure every required item is covered, the wording matches the underlying evidence, and the final version still reflects the source material after any internal edits or consolidation.
Request the data
Request the complaints, feedback and engagement log from Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What channels do we use to hear from affected people, how do we handle issues raised, and what evidence shows the process is working in practice?
Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the disclosure. For example, if you call these routes ‘customer contacts’, ‘case management’, ‘whistleblowing’, ‘community feedback’ or ‘service recovery’, use those labels in the request and only translate them afterwards for reporting.
Weak request
Please provide the ESRS S4-2 engagement and grievance mechanism evidence, including stakeholder engagement channels, vulnerable groups, accessibility, KPIs, remediation approach and cases addressed.
Why it fails: This uses framework language that many operational teams do not use day to day, so it can be hard to answer consistently. It also does not say which systems, labels, time period, or business areas to pull from, so the response may be incomplete or not comparable.
Better request
Please send the complaints, feedback and case-handling records for [period] from [system/team]. We need the routes people use to contact us, whether there is a formal complaints route, how those routes are made accessible, the measures you track on response and closure, how issues are fixed, and the main case types. Please use your own team labels and add a short mapping note to the reporting categories.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for complaints, feedback and engagement data for [reporting period]\n\nDear [name/team],\n\nWe are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the records that show how people can raise concerns or give feedback, and how those cases are handled.\n\nPlease send, for [reporting period] and for [sites/business units in scope]:\n- the channels people can use to contact us or raise an issue;\n- whether a formal complaints route exists;\n- how those routes are made accessible;\n- the measures you track on case handling and closure;\n- how issues are corrected or otherwise followed up; and\n- a summary of the types of cases handled.\n\nPlease use your team’s own wording in the first instance. If helpful, add a short note explaining how your internal labels map to the reporting categories.\n\nPlease also include the source system, report date, owner, and any supporting documents or dashboard extracts. If there are gaps, please flag them clearly.\n\nThis is a possible LRA training template; please adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.\n\nMany thanks,\n[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the complaints / feedback / case-handling data for [period] across [scope]? We need the channels used, whether there is a formal complaints route, accessibility features, the main KPIs, how issues are remedied, and the case types handled. Please use your internal labels and add a short mapping note if needed. Include the source system and any dashboard/export links. This is a possible LRA training template; adapt it to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.
Industry examples
Retail / Customer Operations
Context. A retailer receives customer complaints through stores, call centres, web chat and social media escalation.
Adapted request. Please share the customer contact and complaints log for [period] across stores, contact centre and digital channels. Include the route names customers use, whether there is a formal complaints process, accessibility options, the service KPIs you track, how issues are resolved, and the main complaint types. Please use your own operational labels and add a mapping note.
Example response. A table exported from the case system showing channel, complaint route flag, accessibility support, case type, open/closed counts, average response time, average close time, resolution rate, remedy type and escalation notes, plus links to the service recovery dashboard and process note.
Manufacturing / Site Operations
Context. A manufacturer gathers worker and contractor concerns through site briefings, supervisor escalation, hotline and suggestion boxes.
Adapted request. Please provide the site concerns and escalation log for [period] for all in-scope plants. Include the routes available to workers and contractors, whether there is a formal complaints route, how access is supported for different groups, the measures used to track handling times and closure, how issues are corrected, and the main issue categories. Use site terms first, then map them for reporting.
Example response. A site-level spreadsheet listing hotline, supervisor, union rep and suggestion box routes; accessibility arrangements; issue categories; cases raised and closed; average response and closure times; remedy actions; and evidence links to the hotline procedure and monthly site dashboard.
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 which people-related channels were counted, how the organisation defined a complaint route, what was included in accessibility and response measures, and the basis used to identify vulnerable groups and cases handled through remedy processes.
Context note
Set out what the figures show about how people can raise issues, how the organisation engages with them, and how effectively concerns are being handled and put right.
Fluctuation statement
If the figures moved from the previous period, link the change to shifts in channel availability, engagement activity, case volumes, response speed, resolution performance, or the number of matters taken through remediation.
Content index entry
S4-2 Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for S4-2 — 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 |
|---|---|---|
| We based the coverage figure on the population we actually reviewed, and we can show how we drew the boundary, excluded any out-of-scope parts, and avoided double counting. | An assurer will probe whether the reported coverage is complete, whether the boundary was set consistently, and whether exclusions or overlaps could make the figure look stronger than it is. | Boundary memo or methodology note; population lists or system extracts used for the calculation; reconciliation showing included and excluded items; working papers showing how duplicates were removed; sign-off from the preparer and reviewer. |
| We used our usual engagement routes with customers and users, and we can evidence how those routes were selected, who was consulted, and how we handled input from representatives or other credible intermediaries. | An assurer will check whether the engagement approach was real and representative, or whether it missed relevant voices or relied on a narrow set of contacts. | Engagement plan; meeting notes, call logs, survey outputs, or consultation records; stakeholder mapping; records showing use of representatives or proxies where direct contact was not practical; internal summary of themes raised and how they were assessed. |
| Where we needed insight from people who may face barriers, we used targeted methods rather than relying only on standard channels, and we can show how those methods were chosen and what they captured. | An assurer will test whether the process genuinely reached harder-to-hear groups and whether the evidence supports the claim that their views informed the disclosure. | Targeted outreach plan; records of adapted engagement methods; evidence of accessibility adjustments, translation, or facilitated sessions where used; anonymised feedback summaries; internal review showing how the insights were incorporated. |
| We described our response process only after checking that we had evidence of how issues were logged, triaged, escalated, and closed, including cases where we worked with others to put things right. | An assurer will look for whether the remediation description is backed by actual process records and whether the company can demonstrate that it can act on material harm, not just talk about it. | Case management records; escalation and closure logs; remediation procedure; examples of completed cases; correspondence showing cooperation with third parties where relevant; approval notes confirming the process description matches practice. |
| Before publishing, we tested whether the contact routes were usable in practice by checking response times, accessibility, follow-up rates, and whether users could raise issues without fear of negative treatment. | An assurer will probe whether the effectiveness assessment was meaningful, whether the measures used were appropriate, and whether the channels were genuinely usable for intended users. | Channel performance dashboard or KPI pack; test results or user journey checks; accessibility review; complaint or query statistics; internal assessment against the chosen criteria; evidence of any improvements made before publication. |
| We used feedback from customers and users to shape actions during the year, and we can trace specific themes from the input to the decisions or activities that followed. | An assurer will check whether the link between feedback and action is real, or whether the disclosure overstates how much user input influenced decisions. | Issue tracker or action log; meeting minutes showing discussion of user feedback; decision papers referencing the input; before-and-after examples of changes made; management review notes linking themes to actions. |
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.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong ownerThe request goes to the wrong team, so the data is chased from people who do not run the support line, survey process, or case-handling log.
Framework language usedThe data call is written in reporting jargon instead of the organisation’s own terms, so staff cannot map it to the actual helpdesk, feedback route, or case register.
Scope not fixedNo one states which business units, sites, or service lines are in scope, so different teams send different slices of the same activity.
Boundary driftThe collector mixes internal channels with third-party or legacy routes without saying which population belongs in the count, so the dataset is not comparable.
Wrong period basisPeople pull figures from different cut-off dates or reporting windows, so the channel list, case counts, and timing measures do not line up.
Mixed counting basisOne team reports unique cases while another reports contacts or actions, and the final file combines them as if they were the same measure.
Source labels lostThe original names from the intake form, tracker, or case system are stripped out, so later reviewers cannot trace each figure back to its source record.
Evidence metadata missingThe file is saved without the date, owner, version, or system reference, so no one can tell which extract was used or whether it was current.
No sign-off trailThe numbers are passed on without a named reviewer or approval step, so there is no clear record of who checked the data before it moved into drafting.
Where judgement is often needed
What counts as a live route for concernsList only the routes people can actually use in the reporting period, and explain any local hotlines, web forms, union routes or site-level channels that are available in some places but not others.
Whether a route is a complaint channel or just a feedback routeIf a route can receive concerns but is not set up to handle complaints end to end, say so plainly and describe how you separate it from the formal case-handling route.
How to handle different local names for the same processWhere country teams use different labels for similar ways of raising issues, map them to one internal description and disclose the local differences so readers can see what is comparable and what is not.
Which people are included when the boundary shiftsWhen acquisitions, disposals or reorganisations change the group of people covered, state the cut-off used and explain whether the figures reflect the opening, closing or average scope for the period.
How to treat people just outside the formal scopeIf some workers, contractors, agency staff, supply-chain workers or community members can use the route even though they sit near the boundary, explain whether they are included in the channel description and in the case counts.
Choosing the basis for response and closure timingPick one timing basis for first reply, resolution and closure, apply it consistently, and disclose the rule used where a case spans month-end, year-end or multiple teams.
Using estimates where case records are incompleteIf the case log does not fully support a metric, use a clearly stated estimate method, identify the data gaps, and separate estimated figures from directly counted ones.
How to present rates and percentagesState the denominator behind any rate, share or percentage, and explain any rounding so readers can reconcile the headline figure with the underlying case totals.
How much detail to show when privacy limits the dataWhere small numbers or sensitive case details could identify people, group the information to a safer level and say that the presentation has been reduced for confidentiality reasons.
Whether to combine or separate linked routes and outcomesIf one concern can move between a local route, a central case team and a remedy process, explain whether you count it once or in several places and how you avoid double counting.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food retail
We ran a mix of direct conversations, short staff surveys and targeted outreach to people in higher-risk situations, and we used those inputs to shape our approach with affected communities. In the year, we identified 3 vulnerable groups and used 4 engagement routes: store-based help desks, a phone line, an online form and community partner sessions.
- We had a formal complaints route in place, with 5 access points available; 4 were designed to be easy to use for people with different needs, and 1 required extra support.
- We logged 120 complaints, resolved 102 of them during the period, and closed them in an average of 18 days.
- Where harm was confirmed, we used case-by-case remedies such as refunds, service fixes, apology letters and follow-up checks; 27 cases were handled through that process.
This synthetic example shows how to describe the channels used to hear from affected people, who was prioritised as more exposed to harm, and how feedback was gathered. It also illustrates reporting on the complaint route, how usable it was, the number of cases, the share resolved, the average turnaround, and the kinds of remedy applied.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Healthcare services
We combined patient forums, anonymous pulse surveys and meetings with carers to understand concerns and to keep contact open with people most likely to face barriers. We identified 2 vulnerable groups and used 3 engagement methods: clinic drop-ins, a digital survey and a partner-led listening session.
- Our complaint system offered 4 ways to raise an issue; all 4 were accessible, and the route was available throughout the reporting period.
- We received 84 complaints, settled 63 within the period, and took an average of 11 days to respond and close them.
- For confirmed cases, we used practical redress such as treatment rebooking, fee waivers, service corrections and direct follow-up; 19 cases were dealt with in this way.
This synthetic example shows a different sector using a smaller set of outreach methods and a different complaint profile. It covers the same disclosure points: who was engaged, which groups were seen as more exposed, how feedback was collected, what complaint options existed, how accessible they were, and how many cases were remedied.
Company reports
How companies report S4-2 in practice
Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
SNCF Group
Ground Transportation — Railroads · France · 2025
SNCF Group's 2025 Full-Year Financial Report provides partial context on stakeholder communication and engagement, noting efforts to facilitate use of communication channels such as simplified numbers and posters (p.205) and a human, participatory approach to direct communication with stakeholders (p.194). The report also references a complaint service aligned with the SDGs, though no specific headline values are given (p.202). However, clear and comprehensive disclosures on this topic are largely missing or unclear, with several datapoints not found or only vaguely referenced without detailed information.
Acciona, S.A.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Spain · 2025
Acciona’s 2025 Sustainability Report partially addresses complaint management by describing systematic tracking of complaint processes and the availability of complaint channels for stakeholders (p.315, p.52). The report notes a resolution time of 279 days with some cases closed and others with defined actions (p.314). However, there is no clear headline value or comprehensive narrative on complaint management outcomes, and several expected details or methodologies are not found or remain unclear in the report.
Telecom Italia S.p.A.
Telecommunication Services · Italy · 2025
Telecom Italia S.p.A.’s 2025 Annual Report provides evidence of internal channels for workers to raise concerns and indicates that the company monitors and manages these processes (p.204). The report also offers partial context on engagement planning, detailing the definition of objectives, scope, responsibilities, and stakeholder profiles for each initiative (p.131), as well as some information on accessibility and reliability of assistance services aligned with the Group’s model and local regulations (p.243). However, no clear headline values or comprehensive narrative on the overall effectiveness or outcomes of these disclosures are found, and several expected datapoints remain absent 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 S4-2?
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 service team has a staff helpline, an online form, and quarterly listening sessions. A preparer is drafting the disclosure and notices that the form is only available in one language, while some workers mainly use another language at work.
QHow should the organisation describe the channels and accessibility so the account is complete and not misleading?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑
List the actual ways people can raise issues or give feedback, then explain who can use them and any practical limits. If one route is not equally usable for some groups, say so plainly and describe the steps taken to make access workable, rather than implying every route works the same for everyone.
Why this matters · Describe the real routes in use and be clear about any access barriers or adaptations.
A grievance log shows 40 cases opened in the year, 28 closed, and 12 still open at year-end. The draft narrative says the process is effective because most matters were handled, but it does not mention how long people waited for a first reply.
QWhat should the preparer do when reporting performance measures for handling complaints and concerns?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑
Use the figures that show how the process is working in practice, including how many matters were dealt with, how many remain unresolved, and how quickly people received a first response. The narrative should match the numbers and avoid overstating performance when some cases are still open or response times are slow.
Why this matters · Pair the process description with balanced performance information, not just the positive result.
The company has a formal complaint route for workers and contractors, plus a separate community hotline for nearby residents. During the year, a case involving a contractor’s safety concern was handled through the worker route because the hotline team redirected it internally.
QHow should the preparer explain the complaint process and the cases handled through it?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑
Describe the different routes that people can use, then explain which kinds of concerns each route is meant to handle and how cases are routed in practice. The account should include the matters actually dealt with through the system, even if they arrived through a different entry point and were then passed to the right team.
Why this matters · Show both the design of the process and the types of cases it actually handled.
A preparer is writing the section on engagement with affected people. The company held six focus groups, ran an employee survey, and met with a small group of workers who may face extra barriers to speaking up, but the draft only says it “consulted stakeholders regularly.”
QWhat level of detail should be given about engagement methods and any groups that needed special attention?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑
Name the main ways the organisation engaged people, such as surveys, group discussions, or direct meetings, and identify any groups that were treated as more likely to be overlooked or less able to participate. The explanation should show how those groups were reached and why those methods were chosen, rather than using a vague summary.
Why this matters · Be specific about how engagement happened and how harder-to-reach groups were included.
Framework references
Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures
Available framework references and nearby disclosures relevant to preparing this requirement.
ESRS
S4-2
within ESRS S4: Consumers and End-users
Related & explore
More in ESRS S4 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
How do I prepare disclosure S4-2 using the step-by-step guidance on this page?+−
Use the page’s plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section to identify the datapoints you need, the evidence pack, and the draft-output options. It is designed to help you assemble a practical first draft rather than to act as an official source.
What datapoints do I need to collect for S4-2 on consumers and end-users?+−
The page lists the datapoints to prepare, including reporting routes, complaint route, access arrangements, complaint metrics, resolved case rate, reply timing, fixing approach, remedied matters, stakeholder contact methods, at-risk groups, and engagement approach. Use that list as your collection checklist.
How should I define the scope and methodology for S4-2 before drafting the disclosure?+−
The page is set up to help you decide what to include by walking through the preparation steps and the datapoints to prepare. It does not give a formal methodology, so use the page to structure your internal approach and document the choices you make.
Who should own the S4-2 data collection and sign-off process?+−
The page is useful for assigning ownership because it separates preparation, evidence, and assurance readiness. In practice, you would use it to allocate each datapoint and evidence item to the relevant business owner, then confirm who reviews the final draft.
What evidence do I need to build an assurance-ready S4-2 pack?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk, and evidence. Use those sections to assemble a pack that shows where the data came from and how it was checked.
What are the common mistakes to avoid when drafting S4-2?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is intended to help you spot missing datapoints, weak evidence, or unclear drafting before sign-off. Use that section as a pre-submission quality check.
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for S4-2?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is meant to support the preparation and assurance-readiness process. Use it alongside the page’s datapoints, assurance claims, and evidence pack to organise your draft.
What can I use the printable Library Card PDF for when preparing S4-2?+−
The Download Centre also provides a printable Library Card in PDF format. It is there as a quick reference while you work through the page’s preparation steps, evidence pack, and draft-output section.
Are there example disclosures I can use as a model for S4-2?+−
Yes. The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, which you can use to see how the information might be presented in draft form.
How do I turn S4-2 data into a draft narrative and content-index line?+−
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line to help you convert collected data into report-ready wording. Use those prompts to shape the narrative after you have completed the datapoints and evidence checks.
More questions this page can help with
S4-2 consumers and end-users disclosure checklist for complaint route, access arrangements and reply timingHow to evidence complaint metrics and resolved case rate for S4-2S4-2 engagement approach and stakeholder contact methods what data should I collectHow to use the S4-2 evidence pack and assurance claims before sign-offWhat are the S4-2 reporting gaps and mistakes to check before draftingS4-2 workbook download how to complete the prep and assurance fileS4-2 synthetic example disclosure how should I adapt it to my companyHow to write the S4-2 draft-output narrative starters into a report paragraphS4-2 content-index line example for consumers and end-users disclosureWhere can I find real company reports linked from the S4-2 pageHow do I document at-risk groups for S4-2 using the page guidanceWhat should an assurance reviewer look for in the S4-2 claim risk evidence table
Go deeper · S4-2
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-s4-2/
Free · LRA Community
Get your S4-2 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 →