Disclosure focus
Restatements can arise from an error, a change in the base period or length of the reporting period, a change in the nature of the business, a change in measurement methodology or definitions, or a disposal, merger or acquisition. An ordinary year-on-year movement, a future-only methodology change, a target update or a correction that does not affect previously reported information is not automatically a restatement.
GRI Guidance says the organisation should disclose the criteria used to determine whether a change or error is significant enough to require a restatement. The assessment should consider whether the change could influence information users’ decisions. For quantitative information, the organisation should specify the quantitative change, for example by showing the originally reported value, the restated value and the resulting absolute or percentage change.
If no restatements were made during the reporting period, a brief direct statement is sufficient. Reasons for omission are not permitted for Disclosure 2-4.
The two datapoints below are an LRA operational decomposition of the reasons and effects contained within the single requirement in Disclosure 2-4-a; they are not separate official GRI disclosures.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Prepare
What to collect before drafting
Tick each field as the evidence lands. Owners are the teams that usually hold the source files.
-
Prior-period restatement reasons
Finance, Sustainability Reporting and relevant topic data ownersFor each revision of previously reported information, identify the affected reporting period, disclosure, table or KPI and explain the specific reason for the restatement.
Evidence Previous sustainability report, restatement register, change log, methodology note and approval record.
Watch for An internal pre-publication correction is mislabelled as a restatement, or the reason is too generic to explain why previously reported information changed.
-
Prior-period restatement impact
Finance, Sustainability Reporting and relevant topic data ownersFor each restatement, explain its consequences. For quantitative information, show the originally reported value, restated value and absolute or percentage change.
Evidence Original and recalculated workbook, old-to-new bridge, corrected comparative tables and cross-report consistency check.
Watch for The revised value silently replaces the published value, or the effect is described without a quantitative bridge where the information is quantitative.
Before you start
- Has any information published for a previous reporting period been revised, or are the identified changes only internal corrections made before publication?
- Can you explain, in plain business terms, why those earlier numbers or statements changed?
- Have you checked what the revised figures mean for the reported picture, and can you describe the impact clearly?
- Are the restated items traceable back to a source record or working paper so the change can be followed?
- Have you applied the documented restatement criteria and, if no restatements were made, prepared a direct statement to that effect?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the restatement register, quantitative bridge and explanations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which information published for previous reporting periods has been revised, why was it restated, and what is the effect?
Send the request to Finance, Sustainability Reporting and the relevant topic data owners, such as HR, HSE, Operations, Procurement, Legal, Corporate Development or IT/Data. Ask only about revisions to previously published sustainability information; internal corrections completed before publication are not GRI 2-4 restatements.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 2-4 restatements disclosure data.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only and does not tell the owner what practical records to pull, which period to cover, or what details are needed to explain the change and its effect.
Better request
Please send the register of revisions to information published for previous reporting periods. For each item, include the affected period and KPI, originally reported and restated information, quantitative change where relevant, specific reason, effect, recalculation method, approval trail and every publication location requiring update. Confirm directly if there were no restatements.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for published prior-period restatements and supporting records Hi [name], We are preparing the sustainability report and need details of any information published for previous reporting periods that has since been revised. Please exclude internal corrections completed before publication. For each restatement, please provide: - the affected period, disclosure, table or KPI; - the originally reported value or wording and its published location; - the restated value or wording; - the specific reason for the restatement; - the qualitative effect and, for quantitative information, the absolute or percentage change; - the recalculation methodology and supporting source; - the approval and control record; and - every report, data book, table, chart or index location that must be updated. Please also confirm the restatement criteria applied. If there were no restatements, please confirm this directly. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — please confirm whether any information published for previous reporting periods has been restated. For each item, send the affected period/KPI, original and restated values, reason, quantitative and qualitative effect, recalculation source, approvals and every location requiring update. Exclude corrections made before publication; if there were none, please confirm that directly. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant’s annual energy figure published in the previous sustainability report was recalculated after a meter mapping error was found.
Adapted request. Please share any revisions to plant data published in previous sustainability reports, including the published location, original and restated values, quantitative change, specific reason, recalculation file, affected report locations and approval details. Exclude corrections completed before publication.
Example response. Published source: 2024 Sustainability Report, energy table; Period: FY2024; Item: electricity use; Originally reported: 1,240 MWh; Restated: 1,180 MWh; Change: −60 MWh (−4.8%); Reason: meter mapping error in the published dataset; Effect: FY2024 electricity use and intensity decrease; Recalculation: Energy close workbook v4; Approved by: Site Controller; Approval date: 12 July 2025.
Financial services
Context. A customer count published in the previous sustainability report and ESG data book was restated after a segment-classification error was identified.
Adapted request. Please provide revisions to customer information published in previous sustainability reports or ESG data books, including the affected publication, original and restated values, quantitative change, reason, effect, recalculation record and approval.
Example response. Published sources: 2024 Sustainability Report and ESG data book; Period: FY2024; Item: retail lending customer count; Originally reported: 48,200; Restated: 46,900; Change: −1,300 (−2.7%); Reason: a segment mapping error overstated the published category; Effect: the retail lending total and segment share decrease; Recalculation: control log CL-2024-18; Approved by: Reporting Lead; Approval date: 3 February 2025.
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
State which earlier reporting periods were updated, explain the basis used to identify those revisions, and describe the approach taken to calculate their impact.
Context note
Explain what the revised figures mean for the reported story, including how the updates change the reader’s understanding of the earlier periods.
Fluctuation statement
Apply the documented restatement criteria to decide whether a change or error is significant enough to influence information users’ decisions. This is GRI Guidance, not a test based on whether a change seems exceptional or relates to a material topic. For quantitative information, show the quantitative change.
Content index entry
GRI 2-4 Restatements of information — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for GRI 2-4 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
All revisions that meet the organisation’s documented restatement criteria have been identified.
Risk A qualifying revision is omitted, or an internal correction made before publication is incorrectly treated as a GRI 2-4 restatement.
Evidence to check Restatement criteria, previous sustainability report and restatement register
Each restatement identifies the affected reporting period and disclosure, table or KPI.
Risk Readers cannot determine which previously reported information was revised.
Evidence to check Restatement register and marked-up comparative tables
The reason for each restatement is specific and supported.
Risk A generic statement such as ‘methodology updated’ does not explain what changed or why it affected previously reported information.
Evidence to check Change log, methodology note and supporting source records
The effect of each restatement is explained.
Risk The disclosure gives a reason or revised value but does not explain the consequence of the restatement.
Evidence to check Old-to-new bridge and restatement note
Quantitative restatements show the quantitative change.
Risk The restated value replaces the original without showing the size or direction of the change.
Evidence to check Originally reported value, restated value and absolute or percentage change
Restated comparative data are consistent throughout the reporting suite.
Risk Different revised values appear in the report, ESG data book, charts or GRI content index.
Evidence to check Cross-report consistency check and corrected comparative tables
Each change is traceable to the original and recalculated information.
Risk The revised value cannot be reproduced or reconciled to the previously published value.
Evidence to check Previous report, original calculation, recalculation and bridge
Restatements have completed the organisation’s review and approval process.
Risk Unreviewed comparative changes reach the published report.
Evidence to check Review comments and final approval record
A direct statement is provided when no restatements were made.
Risk Silence leaves readers unable to tell whether there were no restatements or the disclosure was omitted.
Evidence to check Final disclosure and signed restatement register or confirmation
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
- A restated value silently replaces the value published for the previous reporting period.
- The reason is stated, but the effect of the restatement is not explained.
- The restated value is shown without the originally reported value, so the scale of the change is unclear.
- A quantitative restatement does not specify the quantitative change.
- A generic phrase such as ‘methodology was updated’ does not explain what changed or why prior information was affected.
- The affected reporting periods, disclosures, tables or KPIs are not identified.
- Different restated values appear in different parts of the reporting suite.
- The organisation does not disclose its criteria for deciding when a revision is significant enough to require restatement.
- An internal correction made before publication is incorrectly labelled as a GRI 2-4 restatement.
- Nothing is stated when no restatements were made during the reporting period.
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 owner askedThe team chases the disclosure lead instead of the person who actually changed the figures, so the reason and the impact are collected from hearsay rather than the source team.
- Framework language used too earlyPeople ask for answers in reporting jargon instead of the business terms used by finance, HR, operations or the data owner, which slows down retrieval and creates mismatches.
- Published information not identifiedThe team does not identify the previous sustainability report, period, disclosure, table or KPI that contained the information, so an internal adjustment can be mistaken for a GRI 2-4 restatement.
- Pre-publication correction misclassifiedA correction completed while the current report was still being prepared is called a restatement even though no previously reported information was revised.
- Quantitative bridge missingThe restated value is collected without the originally reported value and absolute or percentage change, so the quantitative effect cannot be checked.
- Original source labels lostThe team copies figures into a summary sheet without keeping the source file names, version tags or local labels, so the trail back to the original change is broken.
- Report locations not reconciledThe main report is updated but the ESG data book, chart, KPI table or GRI content index retains a different comparative value.
- Evidence notes missingThe collector saves the number but not the supporting context, such as who supplied it, when it was pulled and which file it came from, so later review cannot verify it.
- No sign-off trailThe final data pack is passed on without a named reviewer or approval record, leaving no clear proof that the reason and effect were checked before drafting.
Judgement needed
- Acquisition or disposalA transaction can lead to a restatement but does not do so automatically. Determine whether previously reported information is recalculated, which periods and indicators are affected, whether the change is retrospective and whether comparable recalculation is possible. Consider reporting entities and consolidation under Disclosure 2-2.
- Estimate replaced by actual dataReplacing an estimate does not automatically require restatement. Apply the documented criteria to determine whether the revision to previously reported information is significant enough to influence information users’ decisions.
- System or methodology changeDistinguish a future-only method change from retrospective recalculation, correction of an error, improved source data, or a changed definition or factor. GRI 2-4 applies when the change revises information previously reported for an earlier period.
- Minor error or typographical correctionA typo or rounding difference that does not affect meaning or users’ decisions may fall below the organisation’s restatement criteria. Record the assessment rather than treating every correction as a GRI 2-4 restatement.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
The original 2024 figures had been reported in the organisation’s previous sustainability report. In the 2025 report, they were restated after a review found that one site had been excluded from the 2024 consolidation set.
• Total workforce — originally reported: 4,800; restated: 5,000; change: +200 (+4.2%).
• Recordable injuries — originally reported: 24; restated: 25; change: +1 (+4.2%).
Reason: a reporting-boundary error excluded one site from the published 2024 dataset.
Effect: the restatement increases both 2024 indicators; current-year figures are unchanged.
This example establishes that the information was previously published, gives a specific reason and shows the quantitative effect for each affected indicator.
The 2024 values below were published in the previous sustainability report and are restated after meter-based data replaced an estimate for one distribution centre.
• Total electricity — originally reported: 12,000 MWh; restated: 11,400 MWh; change: −600 MWh (−5.0%).
• Renewable electricity quantity — unchanged at 4,800 MWh.
• Renewable electricity share — originally reported: 40%; restated: 42% (42.1% before rounding); change: +2 percentage points.
Reason: more complete meter data reduced the total-electricity denominator while renewable electricity remained unchanged.
Effect: total electricity decreased and the renewable share increased.
This example makes the denominator logic explicit and distinguishes a percentage-point change from a percentage change.
The organisation made no restatements of information reported for previous reporting periods.
Where no restatements were made, GRI Guidance says a brief direct statement is sufficient.
Quality ladder
- Basic
A prior-period figure was restated because of a data error.
- Better
The workforce figure published for 2024 was restated after a payroll mapping error was corrected; headcount increased from 4,988 to 5,000.
- Best
The workforce figure published for 2024 was restated after a payroll mapping error omitted 12 employees from two sites. The originally reported value of 4,988 is restated to 5,000, an increase of 12 (+0.2%); the revised value has been updated consistently in the report and ESG data book.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A workforce figure is corrected in the current report’s working file before the report is published. The incorrect draft value has never appeared in published sustainability information.
A prior-year emissions total was recalculated after a data source was replaced with a more complete one. The revised total is lower than the figure previously published, and the reporting team is deciding whether to mention only the new number.
A sustainability metric for the prior year was corrected after a calculation error was found. The team has the revised value and a short note about the error, but has not yet drafted any explanation of how the correction affects the published trend.
The reporting team applies its documented criteria and confirms that no information published for previous reporting periods was restated during the year.
Real reports
How 3 companies report it
Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Tanla Platforms Limited
Partial
Sims Limited
Partial
Kakao Corp.
Partial| Field | Tanla Platforms Limited | Sims Limited | Kakao Corp. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prior-period restatement reasons | Partial | Not found | Not found |
| Prior-period restatement impact | Partial | Partial | Partial |
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 GRI requirements and related disclosures
GRI
GRI 2-4
within GRI 2: General Disclosures
Guides that settle this question
Related & explore
More in GRI 2 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
Collect the previously published value or wording, the restated value, affected period and disclosure or KPI, specific reason, qualitative and quantitative effect, recalculation method, approval trail and every location where the comparative information must be updated. If there were no restatements, retain confirmation and draft a direct statement.
Use it to distinguish published prior-period information from internal pre-publication corrections, apply the documented restatement criteria, capture reasons and effects, reconcile comparative values across the reporting suite and confirm either the restatements or a direct no-restatements statement.
Prepare the previous sustainability report, restatement register, original and recalculated workbooks, old-to-new bridge, methodology or system change records, relevant transaction documents, corrected comparative tables, approvals and a cross-report consistency check.
The nine checks cover completeness against the restatement criteria, identification of affected periods and items, reasons, effects, quantitative change, consistency, traceability, approval and the direct statement required when no restatements were made.
Key gaps include silently replacing a published value, giving a reason without an effect, omitting the original or quantitative change, using a generic methodology explanation, failing to identify affected periods and items, inconsistent revised values, missing significance criteria, treating an internal correction as a restatement, and saying nothing when there were no restatements.
The page includes draft-output support, including narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. You can use those to turn the collected data into a first-pass disclosure and then tailor the wording to your company’s facts.
Yes. The synthetic examples show originally reported and restated values, the resulting change, a specific reason and the effect. A separate example shows the brief statement that can be used when no restatements were made. Adapt the structure, not the fictional facts.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is meant to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use it to organise the required inputs, evidence and review steps before drafting.
The Download Centre also includes a printable Library Card in .pdf format. It is a practical companion for keeping the disclosure requirements, preparation steps and evidence prompts in one place.
Use the ‘How companies report GRI 2-4 in practice’ cards. Each card links to relevant report pages and distinguishes evidence for the reason from evidence for the effect; a company example is not a model of complete compliance unless every element is supported.
More questions this page can help with