Disclosure focus
A product or service category is a group of related products or services sharing a common, managed set of features that satisfies the needs of a selected market.
The denominator comprises all significant categories under the organization’s documented methodology. The numerator comprises those significant categories with a qualifying health and safety impact assessment that is applicable to the reporting period.
The assessment can have been completed in an earlier period if it remains current. GRI 416-1 does not require a new annual assessment or completed improvement actions.
Quality certification, regulatory compliance, customer complaints and product testing can support the evidence but do not automatically establish that a category was assessed for improvement.
The metric concerns customer health and safety impacts of products and services, not occupational health and safety of employees or contractors.
The organization can additionally describe the criteria used for the assessment and relevant life-cycle stages.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official Global Reporting Initiative source.
Prepare
What to collect before drafting
Tick each field as the evidence lands. Owners are the teams that usually hold the source files.
-
Category methodology
Product / Service ManagementDefinition and level used for product and service categories.
Evidence Product portfolio hierarchy, service catalogue and methodology note.
Watch for The published response for category methodology is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Significant categories
Product Stewardship / QualityComplete denominator population under the documented criteria.
Evidence Approved category register and significance assessment.
Watch for The published response for significant categories is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Health and safety impacts
Product Safety / RegulatoryCustomer or user health and safety impacts relevant to each category.
Evidence Risk assessments, safety files, clinical or technical evidence and complaints analysis.
Watch for The published response for health and safety impacts is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Assessment for improvement
Product Safety / QualityWhether a qualifying and current assessment exists for each significant category.
Evidence Assessment reports, review records and conclusions.
Watch for The published response for assessment for improvement is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Life-cycle stages — optional
Product StewardshipStages covered by the assessment where relevant.
Evidence Design, R&D, certification, production, distribution, use and end-of-life records.
Watch for The published response for life-cycle stages — optional is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Assessment criteria — optional
Product Safety / SustainabilityCriteria used to determine that an assessment qualifies.
Evidence Methodology, procedures and evaluation criteria.
Watch for The published response for assessment criteria — optional is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Numerator
Sustainability ReportingUnique significant categories with qualifying assessment.
Evidence Controlled category-assessment matrix.
Watch for The published response for numerator is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Denominator
Sustainability ReportingTotal significant categories.
Evidence Approved significant-category register.
Watch for The published response for denominator is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Percentage
Sustainability ReportingNumerator divided by denominator.
Evidence Calculation workbook and review evidence.
Watch for The published response for percentage is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Methodology changes
Sustainability ReportingCategory changes, acquisitions, disposals and assessment updates.
Evidence Change log and methodology memo.
Watch for The published response for methodology changes is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
Before you start
- What constitutes a product or service category under the organization’s methodology?
- Which categories are significant for GRI 416-1?
- Was the significant-category population defined before assessment coverage was calculated?
- Does the denominator contain all significant categories, including unassessed categories?
- Which categories have qualifying health and safety impact assessments?
- Was each assessment carried out for improvement?
- Does each assessment remain applicable to the current category?
- Have changes in design, composition, delivery or intended use been considered?
- Are planned or incomplete assessments excluded from the numerator?
- Are quality certification and regulatory compliance being used only as supporting evidence?
- Are customer health and safety impacts distinguished from worker occupational health and safety?
- Are service categories included where relevant?
- Are relevant life-cycle stages considered?
- Are individual products, assessment events and actions being confused with categories?
- Can the numerator and denominator be traced to controlled records?
- Can the final percentage be recalculated?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the disclosure evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Please provide the GRI 416-1 category-level data for [reporting date / period]. For each product or service category, include: category name and internal ID; category definition and hierarchy level; whether the category is significant; basis for the significance decision; relevant customer health and safety impacts; whether those impacts have been assessed for improvement; assessment date; whether the assessment remains applicable; relevant life-cycle stages; assessment conclusion; evidence reference; and responsible owner. Please also confirm the total number of significant categories, the number assessed for improvement and the resulting percentage.
Use the organisation's own role and document names, but preserve the defined GRI terms and the scope described above.
Better request
Please provide the GRI 416-1 category-level data for [reporting date / period]. For each product or service category, include: category name and internal ID; category definition and hierarchy level; whether the category is significant; basis for the significance decision; relevant customer health and safety impacts; whether those impacts have been assessed for improvement; assessment date; whether the assessment remains applicable; relevant life-cycle stages; assessment conclusion; evidence reference; and responsible owner. Please also confirm the total number of significant categories, the number assessed for improvement and the resulting percentage.
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
A product or service category is defined as [definition]. Significant categories are identified using [criteria]. A category is counted as assessed where [qualifying-assessment test] is met and the assessment remains applicable.
Context note
Keep mandatory GRI Requirements, GRI recommendations and additional LRA preparation controls clearly distinguished. Apply a GRI 1 reason for omission where required information cannot be reported.
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for GRI 416-1 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We applied the GRI definition of a product or service category.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
We documented the category level used for numerator and denominator.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
The significant-category population was defined before the percentage was calculated.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
We did not restrict significant categories automatically to the top safety-risk tier.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
The denominator includes all significant categories, including unassessed categories.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
The numerator contains only significant categories with qualifying assessments for improvement.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Assessment events, tests and improvement actions were not counted as categories.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Categories assessed several times were counted once.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
One assessment was used for several categories only where it covered each category adequately.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Customer health and safety impacts were distinguished from occupational health and safety.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Quality certification was not treated automatically as an assessment for improvement.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Regulatory compliance was not treated automatically as an assessment for improvement.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
The assessment considered relevant health and safety impacts of the product or service.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Earlier assessments were included only where they remained applicable.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Planned and incomplete assessments were excluded from the numerator.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
A category did not need an improvement action to count as assessed.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
The numerator and denominator use the same category population and date.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
The percentage can be recalculated from controlled records.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
The exact result and rounding convention are retained.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Any unavailable required information is addressed through the applicable GRI reason-for-omission requirements.
Risk The published response does not support this human-reviewed assurance check.
Evidence to check Trace the statement to current approved records and the official IFRS source.
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
- The required percentage is missing.
- Only the number of assessed products is reported.
- Individual products are counted instead of product or service categories.
- The category level differs between numerator and denominator.
- The significant-category methodology is unclear.
- Only top-risk categories are treated as significant without justification.
- The denominator contains only categories with available assessment records.
- Unassessed significant categories are excluded.
- Quality certification is presented as the assessment itself.
- Regulatory compliance is presented as the assessment itself.
- Customer complaints are presented as the assessment itself.
- Occupational safety assessments are used instead of customer health and safety assessments.
- Service categories are omitted.
- The assessment was not carried out for improvement.
- A planned or incomplete review is counted as completed.
- An assessment is excluded because it identified no improvement action.
- An earlier assessment is counted without checking current applicability.
- The number of reviews, tests or actions is used as the numerator.
- One category is counted several times because it was assessed at several life-cycle stages.
- One assessment is used for several categories without demonstrating category coverage.
- The percentage cannot be reconciled to category-level records.
- The percentage is interpreted as evidence that no product safety risk exists.
- GRI 416-2 incidents and warnings are presented instead of the GRI 416-1 percentage.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative synthetic example — Consumer goods
The organization identified ten significant product categories. Eight had current health and safety impact assessments carried out for improvement.
Percentage assessed: 8 ÷ 10 × 100 = 80.0%.
The remaining two categories remained in the denominator because their assessments were incomplete. Improvement actions were identified for five of the eight assessed categories, but this did not affect the percentage.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative synthetic example — Business services
The organization identified eight significant service categories. Five had applicable assessments for improvement.
Percentage assessed: 5 ÷ 8 × 100 = 62.5%.
Three significant categories remained unassessed and therefore remained in the denominator.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative synthetic example — Full assessment
All 12 significant product and service categories had current health and safety impact assessments for improvement. The organization reported 100%.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative synthetic example — No significant categories
The organization determined that it had no significant product or service categories under its documented methodology. The percentage was therefore not calculable.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
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.
CRH plc
Review finding
CRH provides qualitative customer-safety information but does not report the percentage required by GRI 416-1.
Report evidence
Report page 58 describes:
- collaboration with regulators and standard-setting bodies
- safety data sheets and product declarations
- compliance with REACH
- manufacture to national and regional technical standards
- independent certification
- ISO 9001 certification at 64% of European operating companies
View full reviewHide full review
Disclosure gap
These disclosures provide useful product-safety and quality-management context but do not identify:
- the significant product and service category denominator
- the number of categories assessed for improvement
- the required percentage
Disclosure gap
The GRI index on report page 104 states that no products are known to require improvements relating to health and safety impacts. This is not the same as reporting that no products exist or that no information is applicable. It reports an assessment conclusion without disclosing the assessment-coverage percentage.
LRA review note
The card should:
- replace there are no products to report with the report’s actual statement
- remove any implication that ISO 9001 coverage is the GRI 416-1 percentage
- remove contractor induction and workplace safety data
- identify the missing percentage as the principal gap
- classify the disclosure as partial or insufficient
Bottom line
CRH’s substantive page discusses customer safety and quality controls, while its GRI index provides a no-improvement-known conclusion but no category percentage.
Samsung Biologics Co.,Ltd.
Review finding
Samsung Biologics’ current card combines information relevant to GRI 416-1 and GRI 416-2.
Disclosure gap
The number of regulatory violations resulting in warnings on page 195 concerns incidents of non-compliance and therefore belongs to GRI 416-2. It does not answer the GRI 416-1 assessment percentage.
Report evidence
The reference on page 205 should be checked to determine whether it is:
- a substantive quantitative disclosure
- a GRI content-index reference
- a qualitative management statement
View full reviewHide full review
LRA review note
The card should:
- remove page 195 as primary evidence for GRI 416-1
- identify whether page 205 reports an actual percentage
- verify the significant-category denominator and assessed-category numerator
- avoid requiring detailed assessment outcomes, because outcomes are not a separate GRI 416-1 element
- classify the report as requires substantive reassessment unless the percentage is located
Assessment
A statement that products or services are assessed, without a percentage of significant categories, is not a complete GRI 416-1 response.
Bottom line
The current card itself identifies the page 195 information as regulatory-warning data, while the official standard treats such warnings under Disclosure 416-2, not 416-1.
Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.
Review finding
Sumitomo Forestry’s GRI Content Index maps GRI 416-1 to:
- Product and Service Safety as well as the Quality Management
- Product Safety and Quality Management in the Housing Business
View full reviewHide full review
Assessment
The mapping appears on report page 536, not page 537.
Disclosure gap
The content-index entry demonstrates where the company directs readers for product-safety and quality-management information, but it does not itself provide:
- the significant product and service category denominator
- the number of categories assessed for improvement
- the required percentage
LRA review note
The card should:
- correct the page reference
- distinguish the content-index page from the substantive linked disclosures
- open and review both linked pages
- assess whether either page provides the required percentage
- remove detailed findings on health and safety performance outcomes as a mandatory gap
- classify the disclosure as content-index mapping requiring substantive reassessment unless a percentage is found
Bottom line
Sumitomo Forestry’s official index maps 416-1 to two qualitative product-safety and quality pages, and the mapping is shown on report page 536.
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 416-1
within GRI 416: Customer Health and Safety
Related & explore
More in GRI 416 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →