Disclosure focus
Report the incidents separately as:
regulatory non-compliance resulting in a fine or penalty;
regulatory non-compliance resulting in a warning; and
non-compliance with voluntary codes.
The disclosure concerns non-compliance rather than every complaint, defect, recall, adverse event or safety concern. Actual customer harm is not required, but an incident of non-compliance must be established.
Exclude incidents where the organization was determined not to be at fault and incidents related to product and service information or labelling.
Where an incident reported in the current period relates to an event from an earlier period, identify that fact.
If no incidents were identified, a brief statement confirming this is sufficient.
The disclosure does not require incident rates, fine values, corrective-action outcomes or a description of every individual case.
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.
-
Incident population
Product Safety / Regulatory / LegalPotential product or service health and safety non-compliance matters identified across applicable systems.
Evidence Legal, regulatory, quality, recall, complaint and voluntary-code records.
Watch for The published response for incident population is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Applicable requirement
Legal / ComplianceRegulation or voluntary code associated with each matter.
Evidence Legal register, code documentation and assessment record.
Watch for The published response for applicable requirement is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Non-compliance conclusion
Legal / RegulatoryEvidence that non-compliance occurred and that the organization was not determined to be without fault.
Evidence Regulator decision, investigation or code-review outcome.
Watch for The published response for non-compliance conclusion is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Fine or penalty incidents
Legal / FinanceRegulatory incidents resulting in a fine or penalty.
Evidence Penalty notices, regulator decisions and payment records.
Watch for The published response for fine or penalty incidents is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Warning incidents
Regulatory / LegalRegulatory incidents resulting in a warning.
Evidence Warning letters, official notices and decisions.
Watch for The published response for warning incidents is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Voluntary-code incidents
Product Safety / ComplianceIncidents of non-compliance with voluntary health and safety codes.
Evidence Code assessment and internal or external determination.
Watch for The published response for voluntary-code incidents is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Labelling exclusion
Regulatory / SustainabilityMatters transferred to GRI 417-2.
Evidence Incident classification and labelling records.
Watch for The published response for labelling exclusion is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Not-at-fault exclusion
LegalIncidents excluded because the organization was determined not to be at fault.
Evidence Investigation and determination records.
Watch for The published response for not-at-fault exclusion is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Prior-period event link
Legal / SustainabilityCurrent-period incidents relating to events in earlier reporting periods.
Evidence Event, resolution and reporting-period dates.
Watch for The published response for prior-period event link is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Final category counts
Sustainability ReportingExact counts for the three required categories.
Evidence Controlled incident register and reconciliation.
Watch for The published response for final category counts is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
-
Zero statement — if applicable
Legal / Product SafetyConfirmation that no relevant non-compliance was identified.
Evidence Cross-functional search and sign-off.
Watch for The published response for zero statement — if applicable is incomplete or does not match the supporting records.
Before you start
- Which regulations concern the health and safety impacts of the organization’s products and services?
- Which voluntary health and safety codes are applicable?
- Which matters resulted in a regulatory fine or penalty?
- Which matters resulted in a regulatory warning?
- Which matters involved non-compliance with voluntary codes?
- Have customer complaints, recalls, adverse events and regulator correspondence been assessed rather than counted automatically?
- Has actual non-compliance been established?
- Were any cases determined not to be the organization’s fault?
- Have incidents concerning information and labelling been removed for GRI 417-2?
- Do any current-period incidents relate to events in prior reporting periods?
- Have duplicate records across legal, quality, regulatory and complaint systems been removed?
- Are incident counts based on exact records rather than estimates?
- Can each incident be traced to the applicable regulation or voluntary code?
- Can each regulatory incident be traced to its fine, penalty or warning outcome?
- Can a zero statement be supported across the complete reporting boundary?
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 product and service health and safety compliance register for [reporting period]. For each potentially relevant matter, include: controlled incident ID; product or service category; country and legal entity; applicable regulation or voluntary code; description of the alleged non-compliance; date of the underlying event; date non-compliance was determined; formal resolution date; whether the matter resulted in a fine or penalty; whether it resulted in a regulatory warning; whether it involved a voluntary-code breach; whether the organization was determined not to be at fault; whether the matter concerns information or labelling; recall, complaint or adverse-event references; evidence source; and reporting classification. Please also provide the reconciled counts for the three GRI 416-2 categories.
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 product and service health and safety compliance register for [reporting period]. For each potentially relevant matter, include: controlled incident ID; product or service category; country and legal entity; applicable regulation or voluntary code; description of the alleged non-compliance; date of the underlying event; date non-compliance was determined; formal resolution date; whether the matter resulted in a fine or penalty; whether it resulted in a regulatory warning; whether it involved a voluntary-code breach; whether the organization was determined not to be at fault; whether the matter concerns information or labelling; recall, complaint or adverse-event references; evidence source; and reporting classification. Please also provide the reconciled counts for the three GRI 416-2 categories.
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
Incidents were classified using the applicable product and service health and safety regulations and voluntary codes. Matters where the organization was determined not to be at fault and information or labelling incidents were excluded.
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 416-2 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We identified the applicable product and service health and safety regulations.
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 identified the applicable voluntary health and safety codes.
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 consolidated potentially relevant matters from all applicable source systems.
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 counted incidents rather than complaints, products, recalls, affected customers or regulator documents.
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 complaints were not treated automatically as incidents of non-compliance.
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.
Recalls and safety notices were not treated automatically as incidents of non-compliance.
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.
Adverse-event and vigilance reports were not treated automatically as incidents of non-compliance.
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.
Every included matter has evidence that non-compliance occurred.
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.
Actual customer harm was not used as a condition for inclusion.
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.
Hazards and near misses without established non-compliance were not included.
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.
Incidents where the organization was determined not to be at fault were excluded.
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.
Information and labelling incidents were excluded for GRI 417-2.
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 incidents resulting in a fine or penalty were reported separately.
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 incidents resulting in a warning were reported separately.
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.
Voluntary-code incidents were reported separately.
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.
Preliminary observations and information requests were not classified automatically as warnings.
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.
Duplicate records across legal, quality, complaint and regulatory systems were removed.
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.
Incidents relating to prior-period events were identified where 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.
A prior-period event formally resolved in the current period was not excluded automatically.
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.
Older open matters were not counted solely because they remained active.
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.
Incident counts are exact whole numbers and were not estimated or rounded.
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 overall total, where shown, reconciles to the three 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 zero statement, where used, is supported across the reporting boundary.
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
- Only one aggregate incident count is disclosed.
- The three required categories are not reported separately.
- Only fines and penalties are reported.
- Warnings are omitted.
- Voluntary-code incidents are omitted.
- The report states that no fines occurred but does not address warnings or voluntary codes.
- The report states that no material incidents occurred rather than confirming whether any incidents occurred.
- Actual customer harm is used as a condition for inclusion.
- Every complaint is counted as non-compliance.
- Every recall is counted as non-compliance.
- Every adverse-event or vigilance report is counted.
- A product defect is counted without identifying a breached regulation or voluntary code.
- Preliminary regulator observations are counted as warnings.
- Information and labelling incidents are included instead of being reported under GRI 417-2.
- Cases where the organization was determined not to be at fault are included.
- Prior-period events formally resolved in the current period are excluded automatically.
- Old open matters are included solely because they remained active.
- Several notices concerning one matter are counted as several incidents without a methodology.
- Products, batches, customers or recalls are counted instead of incidents.
- Incident counts are estimated or rounded.
- An incidence rate is presented instead of the required counts.
- A zero result is implied but not stated.
- The published counts cannot be reconciled to incident records.
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 manufacturing
During the reporting period:
one incident of regulatory non-compliance resulted in a fine;
one incident of regulatory non-compliance resulted in a warning; and
no incidents of non-compliance with voluntary codes were identified.
The warning related to a product event from the previous reporting period and was formally resolved in the current period.
Two additional product recalls were reviewed but were not included because they did not result from non-compliance with a relevant regulation or voluntary code.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative synthetic example — Online retail and logistics
During the reporting period:
no regulatory incidents resulted in a fine or penalty;
one regulatory incident resulted in a warning; and
one incident involved non-compliance with a voluntary product-safety code.
One additional customer complaint was excluded because the review did not identify non-compliance. One product-information matter was transferred to GRI 417-2.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative synthetic example — Zero incidents
No incidents of non-compliance with regulations or voluntary codes concerning the health and safety impacts of products and services were identified during 2026.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative treatment — organization not at fault
A regulator reviewed a customer-safety allegation and determined that the organization was not at fault. The matter was excluded from the GRI 416-2 counts.
Synthetic LRA illustration. Replace every figure and fact with the reporting organisation's evidence.
Illustrative treatment — labelling
One incident concerned missing safety information on a product label. It was excluded from GRI 416-2 and reported under GRI 417-2.
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.
Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Review finding
Zydus Lifesciences’ current card relies on the wrong disclosure.
Assessment
Report page 134 states that there were no incidents concerning product and service information and labelling and marketing communications. This information relates to GRI 417-2 and GRI 417-3, not GRI 416-2.
Report evidence
The substantive product-quality information is on report page 50. The report discloses:
- zero Class I recalls
- 54 Class II recalls
- 12 Form 483 observations or equivalent
- one FDA warning letter or equivalent
View full reviewHide full review
Assessment
The GRI index maps Product Recalls to GRI 416-1 and GRI 416-2.
LRA review note
The card should:
- replace page 135 with report page 50 as the principal substantive source
- remove the product-information and labelling zero result from GRI 416-2
- recognize the one FDA warning letter as potentially relevant to the regulatory-warning category
- avoid treating every recall or Form 483 observation automatically as a GRI 416-2 incident
- determine whether any incidents resulted in a fine or penalty
- determine whether any incidents involved non-compliance with voluntary codes
- confirm how the 54 recalls were classified against the GRI requirement
- classify the disclosure as partial or requiring category-level reassessment
Assessment
Materiality and general risk-management information on page 148 is not required to complete Disclosure 416-2.
Bottom line
The official report contains separate product-recall, regulatory-observation and warning-letter information, while the cited labelling statement belongs to a different GRI disclosure.
Owens Corning
Review finding
Owens Corning’s 2024 Sustainability Report states on report page 184 that the company had no material incidents of non-compliance concerning the health and safety of its products.
View full reviewHide full review
Assessment
Its GRI index maps GRI 416-2(a) to None and GRI 416-2(b) to page 184.
Disclosure gap
The wording does not provide a fully aligned zero response because GRI 416-2 requires all incidents of non-compliance, not only incidents classified as material.
LRA review note
The card should:
- remove the parental-leave return-to-work figure
- remove the SCS Global Services independence and competence statement
- use report page 184 as the substantive reference
- quote or paraphrase the company’s no material incidents wording accurately
- explain that no material incidents does not necessarily mean zero incidents
- assess whether the company can confirm zero incidents across the three GRI categories
- classify the response as partial or imprecise rather than a complete zero disclosure
Assessment
No additional governance or assurance narrative is required solely for GRI 416-2.
Bottom line
Owens Corning’s report uses a materiality qualifier, while its GRI index indicates that the detailed incident-count requirement is not separately reported.
Thai Beverage Public Company Limited
Review finding
Thai Beverage provides an adequate zero-incidents response on report page 92.
Report evidence
The report states that:
- there were zero incidents of non-compliance with regulations or voluntary codes concerning the health and safety impacts of products and services
- no regulatory incidents resulted in a fine, penalty or warning
View full reviewHide full review
Assessment
The broad zero statement is sufficient under GRI 416-2(b). Separate category details are not required when no incidents occurred.
LRA review note
The card should:
- use report page 92 as the substantive reference
- retain the zero-incidents conclusion
- remove all child-labor references
- remove all forced-labor references
- remove supply-chain-management gaps
- state that no prior-period incident identification is applicable unless an incident exists
- classify the disclosure as an adequate zero response
Bottom line
ThaiBev explicitly reports zero incidents of non-compliance concerning the health and safety impacts of products and services.
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 416-2
within GRI 416: Customer Health and Safety
Related & explore
More in GRI 416 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →