Convictions and Fines Under B11: What Must an Undertaking Report?

Confirmed legal outcomes, reporting-period cut-off and neutral wording under B11

━━━━━━

B11 contains only two published numbers: the number of convictions and the total amount of fines incurred for anti-corruption and anti-bribery law violations in the reporting period. Producing those numbers can nevertheless be difficult. Legal systems use different terms; proceedings can involve individuals and companies; one matter can create several decisions; appeals can remain open; amounts can be imposed, paid, reduced or reversed at different dates; and group boundaries can change through acquisitions or disposals.

The sustainability report should not become a substitute for the legal case file. The operating objective is a controlled aggregate: capture all potentially relevant events, classify them with legal advice, apply the approved cut-off and boundary, aggregate without duplication and publish neutral wording that goes no further than the confirmed outcome.

Paragraph 43 states that, in case of convictions and fines in the reporting period, the undertaking discloses the number of convictions and the total amount of fines incurred for violation of anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws. The wording creates three core filters: the type of legal outcome, the subject matter of the law and the reporting-period trigger.

Historical EFRAG guidance described a conviction as a verdict of a criminal court against an individual or undertaking in respect of a corruption- or bribery-related criminal offence, for example where the decision is entered in a criminal record. That description is useful implementation context, but the final classification should follow the 2026 text and applicable national law.

An allegation, whistleblowing report, internal investigation, authority inquiry, charge or indictment does not by itself establish a conviction. Those events belong in the intake register and may require other reporting or governance attention, but including them in the B11 count would overstate the confirmed legal outcome.

Historical EFRAG guidance described a fine as a mandatory monetary penalty for violating anti-corruption or anti-bribery law, imposed by a court, commission or other government authority and paid to a public treasury. That helps distinguish a public-law penalty from legal costs, compensation, disgorgement, a private settlement or an internal disciplinary deduction. However, local law can characterise outcomes differently, so legal review is essential.

Figure 1. Allegations and investigations stay in the legal process; qualifying confirmed outcomes reach B11.

The phrase “in the reporting period” needs a documented cut-off rule. A matter can have an offence date, investigation date, first-instance decision, appeal decision, penalty imposition, accounting recognition and payment date. Paragraph 43 does not provide a detailed hierarchy among those dates. The legal, finance and reporting teams should approve the trigger used for conviction count and fine amount and apply it consistently.

Where the outcome remains under appeal, neutral wording can state that status if necessary to avoid implying finality. The report should not predict the outcome or repeat allegations beyond what is needed to explain the disclosed figure.

B11 should be consistent with the individual or consolidated basis stated in B1. A group needs a reporting instruction that covers subsidiaries included in the report and explains the treatment of acquisitions, disposals, joint operations and non-controlled entities. The reporting team should not assume that every event involving an employee is automatically a group conviction.

Historical guidance referred to verdicts against an individual or undertaking. Where an individual is convicted, legal review should determine whether and how the outcome is attributable to the reporting undertaking: for example, whether the person acted for the entity, whether the company is itself named or liable, and whether national law or official guidance supports inclusion. The method should be documented and applied consistently.

One corruption matter may involve several people, entities, convictions and fines. The disclosure asks for the number of convictions, not simply the number of matters. The legal register should therefore carry both a matter ID and an outcome ID, allowing the team to count each qualifying conviction once and sum each qualifying fine once.

Distinguish one judgment containing several convictions from several documents describing the same conviction.

Record gross fine imposed, reductions, reversals and the amount treated as incurred under the approved method.

Convert foreign-currency fines to the report currency using a documented rate and date; retain the original currency and amount.

Reconcile total fines to finance/legal records, but preserve the legal classification bridge.

Keep legal case detail restricted; the sustainability working paper needs only the fields required for classification and audit trail.

Figure 2. B11 requires a controlled legal register, classification, cut-off, aggregation, legal review and retention workflow.

B11 does not require a detailed narrative of the underlying conduct. A concise disclosure can present the number of convictions, total fine amount, currency and, where necessary, limited context such as reporting boundary or appeal status. The wording should not identify individuals unnecessarily, repeat unproven allegations, prejudice proceedings or imply that the outcome covers matters beyond the relevant anti-corruption/anti-bribery violation.

Where there were no qualifying outcomes, a clear “none” or zero can help readers understand the datapoint, subject to the final completeness and “if applicable” treatment. It does not prove that the undertaking received no allegations, conducted no investigations or had an effective anti-bribery programme. B11 is an outcome metric, not a full compliance-effectiveness assessment.

Matter A and Matter C remain outside the B11 conviction and fine totals, although they stay in compliance and legal records. The competition fine is outside B11 subject matter. Matter B is assessed by legal counsel under the group’s approved cut-off rule; the report includes one conviction and the qualifying fine amount, with neutral wording noting the appeal status if required for faithful presentation.

The working paper retains the judgment, authority order, entity mapping, legal classification, reporting-period decision, original currency, finance reconciliation and legal approval. The public disclosure does not identify the employee or reproduce allegations from the proceedings.

Evidence needed: legal-event register, court or authority documents, legal classification memo, B1 entity mapping, cut-off policy, finance reconciliation, FX calculation, duplication check, privacy/confidentiality review and final legal sign-off.

1. Counting allegations and investigations. B11 is based on convictions and fines, not the full compliance pipeline.

2. Including every monetary sanction. Test anti-corruption/anti-bribery subject matter and legal classification.

3. Using payment date without an approved incurred rule. Document the cut-off across imposition, legal effect, accounting and payment.

4. Counting a linked outcome twice. Use matter and outcome IDs.

5. Ignoring acquisitions and disposals. Apply the approved group boundary method.

6. Automatically including every employee conviction. Obtain legal attribution analysis.

7. Publishing names or factual detail not needed for B11. Use aggregate neutral wording and privacy/confidentiality review.

8. Using zero B11 as proof of programme effectiveness. Keep the claim limited to the metric.

A pending appeal does not have a prescribed automatic effect under the Standard. Record the criminal-court verdict, the appeal status and the reporting cut-off applied, then confirm under local law whether the outcome belongs in the period; use neutral wording if needed to avoid implying finality.