Aller à l’essentiel de l’information

Bibliothèque des disclosuresGuide pratique pour chaque information à publier

ESRS S4: Consumers and End-users·Disclosure Requirement S4-2

Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms

Guide pratique pour préparer cette information. Utilisez cette fiche pour identifier les données à préparer, vérifier les affirmations et organiser les preuves. Pour les exigences exactes, reportez-vous toujours à la source officielle European Commission.

Ouvrir la source officielle European Commission Comparer des rapports réels → ↗ Partager

Passeport publié

Révision en attente
··· En cours de révision Révision éditoriale en cours Élaboré à partir des sources officielles et de preuves issues de rapports publiés. Aucun approbateur n’est encore enregistré : cette page ne porte donc pas de signature. Utilisez-la avec la source officielle European Commission tant que cette révision est en cours.

Norme

ESRS S4: Consumers and End-users

Disclosure Requirement S4-2 · 2026-5010-final

En vigueur

2027-01-01

Source officielle : Ouvrir ↗

Dernière révision

—

Support pédagogique LRA · Non publié ni approuvé par European Commission

Pour préparer cette information
11champs à préparer 6affirmations à vérifier 5domaines de preuve 3exemples de rapports

Objet de l’information

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.

Ce support pédagogique LRA aide à préparer l’information. Pour les exigences exactes, reportez-vous toujours à la source officielle European Commission.

Avant de commencer

Avant de commencer

Une courte liste de contrôle avant de préparer cette information — cochez chaque point une fois réglé.

Préparation

Informations clés à préparer

Champ à préparer Ce qu’il faut recueillir Indice de preuve Responsable
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
＋ Afficher les sous-éléments de S4-2 (liste de travail LRA)

Comment le préparer

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.

Demander les données

Request the complaints, feedback and engagement log from Operations

Traduisez l’information en une question métier interne, puis adaptez-la au vocabulaire de votre organisation.

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.

Demande faible

Please provide the ESRS S4-2 engagement and grievance mechanism evidence, including stakeholder engagement channels, vulnerable groups, accessibility, KPIs, remediation approach and cases addressed.

Pourquoi elle échoue : 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.

Meilleure demande

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.

Modèle d’e-mail formel
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]
Version courte pour Teams / Slack
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.

Exemples sectoriels

Retail / Customer Operations

Contexte. A retailer receives customer complaints through stores, call centres, web chat and social media escalation.

Demande adaptée. 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.

Exemple de réponse. 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

Contexte. A manufacturer gathers worker and contractor concerns through site briefings, supervisor escalation, hotline and suggestion boxes.

Demande adaptée. 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.

Exemple de réponse. 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.

Rédigez votre information

Des notes qui transforment les données en information publiée

Modèles pédagogiques LRA — adaptez-les à votre organisation et vérifiez la source officielle avant validation.

Note méthodologique

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.

Note de contexte

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.

Déclaration sur les variations

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.

Entrée de l’index de contenu

S4-2 Engagement & Grievance Mechanisms — [location / page] / [notes]

Centre de téléchargement

Outils et formulaires de préparation

Outils de préparation professionnels pour S4-2 — gratuits avec l’adhésion à LRA Community. Inscrivez-vous une fois (c’est gratuit) et tous les téléchargements se débloquent, avec la Bibliothèque des informations, les modèles et l’assistant IA LRA.

Gratuit · Membres de la Community
01XLSClasseur préparation et assurancePoints de données, risques, preuves à vérifier, responsable et dossier de preuves.Obtenir gratuitement ↧ 02XLSPack de demande de donnéesE-mail de demande, modèle de message, champs de réponse et structure de validation.Obtenir gratuitement ↧ 03PDFFiche de bibliothèqueRésumé imprimable d’une page de cette fiche d’information.Obtenir gratuitement ↧

Préparation à l’assurance

Pour chaque affirmation, vérifiez les preuves

Affirmation Risque Preuves à vérifier
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.

Dossier de preuves à préparer

Lacunes fréquentes dans les rapports

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.

Lacunes fréquentes

Erreurs à éviter lors de la collecte des données

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.
＋ Afficher 6 de plus

Là où un jugement professionnel est souvent nécessaire

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.
＋ Afficher 7 de plus

Exemples

Exemples illustratifs

Synthétiques, rédigés par LRA — ils ne proviennent ni d’un rapport d’entreprise ni du texte d’une norme.

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.

Rapports d’entreprises

Comment les entreprises publient S4-2 en pratique

Exemples de pratiques de publication complètes et partielles. Ce sont des analyses fondées sur des preuves, non des modèles à recopier.

Rapports réels publiés
SNCF Group
Ground Transportation — Railroads · France · 2025
Ouvrir le rapport →
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
Ouvrir le rapport →
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
Ouvrir le rapport →
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.

Comparer côte à côte →

✓ Assistant IA LRA · Supervision humaine
Dr Ross Kurinko

Interrogez l’assistant IA de Study Studio sur cette information

Obtenez des réponses concrètes pour votre contexte de reporting. Les deux premières réponses sont gratuites — rejoignez gratuitement LRA Community pour continuer sans limite.

Essayez Comment préparer S4-2 ? Quelles données dois-je collecter ? Où voir un exemple issu d’un rapport réel ? Quelles erreurs éviter ?
2 réponses gratuites

Vérifiez votre compréhension

Scénarios à travailler

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?
Afficher la réponse type →

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?
Afficher la réponse type →

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?
Afficher la réponse type →

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?
Afficher la réponse type →

Références au référentiel

Exigences ESRS applicables et informations connexes

Références disponibles du référentiel et informations voisines utiles à la préparation de cette exigence.

ESRS

S4-2

au sein de ESRS S4 : Consumers and End-users

Ouvrir la source officielle →

Connexes et exploration

Policies (Consumers & End-users) →Actions & Resources → FicheTargets → Fiche Parcourir toutes les informations →

Plus dans ESRS S4 → Parcourir le catalogue complet → Accueil de la Bibliothèque des informations → Rechercher dans toutes les informations →

FAQ

Questions auxquelles cette page répond

How do I prepare disclosure S4-2 using the step-by-step guidance on this page?+
What datapoints do I need to collect for S4-2 on consumers and end-users?+
How should I define the scope and methodology for S4-2 before drafting the disclosure?+
Who should own the S4-2 data collection and sign-off process?+
What evidence do I need to build an assurance-ready S4-2 pack?+
What are the common mistakes to avoid when drafting S4-2?+
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for S4-2?+
What can I use the printable Library Card PDF for when preparing S4-2?+
Are there example disclosures I can use as a model for S4-2?+
How do I turn S4-2 data into a draft narrative and content-index line?+

Autres questions auxquelles cette page peut aider

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

Aller plus loin · S4-2

Apprenez à préparer cette information de bout en bout

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.

Explore the ESRS / CSRD course →
Comment cette bibliothèque est construite 312 rapports publiés indexés 63 171 pages avec citations au niveau de la page 272 fiches disclosure conçues par des praticiens
/fr/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/esrs-s4-2/