Standards and reporting
ESRS S4 consumers and end-users
ESRS S4 concerns consumers and end-users, so a useful reporting file identifies the people affected and the supported information rather than using customer satisfaction as a universal answer.
What is ESRS S4 trying to explain?
S4 addresses information-related impacts, personal safety and social inclusion concerning consumers and end-users ESRS S4 paragraph 6.
Module 01 / 03
People
Identify the relevant consumers or end-users.
Module 02 / 03
Activity
Describe the product or service relationship.
Module 03 / 03
Information
Select the material answer supported by evidence.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A customer-satisfaction average does not automatically explain every relevant consumer or end-user matter.
The ESRS overview places S4 in the reporting family.
The useful starting question is which people and circumstances the proposed statement actually describes.
What should the reporting basis record?
Identify the selected version and period because revised ESRS applies from FY2027 with specified FY2026 choices Articles 2–3.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Version | Published standard and selected basis. | Are references appropriate for the report? |
| Period | Reporting year and evidence dates. | Does the source describe the relevant interval? |
| Scope | Separate entity or group review. | Who is preparing the statement? |
| Historical file | Original treatment retained. | Can a changed answer be explained? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Do not import original-standard content or transitional summaries without checking the revised provisions Original ESRS S4 ESRS 1 paragraphs 125–127.
The CSRD thresholds guide handles the separate reporting population under the directive Directive 2026/470.
Who should the evidence record describe?
A useful file identifies the relevant people and their relationship with the product or service instead of assuming a corporate customer name supplies the whole answer.
Module 01 / 03
User
Who experiences the relevant feature or process?
Module 02 / 03
Context
What activity or service creates the matter?
Module 03 / 03
Difference
Which circumstances might a group average conceal?
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
In the fictional Vela Access case, a digital service changes an account-support process and proposes an improved-access claim.
The case is invented and does not determine legal accessibility requirements or actual consumer impacts.
Its reporting question is whether the evidence supports that claim for the people concerned.
What does the fictional service-review file contain?
Separate the redesigned process, the people represented in testing and the proposed outcome statement.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Process change | A new support route is released. | What actually changed? |
| Testing record | Evidence from a defined user group. | Who was not represented? |
| Concern | A difficulty reported through another route. | Does the average conceal that experience? |
| Public claim | A broad improved-access statement. | What scope can the evidence support? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Vela’s reviewer retains a positive test result and the unresolved concern rather than publishing only the favourable average.
No real service, client, affected group or compliance conclusion is implied.
Does every consumer topic require every possible measure?
No: assess material matters and then select material information rather than treating the S4 heading as a universal customer-data checklist ESRS 1 paragraphs 25–30.
Module 01 / 03
Context
Understand the relevant product or service.
Module 02 / 03
Judgement
Retain impact and financial conclusions where relevant.
Module 03 / 03
Information
Explain what the statement needs to address.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
IG1 remains non-authoritative guidance for the 2023 standards rather than the source of revised paragraph numbering IG1 disclaimer EFRAG guidance status.
The materiality template retains separate decisions.
An empty field does not itself establish either immateriality or absence of an issue.
How should information and feedback sources be evaluated?
State what a source measures before using it to support a consumer-outcome claim.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction survey | A response from a defined population. | What question was actually asked? |
| Support record | An issue or interaction. | Does closure establish resolution? |
| Testing evidence | A method and participant group. | What limitations remain? |
| Review decision | The selected claim and evidence. | Does the wording overstate the result? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Vela’s fictional support record remains distinct from the user’s outcome so a closed ticket is not automatically described as a resolved concern.
A summary score should not erase a relevant difference in experience.
How should policies and actions connect to consumer matters?
Connect relevant policy, action, metric and target information to the material matter rather than assuming a general customer commitment supplies the complete answer ESRS 1 paragraph 29 and ESRS 2 GDR requirements.
Module 01 / 03
Commitment
Identify the people and circumstances covered.
Module 02 / 03
Implementation
Distinguish a plan from a released change.
Module 03 / 03
Evaluation
Explain what evidence supports the result.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A service redesign and a demonstrated improvement are different claims.
The response record should show which matter the action addresses and what remains unresolved.
This helps the final narrative describe progress without converting intention into achievement.
What should the fictional reviewer say about results?
Narrow the proposed statement to the supported population and evidence rather than describing every user’s experience from a limited test.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Supported change | The new route is available. | Does availability imply successful use? |
| Observed result | The tested group provides feedback. | Can it represent the wider population? |
| Unresolved issue | Another source records difficulty. | Is the limitation retained? |
| Final wording | The reviewed outcome claim. | Could a reader infer a universal result? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Vela’s fictional statement can describe the implemented change while explaining the limits of the current evaluation.
The reporting principles guide develops clarity, balance and verifiable support.
How does S4 differ from affected-community reporting?
S4 concerns consumers and end-users while S3 addresses affected communities, so the relationship and matter need to remain explicit Revised S4 scope Revised S3 scope.
Module 01 / 03
Use
Identify the product or service context.
Module 02 / 03
Community
Identify a separate community-related matter where relevant.
Module 03 / 03
Connection
Reuse common context without merging conclusions.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The ESRS S3 guide develops the community-evidence file.
A person may appear in more than one context, but that does not make the reporting questions identical.
The record should identify which source supports the particular claim being made.
What should the consumer-information register retain?
Supporting resources help navigate the requirements but do not replace the standard or the undertaking’s material-information judgement Explanatory note, paragraph 1.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Reference | Selected version and relevant provision. | Is the correct question being answered? |
| People | Relevant population and relationship. | Who does the evidence describe? |
| Source | Method, period and limitation. | What can it actually establish? |
| Output | Reviewed wording and location. | Does publication match the decision? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The draft list release identifies supporting human navigation rather than all facts every company reports Draft list release.
The ESRS datapoints guide develops the distinction.
Can the system retain who the service test did not cover?
A useful demonstration retains the user context and limitations behind a consumer claim rather than exporting only a favourable performance score.
Module 01 / 03
Test population
Preserve the represented users, task tested and evaluation method rather than only a favourable score.
Module 02 / 03
Other experience
Keep the reported difficulty and its relevant circumstances alongside the test result.
Module 03 / 03
Supported claim
Record the narrower wording approved and the evidence needed before broadening it.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The draft XBRL taxonomy represents disclosures technically and does not make tagging mandatory at this stage EFRAG taxonomy release.
A valid technical field cannot establish whether a sample supports a universal access claim.
Ask for a change demonstration that preserves earlier evidence and the reason the claim was narrowed.
Vela’s fictional export should let another reviewer distinguish available support, tested successful use and the user experience that remains unresolved.
What should the consumer-evidence handover contain?
The next team should be able to reconstruct the relevant users, the source limitations and the final reporting decision.
| Record | Useful evidence | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Context | Product, service and affected population. | What is the matter? |
| Affected-user coverage | Tested group, task and missing perspectives. | Could the public claim imply every user benefited? |
| Review | Uncertainty and approved claim. | What remains unresolved? |
| Publication | Final wording and report location. | Has the output changed since approval? |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Ask CSRD consultants and data-management software suppliers to demonstrate that trail.
The standards homepage compares other reporting bases before consumer evidence is reused.
What is a useful first S4 deliverable?
Start with one clear consumer or end-user matter and a supported source map rather than a broad assertion that every customer outcome is understood.
Module 01 / 03
Define
Identify the people and relevant relationship.
Module 02 / 03
Trace
Retain source, method and limitation.
Module 03 / 03
Resolve
Assign the uncertainty that could change the claim.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Vela’s fictional review produces a narrower supported statement and an open evaluation action rather than an unqualified certification.
That file can expand when the materiality and information decisions show which additional evidence is useful.
How can a team prepare the S4 file?
This editorial nine-step sequence organises evidence rather than prescribing a consumer-testing or legal-compliance method.
- 101
Fix the basis
Record year, standard and reporting route. - 202
Identify the people
Describe the product or service relationship. - 303
Assess the matter
Retain impact and financial reasoning. - 404
Select information
Define the answer needed. - 505
Locate evidence
Keep source and represented population. - 606
Connect responses
Distinguish intention, implementation and outcome. - 707
Review limitations
Retain conflicting evidence and uncertainty. - 808
Approve wording
Match the claim to the support. - 909
Hand over
Keep source, decision and publication history.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask
What matters does S4 cover?
Its sub-topics concern information-related impacts, personal safety and social inclusion of consumers and end-users.
Does customer satisfaction answer every S4 question?
A satisfaction result needs its question and population understood and cannot automatically establish every relevant consumer outcome.
Does a closed support ticket prove resolution?
Administrative closure and an outcome for the affected person are different evidence questions.
Is S4 the same as community reporting?
S4 addresses consumers and end-users while S3 concerns affected communities.
Does every field apply to every product?
Reporting follows material matters and material information rather than automatic collection of every possible field.
Does completing the draft list prove compliance?
No: it is supporting material and cannot replace the standard or be used as a checklist.
Sources
Primary sources
Primary provisions and official owner guidance checked on 26 October 2026; historical and draft resources are labelled in the guide.
- Official JournalRevised ESRS: Regulation 2026/1563
- EFRAGIG1 Materiality Assessment, May 2024
- EFRAGESRS implementation guidance documents
- EFRAG Secretariat2026 draft datapoints explanatory note
- EFRAG2026 draft datapoints list release
- EFRAGRevised ESRS draft XBRL taxonomy release
- Official JournalOmnibus I: Directive 2026/470
- Official JournalOriginal ESRS: Regulation 2023/2772
- EFRAG Knowledge HubRevised ESRS S4 delegated-act text
- EFRAG Knowledge HubRevised ESRS S3 delegated-act text