Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain the results of its climate resilience assessment in a way that shows what was actually tested and what was found. In practice, the report should make clear the main outputs of the assessment, such as the scenarios considered, the time horizons used, the key assumptions made, and the overall conclusions about how resilient the business is to climate-related risks and opportunities.
The practical focus is on whether the assessment covers the organisation’s relevant activities and value chain, rather than only a few selected or flagship sites. Users should be able to see if the analysis reflects the parts of the business that matter most to climate resilience, how broadly it was applied, and where the main vulnerabilities or strengths were identified.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official IFRS source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
＋ Show s2-22-a sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Check whether assets can be moved to a different use or taken out of service if needed.
Assess how well the business can adjust its operations, plans, or model when conditions change.
Review whether spending on mitigation or adaptation is improving the organisation’s ability to cope with climate-related change.
Consider how easily funds can be reallocated, raised, or preserved to support the response needed.
State the overall judgement on whether the organisation is resilient over the relevant time horizon.
Identify the main areas where uncertainty remains material and could affect the assessment.
Explain what the assessment means for strategy, including any changes that may be needed.
How to prepare it
1Set the boundary first: decide which parts of the business, time period and scenario you are assessing, so the disclosure is built on one clear scope.
2Define the items you will assess in business terms, covering the organisation’s ability to shift assets or close them down, its ability to adjust, the impact of spending on climate action or adaptation, and how much funding headroom it has.
3Gather the support for each point before drafting: internal papers, models, assumptions, approvals and any other records that show how the assessment was reached.
4Draft the output in a way that matches the evidence, giving the resilience conclusion together with the main strategic effects and any material unknowns that affect the result.
5Record any exclusions, judgement calls or changes in method, so a reviewer can see what was left out, what was revised, and why the final view differs from earlier versions if it does.
6Check the finished disclosure back against the official source and the underlying evidence, to confirm the wording, coverage and conclusions still align with the requirement.
Request the data
Request the climate resilience assessment outputs
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What does the latest climate resilience review say about how the business can cope, what it means for strategy and funding, and what uncertainties remain?
Use your organisation’s own language first, then map it to the reporting terms. For example, if you talk about business continuity, capital planning, asset plans, scenario work or investment cases, ask for those artefacts and summaries rather than using framework labels in the request.
Weak request
Please provide the IFRS S2 climate resilience assessment outputs for disclosure ifrs-s2::s2-22-a.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, gives no clue which internal pack is needed, and does not say what business materials, time period, boundary, or supporting evidence should be returned. That makes it hard for the owner to know what to pull together.
Better request
Please send the latest business resilience review for [period] / [boundary], including the summary of how the business can adjust over time, any effect from climate-related investment, notes on funding flexibility, the main conclusion, key uncertainties, and any strategy implications. Include the source file, version, date, owner, and assumptions, and use your own internal terms if those are the ones you track.
Industry examples
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
Explain how the assessment was built, including what was counted, the basis used for judging resilience, and how the organisation defined its ability to adjust assets, operations, and funding.
Context note
Set out what the figures mean for the business by linking the resilience result to operational flexibility, investment choices, financial headroom, and the strategic direction that follows.
Fluctuation statement
Describe any notable change by pointing to shifts in the organisation’s ability to adapt, the effect of response measures, changes in funding flexibility, or new uncertainties that altered the conclusion.
Content index entry
s2-22-a Climate resilience assessment outputs — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for s2-22-a — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
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.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong owner
The request goes to the sustainability team instead of the business lead who holds the operational evidence for the resilience review.
Framework language used
People ask for the seven output areas in reporting jargon, so the data owner cannot map them to the organisation’s own planning, finance, and risk terms.
Scope not pinned down
The team never agrees which sites, assets, business lines, or scenarios sit inside the review, so different contributors send mismatched datasets.
Wrong period basis
Inputs are pulled from the wrong reporting window or planning cycle, which makes the evidence reflect a different point in time from the assessment being documented.
Mixed counting basis
Some teams report gross figures while others use net or adjusted figures, so the combined pack cannot be compared on the same basis.
Source labels lost
When spreadsheets are copied into a pack, the original file names, version notes, and source tags disappear, making it hard to trace where each figure came from.
Separate groups merged
Data for different asset classes, regions, or scenario runs is blended together even though it should stay separate for the review.
Evidence trail missing
The pack is assembled without file dates, owners, or approval notes, so no one can show who checked the numbers or when.
No sign-off path
Draft inputs move straight into the disclosure workstream without a recorded review by the people who own the underlying analysis.
Where judgement is often needed
What counts as the group being assessed after a deal closes
If a purchase or sale changes the businesses in scope, use the same cut-off date and explain whether the assessment covers the old group, the revised group, or both, so readers can see what changed.
When local definitions do not line up across countries
Where the same operational label means different things in different markets, pick one working definition for the assessment, apply it consistently, and explain any country-by-country differences in the output.
How to handle sites or activities sitting on the boundary of scope
For assets, teams or operations that are partly in and partly out, set a clear inclusion rule, apply it the same way across the portfolio, and disclose any exclusions or partial coverage.
Whether to use modelled outputs or observed results
If some conclusions come from estimates rather than direct measurement, say which parts are based on calculations or scenarios, which are drawn from actual evidence, and why that mix was used.
Which date or period anchors the assessment
Choose one reporting date or period for the resilience work, use it consistently across the narrative, and explain any lag between the assessment date and the reporting date.
How to present small numbers after rounding
Round in a way that does not distort the overall picture, check that subtotals still reconcile to the total, and note the rounding basis if it could affect interpretation.
How far to aggregate sensitive location or workforce detail
If privacy, security or commercial sensitivity means you cannot show site-level detail, combine the information to the highest practical level and explain the level of aggregation used.
How to treat mixed evidence across the same conclusion
Where one part of the assessment is supported by strong data and another by judgement, separate the two in the write-up so users can see what is evidenced and what is inferred.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity generation and networks
We tested a severe-weather and transition scenario and found that our existing sites, grid links and backup systems could be reconfigured or retired in stages, with 18 of 24 major assets able to be repurposed or closed within the plan period. The model shows that our efficiency upgrades and flood-protection spend cut projected disruption losses from £120m to £78m, while £310m of cash and undrawn facilities gives us room to fund the next phase without breaching our internal liquidity floor; however, the result still depends on timely planning consent and supplier delivery, so we conclude the business remains resilient but with material assumptions that could change the outcome. This means our strategy would shift toward faster network hardening, selective asset replacement and tighter capital phasing if those assumptions weaken.
Illustrative narrative showing how a reporter can describe flexibility in physical assets, the effect of resilience spending, funding headroom, the overall robustness view, and the main caveats that could alter the result.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing and distribution
In our climate stress test, we assessed whether production lines, cold storage and delivery routes could be moved, shut down or redesigned, and 11 of 15 key facilities were judged capable of being adapted or decommissioned in an orderly way. After £42m of water-efficiency, heat-management and logistics investment, expected annual loss under the stressed case falls from £64m to £39m, and our £96m of available cash plus committed borrowing gives us enough flexibility to absorb the programme; even so, the outcome still relies on stable energy prices and contractor availability, so we judge the group to be broadly resilient but not immune to downside shifts. The strategic takeaway is that we would prioritise site rationalisation, supplier diversification and staged capex if those conditions deteriorate.
Illustrative narrative showing how a reporter can explain operational flexibility, the impact of adaptation spending, financing room, the resilience judgement, and the strategic changes that follow from the test.
How companies report s2-22-a
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
SITC International Holdings Company Limited
Water Transportation · Hong Kong · 2025
SITC International Holdings Company Limited’s 2025 Environmental, Social and Governance Report includes a covered assessment of the entity’s capacity to adapt, with relevant information found on page 195, specifically addressing the entity’s ability to adjust its strategy and business (p.195). The report also provides a conclusion on climate resilience as of the reporting date on the same page (p.195). However, the report does not contain quotable evidence regarding asset redeployment decommissioning ability, the effect of mitigation adaptation investments, financial resource flexibility, significant uncertainties, or strategic implications.
Enel Chile S.A.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Chile · 2025
Enel Chile S.A.'s 2025 Integrated Annual Report provides clear coverage of its asset redeployment and decommissioning capacity, highlighting the availability and flexibility of resources on page 373. The report also details the assessment of asset vulnerabilities and the definition of Adaptation Plans on page 175, as well as identifying significant areas of uncertainty related to resilience on page 173. However, disclosures regarding the financial effects of mitigation and adaptation investments, financial resource flexibility, resilience conclusions, and strategic implications are unclear, with only related context found on pages 105 and 169 without explicit datapoints.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context. Your first two answers are free — join LRA Community for free to continue without a limit.
TryHow do I prepare s2-22-a?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
2 free answers
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A manufacturer has modelled a hotter, drier future and found one plant could be kept running only if some lines are moved to a different site. The team has draft notes on whether equipment can be shifted, but no final decision has been made.
QHow should the team frame the output on whether assets can be moved or retired, and what evidence should sit behind it?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Set out the practical view on whether the business can relocate equipment, repurpose it, or close it down if conditions worsen, and support that view with the facts used in the assessment. The write-up should show the basis for the judgement, not just a headline statement.
Why this matters · Explain the organisation’s ability to redeploy or wind down assets using evidence from the resilience assessment.
A utility has tested a scenario with more frequent heatwaves and storm damage. The assessment shows it can cope for now, but only if it changes maintenance timing, supplier arrangements, and operating procedures over the next few years.
QWhat should be said about the organisation’s ability to adjust, and how should the conclusion be presented?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Describe the organisation’s capacity to change its operations, plans, and controls in response to climate pressures, and make clear the basis for that judgement. If the assessment shows limits, those limits should be stated alongside the areas where adjustment is feasible.
Why this matters · The output should show how well the business can adapt in practice, including any limits on that flexibility.
A retailer has spent on flood barriers and backup power at two distribution centres. The climate review suggests these projects reduce disruption, but the finance team has not yet linked them to the longer-term resilience view in the report.
QHow should the team explain the effect of those spending decisions in the resilience narrative?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Link the spending to the resilience outcome by explaining how the measures change the organisation’s exposure, response, or recovery under the scenarios tested. The explanation should make clear whether the investments strengthen resilience, and by how the assessment supports that view.
Why this matters · Show the practical effect of climate-related spending on the organisation’s resilience position.
A food producer has enough cash for near-term adaptation work, but the assessment shows that a much larger programme would need new borrowing or a slower rollout. The draft report currently says only that funding is available.
QWhat should the disclosure say about financial flexibility, and what else should be included if the assessment found constraints?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Explain how easily the organisation can access and reallocate money for climate response measures, including whether it can fund the needed actions from existing resources or would need outside finance. If the assessment found pressure points, those should be described as part of the conclusion.
Why this matters · Describe the organisation’s room to fund climate response actions, not just the cash balance.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
How do I prepare disclosure s2-22-a in practice using the page’s step-by-step guidance?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the page’s step-by-step preparation section to shape the disclosure and gather the listed datapoints. The page is designed to help you move from topic understanding to a draft, rather than to act as a formal rulebook.
What data do I need to collect for s2-22-a, and how do the listed datapoints fit together?+−
The page says to prepare data on asset reuse and closure, ability to adjust, investment effects, funding flexibility, resilience view, key unknowns, and business implications. Use those items as the core data set for the draft and make sure the numbers and narrative line up.
Who should own the s2-22-a disclosure and the underlying data in my organisation?+−
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can source, explain, and evidence the datapoints. Use the page’s step-by-step section to assign who prepares the narrative, who supplies the data, and who signs off the evidence pack.
What methodology decisions do I need to settle before drafting s2-22-a?+−
The page points you to define the scope and approach for the listed datapoints before you draft the disclosure. In practice, that means agreeing how each item will be measured or described, and making sure the method is consistent with the evidence you can actually produce.
What should go into the evidence pack for s2-22-a so it is assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness, alongside five assurance claims to verify. Build the pack so each claim can be traced to a clear risk and supporting evidence, and keep it organised for review.
What are the five assurance claims on the s2-22-a page, and how do I use them?+−
The page says there are five claims to verify, each linked to a claim, risk, and evidence view. Use them as a checklist to test whether the draft is supported, where the weak points are, and what evidence still needs to be collected.
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for s2-22-a, and how do I avoid them?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to watch for, so use that section as a pre-submission check. A practical approach is to compare your draft against the listed datapoints, evidence pack, and assurance claims to spot missing or inconsistent content.
How do I use the workbook and printable library card for s2-22-a?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise preparation and assurance work, and the library card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing.
Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on the s2-22-a page as a template for my own draft?+−
Yes, but only as an illustrative guide: the page includes synthetic example disclosures and a quantitative table to show how a draft might look. Treat it as a format and consistency aid, not as a substitute for your own organisation’s data and evidence.
How do I turn the s2-22-a data into a draft narrative and content-index line?+−
The page’s draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line to help you assemble the disclosure. Use those prompts to turn the prepared datapoints into a readable draft that matches the evidence you have.
How can I reuse s2-22-a data for ESRS E1 (Climate Change) without assuming the requirements are the same?+−
The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS E1 (Climate Change), so there may be useful overlap in the data you collect. Reuse the data where it fits your reporting needs, but do not assume the disclosures are identical.
More questions this page can help with
s2-22-a disclosure checklist for sustainability managers2-22-a evidence pack template for assurance reviews2-22-a workbook download how to uses2-22-a common mistakes and reporting gapss2-22-a synthetic example disclosure tables2-22-a data points to collects2-22-a ownership and sign-off processs2-22-a methodology and scope setups2-22-a draft narrative starterss2-22-a content index line examples2-22-a assurance claims and evidences2-22-a ESRS E1 data reuse
Free · LRA Community
Get your s2-22-a tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →