Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how resilient its business model and strategy are when climate change is considered over time. In practice, that means describing whether the organisation has thought through how different climate-related conditions could affect its ability to operate, invest, and deliver its plans, and what that means for the long term.
The practical focus is on the organisation’s own assessment of resilience, not just a statement about a few well-performing sites or a flagship location. It should cover the parts of the business that matter to the overall strategy and operations, so readers can see whether the conclusion reflects the organisation as a whole rather than a limited sample.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official EFRAG 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 E1-3 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Set out the findings from the climate resilience review.
Explain what those findings mean for the strategy and operating model.
Show how the response has been shaped by scenario analysis.
Describe how the transition plan supports resilience.
Identify the main areas where uncertainty remains significant.
Explain the organisation’s ability to adapt over the long term.
Explain the organisation’s ability to adapt over the medium term.
Explain the organisation’s ability to adapt over the short term.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first. Decide which parts of the business, value chain links, and time horizons are in scope for the climate-resilience assessment, so the final write-up clearly covers the periods and activities the datapoints ask about.
2Define the criteria you will use to judge resilience. Agree in advance what counts as a meaningful climate risk, a relevant response, a material uncertainty, and a credible adaptation capability, so the team applies one consistent basis throughout.
3Gather the underlying support. Pull together scenario work, internal planning papers, risk registers, transition planning material, and any other records that show how the assessment was formed and what it relied on.
4Prepare the disclosure content in the required form. For the narrative parts, explain the assessment outcome, what it means for the business model and strategy, how the response was shaped by scenario work, how the transition plan supports resilience, where uncertainty remains, and how adaptation capacity looks in the short, medium, and long term.
5Record any gaps, exclusions, or changes in approach. If a topic, period, assumption, or source was left out or treated differently from prior reporting, note that clearly and explain why, so readers can understand the limits of the information.
6Check the draft against the official source before sign-off. Confirm that each required point is covered, the wording matches the underlying requirement in substance, and nothing important has been missed, overstated, or added beyond the source material.
Request the data
Request climate resilience evidence from Strategy / Risk
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How has the business tested whether its current plan and operating model can cope with climate-related change over time, and what did that testing show?
Use your organisation’s own language first (for example, your planning cycles, risk review process, scenario work, adaptation planning, or business continuity terms), then map the outputs to the disclosure points. Keep the ask practical and evidence-led; do not use framework wording unless that is already how your teams talk internally.
Weak request
Please provide the ESRS E1-3 resilience disclosure evidence, including the results of the climate resilience analysis, implications for strategy and business model, scenario analysis response, transition plan contribution to resilience, uncertainties, and adaptation capacity over short, medium and long term.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that many teams will not recognise, so the owner may not know which internal papers or outputs to pull. It also bundles several ideas without pointing to the business documents, review forums, or planning artefacts that actually hold the evidence.
Better request
Please send the latest internal materials that show how the business tested climate-related resilience, what those tests mean for the plan and operating model, any scenario-based response work, how the transition plan helps resilience, where the main uncertainties remain, and how adaptation looks across the short, medium and long term. Include the source deck, model, tracker, or minutes, plus the owner and date.
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 the basis used to assess climate resilience, including how the scenario work was applied, how the short-, medium- and long-term views were defined, and what was included when judging uncertainty and adaptation capacity.
Context note
Set out what the results mean for the organisation’s strategy, operating model and ability to stay resilient under different climate conditions, including how the transition plan supports that position.
Fluctuation statement
If the results vary across periods or scenarios, describe the main drivers of the change, such as shifts in assumptions, different exposure levels, or changes in the organisation’s response capacity.
Content index entry
E1-3 Resilience in relation to climate change — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for E1-3 — 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 team asks a policy lead or sustainability contact for inputs that sit with operations, risk, finance or strategy, so the evidence comes from the wrong part of the business.
Framework language only
People ask for answers using disclosure labels instead of the organisation’s own terms, and the source team cannot map the request to the reports, models or plans they actually use.
No clear boundary
The data pull is started without fixing which entities, sites, activities or time horizons are in scope, so different teams send numbers from different parts of the group.
Wrong time basis
One team uses the latest forecast while another uses the reporting period cut-off, which makes the resilience inputs impossible to compare on the same timing basis.
Mixed counting basis
Operational counts, financial values and qualitative ratings are merged into one file without separating the basis for each, so the final pack cannot be traced back cleanly.
Source labels lost
Original file names, scenario tags, version marks and table headings are stripped out during consolidation, leaving no way to see where each input came from.
Populations merged
Short-, medium- and long-range inputs are combined into one dataset even though they should stay separate, which hides differences in how the business performs over each horizon.
No evidence trail
The working papers do not keep the underlying extracts, dates, reviewer notes or approval trail, so no one can show how the figures were checked before sign-off.
Where judgement is often needed
Set the reporting perimeter for bought-in and sold businesses
Use the same organisational boundary you apply for the rest of the climate narrative, explain any acquisition or disposal cut-off that changes the picture, and note where the resilience story is based on a different perimeter from the prior period.
Choose one way to handle country-by-country climate assumptions
Where local operations face different weather, regulation or market conditions, group them using a clear common basis or split them where that better reflects the business, then explain the basis used and why it is the most faithful fit.
Decide how to treat sites, assets or activities that sit near the boundary
State whether marginal operations, joint arrangements, leased assets or other borderline items are included, excluded or treated separately, and explain the practical rule used so readers can see what sits inside the analysis.
Fix the time horizon for each resilience view
Link the short-, medium- and long-range assessments to your own planning horizons, keep the cut-offs consistent across the narrative, and disclose any change in timing basis from one period to the next.
Separate modelled outputs from observed evidence
Make clear which parts of the resilience assessment come from measured performance, which come from estimates or assumptions, and where judgement fills gaps because direct evidence is not yet available.
Explain the main uncertainty drivers and how they were weighed
Identify the climate, operational or market factors that make the result less certain, describe the assumptions that matter most, and say how those uncertainties affect the confidence you place in the strategy and business model conclusions.
Use a consistent approach when combining different data sources
If the analysis draws on internal records, external datasets or expert views, describe how you reconciled them, what hierarchy you used when they conflicted, and whether any source was updated or restated for comparability.
Round and aggregate without hiding material differences
Apply a clear rounding rule and, where privacy or sensitivity means you cannot show site-level detail, aggregate enough to protect people or assets while still giving a faithful view of the resilience outcome.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity generation and supply
We used climate scenario work to test how our assets, supply chain and customer service would hold up under hotter summers, more flooding and tighter policy settings, and the results show that our current plan remains workable but needs extra investment in network hardening and flexible generation. - Those findings changed our medium-term capital allocation, our site design standards and our fuel mix assumptions, and our transition plan now includes resilience actions that support the business case for those changes. - The main areas where judgement remains open are the pace of policy change, the cost and timing of grid upgrades, and the extent to which extreme weather could disrupt maintenance windows; we judge our ability to cope as strong over the next 12 months, moderate over the next 3–5 years, and dependent on further adaptation measures over the longer horizon.
This synthetic example shows how to explain the outcome of climate scenario work, the knock-on effects for strategy and operating model, the way the transition plan supports resilience, the main uncertainties left open, and a plain-language view of adaptation strength across short, medium and long horizons.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing and packaging
Our scenario review indicates that water stress, heatwaves and supply interruptions could affect raw material availability and plant throughput, so we have adjusted sourcing, storage and process cooling plans to keep the company viable under those conditions. - In response, we have reworked our product mix, supplier contracts and site investment programme, and the transition plan now helps fund measures that make those changes more robust. - The biggest unknowns are regional water regulation, crop yield volatility and the speed at which suppliers can adapt; we assess our current ability to respond as adequate in the short term, improving in the middle period, and still requiring further upgrades over the long term.
This synthetic example shows how to describe the practical outcome of scenario work, the implications for strategy and the business model, how the transition plan contributes to resilience, where uncertainty remains, and how adaptation capacity can be described over three time horizons without using the standard’s wording.
How companies report E1-3 in practice
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Ferrovial SE
Construction and Engineering · Netherlands · 2024
Ferrovial SE’s 2024 Integrated Annual Report includes references to its resilience analysis and the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on its business, strategy, and financial planning, notably on pages 83 and 291. The report mentions climate resilience and mitigation strategies and processes for identifying and assessing material climate-related impacts, risks, and opportunities (p.81, p.291). However, the disclosures are unclear and do not provide a definitive or detailed description of these processes or a clear transition plan, with several datapoints not found or only partially addressed.
Redeia Corporación, S.A.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Spain · 2025
Redeia Corporación’s 2025 report provides some evidence related to its ability to adjust to climate-related challenges, as noted on page 43. The report includes references to a transition plan for climate change mitigation and outlines climate change actions and targets, such as a zero emissions goal for 2050 and interim targets for 2030, mentioned on pages 42, 47, 49, and 148-149. However, the report lacks clear, direct disclosures on specific narrative items related to business conduct, quality of supply, innovation, or the linkage between strategy and business model, with only unclear context found on page 18 and no quotable evidence elsewhere.
Pirelli & C. S.p.A.
Automobiles and Components · Italy · 2025
Pirelli & C. S.p.A.'s 2025 Annual Report includes evidence of analysis conducted using the Group’s Climate strategy and business model to strengthen resilience to climate change, as noted on page 152. The report also references identification of climate-related issues and greenhouse gas emissions management policies on page 118. However, several narrative items relevant to the disclosure are not found or lack quotable evidence elsewhere in the report.
✓ 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 E1-3?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 run a climate stress test showing that repeated heatwaves could reduce output at one site and raise cooling costs, while a second site is less exposed. The draft report currently lists the test result but does not explain what it means for the group’s operating model.
QHow should the preparer turn that analysis into a clear narrative for the disclosure?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Set out the main findings from the climate stress test, then explain what they mean for the organisation’s strategy and operating model. The write-up should connect the resilience assessment to practical business consequences, such as which parts of the business are more exposed and whether any changes to operations, assets or sourcing are being considered.
Why this matters · The analysis is not enough on its own; the reader also needs to see what it means for the business and how management plans to respond.
A utility group has used several climate scenarios, but one of them gives very different results depending on assumptions about regulation, technology costs and customer behaviour. The team is unsure whether to mention that uncertainty because the figures are still being refined.
QWhat should the preparer do about the areas where the outcome is still highly uncertain?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Describe the main areas where the assessment is less certain, rather than presenting the results as more precise than they are. The disclosure should make clear which assumptions or inputs create the biggest doubt, so users can understand where the resilience view is strongest and where it is still developing.
Why this matters · Be open about the limits of the analysis; uncertainty is part of the picture and should be explained plainly.
A food producer has a transition plan covering energy efficiency, electrification and supplier changes. Management believes the plan will also help the business cope with drought and supply disruption, but the draft only describes emissions reductions and omits any link to resilience.
QHow should the preparer handle the relationship between the transition plan and climate resilience?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Explain whether, and in what way, the transition plan supports the organisation’s ability to withstand climate-related pressures. If the plan strengthens resilience through measures such as more efficient operations, lower dependence on vulnerable inputs or better flexibility in the supply chain, that connection should be described in the narrative.
Why this matters · If the transition plan also helps the business cope with climate risk, that link should be made visible rather than left implicit.
A property group has assessed resilience over the near, middle and longer horizons. The short-term view suggests manageable flood risk, but the longer-term view points to possible asset impairment and relocation costs; the team is tempted to summarise everything in one sentence to save space.
QHow should the preparer present the organisation’s ability to adapt across different time horizons?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Separate the discussion by time horizon and explain the organisation’s capacity to adjust in each period. The short, middle and longer-term views may differ, so the disclosure should show how the business expects to cope now, what it can do in the medium run, and whether its longer-term adaptation remains credible.
Why this matters · Resilience can change over time, so the assessment should be shown across the relevant horizons rather than blended into one generic statement.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
Transition plan for climate change mitigation → Guide ✓Internal carbon pricing → Guide ✓Anticipated financial effects from material physical and transition risks and potential climate-related opportunities → Guide ✓Identification of climate-related risks and scenario analysis → Guide ✓Policies related to climate change mitigation and adaptation → Guide ✓Actions and resources in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation → Guide ✓Show all 10 related disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
How do I use the E1-3 page to draft a climate resilience disclosure from scratch?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the listed datapoints. Use the draft-output section to turn your notes into narrative, visuals and a content-index line.
What data do I need to collect for ESRS E1-3 climate resilience analysis?+−
The page points you to resilience analysis results, strategy and model impacts, scenario-based response, transition plan resilience, key uncertainty areas, and near-, mid- and long-term adaptation capacity. Use those headings as your data collection checklist before drafting.
How should I set the scope and methodology for the E1-3 disclosure?+−
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation guidance to define what is in scope, how the resilience analysis is being approached, and how scenario-based response is being assessed. Keep the method consistent with the datapoints you plan to disclose and document any key uncertainty areas.
Who should own the E1-3 climate resilience disclosure in practice?+−
The page is designed for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person coordinating those inputs and evidence. Use the workbook to assign tasks and track who is responsible for each datapoint and evidence item.
What should go into the evidence pack for E1-3 assurance readiness?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk and evidence. Build the pack around the specific datapoints, the method used, and the supporting records that show how the disclosure was prepared.
What are the common mistakes to avoid when preparing an E1-3 disclosure?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a pre-submission check. In practice, the main risk is leaving the disclosure too generic or failing to back up the resilience story with evidence and a clear method.
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for E1-3?+−
The downloadable workbook is there to help you organise preparation and assurance work in one place. Use it to capture the datapoints, assign ownership, track evidence, and check the six assurance claims before turning the material into a draft.
What can I take from the synthetic illustrative example for E1-3?+−
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure can be written up. Treat it as a drafting aid only and adapt the structure and level of detail to your own data and evidence.
How do I turn E1-3 data into a draft disclosure text?+−
Use the draft-output section for visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That section is meant to help you convert your prepared data into a readable draft without starting from a blank page.
Where can I find real company examples of climate resilience reporting for E1-3?+−
The page has a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed. Use those links as practical reference points for style and presentation, not as a substitute for your own evidence.
More questions this page can help with
E1-3 climate resilience disclosure checklist for sustainability managersWhat evidence do I need for ESRS E1-3 climate resilience analysis?How to assign ownership for E1-3 climate resilience data collectionE1-3 scenario-based response and transition plan resilience data pointsHow to use the E1-3 Prep & Assurance workbook downloadE1-3 common reporting gaps and mistakes to avoidHow to write a draft climate resilience disclosure for E1-3What should an assurance reviewer check in an E1-3 evidence pack?E1-3 narrative starters and content-index line examplesWhere to find company report examples for E1-3 climate resilienceHow to document key uncertainty areas for E1-3E1-3 near-term mid-term long-term adaptation capacity data
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63171 pages with page-level citations
272 practitioner guides
Free · LRA Community
Get your E1-3 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 →