Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it uses time horizons when describing sustainability-related risks and opportunities. In practice, that means being clear about whether it is looking at the short, medium and long term, and how those periods are defined for the organisation’s own reporting and decision-making.
The practical focus is on consistency and usefulness: the organisation should show that its time-horizon approach is applied across the business, not just to a few headline sites or projects. The aim is to help readers understand how the organisation thinks about timing, prioritisation and coverage when it reports sustainability information.
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 s1-30-b-c sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Set out what your organisation means by the long-term horizon.
Set out what your organisation means by the medium-term horizon.
Set out what your organisation means by the short-term horizon.
Explain how those time horizons connect with planning, strategy, and capital allocation cycles.
Show how risks and opportunities are assigned to the relevant time horizon.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundaries first: decide which business areas, time bands and decision processes are in scope for this disclosure, so the rest of the work is built on one agreed frame.
2Write your own plain-language definitions for the three time bands you use, making clear what each one means for your organisation rather than relying on generic labels.
3Show how those time bands connect to your planning, strategy and capital spending cycles, so a reader can see how the chosen horizons fit real management decisions.
4Map each identified risk or opportunity to the relevant time band, and keep the mapping consistent with the definitions you have set out.
5Gather the supporting material behind each statement: internal papers, planning documents, approval records, analysis notes or other evidence that shows how the definitions and mappings were reached.
6Before publishing, check the final wording and figures against the official source, and record any exclusions, judgement calls or changes made during preparation so the trail is clear.
Request the data
Request the horizon definitions and planning-cycle links
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How does the business define each time horizon, and how do those horizons connect to planning, strategy and capital allocation cycles, including the mapping of risks and opportunities to each horizon?
Use your organisation’s own labels first (for example, planning cycle, forecast window, investment cycle, risk register periods), then map them to short, medium and long horizons for reporting. Keep the request in the language your team already uses, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the short, medium and long term definitions and the related disclosure evidence.
Why it fails: It uses framework-style wording and does not tell the owner what internal documents, labels or mapping detail to return. That makes it harder for the business team to answer in its own language and easier to miss the planning and capital-allocation links.
Better request
Please send the organisation’s own horizon labels, the time span attached to each one, and the documents that show how those horizons are used in planning, strategy and capital allocation. Also include how risks and opportunities are grouped against each horizon, using your normal internal terms.
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 organisation has set its own short, medium and long planning periods, and note the basis used to connect those periods to strategy, budgeting and capital allocation.
Context note
Set out what the horizon split means in practice by showing how the organisation groups risks and opportunities across different planning periods and why those groupings matter for decision-making.
Fluctuation statement
If the balance across horizons has changed, explain whether that reflects a revised planning approach, a shift in strategy or capital allocation, or a different view of where risks and opportunities sit over time.
Content index entry
s1-30-b-c Time horizons — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for s1-30-b-c — 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 asked
The team chases a central reporting contact instead of the business lead who actually sets the planning periods and risk timing in day-to-day operations.
Framework language used
People ask for the answer in disclosure terms rather than the organisation’s own planning labels, so the source team cannot map the three time bands cleanly.
Scope left vague
No one states which business units, products, geographies, or planning processes are in scope, so the collected timing definitions do not line up across the pack.
Wrong timing basis
The data pull uses a different reference date or planning cycle from the one used in the business, which makes the horizon labels inconsistent with the source records.
Counting basis mixed
One team measures horizons by calendar years while another uses internal planning cycles, and the two bases get blended into one set of figures or labels.
Source labels stripped out
The original names from the planning deck, risk register, or capital plan are removed, so reviewers cannot trace each horizon back to the exact source wording.
Separate populations merged
Short-, medium-, and long-range items are combined into one list even though they should stay distinct for mapping risks, opportunities, and planning links.
Evidence trail missing
The file contains the extracted text but not the supporting date, owner, version, or sign-off record, so the team cannot show where the data came from or who approved it.
Where judgement is often needed
Choosing the cut-off dates for each time band
Set the three time bands using the dates your business actually uses for planning, investment and capital decisions, then explain the basis if those dates do not line up neatly across teams or business units.
Aligning group-wide timing where local cycles differ
If different countries or divisions work to different planning calendars, pick one consistent basis for the report or explain how you translated local timing into a single group view.
Handling a business bought or sold during the year
Decide whether the new or disposed activity sits inside the reporting perimeter for the whole period or only from the transaction date, and disclose the approach so readers can see how the horizon mapping was built.
Treating activities that sit on the boundary of scope
Where a risk or opportunity is partly inside and partly outside the reporting perimeter, apply a clear rule for inclusion and explain any judgement used for borderline cases.
Using estimates where direct measures are not available
When you cannot measure a timing assumption or horizon link directly, use a reasonable estimate, say so plainly, and describe the main inputs and limits behind it.
Rounding and small differences in horizon totals
Choose one rounding method for the horizon descriptions and mappings, apply it consistently, and explain any small differences that arise from rounding or aggregation.
Protecting sensitive detail in the horizon mapping
If naming a specific site, customer group or population would create privacy or confidentiality issues, group the data at a higher level and explain the aggregation used.
Reconciling different internal labels for the same horizon
If teams use different names or time bands for the same planning period, map them to one set of short, medium and long views and disclose the translation rule you used.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Utilities
We describe our planning windows as follows: short term covers the next 12 months, medium term runs from year 2 to year 5, and long term extends beyond year 5. These horizons are built into our annual budget, three-year operating plan and five-year investment programme, so decisions on maintenance, grid upgrades and financing are reviewed against the same time bands. - We map near-term operational issues such as outage risk and input-cost pressure to the short-term window, medium-range transition and regulatory changes to the medium-term window, and major system resilience and decarbonisation choices to the long-term window. - In this illustration, 40% of identified risks and 30% of identified opportunities sit in the short-term window, 35% of risks and 45% of opportunities sit in the medium-term window, and 25% of risks and 25% of opportunities sit in the long-term window.
This example shows how a reporter can explain its time bands in plain language, connect them to planning and capital decisions, and show how risks and opportunities are spread across those bands.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Consumer goods manufacturing
Our short horizon is the next 12 months, our middle horizon is years 2 to 4, and our longer horizon is years 5 to 10. We use those same periods in our product roadmap, annual budget and multi-year factory investment review, so pricing, packaging and automation choices are assessed against the relevant time frame. - In this illustration, supply disruption and margin pressure are treated as short-horizon matters, consumer preference shifts and compliance changes as middle-horizon matters, and brand repositioning plus plant decarbonisation as longer-horizon matters. - Of the 20 risks we identified, 9 are short term, 7 are medium term and 4 are long term; of the 12 opportunities we identified, 5 are short term, 4 are medium term and 3 are long term.
This example shows a different sector using its own planning cycle language while still explaining the time bands and how issues are assigned to each one.
How companies report s1-30-b-c
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 provides definitions for short and long term horizons, linking these to its strategy for managing climate-related risks and opportunities, with references on pages 188, 189, 192, and 194. The report also connects these timeframes to the company’s planning horizons used in strategic decision-making (p.192). However, there is no clear definition of the medium term or explicit mapping of risks and opportunities to these time horizons found in the report.
Enel Chile S.A.
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Chile · 2025
Enel Chile S.A.'s 2025 Integrated Annual Report provides a clear definition of the long-term horizon as more than 10 years (p.174). However, definitions for the medium term and short term are either missing or unclear; while some related context on short- and medium-term strategy alignment is mentioned (p.100), no explicit medium-term definition is found. Additionally, the report offers some context on risk and opportunity horizon mapping and links to planning and capital allocation cycles, but these disclosures lack clarity and precision (pp.101, 105).
MTR Corporation
Ground Transportation — Railroads · Hong Kong · 2025
MTR Corporation’s Sustainability Report 2025 provides evidence that planned investments are incorporated into the Corporation’s capital planning, linking sustainability considerations to planning and capital allocation cycles (p.84). The report also references short-term horizons of 1-5 years in relation to climate risks such as extreme weather events (p.84). However, the report does not provide clear definitions of short, medium, or long-term timeframes, nor does it explicitly map risks and opportunities to these horizons.
✓ 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 s1-30-b-c?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 preparer is drafting the climate section for a year-end report. The team has three internal planning buckets: next 12 months, years 2 to 5, and beyond year 5, but the labels used in treasury papers do not match the wording in the draft note.
QHow should the team decide what counts as the near, middle and further-out periods, and what should they do if their internal labels differ from the way the report explains them?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Use the organisation’s own business planning logic to set out what it means by the near, middle and further-out periods, then describe those periods in a way that fits the report and is consistent with how management plans and allocates capital. If the internal labels are different, the team should translate them into clear report language rather than copying the treasury wording, and check the source material before sign-off.
Why this matters · The time bands should be explained in the organisation’s own terms and tied to how it actually plans and invests.
A company has identified a supply-chain disruption risk that could affect margins within 18 months, and a market-shift opportunity that may only become relevant after four years. The draft currently places both items in the same period because they are both discussed in the same strategy paper.
QShould the preparer keep both items in one period, or separate them according to when each one is expected to matter?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑They should separate the items according to when each one is expected to affect the business. A risk or opportunity belongs in the period that matches its expected timing, so the 18-month issue should sit in the nearer period and the four-year item in the later one, even if both appear in the same strategy paper.
Why this matters · Timing drives the mapping: each risk or opportunity should be linked to the period when it is expected to become relevant.
A finance team has drafted a note saying the short period is ‘the next reporting year’, the middle period is ‘the strategic review cycle’, and the long period is ‘the rest of the business plan’. The wording is internally familiar, but the board papers use different cycle lengths for investment decisions and product development.
QWhat should the preparer do before finalising the description of the periods?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑They should make sure the description of each period reflects the organisation’s actual planning, strategy and capital allocation cycles, not just familiar shorthand from one set of papers. If the board uses different cycle lengths for different decisions, the report should explain the chosen basis clearly and consistently, then be checked against the source material before approval.
Why this matters · The period definitions need to align with the organisation’s real decision-making cycles, not just internal jargon.
A group report includes a table that maps each climate-related risk and opportunity to a time band, but one item is shown as both ‘near term’ and ‘medium term’ because different teams gave different views. The narrative also defines the periods, but the mapping table does not match that narrative.
QHow should the preparer resolve the inconsistency between the period definitions and the mapping table?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑They should bring the mapping table into line with the period definitions used in the narrative, so each risk or opportunity is shown in the period that best matches its expected timing. If a matter genuinely spans more than one period, the report should explain that clearly rather than leaving conflicting labels in place, and the final version should be checked against the source before sign-off.
Why this matters · The definitions and the mapping must work together; inconsistent labels should be corrected or explained, not left unresolved.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
IFRS / ISSB
s1-30-b-c
within IFRS-S1: IFRS S1 - General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information
Open official source →Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
For s1-30-b-c, what data points do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare long-, medium- and short-term horizons, the planning cycle link, and the risk and opportunity horizons. Use that list as your starting data checklist before you draft anything.
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for s1-30-b-c in practice?+−
Use it as a working sequence to move from scoping the disclosure to gathering the listed datapoints and then shaping a draft. The page is designed as a practitioner guide, so it is meant to help you organise the work rather than replace your own process.
What should I include in the evidence pack for s1-30-b-c if I want to be assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside five assurance claims to verify. Build your pack around the claim, the related risk, and the supporting evidence so a reviewer can trace the draft back to source material.
What are the five assurance claims on the s1-30-b-c 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 your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is complete enough for review.
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes on the s1-30-b-c page, and how do I avoid them?+−
The page lists common gaps and mistakes to help you spot weak drafting before sign-off. A practical way to use that section is to compare your draft against the listed pitfalls and check that the horizons, planning-cycle link and evidence are all covered.
How do I turn the s1-30-b-c page into a first draft disclosure?+−
The page gives you draft-output support, including visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. Use those to turn the prepared data into a structured draft, then check it against the evidence pack and the common mistakes list.
Can I use the synthetic illustrative example on the s1-30-b-c page as a template for my own disclosure?+−
Yes, but only as an example of how the disclosure can be presented. The page says the example is synthetic, so you should adapt the structure to your own data and make sure any numbers in your draft are internally consistent.
How should I use the quantitative table in the synthetic example for s1-30-b-c?+−
Treat it as a presentation aid, not as a source of requirements. It shows how quantitative information can be laid out in the example disclosure, which can help you format your own draft once your data is ready.
Who should own the data for the long-, medium- and short-term horizons in s1-30-b-c?+−
The page does not assign ownership for you, but it is intended for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers to use together. In practice, you should assign ownership to the people who can source, explain and evidence each horizon and the planning-cycle link.
How do I use the Download Centre workbook for s1-30-b-c?+−
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 checks, and the PDF if you want a quick reference copy.
What is the point of the 'From company reports' table on the s1-30-b-c page?+−
It links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed, so you can see how others have handled the topic in practice. Use it as a reference point when shaping your own draft, not as a substitute for your own evidence and methodology.
How does the ESRS 2 correspondence on the s1-30-b-c page help me reuse data across frameworks?+−
The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS 2 (General Disclosures), which can help you spot where the same underlying data may be reusable. It does not say the requirements are identical, so you still need to check the other framework separately.
More questions this page can help with
s1-30-b-c disclosure checklist for long-term, medium-term and short-term horizonsHow to evidence the planning cycle link for s1-30-b-cWhat evidence pack do I need for s1-30-b-c assurance readinesss1-30-b-c common mistakes and reporting gapsHow to use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s1-30-b-cs1-30-b-c draft disclosure example narrative starterss1-30-b-c content index line exampleHow to assign ownership for s1-30-b-c data collectionCan I reuse s1-30-b-c data for ESRS 2 General Disclosuress1-30-b-c synthetic example table how to read itWhere to find company report examples for s1-30-b-cs1-30-b-c assurance claims claim risk evidence
Free · LRA Community
Get your s1-30-b-c 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 →