Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how exposed its activities are to transition risk by using a metric that shows where the business is more or less vulnerable as the economy shifts. In practice, it is about identifying which parts of the organisation could be affected by changes such as policy, technology, market demand or customer expectations, and presenting that exposure in a way that is understandable and decision-useful.
The practical focus is on coverage and comparability across the organisation, not just on a few headline sites or the most visible operations. An organisation should think about whether the metric reflects the full business, how it is broken down by relevant parts of the value chain or operations, and whether it helps users see concentrations of vulnerability rather than only an overall average.
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 s2-29-b sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Set out the basis used to judge where vulnerability lies.
Show any concentrations by location, asset class, and time horizon.
State each figure as a share of the whole.
Identify the assets or activities that are vulnerable.
How to prepare it
1Set the boundary first: decide which parts of the business, assets and activities are in scope for this vulnerability assessment, and keep that scope consistent with the official source you are working from.
2Agree the definitions you will use for what counts as vulnerable, including how you will treat location, asset class and the relevant time period, so the same rules are applied throughout.
3Gather the supporting records before drafting the disclosure, such as internal registers, valuation files, exposure analyses and any other source material that shows how the figures or narrative were built.
4Prepare the disclosure content in the form needed for reporting: explain the basis used for the assessment, identify any vulnerable assets or activities, and present the concentration information and the share of the total where relevant.
5Record any exclusions, assumptions or changes in method clearly, so a reviewer can see what was left out, why it was left out, and whether anything changed from the prior approach.
6Check the final wording and numbers back against the official source material, confirming that the scope, definitions, evidence and reported amounts all align before sign-off.
Request the data
Request the transition-risk exposure data
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which assets or activities are most exposed to transition-related risk, how is that exposure grouped, and what share of the total does it represent?
Use your organisation’s own labels first, then map them to the reporting wording. For example, ask for the team’s existing portfolio, asset, site, product, project, or activity categories rather than using framework terms in the request.
Weak request
Please provide the transition-risk vulnerability metric for the group.
Why it fails: It uses framework language without telling the owner what internal records to pull, what categories to use, or what numbers and splits are needed. It is too vague to trace back to source data or to check the basis used.
Better request
Please provide the current analysis of which assets, sites, projects, or activities are most exposed to transition-related risk for [period] and [boundary]. Use your own category names, show the currency value exposed, the total reference value, the share of total, and any split by region, asset type, or timing. Include the source file and the basis used to judge exposure.
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 identify exposed assets or activities, including the criteria applied, the way locations and asset types were grouped, and the time periods used for the assessment.
Context note
Set out what the figures mean in practice by showing how much of the portfolio or activity base is considered exposed, where that exposure is concentrated, and which parts of the business are most affected.
Fluctuation statement
If the numbers moved materially, point to the main drivers, such as changes in the asset mix, a shift in geographic concentration, or a different view of the relevant time horizon.
Content index entry
s2-29-b Transition-risk vulnerability metric — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for s2-29-b — 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
A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong owner
Chasing the sustainability team alone leaves the metric without the finance, asset, or operations owner who actually holds the underlying figures.
Framework language first
Asking for the data in technical reporting terms instead of the business’s own labels makes teams search the wrong reports and slows collection.
Scope left vague
Not pinning down which sites, assets, activities, or business lines are in scope leads to an incomplete or inconsistent population.
Timing basis mixed up
Pulling figures from different cut-off dates or reporting periods means the numbers no longer relate to the same point in time.
Counting basis mixed
Combining headcount, value, area, or other bases in one extract without separating them produces figures that cannot be compared cleanly.
Source labels stripped out
Copying values into a summary sheet without the original report names, field labels, or system references makes later tracing back to source records difficult.
Populations merged too early
Putting vulnerable assets and vulnerable activities into one bucket before checking them separately hides where the exposure actually sits.
Evidence trail missing
Collecting the numbers without file dates, version notes, and reviewer sign-off leaves no clear audit trail for how the data was assembled.
Where judgement is often needed
Set the assessment base after a buy-in or sale
Use the reporting group that is in place at the cut-off date, explain whether newly acquired or sold operations are included or removed, and keep the same approach when you work out the share of exposed assets or activities.
Choose one country rule where local definitions differ
If the same activity is described differently across jurisdictions, pick a single internal rule for classifying exposure, explain the mapping you used, and show how that rule was applied consistently across the portfolio.
Decide how to treat borderline assets or activities
State whether items that only partly fall within the vulnerable set are counted in full, in part, or excluded, and explain the threshold or judgement used so users can see how the total was built.
Fix the timing point for the numbers
Make clear whether you used opening balances, closing balances, an average, or another date basis, and explain why that timing best reflects the exposure picture for the period.
Separate measured amounts from estimates
If some values come from direct records and others from modelling or management estimates, identify which is which, describe the main assumptions, and explain any material gaps in source data.
Keep the percentage and value bases aligned
Use the same population and the same cut-off for both the share of total and the currency amount, or explain any difference so readers can reconcile the two figures.
Round in a way that still reconciles
Set and disclose a rounding rule that does not distort the total or the percentage, and if rounding creates a small difference, explain it in the note.
Aggregate enough to protect sensitive location data
Where a detailed split by place, asset type, or time period could expose confidential information, combine categories to a safer level, say what was grouped, and keep the method consistent.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity generation
We assessed where climate stress could most affect our thermal fleet by combining flood maps, heat-stress projections and outage history, then ranking assets by expected interruption risk over the next 10 years. The most exposed assets were 6 gas-fired plants and 2 substations in coastal and riverine locations, representing 8 of our 20 operating sites (40%). - By location, 5 of the exposed sites are in the south-east and 3 are in the north-west; by asset type, 6 are generation plants and 2 are grid substations. - All 8 exposed sites sit in the short-to-medium term risk window we use for planning, and together they account for 40% of our operating asset base.
This example shows how to explain the method used to identify exposure, then summarise where the vulnerable assets sit, what kinds of assets they are, and how much of the total portfolio they represent.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food manufacturing
We screened our production network using water-stress forecasts, supplier disruption data and asset criticality scores to identify where climate-related pressure could interrupt output. On that basis, 12 of our 30 facilities are classed as vulnerable, with 7 in water-scarce regions and 5 in flood-prone areas; by asset type, 9 are processing plants and 3 are cold-storage hubs. - The vulnerable set is concentrated in the medium-term planning horizon, covering 12 sites in total, which is 40% of our facility base. - We use this assessment to prioritise resilience work for the sites most likely to face operational disruption.
This example shows a different sector using a different screening basis, while still covering the method, the main concentrations, the asset types affected, the time horizon used, and the share of the total base.
How companies report S2-29-b in practice
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Hang Lung Properties Limited
Real Estate · Hong Kong · 2025
Hang Lung Properties Limited’s Sustainability Report 2025 provides covered data on the percentage and amount of assets or business activities vulnerable to climate-related transition risks and aligned with climate-related opportunities, as detailed on page 231. The report also includes some context on the basis of vulnerability assessment and concentrations by geography, asset type, and time horizon, but these disclosures are unclear and not explicitly detailed (pp. 216, 231). Notably, while the report references climate-related risk management processes and materiality assessments, it does not clearly specify the time horizons or fully disclose the basis for vulnerability assessments.
SITC International Holdings Company Limited
Water Transportation · Hong Kong · 2025
SITC International Holdings Company Limited’s 2025 Environmental, Social and Governance Report includes a basis of vulnerability assessment that involved a diverse range of climate-related scenarios addressing both transition and physical risks, as noted on page 195. The report references the use of climate-related scenarios aligned with specific criteria (p.195) and discusses potential compliance costs related to environmental regulations (p.107). However, the report does not provide clear disclosures on the concentrations of vulnerable assets by geography, asset type, or time horizon, nor does it specify the percentage of total assets vulnerable, with related information either missing or unclear (p.195).
COSCO SHIPPING Ports
Water Transportation — Ports and Services · China / Hong Kong · 2025
COSCO SHIPPING Ports’ Sustainability Report 2025 provides evidence on the amount and percentage of assets or business activities vulnerable to climate-related transition risks, as noted on page 72. The report also includes related context on the basis of vulnerability assessment and concentrations by geography, asset type, and time horizon, but these disclosures are unclear and not explicitly detailed (pp.71-72). Notably, there is no clear disclosure of the percentage of total assets vulnerable to these risks.
✓ 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 s2-29-b?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 group owns a portfolio of warehouses and processing sites. Its climate team has split the portfolio into sites exposed to policy change, sites exposed to market shift, and sites with no material exposure, and has also grouped the exposed sites by region and expected timing of impact.
QHow should the team decide what basis to use for the vulnerability metric, and what supporting breakdown should sit behind it?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Use the method the organisation actually applied to judge which assets or activities are more exposed to transition pressures, then describe the main concentration patterns that came out of that review. The explanation should make clear whether the clustering is by location, by asset class, by when the pressure is expected to bite, or by a combination of those factors. Keep the wording tied to the internal assessment approach and the resulting hotspots, rather than a generic label.
Why this matters · Explain both the assessment basis and the main concentration pattern in plain business terms.
A preparer has calculated that 18% of the company’s vulnerable assets sit in one country, 12% in another, and the rest are spread across several smaller locations. The same analysis also shows that most of the exposure is in one asset type and in the near term.
QWhat should be checked before finalising the narrative and the percentage figure?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Check that the percentage is linked to the same population used in the vulnerability analysis and that the concentration story matches the numbers. The location split, asset-type split, and timing split should all be consistent with the underlying dataset, so the reader can see where the exposure sits and how much of the total it represents. If any subset is being highlighted, it must still fit within the full total.
Why this matters · The percentage and the concentration breakdown must reconcile to the same analysed total.
A finance team has identified vulnerable equipment worth £240 million out of a £1.2 billion asset base. It also wants to mention that £90 million of that vulnerable amount is in one region and £60 million is tied to a single asset class.
QHow should the team present the value measure so it is clear and internally consistent?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑State the vulnerable amount as a currency figure and show the share of the relevant total alongside it. In this example, £240 million is 20% of £1.2 billion, so the percentage should align with that denominator. The regional and asset-class amounts can be added as concentration detail, but they must not exceed the £240 million vulnerable total.
Why this matters · Show the vulnerable value and its share of the total, with any sub-breakdowns fitting inside that amount.
A business has two transition-risk hotspots: one is a set of older production lines in a coastal area, and the other is a group of distribution assets that may be affected later than the production lines. The team is unsure whether to describe the exposure by geography first or by asset type first.
QWhat is the best way to frame the disclosure so it remains useful to readers?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Lead with the way the organisation assessed the exposure, then describe the main clusters in the order that best reflects the evidence. If geography is the clearest driver, say that; if asset type or timing is more informative, use that instead. The aim is to show where the vulnerable assets or activities sit and how they are grouped, not to force them into a fixed sequence.
Why this matters · Use the clearest evidence-led grouping, and make the concentration pattern easy to follow.
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 s2-29-b in practice using this page?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the four datapoints listed for this disclosure. The page is designed to help you move from data gathering to a draft output, with workbook and library-card downloads to support the process.
What data do I need to collect for s2-29-b?+−
The page says to prepare four datapoints: vulnerability basis, exposure concentration profile, share of total, and at-risk assets and activities. Use those as the core data set before you draft the disclosure or build any visuals.
How should I set the scope and methodology for s2-29-b?+−
Use the step-by-step preparation section to work out what is in scope and how each datapoint is being built. The page also points you to common reporting gaps, which is useful for checking whether your method is consistent and complete.
Who should own the data for s2-29-b in my organisation?+−
The page is set up for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with whoever can evidence the underlying data and explain the method. Use the workbook to assign tasks and keep the evidence pack aligned to the owner of each datapoint.
What should go into the evidence pack for s2-29-b assurance?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, plus five assurance claims to verify. Build the pack around the claim, the risk it addresses, and the supporting evidence so a reviewer can trace the numbers back to source.
What are the common mistakes to avoid when drafting s2-29-b?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a final check before sign-off. It is especially useful for spotting missing datapoints, weak explanations, or a draft that does not line up with the evidence pack.
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s2-29-b?+−
The workbook is there to help you prepare the disclosure and organise assurance evidence in one place. Use it alongside the step-by-step guidance to track the datapoints, claims, and supporting documents needed for a draft.
What can I take from the synthetic example disclosure for s2-29-b?+−
The page includes synthetic illustrative examples, including a quantitative table, to show what a finished disclosure can look like. Treat them as drafting aids only and make sure any figures in your own version are internally consistent.
How do I turn the s2-29-b data into a draft narrative and content index line?+−
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line to help you turn prepared data into a report-ready draft. Use those prompts to keep the narrative tied to the datapoints and evidence you have collected.
Can I reuse the s2-29-b data for ESRS E1 climate reporting?+−
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across frameworks where your internal definitions and scope line up. Do not assume the reporting asks are identical; use the page as a practical bridge, not a substitute for checking the other framework.
More questions this page can help with
s2-29-b disclosure checklist for vulnerability basis and exposure concentration profiles2-29-b share of total data collection templates2-29-b at-risk assets and activities evidence packs2-29-b assurance claims and supporting evidences2-29-b common reporting gaps and mistakess2-29-b workbook download how to uses2-29-b printable library card pdfs2-29-b synthetic example disclosure tables2-29-b draft narrative starterss2-29-b content index line examples2-29-b step-by-step preparation guides2-29-b ESRS E1 data reuse
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63171 pages with page-level citations
247 practitioner guides
Free · LRA Community
Get your s2-29-b 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 →