Zum Kern der Offenlegung springen
Kostenlos · Community-Mitglieder
＋ 6 weitere anzeigen− Weniger anzeigen
＋ 6 weitere anzeigen− Weniger anzeigen
Echte veröffentlichte Berichte
Bericht öffnen →
Bericht öffnen →
Bericht öffnen →
✓ LRA KI-Assistent · Mit menschlicher Kontrolle
Offizielle Quelle öffnen →
Explore the IFRS S1 & S2 course →
IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures·Paragraphs 25–a
Climate-risk processes and policies
Praxisleitfaden für die Erstellung dieser Offenlegung. Mit dieser Karte bestimmen Sie die vorzubereitenden Angaben, prüfen Aussagen und ordnen die Nachweise. Für die genauen Anforderungen ziehen Sie stets die offizielle IFRS-Quelle heran.
Veröffentlichter Steckbrief
Prüfung ausstehend
···
In Prüfung
Redaktionelle Prüfung läuft
Erstellt auf Basis offizieller Quellen und Belegen aus veröffentlichten Berichten. Es ist noch keine freigebende Person erfasst, daher trägt diese Seite keine Autorenzeile.
Nutzen Sie sie zusammen mit der offiziellen IFRS-Quelle, solange die Prüfung läuft.
Standard
IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Paragraphs 25–a · 2024
Zuletzt geprüft
—
LRA-Lehrmaterial · Nicht von IFRS herausgegeben oder gebilligt
Für diese Offenlegung
Kern der Offenlegung
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain the processes and policies it uses to identify, assess and manage climate-related risks. In practice, the report should show how climate risk is built into decision-making, what internal rules or procedures are in place, and who is responsible for applying them. The emphasis is on describing the organisation’s approach clearly, rather than listing isolated actions.
The practical focus is usually on whether these processes and policies apply across the whole organisation, including relevant operations, business units and locations, rather than only at a few flagship sites. A useful explanation would make clear the scope of coverage, any differences between parts of the business, and how consistently the approach is applied in day-to-day management.
Dieses LRA-Lehrmaterial unterstützt die Erstellung der Offenlegung. Für die genauen Anforderungen ziehen Sie stets die offizielle IFRS-Quelle heran.
Bevor Sie beginnen
Bevor Sie beginnen
Eine kurze Checkliste, bevor Sie diese Offenlegung erstellen — haken Sie jeden Punkt ab, sobald er geklärt ist.
Vorbereitung
Wichtige vorzubereitende Angaben
| Vorbereitungsfeld | Was zu erfassen ist | Nachweishinweis | Verantwortlich |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year-on-year changes | Record what changed since the last reporting cycle, with enough detail to show the movement and the reason it changed. | Prior-year submission, current-year working papers, and a short change log signed off by the reporting owner. | Reporting / Finance |
| Source systems and boundary | Set out which systems, files, and business areas feed the datapoint, and exactly which entities, sites, or populations are included or left out. | Data lineage note, system extracts, boundary memo, and reconciliation to the in-scope population list. | Data / Reporting |
| Review frequency | State how often the datapoint is checked or refreshed, and whether that timing is monthly, quarterly, annual, or event-driven. | Monitoring plan, control calendar, and evidence of the last few review dates. | Reporting / Controls |
| Relevant controls and rules | Describe the internal rules, procedures, and controls that govern how the datapoint is produced, checked, and approved. | Policy documents, process maps, control descriptions, and approval records. | Policy / Controls |
| Selection and ranking logic | Explain how items are chosen, ranked, or filtered for inclusion, including the decision rules used to decide what matters most. | Methodology note, scoring model, ranking criteria, and examples of recent selections. | Risk / Reporting |
| Risk cut-offs | Capture the thresholds, bands, or trigger points used to decide when an issue is treated as higher or lower risk. | Risk matrix, threshold table, approved methodology, and any calibration notes. | Risk / Controls |
| Scenario analysis use | Describe how scenario analysis is used to identify risks, including which scenarios are considered and how the results feed into risk identification. | Scenario analysis paper, risk assessment output, and meeting notes showing how scenarios informed the risk register. | Risk / Strategy |
＋ Teilelemente von s2-25-a anzeigen (LRA-Arbeitscheckliste)
Explain any year-on-year changes in the figures or information you report.
State where the data comes from and what boundary or coverage it includes.
Set out how often you review or track the matter.
Describe the policies or procedures you use to manage it.
Show the basis you use to decide what gets attention first.
Set the criteria or cut-offs you apply to judge risk.
If you use scenarios to spot risks, explain how they feed into that assessment.
So bereiten Sie es vor
Set the boundary first: decide which parts of the business, value chain, or reporting period are in scope for this disclosure, and make that choice clear in your working papers.
Define the terms you will use for the report: explain what counts as a relevant source of information, what sits inside the scope, and how you will treat any screening, ranking, or scenario-based inputs used to identify risks.
Gather the support behind each point: keep the underlying records that show the information came from the chosen sources, the monitoring rhythm used, and the policies or procedures that guide the process.
Build the disclosure from those records: prepare the figures or narrative so it reflects the way risks were identified, the criteria or cut-offs applied, and the logic used to decide what was prioritised.
Record anything that changed or was left out: note differences from the previous year, explain exclusions, and describe any shifts in sources, scope, methods, or assumptions so the reader can follow the trail.
Check the draft against the official source before sign-off: confirm the wording, scope, and evidence line up with the standard and that nothing material has been missed or overstated.
Daten anfordern
Request the climate-risk process evidence from Risk
Übersetzen Sie die Offenlegung in eine interne Geschäftsfrage — und passen Sie diese dann an die Sprache Ihrer Organisation an.
How do we currently identify, assess, prioritise, monitor, and update climate-related risks, and what changed since last year?
Use your organisation’s own names for risk frameworks, control cycles, review forums, and scenario work first; then map them to the disclosure fields below. Keep the ask in business language that your risk team already uses, and check the official source before sign-off.
Schwache Anfrage
Please provide the climate-risk policies and processes disclosure evidence.
Warum sie scheitert: This uses framework language only, so the owner may not know which internal documents, systems, or review cycles to pull. It also does not specify scope, period, source, or the exact business questions needed to assemble the evidence.
Bessere Anfrage
Please send the latest pack your team uses to identify, rank, and review climate-related risks for [reporting period], including the documents, register extracts, committee papers, and scenario notes that show the scope covered, review cadence, ranking logic, thresholds or triggers, and what changed since last year.
Vorlage für eine formelle E-Mail
Subject: Request for climate-risk process evidence for [reporting period] Hi [name], Could you please share the current evidence pack for how [business / group / function] identifies, reviews, and updates climate-related risks for [reporting period]? Please include, in your team’s own terms: - the main process or policy documents used; - the data inputs and scope covered; - how often the review happens; - the logic used to rank or filter risks; - any thresholds, triggers, or escalation points; - how scenario work is used when spotting risks; and - what changed compared with the prior year. If the information sits across a register, slide deck, procedure, or committee paper, that is fine — please send the source files or links and note where each item can be found. A possible LRA training template is attached below for reference only; please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Kurzfassung für Teams / Slack
Hi [name] — could you send over the latest climate-risk process pack for [reporting period]? Please include your team’s own wording for the process/policy, data inputs and scope, review frequency, ranking logic, thresholds/triggers, scenario use, and what changed since last year. Source docs or links are fine. Thanks.
Branchenbeispiele
Manufacturing
Kontext. A plant-heavy group wants evidence from operational risk and EHS teams covering sites, utilities, and supply chain disruption.
Angepasste Anfrage. Please share the current site-risk pack for [reporting period] showing how the business spots and reviews climate-related risks across plants and logistics. Include the process note, site scope, review cadence, ranking rules, escalation triggers, scenario inputs used in screening, and any changes since last year.
Beispielantwort. Attached: Group risk procedure v4 dated [date]; site risk register extract for 12 plants; quarterly risk committee slide deck; scenario screening note using severe heat and flood cases; change log showing a new supplier-disruption trigger added this year.
Financial services
Kontext. A lender wants evidence from enterprise risk and credit risk teams covering portfolio screening and governance review.
Angepasste Anfrage. Please send the latest portfolio risk pack for [reporting period] showing how climate-related risks are identified and prioritised across the lending book. Include the internal policy note, portfolio scope, review cadence, rating or filtering logic, thresholds for escalation, scenario use in screening, and what changed since the prior year.
Beispielantwort. Attached: Climate risk policy note v3; portfolio scope summary by business line; monthly monitoring dashboard; credit screening rules; committee paper showing a revised sector threshold and updated scenario set compared with last year.
Offenlegung entwerfen
Notizen, die aus Daten eine Offenlegung machen
LRA-Schulungsvorlagen — passen Sie sie an Ihre Organisation an und prüfen Sie vor der Freigabe die offizielle Quelle.
Methodenhinweis
Set out the basis used to prepare the disclosure, including the definitions applied, the data inputs relied on, the scope covered and the review rhythm used to keep the information current.
Kontexthinweis
Explain what the figures are intended to show in practice: how the organisation identifies climate-related risk, what drives the ranking of issues, and how the chosen thresholds and scenario work shape the results.
Erläuterung zu Schwankungen
If there are notable year-on-year movements, describe whether they come from changes in the underlying data, the scope of what was included, the way risks were assessed, or the timing of the review process.
Eintrag im Inhaltsindex
s2-25-a Climate-risk processes and policies — [location / page] / [notes]Download-Center
Werkzeuge & Formulare zur Vorbereitung
Professionelle Vorbereitungswerkzeuge für s2-25-a — kostenlos mit einer LRA Community-Mitgliedschaft. Einmal registrieren (kostenlos) und alle Downloads sind frei — zusammen mit der Disclosure-Bibliothek, den Vorlagen und dem LRA KI-Assistenten.
01XLSArbeitsmappe für Vorbereitung & PrüfungDatenpunkte, Risiken, zu prüfende Nachweise, Verantwortliche und Nachweispaket.Kostenlos herunterladen ↧
02XLSPaket für die DatenanfrageAnfrage-E-Mail, Nachrichtenvorlage, Antwortfelder und Freigabestruktur.Kostenlos herunterladen ↧
03PDFBibliothekskarteDruckbare einseitige Zusammenfassung dieser Offenlegungskarte.Kostenlos herunterladen ↧
Prüfungsbereitschaft
Prüfen Sie zu jeder Aussage die Nachweise
| Aussage | Risiko | Zu prüfende Nachweise |
|---|---|---|
| We explained what changed in our climate-risk process since last year, and we kept the wording focused so it did not repeat other parts of the report. | The assurer may ask whether the year-on-year change is real, complete, and not just a restatement of earlier narrative. | Prior-year and current-year drafts, tracked-change notes, internal change log, board or committee papers showing what was updated, and the final cross-reference map to avoid repetition. |
| We set out the information inputs we used, where they came from, and which parts of the business they covered. | The assurer may probe whether the stated sources are complete, whether any sites, entities or activities were left out, and whether the scope matches the figure presented. | Source register, data lineage or mapping document, scope list of operations included and excluded, system extracts, and sign-off from the owners of the underlying data. |
| We described how often the risk information is reviewed and updated, using the cadence we actually followed in preparation. | The assurer may check whether the stated frequency matches practice and whether any ad hoc reviews or late updates were omitted. | Review calendar, meeting minutes, workflow timestamps, update logs, and evidence of any interim checks before publication. |
| We set out the policies and working steps we used to find, assess, rank and keep track of climate-related risks. | The assurer may test whether the process description is complete, consistent with internal practice, and supported by documented procedures rather than informal habit. | Policy documents, process maps, risk methodology papers, control descriptions, committee packs, and evidence that the described steps were followed in the reporting cycle. |
| We explained how we decide which climate risks come ahead of other risk topics in our internal review. | The assurer may ask whether the ranking approach is actually used, whether it is applied consistently, and whether the report makes clear how climate issues are weighed against other risks. | Risk appetite or ranking framework, enterprise risk register, prioritisation criteria, committee papers showing comparative ranking, and examples of decisions made using that approach. |
| We described the factors we used to judge how serious a risk might be, including the signs we looked for and any cut-offs or scoring rules. | The assurer may probe whether the assessment basis is defined, applied consistently, and supported by evidence rather than judgement alone. | Assessment methodology, scoring matrix, threshold tables, qualitative factor list, worked examples, and review notes showing how the criteria were applied. |
Vorzubereitendes Nachweispaket
Häufige Lücken in der Berichterstattung
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.
Häufige Lücken
Fehler, die Sie bei der Datenerhebung vermeiden sollten
Wrong ownerThe request goes to the wrong team, so the answer comes from a group that does not actually run the climate-risk process or keep the supporting records.
Framework language usedPeople ask for the information in reporting jargon instead of the organisation’s own terms, and the source team cannot map it back to the way they work.
Scope not pinned downThe collector does not state which business areas, entities or activities are in scope, so different teams send data for different populations.
Timing basis mixed upThe team pulls information from the wrong period or uses a different cut-off date from the one used elsewhere, which makes the set inconsistent.
Counting basis blendedInputs are combined even though they were built on different counting methods, so the final figure no longer matches any source record.
Source labels lostOriginal file names, system tags or local labels are stripped away during collection, making it hard to trace each item back to where it came from.
Separate groups mergedData for distinct populations is rolled together when it should stay separate, which hides differences in how the process works across the organisation.
Evidence details missingThe collector saves the answer but not the supporting metadata, so later reviewers cannot see when it was captured, by whom, or from which source.
No approval trailThe draft is passed on without a clear sign-off record, so nobody can show who checked the inputs before they were used.
Wo häufig eine Ermessensentscheidung nötig ist
How to handle a year of portfolio reshapingIf acquisitions, disposals or other boundary moves changed the business mix during the year, explain the cut-off date and whether you restated or left prior-period figures as reported.
Which country rule set to use where local practice differsWhere the same control or threshold is defined differently across jurisdictions, state the rule set you applied, why it was chosen, and whether any local variations were kept separate.
Where to draw the line for near-boundary activitiesFor activities, sites or teams that sit close to the reporting perimeter, set out the inclusion rule you used and disclose any borderline cases that were included or left out.
Whether the process is described on a current or average basisIf the approach changed during the year, say whether you described the position at the reporting date or used an average view, and explain the basis for that choice.
When to use estimates instead of direct recordsIf complete operational records were not available, identify the parts built from estimates, the source data behind them, and the main assumptions used.
How much detail to show after roundingIf figures or counts were rounded, make clear the rounding convention and ensure the narrative still matches the underlying totals and sub-totals.
How to aggregate sensitive location or people dataWhere privacy, security or confidentiality limits the level of detail, group the information at a higher level and explain the aggregation rule so the scope remains understandable.
How to treat a control that is partly outsourcedIf monitoring, review or escalation sits partly with a third party, describe which parts remain in-house, which are outsourced, and how you decided they belong in the process description.
Whether scenario work is used for every risk or only selected onesIf scenario analysis is applied only to certain climate risks, state the selection rule and explain how that links to your prioritisation and threshold setting.
Beispiele
Veranschaulichende Beispiele
Synthetisch, von LRA verfasst — nicht aus einem Unternehmensbericht und kein Text aus einem Standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity utility
*Illustrative only: synthetic example.* We refreshed our climate-risk screening this year after adding two new grid-resilience data feeds, so the set of sites under review rose from 18 to 20 and the share of assets covered moved from 82% to 91%.
- Our checks draw on internal asset registers, outage logs and maintenance records, plus external weather and flood datasets; we review them monthly, with a deeper refresh each quarter.
- We rank issues by likely financial effect, safety exposure and service disruption, and we only escalate items that score 4 or 5 on our five-point scale or that affect more than 10% of a region’s load.
- For identifying risks, we test a 1.5°C orderly transition case and a 3°C physical-risk case; the first is used to spot policy and market shifts, while the second helps us flag assets with repeated flood or heat stress.
This example shows how a reporter can explain what changed since last year, where the information comes from, how often it is checked, how the process works, what gets priority, the trigger levels used, and how different future-path assumptions feed into risk spotting.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food manufacturing
*Illustrative only: synthetic example.* We widened our supplier and factory review this year, moving from 120 to 135 monitored locations and increasing coverage from 76% to 84% of our direct spend.
- The review uses procurement records, supplier questionnaires, incident reports and water-stress maps; we update the core dataset every month and re-run the full assessment twice a year.
- Our process gives first attention to sites with repeated permit breaches, high water use or exposure to heat-related downtime, and we escalate any location that has three or more incidents in 12 months or sits above our 70th-percentile water-risk score.
- To find emerging issues, we test a short-term disruption case and a longer-term scarcity case; the first highlights logistics and labour pressure, while the second helps us identify suppliers likely to face chronic water constraints.
This example demonstrates a narrative disclosure that covers year-on-year movement, the information base and boundary, review frequency, the way the assessment is run, how priorities are set, the thresholds that trigger escalation, and the use of scenario analysis in spotting risk.
Unternehmensberichte
Wie Unternehmen S2-25-a in der Praxis berichten
Beispiele für vollständige und teilweise Berichtspraxis. Es handelt sich um evidenzbasierte Analysen, nicht um Vorlagen zum Abschreiben.
SITC International Holdings Company Limited
Water Transportation · Hong Kong · 2025
SITC International Holdings Company Limited’s 2025 Environmental, Social and Governance Report provides evidence on the data sources and scope used in its sustainability processes, as detailed on page 190. The report also outlines the policies and processes for identifying, assessing, prioritising, and monitoring sustainability-related risks on the same page, and discusses the use of climate-related scenarios in risk identification on page 195. However, the report does not provide information on changes from the prior year, monitoring cadence, prioritisation logic, or risk criteria thresholds.
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
Hotels, Restaurants, Leisure, Tourism Services · China · 2025
Yum China Holdings, Inc.'s 2025 Sustainability Report provides evidence of policies and processes used to identify, assess, prioritise, and monitor climate-related risks on page 48, as well as the use of climate-related scenario analysis to inform risk identification on the same page. However, the report offers only unclear disclosures regarding data sources and scope (p.48), monitoring cadence (p.47), prioritisation logic (p.47), and risk criteria thresholds (p.47). Additionally, there is no found evidence about changes from the prior year.
CJ Cheiljedang Corporation
Food Production — Agricultural · South Korea · 2024
CJ Cheiljedang Corporation’s Sustainability Report 2024 shows that climate-related factors are considered in key company management decisions, with a committee evaluating these issues (p.16). The company conducted a scenario analysis of climate-related physical risks for major manufacturing sites and raw material sources (p.26), and climate-related risks are incorporated into the company-wide risk management framework, with ongoing monitoring and structured response measures (pp.30-31). However, the report does not provide information on changes from the prior year, data sources and scope, monitoring cadence, prioritisation logic, or risk criteria thresholds.
Fragen Sie den Study-Studio-KI-Assistenten zu dieser Offenlegung
Erhalten Sie praxisnahe Antworten für Ihren Berichtskontext. Die ersten beiden Antworten sind kostenlos — treten Sie der LRA Community kostenlos bei, um ohne Limit weiterzumachen.
Ausprobieren
Wie bereite ich s2-25-a vor?
Welche Daten muss ich erheben?
Wo finde ich ein Beispiel aus einem echten Bericht?
Welche Fehler sollte ich vermeiden?
2 kostenlose Antworten
Prüfen Sie Ihr Verständnis
Szenarien zum Durcharbeiten
A group updates its climate-risk playbook after a severe weather season. The risk team has new supplier data, a revised review timetable, and a changed way of ranking issues, but the draft note only says the process was refreshed.
FWhat should the preparer do so the disclosure is useful to readers comparing this year with last year?
Musterantwort anzeigen →Antwort ausblenden ↑
The note should spell out what changed from the previous year in the way the organisation handles climate-risk work, rather than using a vague statement that the process was refreshed. It should make clear which parts of the approach were altered, so readers can see the movement over time.
Warum das wichtig ist · Readers need a clear description of year-on-year movement in the climate-risk approach, not a generic update label.
A finance team wants to describe climate-risk controls using only the central register, because that is the easiest source to pull from. However, the sustainability team also uses site-level logs, board papers and a supplier-screening tool, and those sources cover different parts of the business.
FHow should the preparer decide what to include about the information base and the part of the business covered?
Musterantwort anzeigen →Antwort ausblenden ↑
The disclosure should explain which information feeds the process and what part of the organisation those inputs cover. If more than one source is used, the preparer should describe the main ones and the scope they cover, so the reader understands the basis for the climate-risk work.
Warum das wichtig ist · The explanation should show both the information base and the coverage of that base.
A company reviews climate-risk indicators every month, but only escalates them to senior leaders once a quarter unless a trigger is hit. The draft disclosure says the issue is monitored regularly, without saying how often or what happens between reviews.
FWhat level of detail should the preparer give about the review pattern?
Musterantwort anzeigen →Antwort ausblenden ↑
The preparer should state the review rhythm in plain terms, including how often the issue is checked and whether there are different steps for routine review and escalation. A reader should be able to tell how the monitoring works in practice, not just that it happens.
Warum das wichtig ist · The cadence of review should be understandable from the disclosure, including any different timing for routine and escalated checks.
A risk committee uses a scoring model to decide which climate threats get attention first. The model gives extra weight to operational disruption and legal exposure, and anything above a set score goes into the top tier, but the draft only says the committee prioritises material matters.
FWhat should the preparer explain about the way climate risks are sorted and filtered?
Musterantwort anzeigen →Antwort ausblenden ↑
The disclosure should describe the logic used to rank and filter climate risks, including the main factors and any cut-offs or thresholds that move an item into a higher priority group. That lets readers see how the organisation decides what gets attention first.
Warum das wichtig ist · The prioritisation method should be transparent enough for a reader to understand the ranking rules and any trigger points.
Verweise auf das Rahmenwerk
Einschlägige IFRS / ISSB-Anforderungen und verwandte Offenlegungen
Verfügbare Verweise auf das Rahmenwerk und benachbarte Offenlegungen, die für diese Anforderung relevant sind.
IFRS / ISSB
s2-25-a
innerhalb von IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Verwandtes & Entdecken
Climate-related risks and opportunities → KarteIdentification inputs and industry topics → KarteObjective →Business model and value chain impact → KarteStrategy response and transition plan → Karte
Alle Offenlegungen durchsuchen →
Mehr in IFRS S2 → Gesamten Katalog durchsuchen → Startseite der Disclosure-Bibliothek → Alle Offenlegungen durchsuchen →
FAQ
Fragen, die diese Seite beantwortet
How do I use the s2-25-a page to draft the disclosure from scratch?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section, then use the draft-output section to turn your data into a narrative and content-index line. The page is designed as practitioner guidance, so it helps you move from preparation to a first draft rather than treating it as a formal source.
What data do I need to gather for s2-25-a before I start writing the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare year-on-year changes, source systems and boundary, review frequency, relevant controls and rules, selection and ranking logic, risk cut-offs, and how scenario analysis is used. Use that list as your data request to owners so you can build the disclosure and the evidence pack together.
How should I decide the boundary and source systems for s2-25-a?+−
The page tells you to capture source systems and boundary as part of the preparation data points, so the practical step is to document where the data comes from and what is included before drafting. That makes it easier to explain the scope consistently and support assurance later.
Who should own the inputs for s2-25-a in practice?+−
The page does not assign roles, but it does point you to the data points and the step-by-step preparation process, which you can use to split ownership across ESG, HR, finance, operations, or data owners as relevant to your organisation. The key is to make sure each input has a named owner before you build the draft.
What should go into the evidence pack for s2-25-a assurance?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, so you should use that as the core folder for supporting documents. Pair it with the six assurance claims to verify so each claim has a clear link to a risk and evidence.
What are the six assurance claims on the s2-25-a page and how do I use them?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk, and evidence. In practice, use them as a checklist to test whether your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack covers the main risks.
What are the common mistakes people make when reporting s2-25-a?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful as a pre-submission check rather than a theory page. Review those gaps after drafting to catch missing boundary detail, weak methodology, or unsupported claims before assurance.
How do I use the workbook download for s2-25-a?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is there to help you organise the preparation and assurance steps. Use it alongside the page’s data points, evidence pack, and draft-output section to move from raw inputs to a reviewable draft.
What is the printable Library Card PDF for s2-25-a for?+−
The page offers a printable Library Card in PDF format, which is useful if you want a quick reference during data collection, drafting, or assurance review. It sits alongside the workbook and the page content as a practical support tool.
Can I use the synthetic example on the s2-25-a page as a template for my own disclosure?+−
Yes, but only as a synthetic illustration: the page includes example disclosures and a quantitative table to show how a draft might look. Treat it as a formatting and logic guide, not as a model to copy without replacing it with your own data and boundary.
How does the ESRS E1 correspondence help me with s2-25-a if I already report under ESRS?+−
The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS E1 (Climate Change), so you can use that as a pointer to where related data may already exist. The page does not say the requirements are identical, so treat it as a reuse opportunity for data and evidence, not a one-to-one mapping.
Weitere Fragen, bei denen diese Seite hilft
s2-25-a disclosure checklist for sustainability managers2-25-a data points boundary source systems review frequency controls ruleshow to build evidence pack for s2-25-a assurance readinesss2-25-a common reporting gaps mistakes to avoids2-25-a workbook download prep and assurance xlsxs2-25-a library card pdf printable downloads2-25-a draft narrative starters and content index lines2-25-a synthetic example disclosure tables2-25-a year on year changes how to presents2-25-a scenario analysis use in disclosures2-25-a selection and ranking logic risk cut-offss2-25-a ESRS E1 data reuse climate change
Tiefer einsteigen · s2-25-a
Lernen Sie, diese Offenlegung durchgängig zu erstellen
This guide covers one requirement. The IFRS S1 & S2 Reporting course walks the full ISSB workflow — governance, strategy, risk management and metrics — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Wie diese Bibliothek entsteht
312 veröffentlichte Berichte indexiert
63.171 Seiten mit seitengenauen Fundstellen
272 von Praktikern erstellte Disclosure-Karten
/de/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/s2-25-a/
Kostenlos · LRA Community
Holen Sie sich Ihre s2-25-a-Werkzeuge — kostenlos
Ihre Vorbereitungswerkzeuge sind für Mitglieder der LRA Community und für Studierende kostenlos. Einmal registrieren (kostenlos) und Ihr Download startet sofort — dazu die Disclosure-Bibliothek, Vorlagen und der LRA KI-Assistent.
✓
Willkommen — Ihr Download startet
Ihre Datei wird jetzt heruntergeladen. Auch Ihr Community-Cabinet — mit der Disclosure-Bibliothek, Vorlagen und dem LRA KI-Assistenten — steht bereit.
Cabinet öffnen →