Disclosure LibraryPractitioner guidance for every reporting disclosure

Home→ Disclosure Library→ IFRS / ISSB→ IFRS S1→ s1-30-b-c

IFRS S1: General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information · 2024

Paragraphs 30–b–c

Time horizons

Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify the information to prepare, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official IFRS source.

◍ Open official IFRS source Compare real reports → ↗ Share

···

Under review Editorial review in progress Prepared from official source material and published report evidence Use alongside the official IFRS source while human review is in progress.

Real report See how 3 companies report this ↓

E.SUN Financial Holding Company, Ltd.

Also seen in

Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd.

SITC International Holdings Company Limited

To prepare this disclosure

5preparation fields↓ 5claims to verify↓ 5evidence areas↓ 3report examples↓

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.

Have we settled what counts as the near, mid and longer periods for this business, using our own planning language rather than a framework label? Can we point each period to a real source, such as the planning cycle, strategy timetable or capital plan, so the dates are traceable? Have we agreed which risks and opportunities sit in which period, so the mapping is clear before drafting? Are the period definitions consistent with the way management already plans and allocates capital, or do we need to align them first? Do we have evidence for the basis used to set each period, so the figures or dates can be checked back to a source?

Preparation

Key information to prepare

Preparation field What to capture Evidence hint Owner

Long-term horizon The organisation’s own plain-language definition of what it treats as the long-term period for this report, including the time span it uses and any internal basis for that choice. Board paper, reporting policy, strategy note, or other internal document that sets the organisation’s long-term time frame. Strategy / reporting

Medium-term horizon The organisation’s own plain-language definition of the medium-term period used in the report, with the time span and any internal rationale or rule used to define it. Reporting policy, planning calendar, strategy deck, or similar document showing the medium-term time frame used internally. Strategy / reporting

Short-term horizon The organisation’s own plain-language definition of the short-term period used for the report, including the time span it applies and how the organisation sets it. Internal reporting guidance, planning timetable, or strategy document that states the short-term time frame. Strategy / reporting

Planning cycle link How the organisation connects its horizon definitions to its planning, strategy and investment decision cycles, including which internal cycles sit behind each time frame. Strategy process map, capital planning calendar, budgeting timetable, or board materials showing the link between horizons and decision cycles. Strategy / finance

Risk and opportunity horizons The organisation’s mapping of each material risk and opportunity to the time horizon it uses for reporting, showing which items sit in each period. Risk register, opportunity log, scenario analysis, or reporting schedule that assigns items to the organisation’s horizon buckets. Risk management / strategy

＋ 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.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for horizon definitions and planning links

Dear [Name],

Could you please share the material your team uses to describe the business time horizons for [reporting period]? We need the wording your team already uses for the near, mid and longer-range periods, plus the way those periods connect to planning, strategy and capital allocation.

Please also include how key risks and opportunities are grouped or tagged against each horizon.

A possible LRA training template for the return would be:
- your internal label for each horizon
- the time span attached to each label
- where each horizon is used in planning or investment decisions
- how risks and opportunities are linked to each horizon
- the source document or system reference
- the date and owner of the information

Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms rather than using reporting language. We will map it to the disclosure wording after receipt and check the official source before sign-off.

Many thanks,
[Your name]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [Name] — could you send over the team’s horizon labels and the planning/investment docs that show how they link to budget, strategy and capital decisions? Also need the way risks/opportunities are tagged to each horizon. Please use your normal internal terms; we’ll map them afterwards.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A capital-intensive group uses annual budgets, a three-year operating plan and a ten-year asset renewal view.

Adapted request. Please share the labels you use for the budget year, the rolling plan and the long-range asset view, plus the documents showing how each one feeds investment approvals and how plant risks are tagged to each period.

Example response. Budget year = 12 months; rolling plan = 3 years; long-range asset view = 10 years. Budget and rolling plan feed monthly performance reviews and capex approvals; long-range view supports major replacement decisions. Risks are tagged in the plant risk register by the same three periods.

Retail

Context. A retailer manages weekly trading, a 12-month forecast and a multi-year store rollout plan.

Adapted request. Please provide the internal names for the trading, forecast and rollout horizons, and show how they link to store investment decisions, supply chain planning and the way opportunities and risks are grouped by period.

Example response. Trading horizon = current financial year; forecast horizon = next 12 months; rollout horizon = 2-5 years. The forecast horizon is used for stock and labour planning; the rollout horizon is used for store investment cases. Opportunities are tagged in the pipeline by forecast or rollout period.

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

01XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints, risks, evidence to check, owner and evidence pack.Get it free ↧ 02XLSData-request packRequest email, message template, response fields and sign-off structure.Get it free ↧ 03PDFLibrary CardPrintable one-page summary of this disclosure card.Get it free ↧

Go deeper · s1-30-b-c

Learn to prepare this disclosure end-to-end

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.

Explore the IFRS S1 & S2 course →

Assurance readiness

For each claim, check the evidence

ClaimRiskEvidence to check

We set out what we mean by the near, middle and further-out time periods before we prepared the figure.The time bands may be arbitrary, inconsistent with internal planning, or changed without explanation.A documented definition note showing the three time bands, the approval trail, and any internal policy or methodology paper used when drafting the disclosure.

We aligned those time bands with the planning periods we use for strategy and investment decisions.The stated periods may not match the organisation’s actual planning and capital allocation cycle, or may have been chosen after the fact to fit the disclosure.Strategy papers, budget or investment cycle documents, planning calendars, and any cross-reference showing how the reporting periods were matched to internal decision-making horizons.

We mapped each sustainability-related risk or opportunity to the period in which its effect is expected to arise.Items may have been assigned to the wrong period, or the mapping may not reflect a reasonable expectation of timing.The risk/opportunity register, timing assessments, working papers showing the basis for each period assignment, and review notes from the preparer and reviewer.

We used the same period definitions consistently across the disclosed operations and the related analysis.Different teams may have used different interpretations, creating inconsistency across the disclosure.A controlled methodology document, version history, and sample checks showing the same period labels were applied consistently across the relevant sections and source files.

Before publication, we checked that the narrative on timing matched the underlying records and internal approvals.The published wording may not agree with source evidence, or may omit a key caveat or assumption.Final draft sign-off, evidence of management review, reconciliation between the disclosure text and source documents, and any issue log showing how queries were resolved.

Evidence pack to prepare

The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosureA methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and preparedSource-system exports the figures or facts were drawn fromThe internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publicationMinutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation

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.

＋ Show 5 more− Show fewer

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.

＋ Show 5 more− Show fewer

Examples

Illustrative examples

Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Consumer goods manufacturing

We define our planning windows as follows: short term covers the next 12 months, medium term runs from year 2 to year 3, and long term starts in year 4 and beyond. These time bands are aligned to our annual budget, three-year operating plan and five-year capital programme, so the board and management can connect risks and opportunities to the period in which they are expected to affect cash flow, margins or investment decisions.
- Near-term issues are mainly operational disruption, input-cost volatility and compliance changes.
- Mid-range issues are product mix shifts, efficiency gains and supplier resilience.
- Longer-range issues are portfolio repositioning, decarbonisation investment and market transition effects.

This example shows how a reporter can explain its own time horizons, tie them to planning and investment cycles, and map material risks and opportunities to each horizon without using standard wording.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Infrastructure services

Our short horizon is the next 12 months, our middle horizon is years 2 to 4, and our longer horizon is year 5 onward. We use those bands in our annual operating plan, four-year asset plan and rolling capital review, so the company can decide when to spend, defer or redesign projects and can show which issues sit in each period.
- In the short horizon, the main exposures are service interruptions, labour availability and permit timing.
- In the middle horizon, the main themes are asset renewal, contract repricing and technology upgrades.
- In the longer horizon, the main themes are network redesign, climate adaptation and changes in customer demand.

This example demonstrates a different set of time bands and a different planning cycle, while still linking each horizon to the relevant risks and opportunities in a clear narrative form.

Company reportsReal published reports

Compare side by side →Get it free

How companies report S1-30-b-c in practice

Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.

E.SUN Financial Holding Company, Ltd.

Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Taiwan · 2024

Open report →

E.SUN Financial Holding Company, Ltd.'s 2024 Sustainability Report defines short-term as less than one year, medium-term up to 2030, and long-term up to 2050, with these definitions explicitly stated on page 44. The report provides some related context on page 47 but does not clearly link these time horizons to planning strategy or capital allocation cycles. Notably, there is no evidence found regarding the definition of medium term beyond the stated timeframe or any mapping of risks and opportunities to these horizons.

Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd.

Construction and Engineering · South Korea · 2025

Open report →

Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd.'s 2025 Sustainability Report provides a clear link to planning strategy and capital allocation cycles, defining short-term as approximately one year, mid-term as one to five years, and long-term without a precise duration on page 31. However, the report does not clearly define the medium-term and short-term horizons elsewhere, and the definition of long-term is mentioned but remains unclear on page 138. Additionally, there is no evidence found regarding risk and opportunity horizon mapping in the report.

SITC International Holdings Company Limited

Water Transportation · Hong Kong · 2025

Open report →

SITC International Holdings Company Limited’s 2025 Environmental, Social and Governance Report includes references to short, medium, and long-term horizons in the context of managing climate-related and sustainability-related risks and opportunities, with a specific link to planning horizons used for strategic and capital allocation purposes (p.192, p.194). However, the report does not provide clear or explicit definitions for short, medium, or long-term periods, with the long-term definition being unclear and no definitions found for short or medium terms. Additionally, there is no evidence of risk or opportunity horizon mapping in the report.

✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop

Ask the 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

Relevant IFRS / ISSB requirements and related disclosures

Available framework references and nearby disclosures relevant to preparing this requirement.

IFRS / ISSB

s1-30-b-c

within IFRS S1: General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information

Open official source →

Primary

Related & explore

Fair presentation →Materiality →Reporting entity →Connected information →Core content architecture →Browse all disclosures →

More in IFRS S1 →Browse full catalogue →Disclosure Library home →Search all disclosures →

Go deeper · s1-30-b-c

Learn to prepare this disclosure end-to-end

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.

Explore the IFRS S1 & S2 course →

FAQ

Questions this page answers

For s1-30-b-c, what data points do I need to gather before I draft the disclosure?+−

The page says to prepare long-term, medium-term and short-term horizons, plus the planning cycle link and the risk-and-opportunity horizons. Use those as your starting data set before you write the narrative.

How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for s1-30-b-c?+−

Use it as a working sequence for collecting the right inputs, checking scope, and turning them into a draft. The page is designed to help you prepare the disclosure rather than just describe it.

What should I include in the evidence pack for s1-30-b-c to be assurance-ready?+−

The page provides an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness. Build your file around those items so a reviewer can trace the claim, the risk, and the supporting evidence.

What are the five assurance claims I need to verify for s1-30-b-c?+−

The page says there are five assurance claims to verify, each tied to a claim, risk and evidence check. Use that structure to test whether your draft is supportable before it goes out for review.

What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes on the s1-30-b-c page?+−

The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you spot weak drafting, missing data or unclear support. Use that list as a pre-submission check before you finalise the disclosure.

How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s1-30-b-c?+−

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the preparation steps, evidence and assurance checks before you draft the disclosure.

What is the printable Library Card for s1-30-b-c for?+−

The Download Centre also includes a printable Library Card in .pdf format. It is there as a practical companion to the page content when you are working through the disclosure.

Can I use the synthetic example disclosure on s1-30-b-c as a model for my own draft?+−

Yes, the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table where relevant. Treat them as examples of how to present the information, not as real company data.

How do I turn the s1-30-b-c page content into a draft disclosure?+−

The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. Use those to shape the wording and structure once your data and evidence are ready.

What should I check before I send s1-30-b-c for assurance?+−

Check that your horizons, planning cycle link and risk-and-opportunity horizons are populated, and that your evidence pack matches the five assurance items on the page. Also review the common gaps and mistakes list before sign-off.

How does the s1-30-b-c page relate to ESRS 2, and can I reuse the data?+−

The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS 2 (General Disclosures). You can treat that as a cross-framework reference point and reuse data where it fits your reporting process, but the page does not say the requirements are identical.

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.

	Report A	Report B	Report C
Datapoint 1	✓ p.213	unclear	✓ p.87
Datapoint 2	✓ p.214	—	✓ p.90

Members see the full datapoint coverage map — ✓ with page references — across 3 real reports, in the companies' own words.

First name Last name

Work email

Phone (optional) Organisation (optional)

Free to join. We'll only use your details to set up your membership — you'll finish a short onboarding in your Cabinet.

✓

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 →

Time horizons

Key information to prepare

How to prepare it

Request the horizon definitions and planning-cycle links

Notes that turn data into a disclosure

Preparation tools & forms

For each claim, check the evidence

Evidence pack to prepare

Common reporting gaps

Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data

Where judgement is often needed

Illustrative examples

How companies report S1-30-b-c in practice

Scenarios to work through

Relevant IFRS / ISSB requirements and related disclosures

Questions this page answers

Get in touch