Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it has thought about resilience in relation to sustainability-related risks and opportunities. In practice, that means describing whether and how the organisation has assessed its ability to withstand, adapt to, and continue operating through those matters over time, rather than simply listing the risks themselves.
The practical focus is on the organisation’s own judgement and evidence of resilience across the business as a whole. It should not be limited to a few flagship sites or isolated examples unless those are genuinely representative; the explanation should reflect the parts of the organisation that matter most to understanding how resilient the wider operations, strategy, and business model are.
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 s1-41-42 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Set out what the results mean for the organisation’s strategy and operating model.
State the main assumptions used in the assessment.
Describe the approach used, including scenario analysis where that is relevant.
Summarise the non-numeric findings from the assessment.
Provide any figures or ranges from the assessment, where relevant.
Specify the period over which the assessment was carried out.
Confirm whether a resilience check was completed.
How to prepare it
1Set the assessment boundary first: decide which parts of the business, which time period, and which future outlook you are covering, so the response is anchored to one clear scope.
2Agree the working definitions before you start drafting: confirm what you will treat as the relevant business effects, the assumptions behind the assessment, and the method you used to reach the result, including whether a scenario-based approach was used where that applies.
3Gather the support behind the assessment: collect the papers, models, calculations, management papers, and other source material that show how the conclusions were reached and what evidence sits behind them.
4Prepare the actual disclosure content: write the narrative on how the assessment affects strategy and the operating model, state the main assumptions, explain the approach taken, and include the qualitative conclusions together with any numbers or ranges where they are relevant.
5Record any limits or changes clearly: note any exclusions, judgement calls, changes in approach, or updates to assumptions so readers can see what was left out and what moved since the last assessment.
6Check the draft back to the source material: make sure the final wording matches the underlying evidence, the assessment period, and the official source, and confirm that the disclosure says whether a resilience assessment was carried out.
Request the data
Request the resilience assessment evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Has the business tested how the current strategy and operating model hold up under different future conditions, and what did it find?
Use your organisation’s own language first, then map it to the disclosure terms. For example, if your teams talk about stress tests, outlook reviews, business planning scenarios, or long-range planning, use those labels in the request and only translate them later for reporting.
Weak request
Please provide the resilience disclosure evidence for the sustainability report, including whether the entity performed a resilience assessment, the method used, assumptions, time horizon, qualitative findings, quantitative findings or ranges, and implications for strategy and business model.
Why it fails: This is too close to reporting language and does not tell the owner what internal material to pull. It also mixes disclosure labels with the practical evidence source, so the recipient has to translate the ask before they can respond.
Better request
Please send the latest strategy or planning pack that tested how our current plan holds up under different future conditions for [business unit] and [period]. Include the internal method name, horizon, assumptions, main findings, any numbers or ranges, and the file version/date/owner. If your team uses different labels, keep them in your own terms and I’ll map them later.
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
Set out the basis of the review by naming the approach used, the period covered, the main assumptions applied, and whether the business tested resilience at all.
Context note
Explain what the results mean for the business by linking the findings to strategy and the operating model, and by summarising both the narrative and numerical outputs.
Fluctuation statement
If the results changed materially, point to the assumptions, time period, or method choices that drove the shift, and note whether the business impact became stronger or weaker.
Content index entry
s1-41-42 Resilience — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for s1-41-42 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
The information is presented without a date or as-at point.The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong owner
The request goes to the board pack owner or another unrelated team, so the person who actually ran the assessment never confirms the facts.
Framework words instead of business terms
The data request uses technical labels from the reporting framework, and the operational team cannot map them to the way they describe the work internally.
Scope left vague
No one states which part of the business, which activities, or which assessment cycle the data should cover, so different teams send different slices of information.
Wrong timing basis
The team pulls figures from a different period or cut-off than the one used for the assessment, which makes the evidence and the narrative inconsistent.
Mixed counting basis
Headcounts, totals, and ranges are combined without agreeing the same counting rule first, so the numbers cannot be reconciled cleanly.
Source labels lost
Original file names, system tags, or document references are stripped out during collation, making it hard to trace each point back to the source.
Separate populations merged
Data for different business units, scenarios, or assessment horizons is rolled together even though it should stay separate for analysis.
Evidence trail incomplete
The pack is assembled without the supporting notes, version history, or sign-off record needed to show who checked the inputs and when.
Where judgement is often needed
Choosing the assessment cut-off after a deal or disposal
Set a clear cut-off date for the review period, explain whether newly bought or sold operations were included, and note any material change in the picture because the group boundary moved.
Aligning local business units that use different risk labels
Use one internal mapping where country teams describe the same issue in different ways, disclose the translation rule you applied, and explain any areas where local wording could not be matched exactly.
Deciding how to handle operations near the edge of scope
State the inclusion rule for sites, entities or activities that sit just inside or outside the review perimeter, and explain any exclusions or partial coverage that could affect the result.
Picking the basis for the assessment period
Make clear whether the review uses the latest year-end position, an average over the period, or another stated cut-off, and explain why that basis best fits the way the business is run.
Using modelled outputs versus direct measurements
Say where the conclusion comes from estimates, proxy data or scenario modelling rather than direct observation, and describe the main assumptions and any known limits on confidence.
Rounding and presentation of ranges
Apply one rounding rule consistently across the disclosure, explain it if it affects the headline result or range, and avoid presenting precision that the underlying data do not support.
Aggregating sensitive workforce or customer information
Combine small or sensitive data groups where needed to protect privacy, explain the aggregation rule, and note any effect on the level of detail available for the resilience view.
Reconciling different time horizons used in the review
If short-, medium- and longer-term views are assessed separately, explain how each horizon was defined, how they were compared, and which horizon drove the main conclusion.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity generation
We carried out a forward-looking check of how our business would hold up under a low-carbon transition and a hotter, drier climate, and we found the current plan remains workable but needs earlier investment in grid flexibility and water-efficient cooling. - We tested two pathways over a 10-year and a 30-year view, using scenario-based modelling with assumptions on carbon prices, power demand, plant availability, rainfall, and the pace of policy change. - The review showed earnings before interest and tax could be 6% to 11% lower than our base case by year 10, while capital spend on adaptation and system upgrades would rise by 14% to 19%; even so, we judged the core operating model to remain viable. - This is a synthetic illustration only, and it shows that we completed a resilience check, set out the main assumptions, described the approach, and explained both the strategic effect and the numerical outcome.
Illustrative only: shows a resilience check, the method used, the assumptions behind it, the time periods assessed, and the effect on strategy and numbers.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Retail banking
We tested whether our lending and funding model would still work under a severe recession and a disorderly shift to lower-emission activity, and the review showed the core franchise remains resilient but would require tighter credit controls and a faster move away from exposed sectors. - We used stress testing across a 3-year and a 7-year horizon, with assumptions on unemployment, house prices, deposit outflows, default rates, and the speed of customer switching. - Under the stressed paths, the common equity tier 1 ratio stayed within 12.4% to 13.1%, compared with 13.6% in our central view, while expected credit losses rose by 18% to 27%; the findings point to manageable pressure rather than a change to the overall business model. - This synthetic example confirms that we performed the review, explains the method and assumptions, and sets out the practical implications together with the range of results.
Illustrative only: shows that a resilience review was done, how it was done, the assumptions used, the periods covered, and the effect on the business model plus the numerical range.
How companies report s1-41-42
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 includes coverage of the time horizon used in its resilience assessment (p.195) and confirms that a resilience assessment of the organisation’s strategy was performed (p.184). However, the report provides only unclear disclosures regarding the implications for the company’s strategy and business model, key assumptions underpinning the assessment, the use of scenario analysis methods, and qualitative findings related to progress on plans (pp.115, 187, 193, 195). Notably, no quantitative findings or ranges relevant to the disclosure were found in the report.
MTR Corporation
Ground Transportation — Railroads · Hong Kong · 2025
MTR Corporation’s 2025 Sustainability Report shows that a resilience assessment was performed, with findings from a materiality assessment reviewed and endorsed by the Executive Committee and Board-level E&SRC (p.13). The report references strategic relevance and alignment with the company’s long-term business strategy (p.7), and mentions scenario-based assessment of physical climate risks, though without clearly disclosing the time horizon of this assessment (p.83). Notably, the report does not provide clear disclosures on key assumptions, methods used such as scenario analysis, or qualitative and quantitative findings.
✓ 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 s1-41-42?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 reporting team has tested how the business would cope if carbon costs rise faster than planned and a key supplier is delayed for six months. The draft note says the company is 'well placed for the future' but does not explain what was tested or what changed in the plan.
QShould the disclosure spell out the assessment approach, the main assumptions, and what the test means for the strategy and operating model?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Yes. The write-up should explain whether a resilience check was carried out, describe the method used, set out the main assumptions, and then link the findings back to the strategy and business model in plain terms. If the team used a forward-looking stress test or similar tool, that should be identified, and the result should show what parts of the plan look robust and what parts may need adjustment.
Why this matters · A resilience disclosure should connect the testing approach to the practical effect on strategy and the way the business is run.
A finance team has modelled two future paths over a five-year period: one with stable demand and one with a sharp fall in sales in year three. The paper includes the numbers, but it does not say which assumptions drove the outcome or whether the result was a single figure or a range.
QHow should the team present the findings so readers can understand the judgement behind them?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The team should explain the key assumptions that shaped the assessment and present the outcome in a way that matches the analysis. If the result is not a single point estimate, a range is acceptable, provided it is clear what the range represents and why it was used. The explanation should make it possible to see how the assumptions feed into the conclusion about resilience.
Why this matters · Readers need to see both the assumptions and the form of the result so they can judge how robust the conclusion is.
A preparer has only done a qualitative review because the business has not yet built a full numerical model. The draft says the company 'considered resilience' but gives no time period and no detail on what the review found.
QCan the disclosure stop at a general statement, or does it need to say more about the period assessed and the nature of the findings?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑It needs more than a general statement. The disclosure should say whether a resilience assessment was performed, identify the time period covered, and summarise the qualitative outcome in a way that is useful to users. If no numerical output is available, the narrative still needs to explain what the review showed about the business's ability to cope with the conditions considered.
Why this matters · Even when the assessment is mainly narrative, the period covered and the substance of the findings still need to be clear.
A group has run a scenario exercise and found that, under one adverse path, margins fall by 8% in year two and capital spending must be delayed by 12 months. The draft report mentions the numbers but does not explain whether the exercise was actually used to assess resilience or how the result affects the business model.
QWhat should the preparer check before finalising the note?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The preparer should confirm that the method is described in a way that shows how the assessment was done, not just the numbers produced. If scenario analysis was the tool used, that should be made clear, along with the main assumptions, the quantitative outcome or range, and the practical implications for strategy and the business model. The note should read as an assessment of resilience, not just a list of outputs.
Why this matters · A good disclosure shows the method, the assumptions, the result, and the business implications as one connected story.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
IFRS / ISSB
s1-41-42
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 s1-41-42, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare seven datapoints: strategy impacts, planning assumptions, assessment method, assessment findings, assessment ranges, assessment period and the resilience check. Use those as your starting checklist before you write anything.
How do I use the step-by-step preparation section for s1-41-42 in practice?+−
Use it as a working sequence for getting the disclosure ready rather than as a final answer template. The page is designed to help you move from scoping and data collection to a draft disclosure.
Who should own the s1-41-42 inputs in my organisation, and how do I assign them?+−
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can source and explain each datapoint. The practical approach is to assign each item in the prep list and evidence pack to a named owner before drafting.
What evidence do I need to keep for s1-41-42 so the disclosure is assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk and evidence. Use those to build a file that shows where each datapoint came from and how it was checked.
What are the six assurance claims I should test when preparing s1-41-42?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, organised around claim, risk and evidence. It does not list them in the page content provided here, so you would need to use the workbook or the page itself to see the exact claims.
What are the common mistakes or reporting gaps to avoid in s1-41-42?+−
The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is meant to help you spot weak or missing inputs before you finalise the disclosure. Use it as a pre-submission check against your draft and evidence pack.
How do I turn the s1-41-42 data into a draft disclosure?+−
The page includes draft-output support such as visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That means you can use the prepared datapoints to build a first draft rather than starting from a blank page.
What should I put in the s1-41-42 evidence pack for assurance review?+−
The page says the evidence pack has five items, but the page content provided here does not list them individually. In practice, use the workbook and the assurance section together so each datapoint is backed by a clear source and check trail.
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s1-41-42?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is intended to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use it to organise the datapoints, ownership, evidence and draft output before you finalise the disclosure.
Can I use the printable Library Card PDF to brief colleagues on s1-41-42?+−
Yes — the Download Centre includes a printable Library Card in PDF format, so it is suitable for sharing the page’s key points with colleagues. It can help align data owners and reviewers on what needs to be prepared.
Is there a real company report example I can look at for s1-41-42?+−
Yes — the page includes a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed. Use those links as reference points for how others have presented similar information.
How does s1-41-42 relate to ESRS 2, and can I reuse the same 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 is relevant, but the page does not say the requirements are identical.
More questions this page can help with
s1-41-42 disclosure checklist for ESG managers1-41-42 data points to collect before draftings1-41-42 who should own strategy impacts and planning assumptionss1-41-42 assurance evidence pack templates1-41-42 common mistakes in sustainability reportings1-41-42 workbook download how to uses1-41-42 synthetic example disclosure tables1-41-42 narrative starters and content index lines1-41-42 resilience check how to documents1-41-42 assessment method and assessment findingss1-41-42 assessment period and assessment rangess1-41-42 ESRS 2 data reuse
Free · LRA Community
Get your s1-41-42 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 →