Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how its main governance body is involved in overseeing climate-related matters. In practice, it is about showing whether the board or equivalent body has a real role in climate oversight, rather than leaving climate issues only to management. The report should make clear what that oversight looks like in day-to-day governance terms, such as how often it is considered, what kinds of climate matters are brought to it, and how it connects to wider decision-making.
The practical focus is on the scope and depth of that oversight across the organisation, not just on a flagship site or a single business unit. Readers should be able to understand whether governance covers the whole business, including relevant operations and activities, and whether the oversight is systematic or limited to selected areas. The aim is to show how climate issues are embedded in governance arrangements in a way that reflects the organisation’s actual structure and exposure.
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 information to prepare
＋ Show s2-6-a sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Identify which board-level group or named person is responsible for this area.
Set out the remit or written instructions that define how that group or person operates.
Explain how that group or person checks target-setting and whether pay is tied to those targets.
State how often the board receives updates on this topic.
Describe how that group or person contributes to strategy, major deals and risk oversight.
Explain the process used to assess and build the relevant skills and expertise.
How to prepare it
1Identify the person or group that carries this climate-related oversight role, and make sure you can point to the exact body or named individual you are describing.
2Pull together the formal document that sets out that role, such as the mandate or terms that define what it is meant to do, and confirm the version and date you will rely on.
3Set out the specific areas the role covers in practice: how it watches over targets and any link to pay, how often it reports to the board, and what it does in relation to strategy, deals and risk oversight.
4Gather the evidence that shows how the role is supported by people capability, including the process used to assess or build the relevant skills and competence.
5Assemble the final disclosure so each required point is answered clearly, using either figures or narrative where appropriate, and keep the wording aligned to the underlying records.
6Check for any gaps, exclusions or changes from the source material, then review the draft against the official source to confirm it matches the required scope and does not overstate or omit anything.
Request the data
Request board oversight evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which board-level group or named director is responsible for climate oversight, and what evidence shows how that oversight is set out, reported, and supported?
Use your organisation’s own names first — for example, the board, a committee, a named director, or another governance forum — then map those terms to the disclosure fields. Keep the request in internal language rather than framework wording, and check the source material before sign-off.
Weak request
Please send the governance body information for the climate disclosure.
Why it fails: This is too broad and uses framework language only. It does not tell the owner which internal documents or decisions are needed, so the response may miss the board terms, reporting route, oversight scope, or skills evidence.
Better request
Please send the board or committee documents for [reporting period] that show who oversees climate matters, what their remit says, how often they receive updates, how that oversight covers targets, incentive links, strategy, major transactions, and risk, and how capability is checked or built. Include document title, date, version, and storage link.
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
Describe which board-level person or group is covered, what written remit or governing document defines the role, how often updates are provided, and how you have classified responsibilities such as strategy, major transactions, risk, target monitoring and pay-related oversight.
Context note
Explain that the figures describe how climate matters are embedded in governance, including who receives information, what they are responsible for, and whether the arrangement is limited to monitoring or extends into strategy, transactions and risk decisions.
Fluctuation statement
If the governance set-up or reporting rhythm changed during the period, note whether this reflects a revised remit, a different committee structure, a new oversight process, or updated skills review arrangements.
Content index entry
s2-6-a Oversight by governance body — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for s2-6-a — 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 team asks the board office for details that sit with the committee secretary, so the answer comes from the wrong part of the organisation and misses the person who actually keeps the record.
Framework words instead of local terms
People ask for the item using disclosure language rather than the organisation’s own job titles and committee names, which slows the handoff and leads to mismatched evidence.
No clear boundary
The request does not say which board, committee, or individual is in scope, so different teams collect different sets of records and the final pack cannot be reconciled.
Wrong time basis
The collector uses the date the report is drafted instead of the period the evidence should cover, so the file contains records from the wrong cycle.
Mixed counting basis
One source reports meetings by calendar year while another uses the financial year, and the two are merged without adjustment, making the totals inconsistent.
Source labels stripped out
When documents are copied into a tracker, the original file names, version marks, and meeting references are lost, so no one can trace each entry back to its source.
Populations merged too early
Information about the board and its sub-committees is combined into one pool before checking the differences, which hides gaps that should be kept separate.
Missing evidence trail
The pack is assembled without noting where each item came from, who checked it, and when it was approved, so there is no clear sign-off path.
Where judgement is often needed
Which board group to name
If several directors’ groups share oversight, pick the one that actually carries the climate-related remit and explain why that is the right fit for your organisation.
When a committee changes mid-year
If the remit moved between the board and a committee during the period, describe the split clearly and use the dates that show when each group had the role.
Newly acquired or sold businesses
Decide whether the reporting covers the enlarged or reduced group for the full period or only from the change date, and explain the boundary used so readers can follow the governance picture.
Different country job titles and remits
Where local entities use different names or slightly different oversight setups, map them to your organisation’s own governance language and explain any material differences rather than forcing a single label.
People or sites at the edge of scope
If some operations sit just inside or outside the oversight arrangement, state the rule you used to include or exclude them and note any material exceptions.
How often to describe reporting to the board
If updates go to the board on a fixed cycle but also ad hoc, choose the basis that best reflects how oversight actually works and say whether the cadence is routine, event-driven, or both.
Measured facts versus management estimates
When the governance record is incomplete, use the best supportable estimate, label it as such, and explain the source and any main assumptions.
Rounding and small differences
If counts or dates are rounded for presentation, keep the method consistent, make sure the rounded figures still make sense together, and explain any small mismatches.
Protecting personal data in competency evidence
If naming individuals would create privacy issues, aggregate the information at a level that still shows the board’s skill coverage and explain the anonymisation approach.
Linking oversight to pay and targets
Where incentives or targets are set at different levels across the group, describe the arrangement that governs the relevant decision-makers and explain any exceptions or local variations.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — manufacturing
Our board and its audit and risk committee receive a standing update on climate matters, while a named executive sponsor carries day-to-day oversight. The committee’s remit is set out in its written terms, it reviews how climate targets affect variable pay, and it is briefed every quarter on strategy choices, major deals and principal risks. We also run an annual skills review for directors and committee members, using a gap analysis and targeted training plan to keep oversight capability current.
This example shows how a manufacturer might describe who oversees climate matters, how that remit is defined, how often the board is updated, how targets connect to remuneration, how climate is considered in strategic and transaction decisions, and how governance skills are assessed.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — financial services
In our group, the board’s sustainability committee and one senior manager share oversight, with responsibilities split between formal committee papers and executive follow-up. Their mandate is documented, they review whether climate goals influence incentive outcomes, and they report to the board every two months on strategic positioning, portfolio actions and emerging risk. We refresh the competency map for directors and relevant committee members each year, then use the results to plan training and recruitment.
This example shows how a financial services reporter might explain the governance arrangement for climate oversight, the written scope of that role, the link between targets and pay, the reporting rhythm to the board, the role in strategy, transactions and risk, and the process used to maintain the right skills.
How companies report S2-6-a in practice
Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
SITC International Holdings Company Limited
Water Transportation · Hong Kong · 2025
SITC International Holdings Company Limited’s 2025 Environmental, Social and Governance Report provides evidence of the board’s oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities, including its role in strategy and risk oversight, as detailed on page 184. However, the report does not include information on the mandate or terms of reference for this governance body, nor does it disclose any linkage between targets and executive pay. Additionally, while there is some related context on the reporting cadence to the board on page 187, it does not clearly disclose this aspect.
WuXi Biologics (Cayman) Inc.
Pharmaceuticals / Biotech / Life Sciences · China · 2024
WuXi Biologics (Cayman) Inc.'s Sustainability Report 2024 clearly identifies the governance body or individual responsible for oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities, as noted on page 133. There is related but unclear information regarding the mandate or terms of reference for this oversight (p.88), as well as the role in strategy, transactions, and risk oversight (p.88), and the linkage of climate considerations to remuneration policy (p.134). However, the report does not provide evidence on the reporting cadence to the board or a skills competency process.
Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd.
Construction and Engineering · South Korea · 2025
Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd.'s 2025 Sustainability Report identifies a governance body or individual responsible for oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities, with specific reference to the Governance and Communication Committee under the Board (p.39, p.140). The report also covers a skills competency process related to this governance body (p.140). However, the report provides unclear disclosures regarding the mandate or terms of reference, oversight of targets and pay linkage, reporting cadence to the board, and the role in strategy and transaction risk oversight, with only related context but no explicit details (p.140).
✓ 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 s2-6-a?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 listed group has a board committee that reviews climate matters, but the draft report only names the committee and says it 'supports the board'. The governance papers also show the committee’s remit was last updated in March 2025.
QWhat should the preparer check before finalising the disclosure about who is overseeing the topic?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑They should identify the specific board-level person or group doing the oversight and make sure the report explains the committee’s remit in a way that matches the current governance papers. If the remit changed in March 2025, the disclosure should reflect that version rather than an older one.
Why this matters · Name the actual oversight owner and align the description to the current mandate or terms of reference.
A company’s remuneration committee links a small part of executive pay to emissions reduction, but the draft only says 'sustainability is considered in pay decisions'. The board receives a quarterly pack on climate progress, while the committee gets a separate monthly dashboard.
QHow should the preparer decide whether the pay linkage and reporting rhythm are described clearly enough?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The disclosure should explain the link between climate targets and pay in plain business terms, not just say sustainability is considered. It should also state how often the board is updated, using the actual reporting pattern shown in the records, so readers can see the cadence and the connection to incentives.
Why this matters · Be specific about how targets affect pay and how often the board is kept informed.
A manufacturer says the audit committee reviews climate risk, but the strategy team actually leads decisions on a planned plant closure and a low-carbon acquisition. The risk register shows the board gets updates on both items, yet the draft report only mentions risk monitoring.
QWhat needs to be included so the oversight story is complete?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The disclosure should cover the governance group’s part in strategy choices, major deals, and risk supervision if those are all part of its role. If the board is updated on the plant closure and acquisition as well as risk matters, the report should not narrow the description to risk alone.
Why this matters · Describe the full oversight role, including strategy, transactions, and risk, where that is how governance is actually organised.
A preparer has evidence that directors attended a climate briefing, but there is no documented process showing how the board checks whether members have the right knowledge for the topic. The draft report says the board is 'well informed' without further support.
QWhat should the preparer do about the skills and competency part of the disclosure?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑They should only describe a skills or competency process if there is a real process behind it, such as board training, skills mapping, or periodic review of capability. If the evidence only shows one briefing, the disclosure should not imply a broader system that is not documented.
Why this matters · Only describe a competency process when there is evidence of an actual method for assessing or building the board’s capability.
Framework references
Relevant IFRS / ISSB requirements and related disclosures
Available framework references and nearby disclosures relevant to preparing this requirement.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
For s2-6-a, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare six datapoints: the named governance lead, the date their role mandate started, how targets and pay are overseen, how often the board gets updates, the role in strategy and risk, and the skills review process. Use those as your starting checklist before drafting.
How do I use the step-by-step preparation section for s2-6-a in practice?+−
Use it as a working sequence rather than a final answer: first confirm the disclosure topic, then collect the listed datapoints, then build the evidence pack and check for common gaps before drafting. The page is set up to help you move from raw inputs to a draft disclosure.
Who should own the s2-6-a data collection in my organisation?+−
The page does not assign roles for you, but it does point to the kinds of owners you may need: a governance lead, people who can confirm board reporting, and whoever holds evidence for targets, pay oversight, strategy, risk and skills review. In practice, you should route each datapoint to the person closest to that source.
What evidence should I keep for s2-6-a so the disclosure is assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, plus six claims to verify using a claim/risk/evidence approach. Build your file so each statement in the draft can be traced back to supporting material.
What are the six assurance claims I need to test for s2-6-a?+−
The page says there are six claims to verify, but it does not list them in the page content provided here. Use the assurance section and evidence pack to check each claim against a risk and supporting evidence before you finalise the draft.
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes for s2-6-a?+−
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes to watch for, so it is meant to help you spot weak or incomplete drafting before submission. Use that section as a pre-check against your evidence pack and draft output.
How do I turn the s2-6-a data into a draft disclosure?+−
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. Use those to turn the collected datapoints and evidence into a structured draft rather than writing from scratch.
Can I use the s2-6-a workbook and printable card to prepare the disclosure?+−
Yes. The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf, which are there to support preparation and assurance readiness.
Is there an example disclosure for s2-6-a that I can use as a model?+−
Yes. The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table where relevant, so you can see how the disclosure might be presented in practice. Treat the example as a drafting aid, not as a real company report.
How does s2-6-a relate to ESRS E1, and can I reuse the same data?+−
The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS E1 (Climate Change). That means the data may be reusable across frameworks, but the page does not say the requirements are identical, so you still need to check the wording and context for each report.
More questions this page can help with
s2-6-a disclosure checklist for governance lead, mandate date, board updates and skills reviews2-6-a evidence pack items for assurance readinesss2-6-a common mistakes and reporting gaps to avoidhow to draft s2-6-a using narrative starters and content index lines2-6-a workbook download how to use the prep and assurance files2-6-a synthetic example disclosure tables2-6-a board update frequency data collections2-6-a targets and pay oversight evidences2-6-a strategy and risk role disclosure datas2-6-a skills review process evidences2-6-a from company reports exampless2-6-a ESRS E1 data reuse
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63171 pages with page-level citations
272 practitioner guides
Free · LRA Community
Get your s2-6-a 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 →