Disclosure focus
The practical focus is on the organisation’s own assessment of resilience, not just a statement about a few well-performing sites or a flagship location. It should cover the parts of the business that matter to the overall strategy and operations, so readers can see whether the conclusion reflects the organisation as a whole rather than a limited sample.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official European Commission source.
Prepare
What to collect before drafting
Tick each field as the evidence lands. Owners are the teams that usually hold the source files.
-
Resilience analysis results
Sustainability / climate risk teamSummarise the main findings from the climate resilience review, including what the analysis shows about how the business holds up under the scenarios assessed.
Evidence Scenario analysis pack, risk assessment outputs, board or management papers, and the final narrative used in reporting.
Watch for Results are taken from a draft scenario set that does not match the final analysis used by risk or strategy teams.
-
Strategy and model impacts
Strategy / corporate planningSet out how the climate findings affect the organisation’s strategy and operating model, including any changes to priorities, products, services, assets or ways of working.
Evidence Strategy review papers, business model change logs, executive papers, and planning documents showing agreed implications.
Watch for The narrative is built from a strategy draft and misses the final business model changes approved by leadership.
-
Scenario-based response
Climate risk / strategyDescribe the actions or response the organisation has chosen because of the scenario work, showing how the analysis informed those decisions.
Evidence Scenario analysis outputs, decision papers, action plans, and governance minutes linking the analysis to the chosen response.
Watch for The response is described without tying it back to the scenario set actually used, so the action plan is not traceable to the analysis.
-
Transition plan resilience
Transition planning / sustainabilityExplain how the transition plan supports resilience, including the specific ways planned changes help the organisation stay robust under climate-related pressures.
Evidence Transition plan, implementation roadmap, resilience assessment, and governance papers showing the link between the plan and resilience.
Watch for The transition plan is described in isolation and the resilience link is not evidenced against the approved plan.
-
Key uncertainty areas
Climate risk / financeIdentify the main areas where the climate assessment remains uncertain, and explain what is not yet clear in the analysis or assumptions.
Evidence Assumptions log, model limitations note, sensitivity analysis, and risk register entries covering unresolved points.
Watch for A material assumption or limitation is left out, so the uncertainty statement does not match the actual model or judgement basis.
-
Near-term adaptation capacity
Operations / riskDescribe the organisation’s ability to adapt in the short term, including the practical measures, resources and constraints that affect near-term response.
Evidence Short-term adaptation plan, operational risk assessments, resource plans, and business continuity or resilience documents.
Watch for Short-term capacity is described using long-range plans, so the period is wrong and immediate constraints are missed.
-
Mid-term adaptation capacity
Strategy / programme managementDescribe the organisation’s ability to adapt over the medium term, including planned changes, enabling actions and any limits on delivery in that timeframe.
Evidence Medium-term planning documents, capital or programme plans, adaptation roadmap, and approved milestones.
Watch for Medium-term capability is mixed with near-term actions, so the timing basis does not align to the period being reported.
-
Long-term adaptation capacity
Strategy / climate riskDescribe the organisation’s ability to adapt over the long term, including structural changes, strategic options and enduring constraints relevant to that horizon.
Evidence Long-range strategy, scenario planning outputs, investment plans, and board papers covering long-horizon resilience.
Watch for Long-term capacity is assessed using current operating assumptions, so the horizon is too short and future structural change is not reflected.
Before you start
- Have you pinned down which parts of the business, value chain and time horizons you are actually testing for climate resilience, so you do not mix in out-of-scope areas?
- Before you write anything, is the resilience assessment based on a documented scenario exercise, and have you fixed the assumptions and dates used for that exercise?
- Can every conclusion you plan to report be traced back to a named source, model, workshop note or other internal record, rather than being a judgement with no audit trail?
- Have you separated the findings that affect the operating model and strategy from the points that only describe uncertainty, so each item lands in the right place?
- For the short, medium and long horizons, have you agreed what counts as the organisation’s ability to adapt, and are you using the same definition throughout?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request climate resilience evidence from Strategy / Risk
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How has the business tested whether its current plan and operating model can cope with climate-related change over time, and what did that testing show?
Use your organisation’s own language first (for example, your planning cycles, risk review process, scenario work, adaptation planning, or business continuity terms), then map the outputs to the disclosure points. Keep the ask practical and evidence-led; do not use framework wording unless that is already how your teams talk internally.
Weak request
Please provide the ESRS E1-3 resilience disclosure evidence, including the results of the climate resilience analysis, implications for strategy and business model, scenario analysis response, transition plan contribution to resilience, uncertainties, and adaptation capacity over short, medium and long term.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that many teams will not recognise, so the owner may not know which internal papers or outputs to pull. It also bundles several ideas without pointing to the business documents, review forums, or planning artefacts that actually hold the evidence.
Better request
Please send the latest internal materials that show how the business tested climate-related resilience, what those tests mean for the plan and operating model, any scenario-based response work, how the transition plan helps resilience, where the main uncertainties remain, and how adaptation looks across the short, medium and long term. Include the source deck, model, tracker, or minutes, plus the owner and date.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for climate resilience evidence for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name/team],\n\nWe are pulling together the evidence pack for our climate resilience disclosure and need your help with the materials your team holds. Please share the latest internal outputs that show:\n- what the business found when it tested how well the current plan and operating model hold up under climate-related change;\n- what that means for strategy and the way the business is run;\n- any response work that was shaped by scenario-based analysis;\n- how the transition plan, if relevant, supports resilience;\n- any areas where the team still sees material uncertainty; and\n- how the organisation’s ability to adapt looks over the short, medium and long term.\n\nPlease send the source documents and, if possible, a short summary in the attached response form. Use your team’s own terminology and systems, and we will map it into the reporting pack. If there are multiple versions, please include the latest approved one and note any key differences.\n\nPlease also include the period covered, the business area, the assumptions used, and the owner for follow-up questions.\n\nThank you,\n[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you share the latest climate resilience materials for [reporting period]? We need the outputs showing what the business found, what it means for strategy/operations, any scenario-based response work, the main uncertainties, and how adaptation looks over short / medium / long term. Please send the source file(s) plus the completed response form. Use your own team terms; we’ll map them later. Thanks, [preparer name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant network is exposed to heat stress, water constraints, and supply interruptions.
Adapted request. Please share the latest plant and network resilience pack for [reporting period], including the outputs from any climate-related stress testing, the implications for production planning and capex, the scenario-based actions agreed, how the decarbonisation or transition plan supports site resilience, the main uncertainty points, and the short / medium / long-term adaptation view for each major site.
Example response. A pack with site-by-site summaries, a scenario workbook, a board slide on production continuity, and a tracker showing adaptation actions, owners, and timing.
Financial services
Context. A lender or insurer is assessing whether climate impacts could affect operations, premises, and client-facing services.
Adapted request. Please provide the latest resilience assessment materials for [reporting period], including the outputs from climate-related testing, what they mean for the operating model and service delivery, any scenario-informed response actions, how the transition plan supports resilience where relevant, the key uncertainty areas, and the short / medium / long-term adaptation view for premises, technology, and critical suppliers.
Example response. A risk committee paper, a scenario analysis summary, a business continuity addendum, and an action log covering premises, technology, and supplier resilience.
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain the basis used to assess climate resilience, including how the scenario work was applied, how the short-, medium- and long-term views were defined, and what was included when judging uncertainty and adaptation capacity.
Context note
Set out what the results mean for the organisation’s strategy, operating model and ability to stay resilient under different climate conditions, including how the transition plan supports that position.
Fluctuation statement
If the results vary across periods or scenarios, describe the main drivers of the change, such as shifts in assumptions, different exposure levels, or changes in the organisation’s response capacity.
Content index entry
E1-3 Resilience in relation to climate change — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for E1-3 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We based the coverage figure on the climate risks we had already flagged as material, and we checked that the same boundary was used when looking at the wider implications for the business model and strategy.
Risk An assurer may test whether the scope was set consistently, or whether the team left out relevant parts of the business or used a different boundary from the risk assessment.
Evidence to check Boundary paper for the analysis; link to the material risk assessment; mapping showing which entities, sites or activities were included; review notes confirming the same scope was used across the disclosure.
We used the latest risk assessment available at the reporting date, and we refreshed the analysis where the earlier assessment had been updated.
Risk The assurer may probe whether the disclosure reflects the most recent assessment or relies on an out-of-date version.
Evidence to check Version history of the risk assessment; dated working papers; sign-off pack showing the update was incorporated before publication; change log explaining what was refreshed.
We looked at the disclosed operations over the short, medium and long term, so the figure reflects how the business could adjust over different time horizons.
Risk The assurer may ask whether the time horizons were actually considered, or whether the analysis only covered one period and was then generalised.
Evidence to check Scenario or resilience workpapers showing the three time horizons; internal guidance on horizon selection; management review notes; final draft showing the horizon references used in the published text.
We assessed how current and planned climate actions, including the transition programme and adaptation measures, feed into resilience, rather than treating them as separate workstreams.
Risk The assurer may challenge whether the actions were genuinely linked to resilience, or whether the disclosure simply listed initiatives without showing their effect.
Evidence to check Action tracker; transition programme documents; adaptation plan; cross-reference table linking actions to risk reduction or resilience outcomes; evidence of internal challenge on the linkage.
We documented the main uncertainties in the assessment, including where the evidence was less certain or assumptions had a wider range.
Risk The assurer may test whether the uncertainty was clearly identified, or whether key judgement areas were left out.
Evidence to check Assumption log; sensitivity analysis; uncertainty register; meeting minutes showing discussion of judgement areas; draft-to-final comparison showing the uncertainties were retained in the published version.
We kept evidence showing how the analysis was built from scenario outputs into the final narrative, and we checked the figures and wording before issue.
Risk The assurer may probe whether the published statement is supported by the underlying scenario work and whether basic review checks were performed before release.
Evidence to check Scenario analysis outputs; reconciliation from model results to the disclosure text; internal review checklist; evidence of numerical and narrative checks; approval records from the final publication stage.
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.
Where drafts go wrong
Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed
The left column is what preparers get wrong while collecting; the right column is where you will have to make and explain a judgement.
Mistakes to avoid
- Wrong ownerThe team asks a policy lead or sustainability contact for inputs that sit with operations, risk, finance or strategy, so the evidence comes from the wrong part of the business.
- Framework language onlyPeople ask for answers using disclosure labels instead of the organisation’s own terms, and the source team cannot map the request to the reports, models or plans they actually use.
- No clear boundaryThe data pull is started without fixing which entities, sites, activities or time horizons are in scope, so different teams send numbers from different parts of the group.
- Wrong time basisOne team uses the latest forecast while another uses the reporting period cut-off, which makes the resilience inputs impossible to compare on the same timing basis.
- Mixed counting basisOperational counts, financial values and qualitative ratings are merged into one file without separating the basis for each, so the final pack cannot be traced back cleanly.
- Source labels lostOriginal file names, scenario tags, version marks and table headings are stripped out during consolidation, leaving no way to see where each input came from.
- Populations mergedShort-, medium- and long-range inputs are combined into one dataset even though they should stay separate, which hides differences in how the business performs over each horizon.
- No evidence trailThe working papers do not keep the underlying extracts, dates, reviewer notes or approval trail, so no one can show how the figures were checked before sign-off.
Judgement needed
- Set the reporting perimeter for bought-in and sold businessesUse the same organisational boundary you apply for the rest of the climate narrative, explain any acquisition or disposal cut-off that changes the picture, and note where the resilience story is based on a different perimeter from the prior period.
- Choose one way to handle country-by-country climate assumptionsWhere local operations face different weather, regulation or market conditions, group them using a clear common basis or split them where that better reflects the business, then explain the basis used and why it is the most faithful fit.
- Decide how to treat sites, assets or activities that sit near the boundaryState whether marginal operations, joint arrangements, leased assets or other borderline items are included, excluded or treated separately, and explain the practical rule used so readers can see what sits inside the analysis.
- Fix the time horizon for each resilience viewLink the short-, medium- and long-range assessments to your own planning horizons, keep the cut-offs consistent across the narrative, and disclose any change in timing basis from one period to the next.
- Separate modelled outputs from observed evidenceMake clear which parts of the resilience assessment come from measured performance, which come from estimates or assumptions, and where judgement fills gaps because direct evidence is not yet available.
- Explain the main uncertainty drivers and how they were weighedIdentify the climate, operational or market factors that make the result less certain, describe the assumptions that matter most, and say how those uncertainties affect the confidence you place in the strategy and business model conclusions.
- Use a consistent approach when combining different data sourcesIf the analysis draws on internal records, external datasets or expert views, describe how you reconciled them, what hierarchy you used when they conflicted, and whether any source was updated or restated for comparability.
- Round and aggregate without hiding material differencesApply a clear rounding rule and, where privacy or sensitivity means you cannot show site-level detail, aggregate enough to protect people or assets while still giving a faithful view of the resilience outcome.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
We used climate scenario work to test how our assets, supply chain and customer service would hold up under hotter summers, more flooding and tighter policy settings, and the results show that our current plan remains workable but needs extra investment in network hardening and flexible generation. - Those findings changed our medium-term capital allocation, our site design standards and our fuel mix assumptions, and our transition plan now includes resilience actions that support the business case for those changes. - The main areas where judgement remains open are the pace of policy change, the cost and timing of grid upgrades, and the extent to which extreme weather could disrupt maintenance windows; we judge our ability to cope as strong over the next 12 months, moderate over the next 3–5 years, and dependent on further adaptation measures over the longer horizon.
This synthetic example shows how to explain the outcome of climate scenario work, the knock-on effects for strategy and operating model, the way the transition plan supports resilience, the main uncertainties left open, and a plain-language view of adaptation strength across short, medium and long horizons.
Our scenario review indicates that water stress, heatwaves and supply interruptions could affect raw material availability and plant throughput, so we have adjusted sourcing, storage and process cooling plans to keep the company viable under those conditions. - In response, we have reworked our product mix, supplier contracts and site investment programme, and the transition plan now helps fund measures that make those changes more robust. - The biggest unknowns are regional water regulation, crop yield volatility and the speed at which suppliers can adapt; we assess our current ability to respond as adequate in the short term, improving in the middle period, and still requiring further upgrades over the long term.
This synthetic example shows how to describe the practical outcome of scenario work, the implications for strategy and the business model, how the transition plan contributes to resilience, where uncertainty remains, and how adaptation capacity can be described over three time horizons without using the standard’s wording.
Quality ladder
- Basic
We judge our climate resilience as moderate.
- Better
We judge our climate resilience as moderate, based on scenario work that points to some pressure on our operating model and strategy, with the main weak spots in supply continuity and site access.
- Best
We judge our climate resilience as moderate across the short, medium and long term, using scenario work that shows our transition plan helps offset some climate pressure on strategy and the business model, while the biggest uncertainty remains extreme-weather disruption to key sites and suppliers; the rating is lower than last year because we have identified more exposed assets and slower adaptation in two regions.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A manufacturer has run a climate stress test showing that repeated heatwaves could reduce output at one site and raise cooling costs, while a second site is less exposed. The draft report currently lists the test result but does not explain what it means for the group’s operating model.
A utility group has used several climate scenarios, but one of them gives very different results depending on assumptions about regulation, technology costs and customer behaviour. The team is unsure whether to mention that uncertainty because the figures are still being refined.
A food producer has a transition plan covering energy efficiency, electrification and supplier changes. Management believes the plan will also help the business cope with drought and supply disruption, but the draft only describes emissions reductions and omits any link to resilience.
A property group has assessed resilience over the near, middle and longer horizons. The short-term view suggests manageable flood risk, but the longer-term view points to possible asset impairment and relocation costs; the team is tempted to summarise everything in one sentence to save space.
Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context.
Check your text
Paste one or two paragraphs. The fragment is used for this check only and is not stored in your conversation.
Peer comparison uses examples on this card, not prevalence in the report corpus.
Advice, not assurance
Framework references
Relevant ESRS requirements and related disclosures
ESRS
E1-3
within ESRS E1: Climate Change
Related & explore
More in ESRS E1 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the listed datapoints. Use the draft-output section to turn your notes into narrative, visuals and a content-index line.
The page points you to resilience analysis results, strategy and model impacts, scenario-based response, transition plan resilience, key uncertainty areas, and near-, mid- and long-term adaptation capacity. Use those headings as your data collection checklist before drafting.
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation guidance to define what is in scope, how the resilience analysis is being approached, and how scenario-based response is being assessed. Keep the method consistent with the datapoints you plan to disclose and document any key uncertainty areas.
The page is designed for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person coordinating those inputs and evidence. Use the workbook to assign tasks and track who is responsible for each datapoint and evidence item.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk and evidence. Build the pack around the specific datapoints, the method used, and the supporting records that show how the disclosure was prepared.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a pre-submission check. In practice, the main risk is leaving the disclosure too generic or failing to back up the resilience story with evidence and a clear method.
The downloadable workbook is there to help you organise preparation and assurance work in one place. Use it to capture the datapoints, assign ownership, track evidence, and check the six assurance claims before turning the material into a draft.
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure can be written up. Treat it as a drafting aid only and adapt the structure and level of detail to your own data and evidence.
Use the draft-output section for visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That section is meant to help you convert your prepared data into a readable draft without starting from a blank page.
The page has a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed. Use those links as practical reference points for style and presentation, not as a substitute for your own evidence.
More questions this page can help with