Disclosure focus
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.
Prepare
What to collect before drafting
Tick each field as the evidence lands. Owners are the teams that usually hold the source files.
-
Strategy impacts
StrategyA plain summary of how the issue changes the organisation’s plan, operating model, or commercial direction.
Evidence Board papers, strategy decks, business model reviews, and approved planning documents.
Watch for The impact is described at a high level but does not tie back to the current strategy or operating model used in planning.
-
Planning assumptions
Finance / StrategyThe main assumptions used in the assessment, including the business judgments that shape the conclusions.
Evidence Scenario packs, planning notes, model inputs, and sign-off papers showing the assumptions used.
Watch for Assumptions are taken from a different planning cycle or model version, so the reported basis does not match the assessment.
-
Assessment method
Sustainability / RiskWhether a scenario-based approach or another assessment method was used, and which approach was applied.
Evidence Methodology note, assessment protocol, or workshop pack showing the approach selected.
Watch for The method stated in the report does not match the approach actually used in the analysis, or the wrong assessment type is described.
-
Assessment findings
Sustainability / RiskThe main non-numeric conclusions from the assessment, including the practical implications identified.
Evidence Assessment report, workshop outputs, and management summary of findings.
Watch for The qualitative conclusions are lifted from an earlier draft and no longer reflect the final assessment output.
-
Assessment ranges
Finance / RiskAny numbers, ranges, or other quantified outputs from the assessment, where these were produced and are relevant.
Evidence Model outputs, scenario results, calculation files, and summary tables used in the assessment.
Watch for The reported figures mix point estimates and ranges, or use outputs from a different scenario set than the one reviewed.
-
Assessment period
Strategy / RiskThe time period or horizon covered by the assessment, stated in a way that matches the analysis performed.
Evidence Assessment scope note, scenario brief, or model settings showing the period covered.
Watch for The period reported is not the same as the one used in the analysis, so the horizon is misstated.
-
Resilience check
Risk / SustainabilityA clear yes/no statement on whether a resilience assessment was carried out for the reporting period.
Evidence Assessment register, board paper, or sign-off record confirming whether the review took place.
Watch for The disclosure says the check was done, but there is no completed assessment record for the period reported.
Before you start
- Have we actually done the resilience check for this reporting period, or is this a no-assessment year?
- Which parts of the business are we covering here: the whole group, a division, or only the activities we tested?
- What time window did we use when we tested how the business could cope: short term, medium term, long term, or another period we have defined?
- Which approach did we use to test it, and do we have a clear record of the method we followed?
- Are the main assumptions, findings, and any figures or ranges traceable back to working papers, models, or other source records?
- Have we agreed the plain-language definitions we are using for the strategy impact, business model impact, and the results we are reporting?
How to prepare it
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.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for resilience assessment evidence for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name],\n\nI’m pulling together the sustainability reporting support pack and need the material your team used to test how our current plan and operating model hold up under different future conditions.\n\nPlease send, for [entity / business unit] and [period]:\n- the latest assessment pack or workbook\n- the planning horizon(s) used\n- the method name your team uses internally\n- the key assumptions behind the exercise\n- the main findings in plain business language\n- any numbers, ranges, or sensitivities that were produced\n- the source file name, version, date, and owner\n- any board, committee, or leadership paper that reviewed it\n\nIf the team uses different internal labels, please keep those labels in your response and I’ll map them for reporting. Please also flag any gaps, exclusions, or caveats.\n\nThis is a draft training request for internal use; please adapt it to your organisation’s terms and check the source material before sign-off.\n\nThanks,\n[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you share the latest resilience / outlook / scenario pack for [business unit] and [period]? I need the method used, assumptions, horizon, main findings, any ranges, plus the file version/date and owner. Please use your team’s own labels and I’ll map them later. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant network team runs annual supply and energy planning scenarios for a multi-site producer.
Adapted request. Please share the latest plant network scenario pack for [period] covering [sites / business unit]. I need the planning horizon, the assumptions on energy, demand, downtime and logistics, the main findings, any output ranges, and the file version/date/owner. Use your team’s own labels for the exercise and I’ll map them later.
Example response. Workbook: FY2025 supply outlook v4; horizon: 3 and 5 years; method label: plant stress test; assumptions: gas price, freight lead times, customer demand, outage rates; findings: two sites remain stable, one site shows margin pressure under the downside case; outputs: EBITDA range and capacity range; owner: Head of Operations Planning.
Financial services
Context. A bank’s finance and strategy teams run long-range planning and capital sensitivity work.
Adapted request. Please send the latest planning and sensitivity pack for [period] covering [entity / business line]. I need the internal exercise name, horizon, assumptions on rates, credit loss, funding and growth, the main findings, any ranges, and the source file details. Please keep your team’s own wording and I’ll map it for reporting.
Example response. Pack: FY2025-2028 outlook deck v2; horizon: 3 years; method label: balance sheet sensitivity review; assumptions: rate path, deposit mix, impairment trend, lending growth; findings: core business remains stable, downside case reduces profit and capital headroom; outputs: profit range and capital ratio range; owner: Finance Planning Lead.
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
Download preparation tools for s1-41-42 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We have set out whether we carried out a forward-looking robustness check on the disclosed operations and the wider business model.
Risk The assurer may find that no such review was done, or that the statement overstates the work performed.
Evidence to check Project plan or scoping note, management sign-off, working papers showing the review was completed, and any board or committee paper noting the decision to perform it.
We used a clearly documented approach to test how the business would cope with sustainability-related uncertainty.
Risk The method may be vague, inconsistently applied, or not actually used in the analysis.
Evidence to check Methodology paper, model instructions, scenario or stress-test pack where relevant, and evidence that the same approach was followed through the analysis.
Our assessment was built on stated assumptions and a recorded basis for those assumptions.
Risk Assumptions may be incomplete, unsupported, or chosen after the fact to fit the result.
Evidence to check Assumptions log, source references, internal approvals, sensitivity notes, and version history showing when assumptions were set and updated.
Where we used a scenario-style approach, the inputs and settings were documented and traceable.
Risk The assurer may question whether the scenario work was genuine, internally consistent, or aligned to the stated method.
Evidence to check Scenario pack, input tables, model outputs, parameter files, and review comments showing how the scenario work was prepared and checked.
We have retained the working papers behind the qualitative conclusions, including the evidence used to support the narrative.
Risk The narrative may be unsupported, selective, or not match the underlying analysis.
Evidence to check Drafts, analysis notes, interview records, source data extracts, and cross-references from the final wording back to the supporting files.
Any figures or ranges included in the disclosure were taken from the underlying analysis and checked before publication.
Risk Numbers may be misstated, rounded inconsistently, or not reconcile to the source calculations.
Evidence to check Calculation files, reconciliation to source data, rounding policy, review sign-off, and evidence of final checks against the published text.
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 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 termsThe 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 vagueNo 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 basisThe 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 basisHeadcounts, totals, and ranges are combined without agreeing the same counting rule first, so the numbers cannot be reconciled cleanly.
- Source labels lostOriginal 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 mergedData for different business units, scenarios, or assessment horizons is rolled together even though it should stay separate for analysis.
- Evidence trail incompleteThe pack is assembled without the supporting notes, version history, or sign-off record needed to show who checked the inputs and when.
Judgement needed
- Choosing the assessment cut-off after a deal or disposalSet 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 labelsUse 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 scopeState 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 periodMake 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 measurementsSay 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 rangesApply 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 informationCombine 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 reviewIf 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
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
We carried out a forward-looking check of how our business would hold up under a low-carbon transition and a hotter, more volatile weather pattern, using scenario-based modelling over the next 10 years and a separate longer-range view to 2050.
- Our main planning choices were to accelerate grid-balancing investment, retire the least efficient plant earlier, and shift more capital towards flexible generation and storage.
- The assessment assumed carbon prices rise steadily, demand grows more slowly than in our base plan, and outage risk increases during peak summer periods; under the adverse case, 18% of annual output is at risk of curtailment by 2035 versus 6% in our base case.
- Overall, we judged the group to remain viable, but with lower margins and a need to re-time some projects; the review was completed and we concluded the strategy is resilient within the tested range, although the most exposed assets need active management.
Synthetic, illustrative narrative showing a resilience review, the approach used, the main assumptions, the time periods considered, the practical effect on strategy, and the qualitative and quantitative outcome.
We tested how our portfolio would perform under a severe heat-and-flood pathway and a higher-cost financing environment, using stress testing and scenario analysis across a 5-year operating horizon and a 15-year capital planning view.
- The exercise pointed to a need to prioritise flood defences, upgrade cooling systems, and slow the pace of acquisitions in the most exposed locations.
- We assumed insurance premiums rise by 30% over the period, tenant demand weakens in the most climate-sensitive submarkets, and refurbishment costs increase by 12%; in the downside case, 9 of 60 assets would fall below our target return threshold, compared with 2 of 60 in the base case.
- We completed the review and found the portfolio broadly robust, but with a narrower buffer in older buildings and a clear concentration of risk in low-lying sites; the findings informed our capital allocation and asset-management plan.
Synthetic, illustrative narrative showing a completed resilience check, the method, the planning horizons, the assumptions, the business implications, and the qualitative and quantitative results.
Quality ladder
- Basic
We carried out a resilience review.
- Better
We carried out a resilience review over the next three years using scenario testing, and we found our current plan still works with only minor changes to store openings.
- Best
We carried out a resilience review for the next three years using scenario testing, based on lower demand and higher input costs, and we found our plan remains workable with a 4% margin dip because we can delay some openings and pass through part of the cost rise.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Real reports
How 3 companies report it
Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
SITC International Holdings Company Limited
Exact
Hang Lung Properties Limited
Partial
Bank of America
Partial| Field | SITC International Holdings Company Limited | Hang Lung Properties Limited | Bank of America |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy impacts | Partial | Not found | Partial |
| Planning assumptions | Partial | Partial | Partial |
| Assessment method | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Assessment findings | Partial | Not found | Not found |
| Assessment ranges | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Assessment period | Not found | Partial | Not found |
| Resilience check | Not found | Not found | Not found |
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 IFRS / ISSB requirements and related disclosures
IFRS / ISSB
s1-41-42
within IFRS S1: General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information
Guides that settle this question
Related & explore
More in IFRS S1 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
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 draft anything.
Use it as a working sequence for getting from raw information to a draft disclosure. The page is set up to help you define scope, collect the right inputs, and then turn them into a report-ready narrative.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Build your file set around those items so you can show where the numbers and narrative came from if someone reviews them.
The page says there are six assurance claims to check, each with a claim, risk and evidence angle. Use that section to test whether your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is complete enough for review.
The page lists common gaps and mistakes to watch for when preparing the disclosure. Use that list as a pre-submission check so you can spot missing scope, weak evidence or unclear methodology before the draft goes out.
Treat the example as a model for structure, level of detail and how the narrative can connect to the data table. It is synthetic and illustrative, so it is there to help you draft your own version, not to be reused as-is.
Use the example table to see how quantitative information can be presented alongside the narrative. The page also gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line to help you turn the inputs into a draft.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the preparation steps, track the evidence you need and keep the disclosure work moving toward an assurance-ready draft.
The Download Centre includes a printable Library Card in PDF format. Use it as a quick reference while you work through the disclosure, especially if you want a paper checklist alongside the workbook.
The page notes ESRS 2 as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable where your internal information already covers the topic. It does not say the frameworks are identical, so you still need to check the page’s own datapoints and evidence needs.
More questions this page can help with