Disclosure focus
The practical focus is on whether the assessment covers the organisation’s relevant activities and value chain, rather than only a few selected or flagship sites. Users should be able to see if the analysis reflects the parts of the business that matter most to climate resilience, how broadly it was applied, and where the main vulnerabilities or strengths were identified.
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.
-
Asset reuse and closure
Operations / Asset managementCapture whether assets can be moved to another use or taken out of service, and the practical basis for that view.
Evidence Asset register, engineering or operations assessments, closure plans, disposal or redeployment options, management papers.
Watch for The assessment is based on a different asset list than the fixed-asset register, so redeployable or end-of-life assets are missed.
-
Ability to adjust
Strategy / RiskCapture the organisation’s practical ability to change how it operates when conditions shift, including the main limits and enablers.
Evidence Business continuity plans, scenario analysis, operating model reviews, change programme papers, risk assessments.
Watch for The narrative mixes planned change capacity with current operating constraints, so the stated adaptability does not match the underlying evidence.
-
Investment effects
Finance / SustainabilityCapture the observed or expected effect of spending on climate-related actions, including how it changes performance or exposure.
Evidence Project business cases, post-investment reviews, emissions or risk impact analysis, capex tracking, programme reports.
Watch for The effect is reported from gross spend rather than measured outcomes, so the investment impact is overstated or not tied to the project scope.
-
Funding flexibility
Finance / TreasuryCapture how easily funds can be redirected, raised, or preserved to respond to changing needs and climate-related pressures.
Evidence Treasury reports, liquidity forecasts, debt covenants, cash flow plans, funding approvals, capital allocation papers.
Watch for The figure is taken from budget availability rather than actual cash or committed facilities, so funding headroom is misread.
-
Resilience view
Risk / Executive managementCapture the final judgement on how well the organisation can withstand and recover from climate-related disruption.
Evidence Board or executive papers, risk committee minutes, scenario outputs, resilience assessments, assurance notes.
Watch for The conclusion is drawn from one scenario or one business unit only, so the overall resilience view is not representative.
-
Key unknowns
Risk / FinanceCapture the main unresolved points that could materially change the assessment, and explain why they matter.
Evidence Assumptions log, sensitivity analysis, scenario notes, expert judgement records, risk register.
Watch for The uncertainties are listed without linking them to the assumptions used, so the reported unknowns do not match the model inputs.
-
Business implications
Strategy / Executive managementCapture the practical consequences for the organisation’s direction, priorities, and decisions arising from the assessment.
Evidence Strategy papers, board packs, capital plans, transition plans, risk appetite statements, action trackers.
Watch for The implications are written as generic commentary rather than the decisions actually affected, so the strategic impact is too vague to use.
Before you start
- Have you decided which assets, sites, or activities are actually in scope for any move, shutdown, or repurposing plan?
- Have you fixed the time horizon and the business basis for the figures, so the numbers line up with the same period and assumptions throughout?
- Can every figure be traced back to a named source, model, or working paper, with the trail clear enough to check later?
- Have you agreed what counts as the organisation’s ability to adjust, including the definitions you will use for flexibility and resilience?
- Have you settled whether the write-up covers the effect of climate-related spend, the main uncertainties, and the strategic knock-on effects, or only some of these points?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the climate resilience assessment outputs
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What does the latest climate resilience review say about how the business can cope, what it means for strategy and funding, and what uncertainties remain?
Use your organisation’s own language first, then map it to the reporting terms. For example, if you talk about business continuity, capital planning, asset plans, scenario work or investment cases, ask for those artefacts and summaries rather than using framework labels in the request.
Weak request
Please provide the IFRS S2 climate resilience assessment outputs for disclosure ifrs-s2::s2-22-a.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, gives no clue which internal pack is needed, and does not say what business materials, time period, boundary, or supporting evidence should be returned. That makes it hard for the owner to know what to pull together.
Better request
Please send the latest business resilience review for [period] / [boundary], including the summary of how the business can adjust over time, any effect from climate-related investment, notes on funding flexibility, the main conclusion, key uncertainties, and any strategy implications. Include the source file, version, date, owner, and assumptions, and use your own internal terms if those are the ones you track.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for climate resilience assessment outputs for [reporting period] Hello [name/team], We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need the latest materials that explain how the business has assessed its ability to cope with climate-related change. Please share the following for [reporting period] and [reporting boundary]: - the latest assessment or summary of how the business can adjust, redeploy assets, or otherwise respond over time; - any notes on how planned climate-related spend or projects affect that assessment; - any comments on funding headroom, budget flexibility, or other financial room to manoeuvre; - the main conclusion from the review, including any important caveats or open points; - any strategic implications or decisions that follow from the review. Please also include the source file, owner, version, date, and any assumptions used. If you use different internal terms, please send the equivalent materials and we will map them for reporting. Please check the official source before sign-off. Many thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send the latest climate resilience pack for [period] / [boundary]? We need the summary of how the business can adapt, any effect from climate-related investment, funding flexibility notes, the main conclusion, key uncertainties, and any strategy implications. Please include the source file, version, date, owner, and assumptions. If you use different internal terms, send the equivalent pack and we’ll map it. Please check the official source before sign-off.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant network has reviewed flood and heat exposure across sites and has a capital plan for equipment upgrades.
Adapted request. Please share the latest site resilience pack for [period] / [boundary], including any notes on whether equipment can be moved, replaced, or reconfigured, how the upgrade programme affects resilience, any budget headroom for further work, the overall conclusion, key uncertainties, and any implications for the plant strategy.
Example response. Returned pack includes a site-by-site summary, capital plan extract, board paper, assumptions log, and a short note stating that two sites can be reconfigured with moderate spend, one site remains constrained, and further investment is needed to reduce uncertainty.
Financial services
Context. A lender has assessed climate impacts on its branch network, data centres, and lending strategy using scenario work.
Adapted request. Please send the latest climate risk and resilience paper for [period] / [boundary], including the summary of how the business can adapt its operations and portfolio, the effect of planned investment on that view, any funding flexibility notes, the overall conclusion, open uncertainties, and any strategic implications for lending or operations.
Example response. Returned pack includes a scenario analysis deck, risk committee paper, capital planning note, and a conclusion that operational resilience is broadly maintained, but portfolio strategy may need adjustment in higher-risk regions, with uncertainty around timing and customer response.
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain how the assessment was built, including what was counted, the basis used for judging resilience, and how the organisation defined its ability to adjust assets, operations, and funding.
Context note
Set out what the figures mean for the business by linking the resilience result to operational flexibility, investment choices, financial headroom, and the strategic direction that follows.
Fluctuation statement
Describe any notable change by pointing to shifts in the organisation’s ability to adapt, the effect of response measures, changes in funding flexibility, or new uncertainties that altered the conclusion.
Content index entry
s2-22-a Climate resilience assessment outputs — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for s2-22-a 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 operations and activities we actually reviewed, and we kept the boundary consistent with the rest of the climate analysis.
Risk The assurer may question whether the figure was built on a complete and consistent population, or whether parts were left out without a clear reason.
Evidence to check Boundary memo, list of included entities/sites/activities, reconciliation to the reporting population used elsewhere, and sign-off showing the same scope was applied throughout the analysis.
We used the same scope decisions across the underlying workpapers, so the disclosed figure reflects the same set of operations and assumptions from start to finish.
Risk Scope drift between drafts, models and the published figure could make the result unreliable or selectively prepared.
Evidence to check Version history, scope-setting paper, model inputs, draft-to-final change log, and evidence of review against the agreed boundary.
We checked the source data for the figure against primary records before publication and followed up any gaps or unusual movements.
Risk An assurer may probe whether the data were complete, accurate and free from unexplained adjustments.
Evidence to check Source extracts, reconciliations to ledgers or operational records, exception logs, query resolution notes, and evidence of management review.
We kept support for the judgement calls behind the figure, including why certain assets, plans or financing items were treated the way they were.
Risk The main risk is that key judgements were made informally or cannot be evidenced, leaving the figure open to challenge.
Evidence to check Judgement papers, internal approvals, meeting notes, assumptions register, and any external or internal advice relied on.
Before release, we ran a final check that the narrative, numbers and time periods matched the working papers and that the explanation was internally consistent.
Risk The assurer may look for inconsistencies between the published wording and the underlying analysis, or for missing context that changes the meaning of the figure.
Evidence to check Final review checklist, cross-check of narrative to model outputs, consistency review across the disclosure pack, and evidence of sign-off by the responsible team.
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 sustainability team instead of the business lead who holds the operational evidence for the resilience review.
- Framework language usedPeople ask for the seven output areas in reporting jargon, so the data owner cannot map them to the organisation’s own planning, finance, and risk terms.
- Scope not pinned downThe team never agrees which sites, assets, business lines, or scenarios sit inside the review, so different contributors send mismatched datasets.
- Wrong period basisInputs are pulled from the wrong reporting window or planning cycle, which makes the evidence reflect a different point in time from the assessment being documented.
- Mixed counting basisSome teams report gross figures while others use net or adjusted figures, so the combined pack cannot be compared on the same basis.
- Source labels lostWhen spreadsheets are copied into a pack, the original file names, version notes, and source tags disappear, making it hard to trace where each figure came from.
- Separate groups mergedData for different asset classes, regions, or scenario runs is blended together even though it should stay separate for the review.
- Evidence trail missingThe pack is assembled without file dates, owners, or approval notes, so no one can show who checked the numbers or when.
- No sign-off pathDraft inputs move straight into the disclosure workstream without a recorded review by the people who own the underlying analysis.
Judgement needed
- What counts as the group being assessed after a deal closesIf a purchase or sale changes the businesses in scope, use the same cut-off date and explain whether the assessment covers the old group, the revised group, or both, so readers can see what changed.
- When local definitions do not line up across countriesWhere the same operational label means different things in different markets, pick one working definition for the assessment, apply it consistently, and explain any country-by-country differences in the output.
- How to handle sites or activities sitting on the boundary of scopeFor assets, teams or operations that are partly in and partly out, set a clear inclusion rule, apply it the same way across the portfolio, and disclose any exclusions or partial coverage.
- Whether to use modelled outputs or observed resultsIf some conclusions come from estimates rather than direct measurement, say which parts are based on calculations or scenarios, which are drawn from actual evidence, and why that mix was used.
- Which date or period anchors the assessmentChoose one reporting date or period for the resilience work, use it consistently across the narrative, and explain any lag between the assessment date and the reporting date.
- How to present small numbers after roundingRound in a way that does not distort the overall picture, check that subtotals still reconcile to the total, and note the rounding basis if it could affect interpretation.
- How far to aggregate sensitive location or workforce detailIf privacy, security or commercial sensitivity means you cannot show site-level detail, combine the information to the highest practical level and explain the level of aggregation used.
- How to treat mixed evidence across the same conclusionWhere one part of the assessment is supported by strong data and another by judgement, separate the two in the write-up so users can see what is evidenced and what is inferred.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
We have stress-tested our current plan against a range of climate-related shocks and, where needed, we can shift or retire equipment without breaching our operating plan; in the most exposed line, 18 of 60 production assets could be repurposed or closed over time, and we expect the remaining 42 to keep serving demand. The review suggests our planned spending on efficiency upgrades and flood protection would cut the estimated downside from £120m to £78m, while our available cash, undrawn facilities and committed capex headroom of £210m give us room to absorb the near-term response. Even so, we still see material unknowns around policy timing and supplier disruption, so our current view is that the business remains resilient under the scenarios assessed, but the shift would likely accelerate portfolio simplification and a move toward lower-emission product lines.
Illustrative only: this example shows how to describe flexibility in assets, the effect of planned resilience spending, funding room, remaining uncertainty, and the strategic direction implied by the assessment.
Our scenario work indicates we can adjust store formats, logistics routes and some lease commitments if climate pressures intensify; in the highest-risk region, 24 of 80 sites could be reconfigured or exited, leaving 56 to continue trading. The planned investment in cooling, backup power and supplier diversification is expected to reduce the projected annual loss from £45m to £27m, and our liquidity buffer of £95m, plus £40m of unused borrowing capacity, gives us flexibility to fund the response. We still face uncertainty over the pace of extreme-weather change and customer demand shifts, but on balance we judge the group to be resilient within the scenarios considered, with a likely strategic move toward fewer vulnerable locations and a stronger online channel mix.
Illustrative only: this example shows how to explain operational flexibility, the impact of adaptation spending, available funding capacity, residual uncertainty, the resilience view, and the strategic consequences.
Quality ladder
- Basic
I concluded that our climate resilience review shows the business can cope.
- Better
I concluded that our climate resilience review shows the business can cope, based on our ability to shift assets, adjust operations, fund changes and manage the main uncertainties we identified.
- Best
I concluded that, using a 2030 and 2050 scenario review across our main operations and value chain, the business remains resilient; the result reflects our ability to redeploy or retire assets, adapt operations, use mitigation and adaptation spend, and keep financing flexible, while the main uncertainty is the pace of extreme-weather change, which could require faster investment and slightly lower returns in the near term.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A manufacturer has modelled a hotter, drier future and found one plant could be kept running only if some lines are moved to a different site. The team has draft notes on whether equipment can be shifted, but no final decision has been made.
A utility has tested a scenario with more frequent heatwaves and storm damage. The assessment shows it can cope for now, but only if it changes maintenance timing, supplier arrangements, and operating procedures over the next few years.
A retailer has spent on flood barriers and backup power at two distribution centres. The climate review suggests these projects reduce disruption, but the finance team has not yet linked them to the longer-term resilience view in the report.
A food producer has enough cash for near-term adaptation work, but the assessment shows that a much larger programme would need new borrowing or a slower rollout. The draft report currently says only that funding is available.
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.
DBS Group Holdings
Partial
Hang Lung Properties Limited
Partial
SITC International Holdings Company Limited
Exact| Field | DBS Group Holdings | Hang Lung Properties Limited | SITC International Holdings Company Limited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asset reuse and closure | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Ability to adjust | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Investment effects | Not found | Not found | Partial |
| Funding flexibility | Not found | Partial | Partial |
| Resilience view | Not found | Partial | Not found |
| Key unknowns | Not found | Not found | Partial |
| Business implications | Not found | Partial | Partial |
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
s2-22-a
within IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Guides that settle this question
Related & explore
More in IFRS S2 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
The page says to prepare seven datapoints: asset reuse and closure, ability to adjust, investment effects, funding flexibility, resilience view, key unknowns, and business implications. Use those as the starting checklist before you draft anything.
Use it as a working sequence for moving from raw information to a draft disclosure, rather than as a reference note. The page is designed to help you prepare the disclosure, collect the right data, and turn that into draft output.
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 the underlying data. The page does not assign a single owner, so you need to map each datapoint to the right internal contact.
The page provides an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Use it alongside the five assurance claims to verify so your pack links the claim, the risk, and the evidence.
The page says there are five assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk, and evidence angle. It does not list them in the source text here, so use the page’s assurance section and evidence pack together when you review them.
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes to help you spot weak drafting and missing support. Use that list as a pre-submission check against your data, scope, and evidence pack.
The page includes draft-output support such as visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. That makes it easier to move from prepared data to a first draft without starting from a blank page.
Yes, the page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table. Treat them as examples only and make sure any numbers you use are internally consistent and based on your own data.
Yes, the Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. The workbook is the practical tool for organising preparation and assurance inputs.
The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS E1 (Climate Change). You can treat that as a useful cross-framework reference and reuse data where it fits, but the page does not say the requirements are identical.
Check that each of the page’s five assurance claims is supported by evidence, that the evidence pack is complete, and that your draft reflects the prepared datapoints. Also review the common reporting gaps so you do not leave out scope, method, or support.
More questions this page can help with