IFRS S2 — Scenario analysis method, inputs and assumptions

Q: How do I use the s2-22-b page to draft the climate-related disclosure in practice?

Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the datapoints to prepare, the step-by-step preparation section, and the draft-output ideas. The page is designed to help you turn source data into a first draft, not to act as an official standard.

Q: What data do I need to gather for s2-22-b before I start writing the disclosure?

The page says to prepare policy and technology assumptions, Paris pathway use, hazard and transition coverage, why it matters, the analysis period, scenario set and sources, operational scope, and forecast horizons. Use that list as your collection checklist before drafting.

Q: How should I set the scope and methodology for s2-22-b using this page?

Use the page’s preparation list to define the operational scope, analysis period, forecast horizons, scenario set and sources, and the assumptions behind the analysis. That gives you a practical basis for explaining how the disclosure was built.

Q: Who should own the inputs for s2-22-b in my organisation?

The page is useful for assigning ownership by datapoint: policy and technology assumptions, scenario sources, scope, and forecast horizons will usually need named data owners. It is set up to help a sustainability, HR or data owner coordinate inputs into one draft.

Q: What should I include in an evidence pack for s2-22-b assurance?

The page includes an evidence pack with five items and also lists six assurance claims to verify. Use those sections to assemble the supporting documents and link each claim to the evidence you can show a reviewer.

Q: What are the six assurance claims on the s2-22-b page and how do I use them?

The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk and evidence. Use them as a review checklist so you can test whether the disclosure is supported before it goes to assurance.

Q: What are the common mistakes people make when reporting s2-22-b?

The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can spot weak points before finalising the disclosure. Use that section as a pre-submission check to avoid missing data, unclear scope, or unsupported statements.

Q: How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s2-22-b?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf. Use the workbook to organise the preparation steps, evidence, and draft inputs, then use the PDF as a quick reference.

Q: What can I take from the synthetic example disclosures for s2-22-b?

The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show what a finished draft can look like. Treat them as examples only and use them to shape your own narrative and presentation.

Q: How can I turn the s2-22-b page into a draft narrative and content index line?

The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. Use those prompts to convert your prepared data into a short draft and a clear index entry for the report.

Disclosure focus

The practical focus is on transparency and consistency: a reader should be able to understand what was included, what was left out, and how robust the analysis is. Organisations should be clear about the scope of coverage across the business, such as whether the analysis applies to the whole group, selected operations, or only certain assets or sites, and whether the same approach was used across those areas or tailored in different ways.

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.

Policy and tech assumptions
Strategy / Finance / Sustainability

Record the main policy, market and technology assumptions used in the analysis, including the basis for each assumption and any key judgement calls.

Evidence Model assumptions log, scenario notes, board or management papers, and source references used to set assumptions.

Watch for Assumptions are taken from a different model version or source set, so the reported inputs do not match the analysis actually run.
Paris pathway use
Sustainability / Strategy

State whether a climate pathway aligned to the Paris goal was used, and how it was applied in the analysis.

Evidence Scenario selection memo, model setup file, and analysis notes showing the chosen pathway and its use.

Watch for A pathway is described as Paris-aligned when the model actually used a different temperature or policy pathway.
Hazard and transition coverage
Risk / Sustainability

Describe which parts of the analysis cover climate hazards and which parts cover the move to a lower-carbon economy, including any gaps or exclusions.

Evidence Scenario scope note, risk register, and model documentation showing the covered impact types and exclusions.

Watch for Physical and transition impacts are mixed together or one side is omitted, so the coverage stated does not match the model scope.
Why it matters
Sustainability / Risk / Strategy

Set out the reason this analysis is relevant to the organisation, including the business area, risk, opportunity or decision it informs.

Evidence Materiality assessment, risk register, strategy paper, or committee paper explaining the business relevance.

Watch for The rationale is written for a different business area or issue, so the stated relevance does not match the actual use case.
Analysis period
Finance / Sustainability

Capture the exact period the analysis covers, including start and end dates and whether it is a point-in-time or multi-period review.

Evidence Model run date, reporting timetable, scenario analysis pack, and any period labels used in source files.

Watch for A forecast window, year-end snapshot and rolling period are mixed up, so the reported period does not match the analysis run.
Scenario set and sources
Sustainability / Risk / Strategy

List the scenarios used and where each one came from, including the source organisation, version or publication date where available.

Evidence Scenario library, source documents, download records, and model input register.

Watch for The scenario names are reported without the exact source version, so the set cannot be traced back to the inputs used in the model.
Operational scope
Finance / Sustainability / Operations

Define which operations, entities, sites or activities are included in the analysis and which are left out.

Evidence Boundary memo, consolidation schedule, entity list, site register, and model scope notes.

Watch for The scope is based on a different consolidation boundary, so excluded entities or sites are missing from the reported coverage.
Forecast horizons
Strategy / Finance / Sustainability

State the time horizons used for the analysis, with the labels and lengths applied to each horizon.

Evidence Scenario analysis template, planning assumptions, and model outputs showing the horizon labels and dates.

Watch for Short-, medium- and long-term horizons are labelled inconsistently across papers and models, so the reported time bands do not line up.

Before you start

Have we pinned down which parts of the business, sites, and activities are included in this analysis?
Have we fixed the time windows we will use for the analysis, and are they the same ones used in our reporting pack?
Can we point each assumption to a named source, model, or internal paper trail before we draft anything?
Have we agreed which policy, market, and technology assumptions sit behind the numbers we will show?
Are we using a Paris-aligned pathway, and if so, have we settled which one and where it came from?
Have we decided whether the analysis covers both weather-related and transition-related effects, and why that mix is relevant for our organisation?

＋ Show s2-22-b sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

How to prepare it

Set the boundary for the analysis first: decide which operations, sites, activities and time periods are in scope, and make sure the period you analyse is stated clearly.

Define the content of the assessment in business terms: identify the policy, macroeconomic and technology assumptions you will use, the climate scenarios you will rely on, and the time horizons you are applying.

Gather the support for each input: keep the source material for the scenario set, the origin of the assumptions, and any documents showing how physical and transition risks were covered.

Prepare the disclosure content itself: write the narrative or compile the figures so they explain why the chosen scenarios and assumptions matter for the entity and how they were used in the analysis.

Record any limits or changes to the analysis: note what was left out, any changes from prior periods, and the reason each item is relevant to the disclosure.

Check the draft against the official source before finalising: confirm the scope, assumptions, scenario sources, coverage, rationale and reporting period all match the underlying evidence and the source requirements.

Request the data

Request the scenario analysis pack from Strategy / Risk

Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.

What assumptions, scenario set, coverage, time horizons and supporting evidence were used for the latest climate scenario analysis?

Please use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the disclosure labels. For example, if you call this work a climate stress test, resilience review or planning case, keep that language in the request and only translate it to the reporting label at the end. This is a training template only; adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.

Weak request

Please provide the scenario analysis information for the disclosure, including the method, inputs and assumptions.

Why it fails: This uses reporting jargon that may not match how the team works day to day, and it does not say what evidence is needed, which period is in scope, what parts of the business were covered, or which assumptions and source materials should be returned.

Better request

Please send the latest climate scenario analysis pack for [period], including the scenario cases used, the main policy / market / technology assumptions, the parts of the business covered, whether physical risks, transition risks, or both were assessed, the time horizons used, and the note explaining why these cases were relevant. Include the source file or link, version/date, and the person who prepared and reviewed it. Use your team’s own labels if different; we will map them for reporting.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for the climate scenario analysis pack

Hi [name/team],

We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need the latest scenario analysis evidence for [reporting period]. Please share the materials used for the analysis, including:
- the scenario set and where each case came from;
- the main policy, market, technology and other assumptions;
- which parts of the business were covered;
- whether physical risks, transition risks, or both were assessed;
- the time horizons used; and
- the note explaining why these scenarios were relevant to the business.

Please also include the source files or links, the version/date, and the person who prepared and reviewed the pack.

If your team uses different internal labels for this work, please keep those labels in the response and we will map them for reporting. This is a training template only; please adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.

Many thanks,
[preparer name]
[team]
[contact details]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [name/team] — could you send over the latest climate scenario analysis pack for [period]? We need the scenario list, key assumptions, what was covered, the time horizons, and the note on why these cases were chosen. Please include the source file/link, version/date, and owner/reviewer. Use your team’s own labels if different; we’ll map them later. Thanks, [name]

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A group with factories, warehouses and a distribution network wants evidence from the sustainability planning team and operations risk team.

Adapted request. Please share the latest climate scenario analysis pack for [period] covering our plants, warehouses and logistics network. Include the scenario cases used, the main assumptions on policy, energy prices, technology shifts and weather impacts, the parts of the network covered, the time horizons used, and the note on why these cases were chosen for our operations. Please attach the source workbook or model link, version/date, and the owner/reviewer. Use your internal labels for the analysis and we will map them later.

Example response. Pack title: FY2025 climate planning case review; Scenario names: base, delayed policy, rapid transition, severe weather; Coverage: 12 plants, 4 warehouses, 1 distribution hub; Time horizons: 2027, 2030, 2040; Evidence reference: workbook link and assumptions log.

Financial services

Context. A lender wants evidence from the risk function and portfolio analytics team for a portfolio-level climate planning exercise.

Adapted request. Please send the latest climate scenario analysis pack for [period] covering the lending portfolio. Include the scenario set and source, the main policy, market, technology and physical assumptions, the portfolio segments covered, the time horizons used, and the note explaining why the selected cases were relevant to the portfolio and strategy. Please include the source files, version/date, and the person who prepared and reviewed the pack. Keep your team’s own labels in the response; we will map them for reporting.

Example response. Pack title: Portfolio climate planning pack; Scenario names: orderly transition, disorderly transition, hot-house world; Coverage: corporate lending, commercial real estate and project finance; Time horizons: 2026, 2030, 2050; Evidence reference: scenario memo, model outputs and review sign-off.

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

Start by stating which scenarios were used, where they came from, which assumptions were applied, which parts of the business were included, and the time periods covered, so readers can see the basis of the analysis.

Context note

Explain what the scenario work is intended to show for the business, including how the chosen scenarios help assess climate-related exposure across the operations in scope and over the selected horizons.

Fluctuation statement

If the analysis changed from the prior period, note whether the shift came from different scenarios, updated assumptions, a wider or narrower scope, or a change in the time horizons reviewed.

Content index entry

s2-22-b Scenario analysis method, inputs and assumptions — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Preparation tools & forms

Download preparation tools for s2-22-b with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.

Free · Email access

01XLSPrep & Assurance workbookDatapoints, risks, evidence to check, owner and evidence pack.Get it free ↧ 02XLSData-request packRequest email, message template, response fields and sign-off structure.Get it free ↧ 03PDFLibrary CardPrintable one-page summary of this disclosure card.Get it free ↧

Check

For each claim, check the evidence

We kept a written note of the main policy, market, country-level, energy and technology assumptions used in the scenario work.
Risk The assurer may ask whether the assumptions were actually documented, whether they were the ones used in the analysis, and whether the note matches the final published figure.
Evidence to check Scenario model inputs; assumption log or working paper; version history showing the assumptions used; sign-off pack linking the assumptions note to the published disclosure.
We used a scenario set that included a climate case linked to the latest global climate agreement.
Risk The assurer may probe whether that type of case was really included, how it was identified, and whether the wording in the disclosure overstates what was used.
Evidence to check Scenario list; source documents for each scenario; internal mapping showing which scenario was treated as the agreement-linked case; review notes confirming the published description.
We based the coverage on a mix of scenarios that covered different risk types, rather than a single narrow case.
Risk The assurer may check whether the set was genuinely varied, whether it covered one or both risk categories, and whether the published wording matches the actual set used.
Evidence to check Scenario selection paper; risk mapping matrix; source materials for each scenario; evidence of review and approval of the final set.
We can explain why the chosen scenarios were the right ones for judging how the business might hold up under climate-related change and uncertainty.
Risk The assurer may challenge whether the rationale is specific enough, whether it is supported by the business context, and whether the explanation is consistent with the analysis performed.
Evidence to check Rationale memo; board or management papers; links between scenarios and strategic risks; working papers showing how the scenarios were selected for relevance.
We recorded the reporting year in which the scenario analysis was performed.
Risk The assurer may verify that the stated year is correct, that the work was completed in that period, and that the disclosure does not blur preparation timing with publication timing.
Evidence to check Project timetable; dated working papers; meeting minutes; approval records showing when the analysis was carried out.
We can identify the scenarios we used and where each one came from.
Risk The assurer may ask whether every scenario is named, whether the sources are traceable, and whether any internally adapted material is clearly distinguished from external material.
Evidence to check Scenario register; source references or links; copies of external scenario publications; internal notes showing any adaptations or selections made.

Evidence pack to prepare

The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosureA methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and preparedSource-system exports the figures or facts were drawn fromThe internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publicationMinutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation

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 owner, wrong languageThe request goes to a team that does not hold the underlying model or assumptions, so the reply comes back in framework terms instead of the business terms used by the people who actually ran the analysis.
No clear boundaryThe data pull is started without agreeing which sites, entities, or activities are in scope, so different teams send different slices of the business and the set cannot be reconciled.
Period mismatchOne team sends the latest forecast while another sends the period used in the analysis, so the inputs no longer match the reporting window being described.
Mixed counting basisHeadcount, emissions, spend, or asset data are gathered on different bases and then merged, which makes the scenario inputs inconsistent and hard to compare.
Source labels lostOriginal file names, version tags, or source notes are stripped out during collection, so nobody can trace a figure back to the document it came from.
Separate groups mergedPhysical and transition information, or other distinct populations, are combined into one file even though they need to stay separate for the analysis to make sense.
Missing evidence trailThe team captures the numbers but not the supporting notes, screenshots, or file references, leaving no proof of how each input was assembled.
No sign-off recordDraft inputs are circulated informally and then used without a dated approval trail, so it is unclear who checked the assumptions and when.
Scenario set not pinned downThe collection request does not name which scenario pack and source documents to use, so different contributors pull from different versions and the dataset becomes inconsistent.
Relevance not capturedThe team records the inputs but never asks why each assumption matters to the analysis, so later reviewers cannot see the link between the data and the business judgement.

＋ Show 6 more

Judgement needed

What to do when the business perimeter changes mid-yearUse the same cut-off point across the analysis, then explain whether bought-in or sold-off activities were included, excluded, or only partly reflected, and why that treatment best matches the period being described.
How to handle different local meanings for the same inputWhere country teams use different definitions or source data, pick one basis for the analysis, state the mapping or conversion used, and explain any places where local practice could not be made fully comparable.
Whether small or borderline activities stay in or drop outSet a clear inclusion rule for operations that sit near the edge of the chosen scope, apply it consistently, and disclose the rule so readers can see why some marginal items were kept or left out.
Which date or period anchors the analysisChoose one timing basis for the scenario work, use it consistently across the narrative and inputs, and explain if the analysis reflects a point-in-time view, an average, or another period basis.
When to use estimates instead of direct measurementsIf actual readings are missing or impractical, use the best available estimate, say where it was used, and explain the main assumptions and any known limits on accuracy.
How far to round figures before they lose meaningApply one rounding approach across the disclosure, keep the level of precision consistent with the underlying data, and note any material effect that rounding could have on the results.
How to summarise sensitive location or workforce dataIf detailed site or people data cannot be shown without privacy risk, group it into broader bands, explain the aggregation method, and make clear what detail has been withheld.
How to treat scenario sources that do not line up neatlyWhen external scenario material is mixed or incomplete, identify the source set used, explain any selection or blending choices, and state the assumptions made to bridge gaps.
How to explain the link between the scenario set and the business modelDescribe why the chosen scenario set is relevant to the organisation’s operations, and spell out the main policy, market, and technology assumptions that connect the scenario to the business.
How to separate physical and transition coverageState which parts of the analysis look at weather- or location-driven effects and which parts look at policy, market, or technology change, and explain any areas where the two overlap.

＋ Show 6 more

Examples

How it reads on the page

Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity generation

We assessed climate-related risks and opportunities for our power stations, grid connections and fuel supply chain across our owned sites and joint ventures in Europe and North America, using a 2024 reporting year view with analysis to 2030, 2040 and 2050. Our scenario set combined a Paris-consistent pathway from the IEA and NGFS with a higher-warming pathway from the IPCC, and we used it to test both heat, flood and water stress impacts as well as carbon price, demand and technology-shift effects.
- The assessment rests on assumptions about policy tightening, fuel prices, carbon costs, renewable build-out, storage costs and plant efficiency, with the same assumptions applied consistently across the portfolio.
- We judged the exercise relevant because it covers 92% of our owned generation capacity and 88% of our contracted fuel volume, which together represent the parts of the business most exposed to climate change and the energy transition.

Synthetic example for practitioner training only; not legal, compliance or assurance advice.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Commercial property

For our 2024 reporting period, we reviewed climate scenarios for our directly managed offices and logistics assets in the UK and Asia-Pacific, looking ahead to 2030, 2040 and 2050. We used a Paris-aligned pathway from the Network for Greening the Financial System together with a severe-warming pathway from the IPCC, and we tested both physical hazards such as heat and flooding and transition effects such as retrofit cost, energy-price change and tenant demand.
- Our working assumptions covered building-code tightening, grid decarbonisation, financing costs, retrofit technology performance and occupancy trends, and we applied them to the full managed portfolio.
- We considered the analysis material because it spans 74 of our 80 buildings and 6.2 million of our 6.8 million square feet, so it captures the assets most likely to be affected by climate-related change.

Synthetic example for practitioner training only; not legal, compliance or assurance advice.

Quality ladder

Basic
I used one climate scenario set for the year ended 31 December 2025.
Better
I used a Paris-aligned scenario set for our 2025 analysis, covering our main operations and both physical and transition risks, with assumptions on policy, market and technology change drawn from internal planning and external sources.
Best
I used a Paris-aligned scenario set for our 2025 analysis across our UK and EU operations over short-, medium- and long-term horizons, based on internal planning, external market and policy sources, and I kept the same core assumptions because the latest review showed no material change in our operating outlook.

Check your understanding

Scenarios to work through

A manufacturer has run a climate scenario exercise for its main plants and distribution network. The team used one pathway from a recognised climate model, but the draft note only says the exercise was done and does not explain why that pathway was chosen or what business areas were included.

QWhat should the preparer check before signing off the disclosure?

Reveal model answer →

A retailer has modelled both flood disruption and a rapid policy shift on carbon pricing. The draft wording mentions the two scenario types, but it does not say whether the analysis looked at both short and longer time periods, or how the assumptions were set for policy, market and technology change.

QHow should the preparer decide whether the disclosure is complete enough?

Reveal model answer →

An energy company has used a Paris-aligned pathway for part of its transition planning and a separate physical-risk case for its coastal assets. The draft report says the scenarios were “aligned with climate goals” and “covered risks”, but it does not say whether the analysis included both transition and physical effects, or why those choices were relevant to the company.

QWhat judgement should the preparer make about the wording and content?

Reveal model answer →

A diversified group has prepared a scenario analysis for the current reporting year, but the draft note mixes together assumptions from last year’s model with new assumptions from this year’s planning cycle. It also leaves out the period the analysis relates to, making it hard to tell which year the results describe.

QWhat should the preparer do before finalising the note?

Reveal model answer →

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.

Real published reports

WuXi Biologics (Cayman) Inc.

Partial

Pharmaceuticals / Biotech / Life Sciences · China · 2024 · p.90 ↗

WuXi Biologics (Cayman) Inc.'s Sustainability Report 2024 includes coverage of Paris-aligned scenario use and physical transition risk identification, with specific reference to alignment with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C trajectory and the application of four climate scenarios for analysis (p.89). The report also discusses scenario sets and sources, including scenarios consistent with ambitious greenhouse gas emission reductions (p.89-90). However, the report lacks clear disclosure on key policy macro technology assumptions, relevance rationale, scope of operations, and time horizons, and the reporting period of analysis is mentioned but not clearly defined (p.133).

Nedbank Group

Partial

None · South Africa · 2025 · p.63 ↗

Nedbank Group’s 2025 Climate Report provides coverage of physical and transition climate risks, including physical climate scenario analysis and transition risk assessments such as the EU CBAM, as noted on page 29. The report also details the scenario set and sources used, referencing publicly available NGFS variables and IPCC Sixth Assessment narratives on the same page. However, key disclosures remain unclear or missing, including the bank’s key policy macro technology assumptions (p.30), use of Paris-aligned scenarios (p.64), rationale for relevance, reporting period of analysis, and time horizons, with only partial context on the scope of operations provided (p.59).

ANZ Group Holdings

Partial

None · Australia · 2025 · p.26 ↗

ANZ Group Holdings’ 2025 Climate Report provides a covered datapoint on physical transition risk coverage, noting low physical and moderate transition risk with approximately 1.5°C warming by 2100 (p.59). The report includes unclear disclosures regarding key policy macro technology assumptions (p.29), Paris-aligned scenario use (p.15), reporting period of analysis (p.59), scenario set and sources (p.59), scope of operations (p.57), and time horizons (p.3), where related context is present but no clear, explicit disclosures are made. There is no found evidence for a rationale explaining the relevance of the scenario analysis.

Field	WuXi Biologics (Cayman) Inc.	Nedbank Group	ANZ Group Holdings
Policy and tech assumptions	Not found	Partial	Partial
Paris pathway use	Not found	Partial	Partial
Hazard and transition coverage	Not found	Not found	Not found
Why it matters	Not found	Not found	Not found
Analysis period	Partial	Not found	Partial
Scenario set and sources	Not found	Not found	Partial
Operational scope	Not found	Partial	Partial
Forecast horizons	Not found	Not found	Partial

Full evidence map with quotes and page numbers →

✓ Knowledge Hub AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Get practical answers for your reporting context.

Try How do I prepare s2-22-b? What data do I need to collect? Where can I see a real-report example? What mistakes should I avoid?

Framework references

Relevant IFRS / ISSB requirements and related disclosures

IFRS / ISSB

s2-22-b

within IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures

Open official source →

Guides that settle this question

Are IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 Mandatory? →Can One Climate Dataset Support UK SRS S2, IFRS S2, ESRS E1, TCFD and CDP? →Climate risks, scenario analysis and resilience under IFRS S2 →First-Time Application of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 →

Related & explore

More in IFRS S2 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →

FAQ

Questions this page answers

How do I use the s2-22-b page to draft the climate-related disclosure in practice?+

What data do I need to gather for s2-22-b before I start writing the disclosure?+

How should I set the scope and methodology for s2-22-b using this page?+

Who should own the inputs for s2-22-b in my organisation?+

What should I include in an evidence pack for s2-22-b assurance?+

What are the six assurance claims on the s2-22-b page and how do I use them?+

What are the common mistakes people make when reporting s2-22-b?+

How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s2-22-b?+

What can I take from the synthetic example disclosures for s2-22-b?+

How can I turn the s2-22-b page into a draft narrative and content index line?+

Can I reuse data prepared for ESRS E1 (Climate Change) for s2-22-b?+

	Report A	Report B	Report C
Datapoint 1	✓ p.213	unclear	✓ p.87
Datapoint 2	✓ p.214	—	✓ p.90

Scenario analysis method, inputs and assumptions

What to collect before drafting

Policy and tech assumptions

Paris pathway use

Hazard and transition coverage

Why it matters

Analysis period

Scenario set and sources

Operational scope