Disclosure focus
The practical focus is usually on whether these processes and policies apply across the whole organisation, including relevant operations, business units and locations, rather than only at a few flagship sites. A useful explanation would make clear the scope of coverage, any differences between parts of the business, and how consistently the approach is applied in day-to-day management.
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.
-
Year-on-year changes
Reporting / FinanceRecord what changed since the last reporting cycle, with enough detail to show the movement and the reason it changed.
Evidence Prior-year submission, current-year working papers, and a short change log signed off by the reporting owner.
Watch for Current-year figures are compared to the wrong prior period, or a restatement is missed after a source-system update.
-
Source systems and boundary
Data / ReportingSet out which systems, files, and business areas feed the datapoint, and exactly which entities, sites, or populations are included or left out.
Evidence Data lineage note, system extracts, boundary memo, and reconciliation to the in-scope population list.
Watch for The datapoint does not reconcile to the source system because the reporting boundary excludes a site, entity, or population that the source extract includes.
-
Review frequency
Reporting / ControlsState how often the datapoint is checked or refreshed, and whether that timing is monthly, quarterly, annual, or event-driven.
Evidence Monitoring plan, control calendar, and evidence of the last few review dates.
Watch for The cadence is recorded as a reporting timetable rather than the actual control frequency, so the datapoint is assessed on the wrong period.
-
Relevant controls and rules
Policy / ControlsDescribe the internal rules, procedures, and controls that govern how the datapoint is produced, checked, and approved.
Evidence Policy documents, process maps, control descriptions, and approval records.
Watch for The process description is taken from an outdated policy version and no longer matches the live control process used to produce the datapoint.
-
Selection and ranking logic
Risk / ReportingExplain how items are chosen, ranked, or filtered for inclusion, including the decision rules used to decide what matters most.
Evidence Methodology note, scoring model, ranking criteria, and examples of recent selections.
Watch for The prioritisation rule is applied differently in the report than in the working model, so the ranked items do not match the source logic.
-
Risk cut-offs
Risk / ControlsCapture the thresholds, bands, or trigger points used to decide when an issue is treated as higher or lower risk.
Evidence Risk matrix, threshold table, approved methodology, and any calibration notes.
Watch for The threshold values are copied from an old matrix, so the reported cut-offs no longer match the current risk framework.
-
Scenario analysis use
Risk / StrategyDescribe how scenario analysis is used to identify risks, including which scenarios are considered and how the results feed into risk identification.
Evidence Scenario analysis paper, risk assessment output, and meeting notes showing how scenarios informed the risk register.
Watch for Scenario analysis is described as a general planning exercise rather than a risk-identification input, so the reported use does not match the actual assessment process.
Before you start
- Have you decided which parts of the business, value chain and time period this write-up covers?
- Can you point each statement to a named source, and is the source set complete for the scope you chose?
- Have you fixed how often the team checks and updates the climate-risk work, so the timing is consistent across the draft?
- Are the policies and working steps described in the organisation’s own operational language, with no gaps in the process chain?
- Have you agreed the rule for deciding what gets attention first, including any cut-offs or trigger levels?
- If scenario analysis is used to spot climate risks, have you settled which scenarios count and how they feed into the identification process?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the climate-risk process evidence from Risk
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How do we currently identify, assess, prioritise, monitor, and update climate-related risks, and what changed since last year?
Use your organisation’s own names for risk frameworks, control cycles, review forums, and scenario work first; then map them to the disclosure fields below. Keep the ask in business language that your risk team already uses, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the climate-risk policies and processes disclosure evidence.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only, so the owner may not know which internal documents, systems, or review cycles to pull. It also does not specify scope, period, source, or the exact business questions needed to assemble the evidence.
Better request
Please send the latest pack your team uses to identify, rank, and review climate-related risks for [reporting period], including the documents, register extracts, committee papers, and scenario notes that show the scope covered, review cadence, ranking logic, thresholds or triggers, and what changed since last year.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for climate-risk process evidence for [reporting period] Hi [name], Could you please share the current evidence pack for how [business / group / function] identifies, reviews, and updates climate-related risks for [reporting period]? Please include, in your team’s own terms: - the main process or policy documents used; - the data inputs and scope covered; - how often the review happens; - the logic used to rank or filter risks; - any thresholds, triggers, or escalation points; - how scenario work is used when spotting risks; and - what changed compared with the prior year. If the information sits across a register, slide deck, procedure, or committee paper, that is fine — please send the source files or links and note where each item can be found. A possible LRA training template is attached below for reference only; please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send over the latest climate-risk process pack for [reporting period]? Please include your team’s own wording for the process/policy, data inputs and scope, review frequency, ranking logic, thresholds/triggers, scenario use, and what changed since last year. Source docs or links are fine. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant-heavy group wants evidence from operational risk and EHS teams covering sites, utilities, and supply chain disruption.
Adapted request. Please share the current site-risk pack for [reporting period] showing how the business spots and reviews climate-related risks across plants and logistics. Include the process note, site scope, review cadence, ranking rules, escalation triggers, scenario inputs used in screening, and any changes since last year.
Example response. Attached: Group risk procedure v4 dated [date]; site risk register extract for 12 plants; quarterly risk committee slide deck; scenario screening note using severe heat and flood cases; change log showing a new supplier-disruption trigger added this year.
Financial services
Context. A lender wants evidence from enterprise risk and credit risk teams covering portfolio screening and governance review.
Adapted request. Please send the latest portfolio risk pack for [reporting period] showing how climate-related risks are identified and prioritised across the lending book. Include the internal policy note, portfolio scope, review cadence, rating or filtering logic, thresholds for escalation, scenario use in screening, and what changed since the prior year.
Example response. Attached: Climate risk policy note v3; portfolio scope summary by business line; monthly monitoring dashboard; credit screening rules; committee paper showing a revised sector threshold and updated scenario set compared with last year.
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 used to prepare the disclosure, including the definitions applied, the data inputs relied on, the scope covered and the review rhythm used to keep the information current.
Context note
Explain what the figures are intended to show in practice: how the organisation identifies climate-related risk, what drives the ranking of issues, and how the chosen thresholds and scenario work shape the results.
Fluctuation statement
If there are notable year-on-year movements, describe whether they come from changes in the underlying data, the scope of what was included, the way risks were assessed, or the timing of the review process.
Content index entry
s2-25-a Climate-risk processes and policies — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for s2-25-a with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We explained what changed in our climate-risk process since last year, and we kept the wording focused so it did not repeat other parts of the report.
Risk The assurer may ask whether the year-on-year change is real, complete, and not just a restatement of earlier narrative.
Evidence to check Prior-year and current-year drafts, tracked-change notes, internal change log, board or committee papers showing what was updated, and the final cross-reference map to avoid repetition.
We set out the information inputs we used, where they came from, and which parts of the business they covered.
Risk The assurer may probe whether the stated sources are complete, whether any sites, entities or activities were left out, and whether the scope matches the figure presented.
Evidence to check Source register, data lineage or mapping document, scope list of operations included and excluded, system extracts, and sign-off from the owners of the underlying data.
We described how often the risk information is reviewed and updated, using the cadence we actually followed in preparation.
Risk The assurer may check whether the stated frequency matches practice and whether any ad hoc reviews or late updates were omitted.
Evidence to check Review calendar, meeting minutes, workflow timestamps, update logs, and evidence of any interim checks before publication.
We set out the policies and working steps we used to find, assess, rank and keep track of climate-related risks.
Risk The assurer may test whether the process description is complete, consistent with internal practice, and supported by documented procedures rather than informal habit.
Evidence to check Policy documents, process maps, risk methodology papers, control descriptions, committee packs, and evidence that the described steps were followed in the reporting cycle.
We explained how we decide which climate risks come ahead of other risk topics in our internal review.
Risk The assurer may ask whether the ranking approach is actually used, whether it is applied consistently, and whether the report makes clear how climate issues are weighed against other risks.
Evidence to check Risk appetite or ranking framework, enterprise risk register, prioritisation criteria, committee papers showing comparative ranking, and examples of decisions made using that approach.
We described the factors we used to judge how serious a risk might be, including the signs we looked for and any cut-offs or scoring rules.
Risk The assurer may probe whether the assessment basis is defined, applied consistently, and supported by evidence rather than judgement alone.
Evidence to check Assessment methodology, scoring matrix, threshold tables, qualitative factor list, worked examples, and review notes showing how the criteria were applied.
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 wrong team, so the answer comes from a group that does not actually run the climate-risk process or keep the supporting records.
- Framework language usedPeople ask for the information in reporting jargon instead of the organisation’s own terms, and the source team cannot map it back to the way they work.
- Scope not pinned downThe collector does not state which business areas, entities or activities are in scope, so different teams send data for different populations.
- Timing basis mixed upThe team pulls information from the wrong period or uses a different cut-off date from the one used elsewhere, which makes the set inconsistent.
- Counting basis blendedInputs are combined even though they were built on different counting methods, so the final figure no longer matches any source record.
- Source labels lostOriginal file names, system tags or local labels are stripped away during collection, making it hard to trace each item back to where it came from.
- Separate groups mergedData for distinct populations is rolled together when it should stay separate, which hides differences in how the process works across the organisation.
- Evidence details missingThe collector saves the answer but not the supporting metadata, so later reviewers cannot see when it was captured, by whom, or from which source.
- No approval trailThe draft is passed on without a clear sign-off record, so nobody can show who checked the inputs before they were used.
Judgement needed
- How to handle a year of portfolio reshapingIf acquisitions, disposals or other boundary moves changed the business mix during the year, explain the cut-off date and whether you restated or left prior-period figures as reported.
- Which country rule set to use where local practice differsWhere the same control or threshold is defined differently across jurisdictions, state the rule set you applied, why it was chosen, and whether any local variations were kept separate.
- Where to draw the line for near-boundary activitiesFor activities, sites or teams that sit close to the reporting perimeter, set out the inclusion rule you used and disclose any borderline cases that were included or left out.
- Whether the process is described on a current or average basisIf the approach changed during the year, say whether you described the position at the reporting date or used an average view, and explain the basis for that choice.
- When to use estimates instead of direct recordsIf complete operational records were not available, identify the parts built from estimates, the source data behind them, and the main assumptions used.
- How much detail to show after roundingIf figures or counts were rounded, make clear the rounding convention and ensure the narrative still matches the underlying totals and sub-totals.
- How to aggregate sensitive location or people dataWhere privacy, security or confidentiality limits the level of detail, group the information at a higher level and explain the aggregation rule so the scope remains understandable.
- How to treat a control that is partly outsourcedIf monitoring, review or escalation sits partly with a third party, describe which parts remain in-house, which are outsourced, and how you decided they belong in the process description.
- Whether scenario work is used for every risk or only selected onesIf scenario analysis is applied only to certain climate risks, state the selection rule and explain how that links to your prioritisation and threshold setting.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative only: synthetic example. We refreshed our climate-risk screening this year after adding two new grid-resilience data feeds, so the set of sites under review rose from 18 to 20 and the share of assets covered moved from 82% to 91%.
- Our checks draw on internal asset registers, outage logs and maintenance records, plus external weather and flood datasets; we review them monthly, with a deeper refresh each quarter.
- We rank issues by likely financial effect, safety exposure and service disruption, and we only escalate items that score 4 or 5 on our five-point scale or that affect more than 10% of a region’s load.
- For identifying risks, we test a 1.5°C orderly transition case and a 3°C physical-risk case; the first is used to spot policy and market shifts, while the second helps us flag assets with repeated flood or heat stress.
This example shows how a reporter can explain what changed since last year, where the information comes from, how often it is checked, how the process works, what gets priority, the trigger levels used, and how different future-path assumptions feed into risk spotting.
Illustrative only: synthetic example. We widened our supplier and factory review this year, moving from 120 to 135 monitored locations and increasing coverage from 76% to 84% of our direct spend.
- The review uses procurement records, supplier questionnaires, incident reports and water-stress maps; we update the core dataset every month and re-run the full assessment twice a year.
- Our process gives first attention to sites with repeated permit breaches, high water use or exposure to heat-related downtime, and we escalate any location that has three or more incidents in 12 months or sits above our 70th-percentile water-risk score.
- To find emerging issues, we test a short-term disruption case and a longer-term scarcity case; the first highlights logistics and labour pressure, while the second helps us identify suppliers likely to face chronic water constraints.
This example demonstrates a narrative disclosure that covers year-on-year movement, the information base and boundary, review frequency, the way the assessment is run, how priorities are set, the thresholds that trigger escalation, and the use of scenario analysis in spotting risk.
Quality ladder
- Basic
I review climate risk each quarter using our internal risk register and policy set.
- Better
I review climate risk each quarter across operations, suppliers and key sites, using our risk register, policy set and threshold triggers to rank issues by likely impact and urgency.
- Best
I review climate risk each quarter across operations, suppliers and key sites, using our risk register, policy set, threshold triggers and scenario checks; compared with last year, the scope is unchanged, and the main reason for the higher priority on heat and flood risks is that recent site data showed more exposure at two locations.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A group updates its climate-risk playbook after a severe weather season. The risk team has new supplier data, a revised review timetable, and a changed way of ranking issues, but the draft note only says the process was refreshed.
A finance team wants to describe climate-risk controls using only the central register, because that is the easiest source to pull from. However, the sustainability team also uses site-level logs, board papers and a supplier-screening tool, and those sources cover different parts of the business.
A company reviews climate-risk indicators every month, but only escalates them to senior leaders once a quarter unless a trigger is hit. The draft disclosure says the issue is monitored regularly, without saying how often or what happens between reviews.
A risk committee uses a scoring model to decide which climate threats get attention first. The model gives extra weight to operational disruption and legal exposure, and anything above a set score goes into the top tier, but the draft only says the committee prioritises material matters.
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
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
Partial
CJ Cheiljedang Corporation
Partial| Field | SITC International Holdings Company Limited | Yum China Holdings, Inc. | CJ Cheiljedang Corporation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year-on-year changes | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Source systems and boundary | Not found | Partial | Not found |
| Review frequency | Not found | Partial | Not found |
| Relevant controls and rules | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Selection and ranking logic | Not found | Partial | Not found |
| Risk cut-offs | Not found | Partial | Not found |
| Scenario analysis use | 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
s2-25-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
Start with the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step ‘how to prepare’ section, then use the draft-output section to turn your data into a narrative and content-index line. The page is designed as practitioner guidance, so it helps you move from preparation to a first draft rather than treating it as a formal source.
The page says to prepare year-on-year changes, source systems and boundary, review frequency, relevant controls and rules, selection and ranking logic, risk cut-offs, and how scenario analysis is used. Use that list as your data request to owners so you can build the disclosure and the evidence pack together.
The page tells you to capture source systems and boundary as part of the preparation data points, so the practical step is to document where the data comes from and what is included before drafting. That makes it easier to explain the scope consistently and support assurance later.
The page does not assign roles, but it does point you to the data points and the step-by-step preparation process, which you can use to split ownership across ESG, HR, finance, operations, or data owners as relevant to your organisation. The key is to make sure each input has a named owner before you build the draft.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, so you should use that as the core folder for supporting documents. Pair it with the six assurance claims to verify so each claim has a clear link to a risk and evidence.
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk, and evidence. In practice, use them as a checklist to test whether your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack covers the main risks.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful as a pre-submission check rather than a theory page. Review those gaps after drafting to catch missing boundary detail, weak methodology, or unsupported claims before assurance.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is there to help you organise the preparation and assurance steps. Use it alongside the page’s data points, evidence pack, and draft-output section to move from raw inputs to a reviewable draft.
The page offers a printable Library Card in PDF format, which is useful if you want a quick reference during data collection, drafting, or assurance review. It sits alongside the workbook and the page content as a practical support tool.
Yes, but only as a synthetic illustration: the page includes example disclosures and a quantitative table to show how a draft might look. Treat it as a formatting and logic guide, not as a model to copy without replacing it with your own data and boundary.
The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS E1 (Climate Change), so you can use that as a pointer to where related data may already exist. The page does not say the requirements are identical, so treat it as a reuse opportunity for data and evidence, not a one-to-one mapping.
More questions this page can help with