Disclosure focus
The practical focus is on coverage and comparability across the organisation, not just on a few headline sites or the most visible operations. An organisation should think about whether the metric reflects the full business, how it is broken down by relevant parts of the value chain or operations, and whether it helps users see concentrations of vulnerability rather than only an overall average.
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.
-
Vulnerability basis
Risk managementRecord the criteria, assumptions and source information used to decide why an asset, activity or exposure is treated as vulnerable, including the specific factors considered and the basis for that judgement.
Evidence Assessment memo, methodology note, risk register entry, model output or internal review papers showing how the vulnerability call was made.
Watch for The basis does not tie back to the agreed assessment method, so the vulnerability call is a judgement with no auditable source.
-
Exposure concentration profile
Finance / RiskSet out where the concentration sits by location, asset class and expected timing, using the same grouping logic across all three dimensions so the reported profile matches the underlying portfolio view.
Evidence Portfolio analytics, asset inventory, location mapping, scenario or horizon analysis, and management reporting used to build the concentration view.
Watch for The geography, asset type or time-horizon split does not reconcile to the portfolio system, or one of the dimensions is grouped differently from the source analysis.
-
Share of total
FinanceCapture the proportion this item represents of the relevant overall total, using the same numerator and denominator basis as the source calculation and the correct reporting period.
Evidence Calculation workbook, source ledger or register, and the total used as the denominator, with a clear audit trail from source data to the reported percentage.
Watch for The percentage is calculated against the wrong total, or a period-end figure is mixed with an average or year-to-date base.
-
At-risk assets and activities
Risk management / FinanceIdentify the assets and activities that are exposed to vulnerability and quantify the related amount, keeping the scope limited to the defined vulnerable set and the same measurement basis throughout.
Evidence Asset register, activity inventory, risk assessment output, valuation or exposure schedule, and the working papers showing which items were included.
Watch for The amount does not reconcile to the asset register or activity inventory, or a vulnerable sub-population is left out of the count or value.
Before you start
- Have we agreed which assets or activities count as exposed for this metric, and which ones stay out of scope?
- Have we fixed the basis for judging exposure — for example, by site, asset class, or future period — so the same lens is used throughout?
- Can we trace the figures back to a source record or model that shows how the vulnerable amount was built up?
- Have we decided what the total is that the percentage will be measured against, and that the numerator and denominator match the same population?
- Have we settled the definitions we will use for 'vulnerable' and for the grouping labels we will report, so the categories are applied consistently?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the transition-risk exposure data
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which assets or activities are most exposed to transition-related risk, how is that exposure grouped, and what share of the total does it represent?
Use your organisation’s own labels first, then map them to the reporting wording. For example, ask for the team’s existing portfolio, asset, site, product, project, or activity categories rather than using framework terms in the request.
Weak request
Please provide the transition-risk vulnerability metric for the group.
Why it fails: It uses framework language without telling the owner what internal records to pull, what categories to use, or what numbers and splits are needed. It is too vague to trace back to source data or to check the basis used.
Better request
Please provide the current analysis of which assets, sites, projects, or activities are most exposed to transition-related risk for [period] and [boundary]. Use your own category names, show the currency value exposed, the total reference value, the share of total, and any split by region, asset type, or timing. Include the source file and the basis used to judge exposure.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for transition-risk exposure data for [reporting period] Dear [name/team], We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the data behind our transition-risk exposure analysis. Please send a table for [reporting period] covering [business boundary]. Use your team’s own terms for the relevant assets, activities, sites, projects, or portfolios, and include the basis you used to judge exposure. Please include: - the categories you used; - the value of the exposed items in currency terms; - the total value used as the reference point; - the share of the total for each category; - any split by region, asset type, or expected timing of impact; - the source system or file; - the method or judgement used; - any assumptions, exclusions, or limitations. If helpful, you can return the information in the attached template. Please adapt this to your organisation’s language and check the official source before sign-off. Many thanks, [preparer name] [team] [contact details]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send the transition-risk exposure data for [period] for [boundary]? Please use your team’s own category names and include the value exposed, the total used, the % of total, the basis used, and any split by region / asset type / timing. Thanks — [name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A group with several plants, product lines, and a central asset register.
Adapted request. Please send the transition-risk exposure table for [period] covering our owned plants and major production activities. Use the plant, line, or product names your team already uses, and show the exposed value, total value, % of total, region, asset type, and expected timing of impact.
Example response. Plant A | UK | Production line | Near term | 12,000,000 | 80,000,000 | 15.0 | Internal risk screen | Main exposure from planned policy change Plant B | EU | Warehouse | Medium term | 3,000,000 | 80,000,000 | 3.8 | Internal risk screen | Lower exposure due to flexible use
Real estate / Property
Context. A portfolio team tracks buildings, leasehold improvements, and development projects.
Adapted request. Please provide the transition-risk exposure analysis for [period] across our property portfolio. Use your portfolio’s own building and project names, and include the value exposed, the total portfolio value, the share of total, and a split by geography, property type, and timing.
Example response. Office portfolio | London | Office | Near term | 25,000,000 | 200,000,000 | 12.5 | Management assessment | Higher exposure from energy-efficiency upgrade needs Retail portfolio | North West | Retail | Long term | 10,000,000 | 200,000,000 | 5.0 | Management assessment | Exposure concentrated in older assets
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Explain the basis used to identify exposed assets or activities, including the criteria applied, the way locations and asset types were grouped, and the time periods used for the assessment.
Context note
Set out what the figures mean in practice by showing how much of the portfolio or activity base is considered exposed, where that exposure is concentrated, and which parts of the business are most affected.
Fluctuation statement
If the numbers moved materially, point to the main drivers, such as changes in the asset mix, a shift in geographic concentration, or a different view of the relevant time horizon.
Content index entry
s2-29-b Transition-risk vulnerability metric — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for s2-29-b with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We documented the method we used to judge which parts of the business were more exposed to transition-related climate risk, so the figure is based on a clear and repeatable assessment approach.
Risk The basis may be vague, inconsistent across teams, or not actually used in the calculation; an assurer may test whether the stated method matches the underlying analysis.
Evidence to check Assessment methodology note; working papers showing the criteria used; version-controlled calculation file; sign-off from the preparer and reviewer.
We mapped the exposed items by location, asset class and expected timing, so the disclosed breakdown reflects where the concentration sits rather than a broad estimate.
Risk The concentration view may omit relevant locations, asset categories or time periods, or may double count items across segments.
Evidence to check Asset register or activity inventory; geographic and asset-type tagging logic; time-horizon classification rules; reconciliation from source data to the published breakdown.
We calculated the share of the total using the same population and denominator throughout, so the percentage is directly tied to the amount shown in the disclosure.
Risk The percentage may be based on a different total, an outdated denominator, or a formula error; an assurer will check internal consistency.
Evidence to check Calculation sheet showing numerator and denominator; control totals; spreadsheet formula checks; tie-out between the percentage, the amount and the underlying total.
We identified the assets or activities we considered exposed to transition risk using our internal screening and classification process, and we kept the supporting records for each inclusion.
Risk The population may be incomplete, misclassified, or unsupported by evidence; an assurer may test whether the included items were selected consistently.
Evidence to check Screening criteria; source listings of assets or activities; classification outputs; supporting documents for each included item; exception log for exclusions.
Before publication, we ran a final review to check the numbers, the labels and the cross-references, and we retained evidence of the approval trail.
Risk Errors may remain in the published figure, the narrative may not match the underlying workings, or approvals may be missing; an assurer will look for pre-publication controls.
Evidence to check Review checklist; evidence of management approval; reconciliation to source systems; proof-reading or quality-control notes; change log showing final edits.
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
- A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).
- The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.
- Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.
- One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.
- Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.
- Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
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 ownerChasing the sustainability team alone leaves the metric without the finance, asset, or operations owner who actually holds the underlying figures.
- Framework language firstAsking for the data in technical reporting terms instead of the business’s own labels makes teams search the wrong reports and slows collection.
- Scope left vagueNot pinning down which sites, assets, activities, or business lines are in scope leads to an incomplete or inconsistent population.
- Timing basis mixed upPulling figures from different cut-off dates or reporting periods means the numbers no longer relate to the same point in time.
- Counting basis mixedCombining headcount, value, area, or other bases in one extract without separating them produces figures that cannot be compared cleanly.
- Source labels stripped outCopying values into a summary sheet without the original report names, field labels, or system references makes later tracing back to source records difficult.
- Populations merged too earlyPutting vulnerable assets and vulnerable activities into one bucket before checking them separately hides where the exposure actually sits.
- Evidence trail missingCollecting the numbers without file dates, version notes, and reviewer sign-off leaves no clear audit trail for how the data was assembled.
Judgement needed
- Set the assessment base after a buy-in or saleUse the reporting group that is in place at the cut-off date, explain whether newly acquired or sold operations are included or removed, and keep the same approach when you work out the share of exposed assets or activities.
- Choose one country rule where local definitions differIf the same activity is described differently across jurisdictions, pick a single internal rule for classifying exposure, explain the mapping you used, and show how that rule was applied consistently across the portfolio.
- Decide how to treat borderline assets or activitiesState whether items that only partly fall within the vulnerable set are counted in full, in part, or excluded, and explain the threshold or judgement used so users can see how the total was built.
- Fix the timing point for the numbersMake clear whether you used opening balances, closing balances, an average, or another date basis, and explain why that timing best reflects the exposure picture for the period.
- Separate measured amounts from estimatesIf some values come from direct records and others from modelling or management estimates, identify which is which, describe the main assumptions, and explain any material gaps in source data.
- Keep the percentage and value bases alignedUse the same population and the same cut-off for both the share of total and the currency amount, or explain any difference so readers can reconcile the two figures.
- Round in a way that still reconcilesSet and disclose a rounding rule that does not distort the total or the percentage, and if rounding creates a small difference, explain it in the note.
- Aggregate enough to protect sensitive location dataWhere a detailed split by place, asset type, or time period could expose confidential information, combine categories to a safer level, say what was grouped, and keep the method consistent.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
We assessed where climate stress could most affect our thermal fleet by combining flood maps, heat-stress projections and outage history, then ranking assets by expected interruption risk over the next 10 years. The most exposed assets were 6 gas-fired plants and 2 substations in coastal and riverine locations, representing 8 of our 20 operating sites (40%).
- By location, 5 of the exposed sites are in the south-east and 3 are in the north-west; by asset type, 6 are generation plants and 2 are grid substations.
- All 8 exposed sites sit in the short-to-medium term risk window we use for planning, and together they account for 40% of our operating asset base.
This example shows how to explain the method used to identify exposure, then summarise where the vulnerable assets sit, what kinds of assets they are, and how much of the total portfolio they represent.
We screened our production network using water-stress forecasts, supplier disruption data and asset criticality scores to identify where climate-related pressure could interrupt output. On that basis, 12 of our 30 facilities are classed as vulnerable, with 7 in water-scarce regions and 5 in flood-prone areas; by asset type, 9 are processing plants and 3 are cold-storage hubs.
- The vulnerable set is concentrated in the medium-term planning horizon, covering 12 sites in total, which is 40% of our facility base.
- We use this assessment to prioritise resilience work for the sites most likely to face operational disruption.
This example shows a different sector using a different screening basis, while still covering the method, the main concentrations, the asset types affected, the time horizon used, and the share of the total base.
Quality ladder
- Basic
I estimate £40m of our assets and activities are exposed to transition risk.
- Better
I estimate £40m of our assets and activities are exposed to transition risk, which is 20% of our total, based on a review of where the exposure sits by region, asset type and time horizon.
- Best
I estimate £40m of our assets and activities are exposed to transition risk, equal to 20% of our total, based on our latest review across regions, asset types and time horizons; the share rose from 15% last year because we reclassified a group of older sites as more exposed after updating our scenario assumptions.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A group owns a portfolio of warehouses and processing sites. Its climate team has split the portfolio into sites exposed to policy change, sites exposed to market shift, and sites with no material exposure, and has also grouped the exposed sites by region and expected timing of impact.
A preparer has calculated that 18% of the company’s vulnerable assets sit in one country, 12% in another, and the rest are spread across several smaller locations. The same analysis also shows that most of the exposure is in one asset type and in the near term.
A finance team has identified vulnerable equipment worth £240 million out of a £1.2 billion asset base. It also wants to mention that £90 million of that vulnerable amount is in one region and £60 million is tied to a single asset class.
A business has two transition-risk hotspots: one is a set of older production lines in a coastal area, and the other is a group of distribution assets that may be affected later than the production lines. The team is unsure whether to describe the exposure by geography first or by asset type first.
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.
Hang Lung Properties Limited
Partial
SITC International Holdings Company Limited
Exact
COSCO SHIPPING Ports
Partial| Field | Hang Lung Properties Limited | SITC International Holdings Company Limited | COSCO SHIPPING Ports |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability basis | Partial | Not found | Partial |
| Exposure concentration profile | Partial | Not found | Partial |
| Share of total | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| At-risk assets and activities | Not found | Partial | 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
s2-29-b
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, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the four datapoints listed for this disclosure. The page is designed to help you move from data gathering to a draft output, with workbook and library-card downloads to support the process.
The page says to prepare four datapoints: vulnerability basis, exposure concentration profile, share of total, and at-risk assets and activities. Use those as the core data set before you draft the disclosure or build any visuals.
Use the step-by-step preparation section to work out what is in scope and how each datapoint is being built. The page also points you to common reporting gaps, which is useful for checking whether your method is consistent and complete.
The page is set up for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with whoever can evidence the underlying data and explain the method. Use the workbook to assign tasks and keep the evidence pack aligned to the owner of each datapoint.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, plus five assurance claims to verify. Build the pack around the claim, the risk it addresses, and the supporting evidence so a reviewer can trace the numbers back to source.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a final check before sign-off. It is especially useful for spotting missing datapoints, weak explanations, or a draft that does not line up with the evidence pack.
The workbook is there to help you prepare the disclosure and organise assurance evidence in one place. Use it alongside the step-by-step guidance to track the datapoints, claims, and supporting documents needed for a draft.
The page includes synthetic illustrative examples, including a quantitative table, to show what a finished disclosure can look like. Treat them as drafting aids only and make sure any figures in your own version are internally consistent.
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line to help you turn prepared data into a report-ready draft. Use those prompts to keep the narrative tied to the datapoints and evidence you have collected.
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across frameworks where your internal definitions and scope line up. Do not assume the reporting asks are identical; use the page as a practical bridge, not a substitute for checking the other framework.
More questions this page can help with