Disclosure focus
The practical focus is on breadth and comparability: readers should be able to understand whether the assessment covers only selected locations or extends across operations, assets, and activities that could be affected by climate-related physical events. The aim is to give a clear picture of where vulnerability sits, how widespread it is, and whether the organisation’s exposure is concentrated in a small number of places or spread more widely across the business.
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.
-
Acute and chronic split
Sustainability reporting / risk analyticsWhether the figure is broken out into short-term and longer-term parts, if that split is being used.
Evidence Method note or working paper showing the split approach, plus the source schedule used to prepare the figures.
Watch for The total is reported without matching the chosen split method, so the acute and longer-term figures are mixed or one part is omitted.
-
Exposure concentration by location
Risk management / asset managementHow the exposure is grouped by country or region, site or facility, and asset type, using the same grouping basis throughout.
Evidence Asset register, site list, and geography mapping used to build the concentration view.
Watch for The concentration view does not reconcile to the asset register because geography, site and asset-type groupings are defined differently in different source files.
-
Underlying hazard basis
Risk / environmental dataThe hazard measure or classification used as the basis for the reported figure, including the rule used to assign it.
Evidence Methodology note, hazard taxonomy, and source assessment records showing how the basis was determined.
Watch for The hazard basis is taken from a different classification than the one used in the source assessment, so the category does not match the underlying records.
-
Share of total
Finance / sustainability reportingThe portion of the whole that this item represents, calculated against the correct total for the same scope and period.
Evidence Calculation sheet showing numerator, denominator, and the source total used for the percentage.
Watch for The percentage is calculated from a different total or period, so the numerator and denominator do not align with the reported base.
-
At-risk assets and activities
Finance / risk managementThe monetary value of assets or activities that are exposed or vulnerable, using the same scope and valuation basis as the source records.
Evidence Asset valuation file, impairment or risk assessment support, and the reconciliation to the ledger or asset register.
Watch for The amount does not reconcile to the asset register or ledger because vulnerable items are defined differently from the source valuation set.
Before you start
- Have we decided which assets or activities count as vulnerable for this metric, and what business line or portfolio they sit in?
- If we are splitting by event type, have we agreed whether to separate sudden-hit and longer-build risks, or keep one combined view?
- Have we fixed the hazard basis we will use, so the figures are tied to the same weather or climate threat definition throughout?
- For any concentration view, have we chosen whether to group by place, site, or asset type, and is that grouping consistent across the dataset?
- Have we settled the measurement date and period, so the percentage is taken from the same cut-off as the rest of the reporting pack?
- Can every figure be traced back to a source record or model output, with the total and the vulnerable subset reconciling cleanly?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the site vulnerability data from Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Which sites, assets or activity groups are most exposed to physical climate hazards, and what share of the total do they represent?
Please use your organisation’s own site, asset and risk terms first, then map them to the reporting labels in the pack. Keep the request in operational language rather than framework wording, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the physical-risk vulnerability metric for the disclosure.
Why it fails: It uses framework language only, gives no boundary, no source, no grouping method, and does not say what internal data is needed to calculate the share of total or the vulnerable asset/activity value.
Better request
Please send the current operations view of which sites, facilities, assets or activity groups are most exposed to physical climate hazards for [reporting period], including the hazard basis, the share of total, the value of vulnerable assets or activities, and whether you separate short-sharp events from longer-duration stress effects. Use your normal site and asset terms, and attach the source register or assessment file.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for site and asset vulnerability data for [reporting period] Dear [name/team], We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the data on which sites, assets or activity groups are most exposed to physical climate hazards. Please send the information for [reporting period] covering [boundary]. We need it in your normal operational terms, with a short note explaining the hazard basis used, how the groupings were built, and whether any split was made between short-sharp events and longer-duration stress effects. Please include: - the sites, facilities, assets or activity groups covered - the hazard basis used in your assessment - the measure used to identify exposure - the share of the total for each group - any supporting file, register extract or assessment note - the source system and date extracted If you already have a table or dashboard, please send that and we will map it into the reporting pack. Please also flag any assumptions, exclusions or known limitations. Thank you, [preparer name] [team] Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms and check the official source before sign-off.
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you share the latest site/asset exposure data for [reporting period]? We need the list of affected sites/assets/activity groups, the hazard basis, the share of total, and any split between short-sharp events and longer-duration stress effects if you use one. Please send it in your normal terms plus the source file/register. Thanks, [preparer name]
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A multi-site producer tracks exposure across plants, warehouses and critical production lines.
Adapted request. Please share the plant and asset exposure table for [reporting period], showing which sites, lines or equipment are most exposed to flood, heat or storm hazards, the basis used to rank them, the share of total, and the value of vulnerable assets. If you split short-sharp events from longer-duration stress effects, please include that flag.
Example response. Plant A; production line 3; flood and heat basis; replacement cost of vulnerable equipment 2,400,000; share of total 18.5%; split used: yes; notes: coastal floodplain site, critical cooling equipment included.
Transport / Logistics
Context. A logistics operator assesses depots, vehicle fleets and route hubs for weather-related disruption exposure.
Adapted request. Please send the depot and fleet exposure summary for [reporting period], using your normal network terms. Include the hazard basis, the hubs or assets most exposed, the share of total network value or activity, and the value of vulnerable assets or activities. Please note whether the assessment separates short-sharp events from longer stress effects.
Example response. North hub; depot and trailer fleet; storm and flood basis; vulnerable asset value 1,150,000; share of total 12.0%; split used: no; notes: exposure based on route interruption and site flood mapping.
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 define the hazard categories, explain whether the figures are split into short-term and longer-term effects, and describe how the reported concentrations and percentages were calculated for the relevant assets, facilities or locations.
Context note
Explain what the reported concentrations mean in practice by linking them to the places, facilities or asset groups where exposure is highest and to the assets or activities that are most vulnerable.
Fluctuation statement
If the figures move materially, point to the underlying driver such as a change in the mix of locations, facilities or asset classes, a shift in the hazard basis used, or a reclassification of which assets or activities are most exposed.
Content index entry
s2-29-c Physical-risk vulnerability metric — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for s2-29-c with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We have shown whether the figure separates short-term event exposure from longer-running exposure, and we can explain why that split was used or not used.
Risk An assurer may ask whether the split was applied consistently, whether the basis for the split is documented, and whether the presentation could mislead if the categories were mixed or left unclear.
Evidence to check Working paper showing the classification approach; source data or model outputs used to assign items to each bucket; reviewer sign-off on the chosen basis; final disclosure wording or table showing the split or a clear note that no split was applied.
We have grouped the exposed items by where they sit, what site they relate to, or what type of asset they are, and we can trace each grouping back to the underlying records.
Risk An assurer may probe whether the grouping logic is complete, whether items were double-counted or omitted, and whether the location/site/asset-type labels match the source records.
Evidence to check Asset or activity register; mapping file showing the grouping fields used; reconciliation from source records to the published totals; review checks for duplicates, omissions, and classification errors.
We have documented the climate hazard basis we used when deciding what counted as exposed, including any assumptions where the source information was incomplete.
Risk An assurer may challenge whether the hazard basis was appropriate, whether assumptions were applied consistently, and whether the same basis was used across all relevant items.
Evidence to check Method note describing the hazard set or assumptions used; scenario, map, or other source inputs relied on; evidence of management review of the hazard basis; change log if the basis differed from prior periods.
We have calculated both the amount and the share of the total that is exposed, and the percentage ties back to the same denominator used in the underlying calculation.
Risk An assurer may test whether the numerator and denominator are aligned, whether the percentage has been rounded or calculated correctly, and whether the total used is the right one for the population being reported.
Evidence to check Calculation sheet showing the amount, total base, and percentage formula; reconciliation to the source population total; rounding policy or calculation controls; independent check of the arithmetic before publication.
We have identified the assets or activities that are exposed and kept evidence showing how each item was included in the final population.
Risk An assurer may ask whether the inclusion criteria were applied consistently, whether any items were excluded without support, and whether the final list matches the published figure.
Evidence to check Population listing with inclusion/exclusion flags; source documents supporting each included item; review notes for exceptions or exclusions; final sign-off pack linking the list to the reported figure.
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 ownerThe team asks the climate lead instead of the asset, operations, or risk owner who actually holds the underlying figures.
- Framework language firstPeople request the data using disclosure labels rather than the business terms the source system and local teams use, so the wrong dataset is pulled.
- Scope left vagueNo one agrees which sites, assets, or activities are in or out, so the count is built on an unclear boundary.
- Timing basis mixed upThe collection pulls figures from different cut-off dates or reporting periods, which makes the metric inconsistent.
- Counting basis mixedA percentage is calculated from one population while the underlying value comes from another, so the numerator and denominator do not match.
- Source labels stripped outOriginal tags from the register, model, or spreadsheet are removed, making it hard to trace what each figure actually represents.
- Populations merged too earlySeparate groups such as locations, facilities, or asset types are combined before review, which hides important differences in exposure.
- Evidence trail missingThe file is saved without the supporting note, extract, or approval record, so the number cannot be checked back to its source.
- No sign-off chainThe draft moves forward without a clear review and approval trail, so nobody can show who checked the inputs before submission.
Judgement needed
- Set the hazard basis when different sites face different weather or climate threatsChoose one clear basis for classifying exposure across the group, explain how it was applied, and note any material differences by location, site type or asset class.
- Decide whether to split acute and longer-term exposureIf you separate sudden-event exposure from slower-moving pressure, say so and describe the rule used; if you do not, explain the combined basis you used instead.
- Handle acquisitions and disposals using a consistent cut-off dateState whether the figure reflects the reporting date, an average period view or another cut-off, and explain how bought or sold operations were included or left out.
- Treat mixed or borderline assets in a consistent wayExplain how you dealt with assets or activities that sit partly inside and partly outside the vulnerable set, including any threshold, allocation rule or exclusion used.
- Reconcile different country definitions to one group viewWhere local records use different labels or thresholds, describe the mapping you applied and any judgement used to make the group-wide figure comparable.
- Choose whether the measure is based on book value, replacement value or another internal baseState the valuation basis behind the amount reported and explain why that basis was used for the vulnerability measure.
- Use estimates where site-level evidence is incompleteIf some locations lack measured data, explain which parts were estimated, the method used, and how much of the total was based on direct records versus approximation.
- Round and aggregate without exposing sensitive site detailIf you combine small locations or suppress detail for privacy or security reasons, explain the aggregation rule and make sure the published total still ties back to the full group amount.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
We describe how weather-related and longer-term climate pressures affect our assets, splitting the figures between sudden events and slower-moving stress where that helps users understand the pattern.
- Our exposed assets are concentrated in coastal generation sites and one inland transmission corridor; the coastal sites account for 60% of the affected asset base, the corridor for 25%, and the remaining 15% sits in smaller support facilities.
- We assess these exposures using flood, heat and storm hazard maps, alongside wildfire screening for the inland corridor.
- In total, 40% of our asset base is in higher-risk locations, including 24% in coastal sites, 10% in the inland corridor and 6% in support facilities; within that total, 18% relates to sudden-event risk and 22% to longer-duration stress.
- The most exposed activities are generation at the coastal sites and grid balancing at the inland corridor, while the support facilities are vulnerable mainly through access disruption rather than direct physical damage.
Illustrative only: this shows how a reporter might narrate where physical climate exposure sits, what hazards are used to assess it, how much of the asset base is affected, and how that exposure can be split between abrupt and slower-building climate effects.
We summarise the parts of our portfolio that sit in climate-sensitive locations, using a simple split between one-off events and gradual stress where that is the clearest way to explain the exposure.
- The main concentrations are in river-adjacent offices, a coastal retail cluster and a logistics park near a heat-stressed urban area; these represent 50%, 30% and 20% of the exposed portfolio respectively.
- We base the assessment on flood, storm and heat hazard screening, with subsidence checks for the logistics park.
- Overall, 35% of the portfolio is in higher-risk locations: 18% river-adjacent offices, 10% coastal retail and 7% the logistics park; of that 35%, 14% is linked to abrupt events and 21% to gradual deterioration.
- The most vulnerable uses are ground-floor retail and warehouse operations, while upper-floor offices are less exposed because they can be relocated more easily within the building.
Illustrative only: this example shows a property reporter describing where the exposure is concentrated, which hazard types were used, how much of the portfolio is affected, and how the affected share can be divided between acute and chronic climate effects.
Quality ladder
- Basic
I estimate that 12% of our assets are exposed to physical risk.
- Better
I estimate that 12% of our assets, mainly in coastal sites and one warehouse group, are exposed to flood and storm risk based on our location screening.
- Best
I estimate that 12% of our assets, mainly in coastal sites and one warehouse group, are exposed to flood and storm risk based on our location screening for the year end, and the share rose from 9% because we added two sites in higher-risk areas.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A manufacturer has mapped flood exposure across three sites. One site holds 40% of the group’s plant value, and the team has split the exposure into short-term storm damage and longer-term water stress because both matter to the same location.
A logistics group has depots in a coastal region, a river basin and an inland hub. The preparer has one model for storm surge and another for heat stress, but the board paper only shows a single group-wide percentage.
An energy company has calculated that 18% of its generating assets are exposed to wildfire risk. The team can support the number with site-level evidence, but the draft note does not say whether the figure is based on asset value, output capacity or another internal measure.
A retailer has 12 warehouses in a floodplain, representing £96 million of the group’s £800 million warehouse portfolio. The draft says only that the business is “materially exposed” and gives no percentage.
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.
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (ADCB)
Partial
COSCO SHIPPING Ports
Partial
Hang Lung Properties Limited
Partial| Field | Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (ADCB) | COSCO SHIPPING Ports | Hang Lung Properties Limited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acute and chronic split | Not found | Not found | Partial |
| Exposure concentration by location | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Underlying hazard basis | Partial | Not found | Not found |
| Share of total | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| At-risk assets and activities | Not found | Not found | 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
s2-29-c
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 preparation section, then work through the listed datapoints: acute and chronic split, exposure concentration by location, underlying hazard basis, share of total, and at-risk assets and activities. The page is set up to help you turn those inputs into a draft, including narrative starters and a content-index line.
The page says to prepare five datapoints: acute and chronic split, exposure concentration by location, underlying hazard basis, share of total, and at-risk assets and activities. Use those as your data collection checklist before drafting.
Use the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints list to define what is in scope and how each figure will be built. The page also flags common reporting gaps, which is useful for checking whether your method is consistent and complete.
The page is designed for practitioners to assign ownership around the listed datapoints and evidence pack items, so the right owner depends on who holds the underlying information. Use the workbook to map each datapoint and evidence item to a named owner before drafting.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and five assurance claims to verify, so build your pack around those and keep the claim, risk, and evidence linked. That gives reviewers a clear trail from the reported figure back to source support.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a pre-submission check. It is especially useful for spotting missing datapoints, weak evidence, or a draft that does not line up with the page’s preparation structure.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook (.xlsx) that is meant to help you organise the disclosure inputs and assurance evidence. Use it alongside the page’s step-by-step guidance, evidence pack, and draft-output section to build a complete working file.
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure can be presented in practice. Treat it as a formatting and structure aid only, and make sure any real figures in your draft are internally consistent.
Use the draft-output section, which gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. That section is there to help you convert the prepared data into a readable draft rather than starting from a blank page.
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the same underlying data may be reusable where it fits your reporting needs. The page does not say the requirements are identical, so check the disclosure-specific page content before reusing anything.
More questions this page can help with