Disclosure focus
The practical focus is on scope and consistency: readers should be able to see whether the metric captures spending across operations, specific assets, or only flagship initiatives. The organisation should present the measure in a way that helps users understand what is included, what is left out, and how the figure connects to its climate strategy and investment decisions.
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.
-
Capital spend deployed
Finance / Capital ProjectsCapture the amount of capital expenditure that has actually been put to use for the relevant activity in the reporting period, using the same basis as the finance records and the project ledger.
Evidence Capex register, project approvals, fixed asset additions, and finance close pack that ties to the general ledger.
Watch for Does not reconcile to the fixed asset ledger or project capex schedule, so planned spend is mixed with actually deployed spend.
-
Funding deployed
Treasury / FinanceCapture the amount of financing that has been provided and used for the relevant purpose in the period, on the same basis as treasury and deal records.
Evidence Treasury records, loan or facility drawdown notices, funding agreements, and period-end finance reconciliations.
Watch for Source system mismatch with treasury or deal records, with committed funding confused with amounts actually drawn or deployed.
-
Investment deployed
Investments / FinanceCapture the amount of investment placed into the relevant activity during the period, aligned to the investment book and accounting records.
Evidence Investment portfolio records, transaction confirmations, valuation or accounting schedules, and period close support.
Watch for Does not reconcile to the investment ledger, with committed or approved investment mixed with amounts actually deployed.
-
Impact split
Sustainability / Strategy / FinanceCapture how the reported amount is divided between emissions reduction, climate resilience, and other opportunity-related activity, using a consistent classification for each item.
Evidence Deal or project classification file, methodology note, and supporting business case or impact assessment for each allocation.
Watch for Definition/category mismatch, with items tagged differently across teams so mitigation, adaptation, and opportunity buckets are not applied consistently.
-
Period and scope split
Finance / Reporting / Business Unit ControllersCapture the reporting period covered and how the amount is allocated across business lines and locations, using the same cut used in management reporting.
Evidence Reporting calendar, management accounts, segment reporting pack, and geographic allocation schedule.
Watch for Scope and period error, with the wrong reporting window used or business and geography allocations not matching the management reporting cut.
Before you start
- Have you decided which spend lines count here: money put into physical assets, funds provided, or money committed to investments?
- Will you use the same reporting window and the same cut-off date across all figures, or do any amounts come from a different period?
- Can each number be traced back to a source record or working paper, so you can show where it came from?
- Have you fixed the basis for splitting the amounts between reducing emissions, adapting to climate impacts, and other climate-related opportunities?
- Do you know how you will allocate the figures across business units and countries or regions, and whether any shared amounts need a consistent split rule?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request the capital deployment schedule
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How much money has been put into climate-related activity in the period, and how is it split across spending, funding and investment, with the relevant business and geography mapping?
Use your organisation’s own labels first, then map them to the disclosure categories. For example, ask for the internal project, spend and funding terms the business already uses, then translate those into the reporting split only at the end. Check the source records before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the IFRS S2 capital deployment metric data for the period, including the split by mitigation, adaptation and opportunity and the business/geographic allocation.
Why it fails: This uses framework language rather than the organisation’s own terms, so the owner may not know which internal reports or fields to pull. It also does not say which system, boundary, period, or source evidence to use, so the response may be incomplete or inconsistent.
Better request
Please send the climate-related spend, funding and investment figures for [period] across [boundary], using your normal project and finance labels. For each line, include the amount, whether it sits in mitigation, adaptation or opportunity, and the business and geography mapping. Please attach the source extract or workbook and note any classification judgement.
Formal email template
Subject: Request for capital deployment data for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], Could you please share the data and supporting evidence for climate-related capital deployment for [reporting period] across [boundary]? Please use the organisation’s own internal labels where possible, and include a short mapping to the reporting split we need at the end. We need: - amounts for capital spend, funding and investment linked to climate-related activity - the split between mitigation, adaptation and opportunity-related items - the business and geographic allocation for each line - the source system or workbook used - the basis used to classify each item - any notes on exclusions, reallocations or judgement calls Please return this in a table and attach the source extract or workbook used. If helpful, I can send a template. Please check the source records before we finalise. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send the climate-related capital deployment data for [period] across [boundary]? Please use your usual internal terms, and include the split by mitigation / adaptation / opportunity plus the business and geography mapping. Attach the source extract/workbook and any notes on classification. Thanks, [name]
Industry examples
Utilities
Context. A regulated utility tracks grid resilience upgrades, renewable connections and customer energy-efficiency programmes in separate planning tools.
Adapted request. Please share the climate-related capital spend, project funding and investment figures for [period] across [boundary]. Use the project names and finance codes already in the planning tool, then add a mapping to mitigation, adaptation or opportunity, plus the network area and region for each line. Attach the source extract and note any reclassifications.
Example response. A table listing each project code, internal project name, amount, mapped reporting category, network region, business unit, source workbook, and reviewer sign-off.
Manufacturing
Context. A manufacturer records plant upgrades, process changes and strategic investments in ERP and capex approval packs.
Adapted request. Please provide the climate-related capex, financing and investment lines for [period] across [boundary]. Use the plant, programme and finance terms already used internally, and add the split into mitigation, adaptation or opportunity, plus site and business line mapping. Include the approval pack or ERP extract used.
Example response. A schedule with asset/project ID, internal label, amount, reporting category mapped, site, business line, source system, and approval reference.
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
State the basis used to define each deployed amount, including how the team grouped spending, financing and broader investment activity, and how it assigned figures to time periods and to business or geographic locations.
Context note
Explain what the figures show in practice: where the organisation directed resources, which climate-related aims they supported, and how the split helps readers understand the balance of effort across the portfolio.
Fluctuation statement
If any category moved materially, describe the operational or portfolio reasons for the change, such as a shift in project mix, timing of deployment, or a different spread across businesses or locations.
Content index entry
s2-29-e Capital deployment metric — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for s2-29-e with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We used the amount actually committed or spent in the reporting period, and we tied it back to the underlying project records.
Risk The amount may mix planned figures with actual deployment, or include items outside the period being reported.
Evidence to check Project ledgers, approval papers, payment records, fixed-asset or financing schedules, and a reconciliation from source records to the published figure.
We separated the figure into the relevant business lines or locations that the underlying records support.
Risk The allocation may be based on estimates without a clear basis, or the same spend may be counted in more than one place.
Evidence to check Allocation methodology, cost-centre or asset registers, mapping of projects to business units or sites, and checks showing no double counting.
We split the disclosed amount into the categories used in the report, and we kept the labels consistent with the working papers.
Risk The category split may be inconsistent, incomplete, or driven by presentation choices rather than source data.
Evidence to check Working papers showing the category mapping, source documents for each line item, and a review trail confirming the totals add up.
We stated the reporting period and the relevant organisational or location basis used for the figure.
Risk Readers may be misled if the period, entity boundary, or site coverage is unclear or differs from the rest of the report.
Evidence to check Reporting calendar, consolidation or boundary papers, scope notes, and the final draft showing the period and basis disclosed alongside the number.
Before publication, we checked the figure against the source files, reviewed the calculations, and confirmed the published total matches the supporting records.
Risk Arithmetic errors, broken links between source data and the published number, or unsupported adjustments may remain in the final version.
Evidence to check Calculation sheets, review sign-off, version control, audit trail, and evidence of management review or internal assurance over the final draft.
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 finance or sustainability team in framework language, so the person who actually tracks capex, lending, or investment records is never asked for the source data.
- Scope left vagueThe team pulls figures without first agreeing which projects, portfolios, or entities sit inside the reporting boundary, so later extracts do not line up.
- Timing basis mixed upOne source uses booking date while another uses payment or commitment date, and the final file blends them without a single period rule.
- Counting basis not fixedAmounts are gathered from different ledgers or systems that treat deployed value differently, so like-for-like comparison is lost before any narrative is drafted.
- Original labels stripped outThe extract is copied into a clean spreadsheet and the source system names, project codes, and line-item tags are removed, making trace-back difficult.
- Separate groups mergedMitigation, adaptation, and opportunity-related amounts are added together too early, even though they need to stay distinct for the split.
- Evidence details missingThe file contains numbers but not the supporting document reference, owner, or extraction date, so the data cannot be checked later.
- No sign-off trailThe working paper is passed around informally and no one records who reviewed or approved the figures, leaving no clear audit trail.
Judgement needed
- Choose the cut-off date for the reporting windowState the date used to lock the period, explain why that cut-off was chosen, and keep it consistent with the evidence trail for the amounts reported.
- Decide how to treat deals that start or finish mid-periodIf a business, asset or portfolio enters or leaves the group during the year, explain whether you include only the time it was under your control and how you avoid double counting or omission.
- Set a single rule for classifying spend across countriesWhere local labels or product categories differ, map them to one internal classification approach, disclose the mapping rule, and note any country-specific exceptions.
- Define the boundary for mixed-use or shared activitiesFor items that support more than one line of business or geography, explain the allocation method used and disclose any judgement where the split is based on estimates rather than direct records.
- Explain how you separate mitigation, adaptation and opportunity spendWhen one project could fit more than one bucket, disclose the basis used to assign it to one category, and say whether the split is based on management judgement, project tags or another method.
- Decide whether to use booked amounts or cash movementIf the organisation tracks deployment using commitments, invoices, payments or another basis, state which measure you used and why it best matches the way the business monitors deployment.
- Show how estimates were used where records were incompleteWhere exact figures were not available, disclose the estimation method, the main assumptions, and whether the numbers were later adjusted when better evidence became available.
- Round figures in a way that still ties back to the source dataIf you round or simplify the numbers for presentation, explain the rounding rule and make sure the published totals still reconcile to the underlying records.
- Aggregate small or sensitive items to protect confidentialityIf detailed location, project or counterparty data cannot be shown without revealing sensitive information, combine it into broader groupings and explain the level at which the figures are presented.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
We set out the money we put into low-carbon and resilience-related activity during the year, split between spending from our own balance sheet, funds arranged through lenders, and equity-style backing from investors. For the 12 months ended 31 December 2025, our group allocated £420 million in total: £260 million to emissions-cutting projects, £110 million to weather-resilience work, and £50 million to growth opportunities; of that total, £300 million was capital spending, £80 million was lender-backed funding, and £40 million came from investor financing. By geography, £250 million related to the UK, £120 million to continental Europe, and £50 million to North America.
This example shows how to describe climate-related spending and funding in plain language, while separating the amounts by purpose and by where the activity sits in the business.
During 2025, we reported the resources we directed to climate-related activity, distinguishing between our own spending, debt-style support, and equity-style support. Across our retail and corporate lending operations, we deployed £180 million in total: £90 million for emissions-reduction measures, £60 million for adaptation work, and £30 million for opportunity-led projects; within that total, £70 million was capital expenditure, £50 million was financing provided, and £60 million was investment placed. The amounts were split across our UK business (£100 million), our European business (£50 million), and our Asia-Pacific business (£30 million).
This example illustrates a financial-services style narrative that separates the same pool of climate-related resources by use, funding type, and business/geographic location.
Quality ladder
- Basic
I deployed £10 million in capital spending this year.
- Better
I deployed £10 million this year, split as £6 million for lower-emissions work, £2 million for resilience, and £2 million for growth opportunities.
- Best
I deployed £10 million in capital spending over the year, allocated £6 million to lower-emissions work, £2 million to resilience, and £2 million to growth opportunities across our UK operations, and the increase from last year reflects two delayed projects now moving ahead.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A group has spent £12 million on new heat-pump equipment in the current year, but the finance team also wants to include a £3 million software upgrade that was booked as an operating cost. The sustainability team is unsure whether both items belong in the same deployment metric.
A preparer has one total for climate-related spending of £40 million, made up of £18 million for emissions-cutting projects, £9 million for flood-resilience work, and £13 million for a new low-carbon product line. The draft note currently shows only the total.
A company approved £25 million for a factory retrofit in December 2025, but the cash will be paid in stages through 2026 and 2027. The team is unsure whether to show the full approved amount in 2025 or only the cash paid that year.
A multinational has £30 million of deployment in Europe and £20 million in Asia, but the project team only tracked the amounts by business line and did not keep a geographic split. The draft report also groups all amounts together without saying which business units they relate to.
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
DBS Group Holdings
Partial
COSCO SHIPPING Ports
Partial| Field | Hang Lung Properties Limited | DBS Group Holdings | COSCO SHIPPING Ports |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capital spend deployed | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Funding deployed | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Investment deployed | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Impact split | Partial | Partial | Not found |
| Period and scope split | 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
s2-29-e
within IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Guides that settle this question
Related & explore
More in IFRS S2 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
The page says to prepare five datapoints: capital spend deployed, funding deployed, investment deployed, impact split, and period and scope split. Use the step-by-step preparation section to turn those into a draft and keep the evidence pack ready for review.
The page highlights a period and scope split as one of the datapoints to prepare, so the first job is to define what period the figures cover and how the scope is split before drafting. Keep the supporting evidence aligned to that split so the disclosure can be checked later.
The page is designed for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can source and explain the underlying figures. The workbook and evidence pack are there to help you assign and track that responsibility.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, alongside five assurance claims to verify. Use those materials to keep the claim, the risk, and the supporting evidence together before the draft is finalised.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is meant to help you spot issues before you publish a draft. A practical use is to compare your numbers, scope split, and evidence pack against those gaps and fix anything that is incomplete or inconsistent.
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, the datapoints, and the assurance evidence before turning the data into a draft.
Yes, but only as a synthetic illustration. The page’s example is there to show how the disclosure can look in practice, including a quantitative table, so you should adapt it to your own data and keep the figures internally consistent.
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. That makes it easier to turn prepared data into a first-pass disclosure rather than starting from a blank page.
The table links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed, so it is useful for seeing how others present similar information. Treat it as a reference point for structure and presentation, not as a substitute for your own data and evidence.
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across frameworks. Use that as a cross-check for your own mapping, but do not assume the reporting requirements are identical.
More questions this page can help with