IFRS S2 — Target governance and monitoring

Q: How do I use the s2-34 page to draft a climate-related disclosure from scratch?

Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints to prepare. The page also gives draft-output prompts, so you can turn the collected information into a first-pass narrative rather than starting from a blank page.

Q: What data do I need to collect for s2-34 before I can write the disclosure?

The page points you to five datapoints: monitoring measures, why it changed, how it was checked, what was updated, and validation and checker. Use those as your data-collection checklist so you can gather the right inputs before drafting.

Q: Who should own the s2-34 inputs in practice — ESG, HR, or a data owner?

The page is designed for practitioner use, so ownership should sit with the people who can supply and check the underlying data. Use the step-by-step preparation section and the evidence pack to assign each datapoint to a named owner and reviewer.

Q: What should I include in the evidence pack for s2-34 to be assurance-ready?

The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, plus six assurance claims to verify. Use those together to build a file that shows what was checked, what changed, and who validated it.

Q: How do I check whether my s2-34 disclosure is ready for assurance?

Use the six assurance claims on the page as a review list, then test each claim against the evidence pack. The page is set up to help you spot gaps before you hand the draft to an assurance reviewer.

Q: What are the common mistakes people make when preparing s2-34?

The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful as a pre-submission check. Review those gaps alongside the datapoints to prepare so you do not miss a required input or leave the narrative unsupported.

Q: How do I use the workbook download for s2-34?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use the workbook to organise the preparation, evidence, and assurance checks, and use the PDF as a quick reference while drafting.

Q: What can I take from the synthetic example disclosures on the s2-34 page?

The page includes synthetic illustrative examples, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure can be presented. Treat them as drafting aids only and adapt the structure to your own data and evidence.

Q: How do I turn the s2-34 data into a draft narrative and content-index line?

The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. Use those prompts to convert your checked data into a concise draft and a traceable index entry.

Q: Can I reuse my s2-34 data for ESRS E1 (Climate Change) reporting?

The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the same underlying data may be reusable across frameworks. Do not assume the reporting needs are identical; use the page as a practical bridge, not a substitute for the other framework.

Disclosure focus

The practical emphasis is on whether the organisation has a clear system for monitoring delivery across the parts of the business that matter, rather than only at a headline or flagship level. A useful explanation would cover how targets are tracked across operations, how often performance is reviewed, what happens when progress falls behind, and how governance arrangements support action across the full scope of the organisation.

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.

Monitoring measures
Performance management / reporting

Capture the measures used to track progress, including what is being watched, how it is measured, and the reporting period or cut-off used.

Evidence Monitoring dashboard, KPI pack, management report, or control log showing the tracked measures and the latest review date.

Watch for The measures are pulled from a different period than the report, so the figures do not reconcile to the monitoring pack.
Why it changed
Policy / governance

Capture the stated reasons for any update or change, including the business trigger, the decision made, and the date the explanation was agreed.

Evidence Change request, board or committee paper, approval note, or revision log explaining the rationale.

Watch for The explanation is taken from a later decision than the reported change, so the reason does not match the approved revision record.
How it was checked
Assurance / controls

Capture the steps used to review the item, including who checked it, what was checked, and when the review took place.

Evidence Review checklist, sign-off sheet, internal control record, or workflow approval showing the review trail.

Watch for The review trail is incomplete, so the reported process does not reconcile to the actual approval workflow.
What was updated
Reporting / policy owner

Capture the specific items that were changed, including the before-and-after position and the scope of the update.

Evidence Version history, tracked changes, amendment log, or approved redline showing the revised items.

Watch for The updated items are mixed with unchanged text, so the reported revisions do not match the version control record.
Validation and checker
Assurance / external validation

Capture whether the item was validated, who carried out the validation, and the date or status of that validation.

Evidence Validation certificate, sign-off record, assurance note, or validator correspondence confirming status and name.

Watch for The validator name or status is taken from an earlier draft, so it does not reconcile to the final validation record.

Before you start

Have we settled which performance measures we will track, and are they the ones actually used to oversee the target?
Do we know whether any target changes will be described, and if so, what changed and why?
Is there a clear account of how the target is checked over time, including who reviews it and how often?
If the target has been adjusted, can we explain the reason for each change in our own operational terms?
Can we state whether the target has been checked by an external validator, and name that validator if one was used?

＋ Show s2-34 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)

How to prepare it

Set the scope first: decide which performance measures, any changes to those measures, the checking process, and the validation status with the validator are in scope for this disclosure.

Define each item in plain business terms so the same measure is used consistently across the reporting period, including any revised targets and the reason each revision was made.

Gather the support for every point you will report: the monitoring measures, the review trail, the revised targets, the explanation for any change, and the validation details.

Assemble the disclosure content in a clear package, with one narrative or set of figures for each required item, so the reported information can be traced back to the underlying evidence.

Record any exclusions, restatements, or changes in approach, and explain why the target was adjusted and how the review was carried out.

Check the draft against the official source before sign-off to confirm you have covered all required items and that the wording matches the evidence on file.

Request the data

Request the target monitoring and change log

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

What evidence shows how the target has been tracked, reviewed, and changed, and who checked those changes?

Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. For example, if you say KPI pack, performance dashboard, scorecard, or target tracker internally, use that language in the request and only translate it afterwards for reporting review. Keep the ask practical and avoid framework wording unless that is already how your team speaks.

Weak request

Please send the IFRS S2 target governance evidence for s2-34, including monitoring metrics, reasons for revision, review process, target revisions, and validation status and validator.

Why it fails: It uses framework language that many teams do not use day to day, so the owner may not know which file, tracker, or approval trail to pull. It also bundles several ideas without saying what practical records are needed, which makes the response harder to assemble and easier to miss key evidence.

Better request

Please send the latest [tracker/dashboard/scorecard] for [target name] for [period], plus the review notes, change log, and sign-off record showing what was updated, why it changed, who reviewed it, and who validated it. Use your team’s own terms and file names; I’ll map them for reporting and check the official source before sign-off.

Formal email template

Subject: Request for target tracker and review evidence for [reporting period]

Dear [name/team],

I’m pulling together the reporting pack for [reporting period] and need the materials that show how [target / internal label] has been monitored and updated.

Could you please share:
- the latest tracker or dashboard extract for [period]
- any notes or records showing how it was reviewed
- details of any changes made to the target during the period, with the reason for each change
- who reviewed or approved the changes, and in what forum or system that happened
- any supporting evidence that shows the current status is based on a checked source

Please use your team’s own wording and file names where possible. If you use different internal terms, that is fine — I can map them for reporting. A possible LRA training template is attached/outlined here; please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off.

Many thanks,
[Your name]
[Role]
[Team]

Short Teams / Slack version

Hi [name] — could you send over the latest [tracker/dashboard/scorecard] for [target name] plus any review notes, change log, and sign-off evidence for [period]? Please use your team’s own terms. I’ll map it for reporting and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks.

Industry examples

Manufacturing

Context. A plant-level energy reduction target is tracked in a monthly operations dashboard and reviewed in the site performance meeting.

Adapted request. Could you share the monthly energy target dashboard for [period], the meeting notes where it was reviewed, any changes to the target or baseline, the reason for each change, and the name of the person who signed it off? Please use the site’s own tracker names and meeting titles.

Example response. Attached: Energy KPI dashboard extract, site performance meeting minutes, and approval email. The target was revised once after a meter correction; the change was reviewed by the plant manager and validated by the operations controller.

Financial services

Context. A financed-emissions reduction target is monitored through a quarterly ESG pack and discussed in a risk committee paper.

Adapted request. Please send the quarterly ESG pack for [period], the committee paper or minutes showing how the financed-emissions target was reviewed, any revisions made during the quarter, the reason for those revisions, and the approval trail. Use the internal pack name and committee title you normally use.

Example response. Attached: Quarterly ESG pack, risk committee minutes, and a revision note. The target was updated after a portfolio boundary change; the change was reviewed by the sustainability lead and approved by the risk committee chair.

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 which measures were tracked, how each one was defined, what period it covers, and how any target updates and validation checks were carried out.

Context note

Set out what the figures show about progress, target setting, and the reliability of the information, so readers can see how the numbers should be interpreted.

Fluctuation statement

Describe any notable shifts by linking them to the review findings, the reasons for changing targets, or the outcome of validation, and note whether the change reflects a data update or a real movement in performance.

Content index entry

s2-34 Target governance and monitoring — [location / page] / [notes]

Download Centre

Preparation tools & forms

Download preparation tools for s2-34 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.

Free · Email access

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

Check

For each claim, check the evidence

We used the coverage figure only for the operations and periods we had actually included in the underlying analysis, and we kept the basis for that inclusion consistent across the draft.
Risk An assurer will probe whether the reported coverage is complete, whether exclusions were deliberate and consistently applied, and whether the same basis was used throughout the figure.
Evidence to check Boundary memo or methodology note; list of included and excluded sites/entities/periods; working papers showing how the coverage figure was calculated; version history showing the basis did not change without explanation.
We identified the measures we used to track movement towards each goal, and we kept supporting workings for how each measure was defined and updated.
Risk An assurer will probe whether the chosen measures genuinely track progress, whether definitions are clear and stable, and whether the numbers can be traced back to source records.
Evidence to check Target-tracking schedule; metric definitions; source data extracts; calculation files; sign-off showing the measures were approved before publication.
Where a goal had been changed, we recorded the revised wording and kept a clear note of why the change was made.
Risk An assurer will probe whether any change to a goal is fully disclosed, whether the reason is credible and specific, and whether the revised version matches internal approvals.
Evidence to check Change log for targets; board or management papers approving the change; redline or tracked-change versions; internal rationale note; publication draft showing the revised wording.
We set and rechecked the goals through our internal planning and review cycle, and we kept evidence of the steps used to challenge whether they still remained suitable.
Risk An assurer will probe whether the process for setting and revisiting goals is real, documented, and followed in practice rather than described only at a high level.
Evidence to check Target-setting procedure; review calendar; meeting minutes; challenge notes; approval records; evidence of periodic reassessment and any resulting actions.
For any goal that had been updated, we retained the earlier version, the new version, and the explanation for the change so the history could be followed end to end.
Risk An assurer will probe whether the revision trail is complete, whether the old and new versions are both available, and whether the stated reason matches the underlying decision record.
Evidence to check Archived prior target statements; current target wording; revision log; decision papers; correspondence or minutes explaining the update; publication draft showing the final version.
We stated whether an external party had checked the goal and the method behind it, and we kept the relevant assurance or validation papers on file.
Risk An assurer will probe whether the external check actually happened, what exactly was reviewed, who performed it, and whether the published statement matches the evidence.
Evidence to check Third-party report or confirmation letter; scope statement; engagement letter; management representation; internal record of the validation status; publication wording on validation.

Evidence pack to prepare

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

Common reporting gaps

The information is presented without a date or as-at point.
The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.
Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.
Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.
Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.

Where drafts go wrong

Mistakes to avoid and where judgement is needed

The left column is what preparers get wrong while collecting; the right column is where you will have to make and explain a judgement.

Mistakes to avoid

Wrong ownerThe request goes to a team that only sees part of the target process, so the answer misses the people who track changes, review performance, or approve validation.
Framework words instead of internal termsThe data request is written in reporting jargon, so the business cannot map it to its own tracker, committee pack, or approval log.
Scope left vagueNo one states which targets, business units, or reporting boundary are in scope, so different teams send different sets of records.
Wrong period basisThe team pulls information from the wrong reporting window or cut-off date, so the monitoring record does not match the period being reported.
Mixed counting basisSome figures are taken from one counting method and others from a different one, so the revision and review data cannot be compared cleanly.
Source labels lostThe original file names, tracker codes, or system tags are stripped out, so it is no longer clear where each monitoring metric or revision note came from.
Separate populations mergedRecords for different target types or approval routes are combined into one file, so the review process and validation status cannot be traced back properly.
Evidence trail missingThe pack is assembled without the supporting notes, version history, or sign-off record, so no one can show who checked the data or when.

＋ Show 4 more

Judgement needed

What counts as the live target set after a buy-in or saleUse the reporting cut-off to decide which business units sit inside the target set, explain any additions or removals from acquisitions or disposals, and keep the same basis when describing the monitoring figures and any later changes.
When local definitions do not match group definitionsIf countries track the same measure differently, choose one group-wide basis for the report, describe the local differences in plain language, and explain how you converted or aligned the figures.
Where a business line sits on the boundary of scopeSet out the rule used for borderline operations, workers, sites or assets that are partly in and partly out of the target, and disclose how you treated them so the monitoring view is not overstated or understated.
Choosing the timing point for the review cycleState whether the review, revision and validation narrative is based on month-end, quarter-end, year-end or another internal cut-off, and explain any timing mismatch between the monitoring data and the governance review.
Measured figures versus management estimatesIf some monitoring inputs are not directly measured, say which parts are estimated, describe the method used to fill the gaps, and flag any material judgement that could affect the trend or revision decision.
How to handle rounding in the monitoring summaryApply one rounding basis consistently across the target story, note any small differences caused by rounding, and make sure the rounded figures still reconcile to the underlying totals.
Aggregating sensitive workforce or customer dataWhere privacy rules prevent a detailed split, combine the data to a level that protects individuals, explain the aggregation rule, and disclose any limitation this creates for checking progress or validation.
Deciding whether a revised target is a reset or a refinementExplain whether a change is a full replacement of the earlier target or only a technical update to the same plan, and link that judgement to the reason for the change and the review process used.
Selecting the validator when more than one party is involvedIf internal and external checks both exist, name the party that gave the final validation view, describe the role of any other reviewer, and make clear which status you are reporting for the target.

＋ Show 5 more

Examples

How it reads on the page

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

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Utilities

We reviewed our climate target pack this year after a quarterly check showed our emissions pathway was moving more slowly than planned, so we tightened the interim milestones and extended one measurement cycle to keep the end-date unchanged. The board’s sustainability committee and our internal assurance team both signed off the changes, and the revised target set is now marked as externally validated by an independent verifier.
- We track progress with monthly emissions intensity and absolute emissions checks, plus a quarterly forecast against the pathway.
- The update was prompted by slower-than-expected delivery in two operating units and a change in grid mix assumptions.
- The revised milestones were approved after management review, committee challenge, and a final assurance pass.

Illustrative only: shows how a reporter can explain what it watches, why a target was adjusted, how the change was reviewed, and who validated it, without naming the organisation.

Illustrative (synthetic) example — Consumer goods

Our group carried out a mid-year check on its water-use reduction goal and found that one plant upgrade had been delayed, so we reset the near-term milestones and kept the overall finish line in place. The operating committee reviewed the revised plan with the sustainability lead, and an external specialist later confirmed the updated target as fit for reporting.
- We monitor site-level water use, project delivery status, and the gap between actual performance and the planned route.
- The change was made because a supplier delay pushed back equipment installation and reduced the expected short-term savings.
- The new target wording and timing were reviewed internally before the independent check was completed and recorded.

Illustrative only: demonstrates a second plausible reporter using different wording, while still covering the same disclosure points in a narrative form.

Quality ladder

Basic
I track our target progress with monthly scorecards and external checks.
Better
I track our target progress with monthly scorecards, annual board review, and third-party validation, and I note any target changes with the reason for each change.
Best
I track our target progress through monthly scorecards, a yearly board-and-committee review, and third-party validation across our whole business, and when we revise a target I explain the trigger and timing because performance, scope, or assumptions changed.

Check your understanding

Scenarios to work through

A group has a climate target that the sustainability team tracks monthly using emissions intensity, delivery milestones, and capex alignment. The board pack also notes that the target was tightened after a new transition plan and that an external assurance provider checked the latest figures.

QWhat should the preparer include so readers can see how the target is watched, who checked it, and why it changed?

Reveal model answer →

A company’s target was revised twice in the year: once after a methodology update and once after a strategic reset. The team has minutes showing the approval route, but the draft report only says the target was updated.

QHow should the preparer handle the explanation so the change is understandable rather than just noted?

Reveal model answer →

An issuer uses a third-party verifier for its target data, but the verifier only reviewed the latest year and not the full target pathway. The sustainability team is unsure whether to mention the limited scope in the narrative.

QWhat is the right way to present the validation information?

Reveal model answer →

A preparer has a dashboard showing target progress, but the board only receives it quarterly while management reviews it monthly. The draft disclosure currently mentions the dashboard but not the different review layers or the reason the target was adjusted after a risk assessment.

QWhat should be added so the governance story is complete?

Reveal model answer →

Real reports

How 3 companies report it

Examples of full and partial reporting practice. These are evidence-led reviews, not exact disclosure templates to copy.

Real published reports

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited

Partial

Retailing · India · 2025 · p.149 ↗

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited’s Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 includes a covered disclosure of the metrics used to monitor progress towards climate-related targets, specifically under the Natural Capital | Climate Strategy section on page 112. However, the report provides only unclear context regarding the review process for setting and monitoring these targets, as well as the validation status and validator of the targets, also referenced on page 112. Notably, there is no found evidence in the report about reasons for revising targets or any target revisions.

Yum China Holdings, Inc.

Partial

Hotels, Restaurants, Leisure, Tourism Services · China · 2025 · p.13 ↗

Yum China Holdings, Inc.’s 2025 Sustainability Report includes information on the metrics used to monitor progress towards climate-related targets and describes the approach to setting and reviewing each target, as detailed on page 49. The report references the integration of climate-related risks and opportunities into the overall risk management process (p.48) and mentions industry-based metrics associated with business models (p.49). However, the report does not provide evidence on reasons for any target revisions, details of target revisions themselves, or the validation status and validator of the disclosed information.

Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd.

Partial

Construction and Engineering · South Korea · 2025 · p.65 ↗

Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd.’s 2025 Sustainability Report provides a covered disclosure of the metrics used to monitor progress towards climate-related targets on page 142. However, the report contains only unclear information regarding whether the targets have been revised or the reasons for any revisions, as seen on page 139. Additionally, there is no clear disclosure about the review process or the validation status and validator of the targets, with related context present but not explicitly detailed on pages 139 and 142.

Field	Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited	Yum China Holdings, Inc.	Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd.
Monitoring measures	Not found	Not found	Not found
Why it changed	Not found	Not found	Partial
How it was checked	Partial	Not found	Not found
What was updated	Not found	Not found	Partial
Validation and checker	Partial	Not found	Partial

Full evidence map with quotes and page numbers →

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

Ask the Knowledge Hub AI Assistant about this disclosure

Get practical answers for your reporting context.

Try How do I prepare s2-34? What data do I need to collect? Where can I see a real-report example? What mistakes should I avoid?

Framework references

Relevant IFRS / ISSB requirements and related disclosures

IFRS / ISSB

s2-34

within IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures

Open official source →

Guides that settle this question

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

Related & explore

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

FAQ

Questions this page answers

How do I use the s2-34 page to draft a climate-related disclosure from scratch?+

What data do I need to collect for s2-34 before I can write the disclosure?+

Who should own the s2-34 inputs in practice — ESG, HR, or a data owner?+

What should I include in the evidence pack for s2-34 to be assurance-ready?+

How do I check whether my s2-34 disclosure is ready for assurance?+

What are the common mistakes people make when preparing s2-34?+

How do I use the workbook download for s2-34?+

What can I take from the synthetic example disclosures on the s2-34 page?+

How do I turn the s2-34 data into a draft narrative and content-index line?+

Can I reuse my s2-34 data for ESRS E1 (Climate Change) reporting?+

Where can I find real company examples for s2-34?+

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

Target governance and monitoring

What to collect before drafting

Monitoring measures

Why it changed

How it was checked

What was updated