Disclosure focus
The practical focus is on whether the organisation has a credible view of the impact of its actions across the parts of the business that matter, not just a few showcase sites or projects. Where relevant, the explanation should cover the organisation’s wider operations and show how the expected outcomes are being assessed consistently, so readers can understand the likely effect at group, business-unit, or site level as appropriate.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official MOCCAE source.
Prepare
What to collect before drafting
Tick each field as the evidence lands. Owners are the teams that usually hold the source files.
-
Forecast emissions cut
Sustainability / climate reportingCapture the expected drop in greenhouse gas output, expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, for the stated target setting or action.
Evidence Model output, project forecast, or approved target calculation showing the emissions baseline and the projected post-action level.
Watch for Projected tonnes do not reconcile to the baseline and scenario model used to calculate the forecast cut.
-
Baseline reduction share
Sustainability / climate reportingCapture the expected reduction as a percentage of the chosen starting point, using the same baseline that underpins the emissions forecast.
Evidence Target-setting worksheet, emissions model, or board-approved plan showing the baseline value and the percentage reduction calculation.
Watch for Percentage is calculated against a different baseline than the one used for the emissions forecast.
-
Target achievement year
Sustainability / climate reportingCapture the calendar year by which the reduction is intended to be reached.
Evidence Approved target statement, transition plan, or programme timetable showing the milestone year.
Watch for Target year is taken from a draft plan or different reporting period rather than the approved milestone year.
Before you start
- Have you fixed which reduction initiatives are included, and which are left out, before you estimate the expected cut in emissions?
- Have you agreed the baseline you will compare against, so the percentage reduction is calculated from the same starting point throughout?
- Have you settled the target year for the expected outcome, so the timing is clear before any figures are drafted?
- Can each projected emissions reduction figure be traced back to a source document or calculation, rather than being an unsupported estimate?
- Have you confirmed the definitions and measurement basis your team will use for the emissions figures, so the numbers are prepared on a consistent basis?
How to prepare it
Request the data
Request emissions-reduction forecast data from Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What are the expected emissions savings, the comparison against the starting point, and the target year for each emissions-reduction initiative we plan to report?
Use your organisation’s own names for projects, programmes, sites, and reporting packs first, then map them to the disclosure wording when you prepare the report. This is a training template only; adapt it to your internal language and check the source text before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the data for expected outcomes of emission reduction initiatives, including projected emissions reduction, reduction versus baseline, and target year.
Why it fails: This uses framework language that may not match how the owner tracks the work, so it is easy to misunderstand, miss the right file, or return figures without the baseline and method needed to interpret them.
Better request
Please send the latest forecast for [initiative / programme name] from your project tracker or decarbonisation plan. For each item, include the expected tCO2e saving, the percentage change against the baseline you are using, the target year, the baseline reference, and the source file or system. Use your normal internal names; we will map them in the report draft.
Formal email template
Subject: Data request for emissions-reduction forecast inputs Hello [name/team], Please could you share the latest forecast pack for [initiative / programme name] so we can prepare the sustainability reporting draft. For each relevant initiative, please include: - the expected emissions saving in tCO2e; - the percentage change versus the baseline you are using; - the target year for delivery; - the baseline reference and calculation basis; - the source file or system used; - the person who prepared or approved the figures. Please use your normal internal project names and working terms. We will map them to the reporting disclosure during drafting. If helpful, you can return the information in the table below or in your own format with the same fields. Many thanks, [preparer name] [team] [contact details]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send the latest forecast for [initiative / programme name]? We need the expected tCO2e saving, % change vs baseline, target year, baseline reference, and source file/system. Please use your usual internal terms; we’ll map them for the draft. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing
Context. A plant team tracks energy-efficiency upgrades in a capital project log.
Adapted request. Please share the latest figures from the plant project log for each upgrade we plan to report. Include the forecast tCO2e saving, the % change against the baseline used by the plant team, the delivery year, the baseline reference, and the calculation file.
Example response. Project: compressed-air leak reduction; Expected saving: 1,250 tCO2e; Reduction versus baseline: 8.4%; Target year: 2027; Baseline: FY2024 plant emissions pack; Method: engineering estimate; Source: Capex tracker v3.
Retail / Logistics
Context. A logistics team maintains a decarbonisation roadmap for fleet and warehouse changes.
Adapted request. Please send the latest roadmap extract for fleet and warehouse initiatives. For each item, include the forecast emissions saving in tCO2e, the % reduction against the baseline in the roadmap, the target year, and the source workbook or planning tool.
Example response. Initiative: route optimisation rollout; Expected saving: 620 tCO2e; Reduction versus baseline: 5.1%; Target year: 2026; Baseline: approved logistics baseline pack; Method: route model; Source: roadmap workbook.
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 how the projected cut was calculated, what starting point was used for comparison, and how the target year was selected, using the same basis consistently across the disclosure.
Context note
Explain what the figures mean in practical terms: the expected emissions cut in tonnes, how large that is relative to the starting level, and when the organisation expects that change to be reached.
Fluctuation statement
If the numbers move from one reporting period to the next, briefly note whether the change reflects a revised estimate, a different starting point, or a shift in the planned timing.
Content index entry
Art.6(1)(b)-2 Expected outcomes of emission reduction initiatives — [location / page] / [notes]Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Download preparation tools for Art.6(1)(b)-2 with free verified email access for 24 hours. Source-report links remain public.
Check
For each claim, check the evidence
We calculated the coverage figure using a documented method, and we can show how the underlying activity data were selected, grouped and converted into the reported number.
Risk The assurer will test whether the coverage figure is based on a clear and repeatable method, whether the right data were included, and whether any exclusions or adjustments could materially change the result.
Evidence to check ['Method note or calculation workbook showing the steps used to derive the figure', 'Source data extracts and the list of included and excluded records', 'Review notes explaining any judgement calls, estimates or conversions used in the calculation']
We prepared the expected reduction result from a defined baseline and a stated future point in time, with the calculation trail retained so the reported outcome can be traced back to its inputs.
Risk The assurer will probe whether the baseline was chosen consistently, whether the future date is supported, and whether the projected outcome is internally consistent with the inputs used.
Evidence to check ['Baseline definition and supporting assumptions file', 'Calculation model linking the baseline, future point and projected outcome', 'Approval record showing the final figures were checked before publication']
We expressed the reduction outcome as a percentage against the baseline, and we kept the working papers that show how the percentage was derived from the underlying numbers.
Risk The assurer will check whether the percentage has been calculated correctly, whether the denominator is the agreed baseline, and whether rounding or presentation choices could misstate the result.
Evidence to check ['Working paper showing the percentage formula and arithmetic', 'Source figures used in the percentage calculation', 'Evidence of review of rounding, units and presentation before release']
We used a target year that was agreed in advance and matched it to the same planning assumptions used in the rest of the submission.
Risk The assurer will test whether the target year is supported by the planning basis, whether it is applied consistently across the disclosure, and whether it has been changed without explanation.
Evidence to check ['Planning or strategy document showing the agreed target year', 'Version history or change log for the disclosed figure set', 'Internal sign-off confirming the year used in the report']
We checked the final numbers against the source files before publication, and we kept evidence of the review so the reported figures can be re-performed.
Risk The assurer will look for evidence that the final disclosure was independently checked, that the numbers tie back to source records, and that any errors found were corrected before issue.
Evidence to check ['Pre-publication review checklist or sign-off sheet', 'Reconciliation between source records and the disclosed figures', 'Evidence of corrections, if any, and confirmation of the final approved version']
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 request goes to a sustainability contact in framework language instead of the business team that actually tracks the initiative’s forecast, so the numbers never come from the people who hold the working records.
- No boundary setThe team starts collecting figures without agreeing which sites, activities, or projects sit inside the count, so later inputs cannot be compared on the same basis.
- Wrong time basisSomeone pulls a calendar-year estimate when the initiative is tracked on a different planning cycle, so the figure no longer matches the period used by the organisation.
- Mixed counting basisOne file combines forecast tonnes, percentage change, and target timing without keeping each measure separate, which makes the data impossible to use cleanly for the three fields.
- Source labels lostThe original spreadsheet names, version tags, or system labels are stripped out during consolidation, so nobody can trace each number back to its starting record.
- Separate groups mergedForecasts for different initiatives or operating units are rolled into one total even though they should stay apart, which hides which action drives which outcome.
- Evidence details missingThe collector saves the headline number but not the supporting file name, date, owner, or calculation note, so the figure cannot be checked later.
- No sign-off trailDraft values move forward without a named reviewer or approval record, so there is no clear trail showing who checked the data before it was used.
Judgement needed
- Set the boundary after a buy-in or saleIf a business unit is added or removed, state whether the projection is rebuilt on the new group of operations or kept on the earlier footprint, and explain the cut-off date used.
- Choose one country rule where local definitions differWhere the same activity is described differently across countries, pick one consistent operational definition for the projection, note the countries affected, and explain any conversion or mapping used.
- Decide how to handle sites or teams at the edge of scopeFor assets, sites, or staff that sit partly inside and partly outside the initiative, explain the inclusion rule used and whether any partial share, exclusion, or proxy was applied.
- Fix the timing basis for the forecastState whether the outcome is measured from the initiative start, from the reporting date, or from another agreed point, and keep that timing basis consistent across the figures.
- Separate modelled figures from observed resultsIf the outcome is not yet fully measured, disclose which numbers come from estimates, which come from actual readings, and the method used to bridge the gap.
- Explain any rounding that changes the totalsIf rounding affects the reported tonnes, percentages, or year labels, show the unrounded working internally and explain the rounding rule used in the published figure.
- Aggregate enough to protect personal or sensitive dataWhere detailed site, team, or customer data cannot be shown safely, combine it to a level that avoids disclosure risk and explain the aggregation level chosen.
- State how the baseline was fixed for the comparisonIf the starting point for the comparison was revised, explain why it changed, what period now anchors the comparison, and whether the same basis is used for all initiatives.
- Handle mixed-method portfolios consistentlyWhen one initiative uses measured savings and another uses forecast savings, explain the common basis used to combine them so the reported outcome is not overstated or double counted.
Examples
How it reads on the page
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
We set a 2030 emissions-cut target for our operations and expect to lower annual emissions by 1,200 tCO2e from a 3,000 tCO2e baseline, which is a 40% reduction.
- Target year: 2030
- Expected cut: 1,200 tCO2e
- Reduction against the starting point: 40%
This is a made-up example showing how a company might describe a future emissions-reduction target in plain language, with a baseline, a target year and the expected reduction stated consistently.
Our group plans to reach its 2035 climate milestone by cutting annual emissions by 450 tCO2e from a 1,500 tCO2e reference level, equal to a 30% reduction.
- Target year: 2035
- Expected cut: 450 tCO2e
- Reduction against the starting point: 30%
This is a second fictional example for a different sector, using internally consistent figures to show the same disclosure in a different wording and time horizon.
Quality ladder
- Basic
By 2030, I expect our emissions-cutting plan to reduce emissions by 12,000 tCO2e.
- Better
By 2030, I expect our emissions-cutting plan to reduce emissions by 12,000 tCO2e, equal to 18% below our 2024 baseline.
- Best
By 2030, I expect our emissions-cutting plan to cut 12,000 tCO2e, or 18% versus our 2024 baseline, and the figure is lower than last year because we have delayed one site upgrade into 2031.
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A facilities team has approved a retrofit programme for three warehouses. The draft note says the work should cut annual emissions by 1,200 tCO2e, which is 15% below the chosen baseline, with the main delivery date set for 2028.
A project manager wants to report a solar upgrade that is still at concept stage. The team has a rough estimate of 900 tCO2e avoided, but the baseline used for the calculation has not been documented and the expected completion year is still being debated.
An operations team has two efficiency projects. One is expected to save 500 tCO2e by 2027, and the other 300 tCO2e by 2027; together they are presented as 800 tCO2e and 10% below the baseline.
A sustainability analyst has a draft table showing a 20% reduction versus baseline and a target year of 2030, but the emissions cut is left blank because the team says the percentage is enough for readers to understand the plan.
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.
First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)
TAQA (Abu Dhabi National Energy Company)
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (ADCB)
| Field | First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) | TAQA (Abu Dhabi National Energy Company) | Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank (ADCB) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forecast emissions cut | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Baseline reduction share | Not found | Not found | Not found |
| Target achievement year | Not found | Partial | 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 UAE requirements and related disclosures
UAE
Art.6(1)(b)-2
within UAE Federal Decree-Law 11/2024: Federal Decree-Law No. (11) of 2024 on the Reduction of Climate Change Effects
Related & explore
More in UAE Federal Decree-Law 11/2024 →Browse full catalogue →Search all disclosures →
FAQ
Questions this page answers
The page says to prepare three datapoints: forecast emissions cut, baseline reduction share, and target achievement year. Use those as the starting point before you draft the narrative or populate the workbook.
Use it as a practical sequence for getting the disclosure ready, rather than as a legal test. It is there to help you organise the data, ownership, and evidence before you write the draft.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Build it around the claim, the underlying data, and the supporting records so a reviewer can trace the numbers back to source.
The page says there are five assurance claims to check, each with a claim, risk, and evidence angle. Use those prompts to test whether the disclosure is supported and whether anything is missing before sign-off.
The page lists common gaps and mistakes to help you spot weak points before you finalise the disclosure. Use that section as a pre-submission check so the draft is internally consistent and evidence-backed.
The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. Use those to turn the prepared datapoints into a readable draft rather than starting from a blank page.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the preparation steps, capture the datapoints, and assemble the evidence needed for review.
The Download Centre also provides a printable Library Card in .pdf format. It is there as a practical reference you can keep alongside the workbook while you prepare the disclosure.
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 can model your own draft without copying it.
The table links to real published reports where the topic is disclosed. Use it to see how others present the topic in practice, while still building your own disclosure from your own data and evidence.
The page says ESRS E1 (Climate Change) is the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across workstreams. That does not mean the requirements are identical, so check the other framework separately before reusing anything.
More questions this page can help with