Short answer
The answer, before the reasoning
Assurance readiness is achieved when each material IFRS S1 or IFRS S2 disclosure can be traced from the published claim to an approved reporting requirement, documented judgement, source data, methodology, control, reviewer and governance sign-off. It is not a final-week evidence collection exercise.
The exact assurance obligation, level and standard depend on the jurisdiction and engagement scope, but a well-controlled reporting process should be capable of supporting challenge over materiality, risk identification, financial effects, scenario analysis, greenhouse gas emissions, metrics, estimates, governance and the statement of compliance.
A practitioner guide to building evidence and controls into the IFRS S1/S2 reporting process, with a mock assurance request and clearly labelled review findings.
In practice
Article map
| Stage | What the reader will be able to do |
|---|---|
| Answer | Define assurance readiness without implying a universal assurance mandate. |
| Build | Create evidence chains for nine high-risk IFRS S1/S2 workstreams. |
| Diagnose | Recognise recurring readiness and review issues. |
| Test | Use a detailed mock evidence request and dry-run workflow. |
| Approve | Protect the IFRS compliance statement through a final release gate. |
Why assurance readiness should start before drafting
The most expensive assurance problems usually begin much earlier than the assurance fieldwork. A risk register was built without a documented population; a materiality conclusion cannot be reconstructed; the finance model and sustainability narrative use different assumptions; a Scope 3 estimate has no retained input file; or the board approved a report without seeing the final compliance statement. By the time these gaps appear in a published draft, the team is trying to recreate evidence rather than operate a reliable reporting system.
IFRS S1 requires fair presentation of material sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect the entity’s prospects. It also requires the sustainability-related financial disclosures to relate to the same reporting entity and period as the financial statements, to contain connected information and, where all requirements are met, to include an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance. IFRS S2 adds climate-specific requirements, including GHG emissions, climate resilience and scenario analysis. Each of these areas contains judgements that need more than a final number or a polished paragraph.
Rule
SCOPE WARNING
Neither IFRS S1 nor IFRS S2 creates a universal external assurance mandate. Whether assurance is required, what information is covered, the assurance level, the practitioner eligibility rules and the effective date are determined by the applicable jurisdiction, contract or voluntary engagement. Readiness should be broader than the minimum current scope so that future expansion does not require rebuilding the system.
In practice
Three distinctions that prevent confusion
| Distinction | What it means | Practical consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting evidence vs assurance evidence | Reporting evidence supports the entity’s disclosure and judgement. Assurance evidence is obtained and evaluated by the practitioner under the engagement standard. | The entity prepares a traceable evidence environment; it does not pre-emptively design or perform the practitioner’s independent procedures. |
| Readiness review vs assurance engagement | A readiness review identifies gaps and improves controls before the formal engagement. It does not express an assurance conclusion. | Label internal or advisory work accurately and avoid wording that implies assurance has been obtained. |
| Limited vs reasonable assurance | Both are assurance engagements, but the nature, timing and extent of risk assessment and procedures differ, and the form of conclusion differs. | Do not assume the same evidence quantity or testing plan will support both levels. Confirm the intended level and scope early. |
What assurance readiness looks like
Assurance-ready evidence architecture
A reliable file links the requirement and materiality judgement to data, method, controls, disclosure wording and governance approval. Evidence must remain retrievable after publication.
A useful organising principle is one material claim, one evidence chain. A claim can be quantitative—such as absolute gross Scope 3 emissions—or narrative—such as the statement that the board oversees climate-related targets. The chain should identify why the claim is required or material, what facts support it, how it was prepared, which controls operated, who challenged it and which final wording was approved.
In practice
| Evidence-chain component | Minimum content | Typical owner |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement / reporting basis | Applicable paragraph, jurisdictional modification, reporting period and any relief used. | Technical accounting or sustainability reporting lead. |
| Materiality / scope judgement | Population considered, criteria, evidence, decision, exclusions, approver and date. | Materiality working group and executive sponsor. |
| Source data | System extract, supplier file, calculation input, survey or external dataset with provenance and cut-off. | Data owner. |
| Methodology | Definition, boundary, unit, formula, factors, assumptions, estimates, changes and limitations. | Metric or model owner. |
| Control evidence | Reconciliation, review note, exception log, approval, access record or recalculation. | Control owner and reviewer. |
| Disclosure mapping | Final paragraph/table, claim ID, related metric and cross-reference to financial statements. | Technical author. |
| Governance approval | Committee or board paper, meeting evidence, final changes and authorised release. | Company secretary / governance owner. |
| Retention and access | File location, version, confidentiality, retention period and responsible custodian. | Reporting PMO / records owner. |
Nine IFRS S1/S2 workstreams to make assurance-ready
1. Materiality and disclosure completeness
IFRS S1 materiality is assessed from the perspective of primary users of general purpose financial reports. It is entity-specific and does not rely on a universal numerical threshold. A readiness file should show the population of sustainability-related risks and opportunities considered, the information sources used, the criteria applied, how omissions or obscuring were evaluated, and how the conclusion connects to the final disclosure set.
Retain the risk-and-opportunity universe, not only the final material items.
Show how SASB disclosure topics and metrics were referred to and considered where required.
Document why apparently relevant matters were excluded, combined or treated as immaterial.
Record changes from the prior period and the event that triggered reassessment.
Reconcile the final disclosure index to the approved materiality conclusions.
2. Identification of sustainability-related risks and opportunities
The risk-identification process should be reproducible. Reviewers will normally need to understand the value-chain scope, data sources, time horizons, interaction with enterprise risk management, industry considerations and the difference between a broad sustainability issue and a risk or opportunity that could reasonably be expected to affect the entity’s prospects.
Create a risk/opportunity register with stable IDs, description, affected business model or value-chain location, time horizon and owner.
Record the reasonable and supportable information used and why the search was proportionate rather than exhaustive.
Retain workshop inputs, management challenge and evidence of contradictory views—not only the final risk rating.
Map each disclosed risk or opportunity to governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and financial-effects content.
3. Current and anticipated financial effects
Financial-effects disclosures are a common point of tension because they sit between narrative sustainability analysis and financial planning. IFRS S1 requires information about current and anticipated effects on financial position, financial performance and cash flows, subject to specific reliefs from quantitative information. Readiness requires evidence that the entity considered the effects, used consistent data and assumptions to the extent possible, and applied any relief deliberately rather than by omission.
4. Climate resilience and scenario analysis
IFRS S2 requires climate-related scenario analysis using an approach commensurate with the entity’s circumstances. Assurance readiness does not mean that every entity needs the most complex model. It means the selected approach, scenarios, inputs, time horizons, assumptions, limitations and conclusions are documented and proportionate to the entity’s exposure, capabilities and resources.
Approve the scenario-analysis objective and decisions it is intended to inform.
Retain the source and version of external scenarios and explain any internal adjustments.
Document model boundaries, physical and transition-risk variables, time horizons and sensitivity choices.
Preserve evidence of management challenge, expert involvement and reconciliation to strategy or financial planning.
Explain significant uncertainties and avoid presenting a scenario as a forecast or a guaranteed outcome.
5. Greenhouse gas emissions
GHG disclosures require a particularly strong data lineage because they combine organisational boundaries, activity data, emission factors, calculation methods, estimates and value-chain inputs. IFRS S2 requires disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions, with information about measurement approaches, inputs and assumptions. Scope 3 requires consideration of the entire value chain and all 15 categories, subject to the applicable requirements and any amendments or reliefs.
6. Other metrics and targets
A metric register should show why a metric is relevant, whether it is required by an IFRS Standard or selected through industry-based or entity-specific judgement, how it is defined, its boundary, owner, source, calculation, comparative basis and control. Targets require additional evidence over the baseline, scope, period, governance approval, progress calculation and any changes or missed milestones.
Do not assume a familiar KPI name has a stable definition across the group.
Retain the exact methodology and unit used in every comparative period.
Reconcile target progress to the metric actually disclosed, not to a management dashboard with a different boundary.
Challenge claims of effectiveness: actions and expenditure do not automatically prove outcomes.
7. Estimates, uncertainty and external information
Reasonable estimates are an essential part of sustainability reporting and do not undermine usefulness when they are accurately described and explained. Readiness therefore requires transparent model governance rather than a false promise of precision. Identify amounts subject to a high level of measurement uncertainty, disclose the sources of that uncertainty and retain the assumptions, data limitations, expert inputs and sensitivity analysis used.
Separate directly measured, modelled, extrapolated and proxy data in the evidence register.
Document management bias controls and alternative assumptions considered.
Assess the competence, objectivity and relevance of external experts and information providers.
Retain data-gap and remediation plans so that estimation choices can be reassessed in future periods.
8. Governance and management oversight
Governance disclosures should be supported by governance evidence, not reconstructed from generic committee terms of reference. The file should show who had oversight, what information they received, how often, which decisions were made, how skills were assessed and how management controls supported oversight. If oversight is integrated, the disclosures and evidence should demonstrate that integration rather than duplicate boilerplate across topics.
Approved mandates and role descriptions for the responsible body or individual.
Board and committee papers showing substantive sustainability-related information, not just an agenda title.
Minutes or decision records for targets, material risks, strategy, scenario analysis and report approval.
Evidence of management review, challenge, escalation and remediation of significant deficiencies.
A final disclosure sign-off matrix showing ownership and review of each governance claim.
9. Statement of compliance and publication controls
An explicit and unreserved statement of compliance can be made only when the disclosures comply with all applicable IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards. It is therefore a conclusion over the full reporting package, not a phrase inserted by the communications team. The readiness file should include a complete requirements checklist, evidence of any reliefs, final cross-references, consistency checks, authorisation for issue and confirmation that the sustainability disclosures are published at the same time and for the same period as the related financial statements, subject to any applicable transition relief.
In practice
| Evidence area | Useful records |
|---|---|
| Current effects | Mapping to affected financial-statement line items, management accounts, impairments, provisions, revenue/cost analysis and cash-flow information. |
| Anticipated effects | Forecast model, planning horizon, scenarios, key assumptions, sensitivities, ranges and links to approved budgets or strategic plans. |
| Relief from quantitative information | Decision memo explaining why effects are not separately identifiable, measurement uncertainty is too high, or skills/capabilities/resources condition applies; required qualitative information retained. |
| Consistency | Reconciliation of assumptions, currency, time horizons and planning inputs to the financial statements and financial planning process; explanation of significant differences. |
In practice
| Control focus | Evidence expected |
|---|---|
| Boundary | Reconciliation between the financial reporting entity and the GHG consolidation approach, including associates, joint ventures, acquisitions, disposals and exclusions. |
| Activity data | Meter readings, invoices, fuel records, logistics files, supplier data and extraction dates. |
| Emission factors / GWP | Source, publication version, jurisdictional requirement, effective period and approval of updates. |
| Calculation | Formula, workbook or system logic, locked cells, change log, recalculation and reviewer sign-off. |
| Scope 3 screening | Assessment of all 15 categories, relevance conclusion, data hierarchy, estimation approach and reassessment triggers. |
| Disclosures and amendments | Method, inputs, assumptions, uncertainty, comparatives and evidence of applying the December 2025 amendments when effective or early applied. |
Rule
COMPLIANCE CLAIM CONTROL
Place the proposed compliance statement behind a formal release gate. The gate should confirm the reporting basis, completeness of applicable requirements, use of reliefs, unresolved technical findings, publication timing and final approval. A partial-alignment description must not be written as an IFRS compliance statement.
Technical status
STATUS OF THIS SECTION
The findings below are a London Reporting Academy practitioner synthesis of recurring readiness and review issues. They are not an IAASB list of universal deficiencies, and they do not predict the procedures or conclusion in a particular assurance engagement.
In practice
Common review findings: practitioner synthesis
| Finding | How it appears | Why it matters — Correction evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Materiality conclusion cannot be reconstructed. | Only the final list is retained; criteria, population and challenge are missing. | The completeness of material information cannot be evaluated reliably. — Versioned universe, criteria, decision log, exclusions and approval. |
| Risk register and report use different language or IDs. | The disclosed risk cannot be traced to enterprise risk or strategy records. | Scope, ownership and financial-effects connections become unclear. — Stable IDs and crosswalk across risk, strategy, metrics and disclosure. |
| Value-chain scope is asserted but not evidenced. | The narrative says “across our value chain” while the assessment covers only Tier 1 suppliers. | The statement can overstate the breadth of the process. — Boundary definition, source population, limitations and accurate wording. |
| Financial effects are generic. | The report says risks “may affect performance” without affected line items, planning links or explanation of relief. | Users cannot understand current or anticipated effects. — Finance mapping, model, assumptions, qualitative detail and relief memo. |
| Scenario analysis is a presentation deck, not a controlled model. | Inputs, scenario versions and limitations are not retained. | The resilience conclusion cannot be reproduced or challenged. — Model inventory, source scenarios, assumptions, outputs and approvals. |
| GHG boundary differs from the reporting entity without reconciliation. | Acquisitions, JVs or leased assets are treated inconsistently. | The reported emissions may be incomplete or incomparable. — Boundary reconciliation and documented consolidation method. |
| Scope 3 category screening is incomplete. | Only categories with available data are considered. | A data gap is mistaken for irrelevance. — Assessment of all 15 categories and documented prioritisation/data hierarchy. |
| Metric definition changes silently. | A KPI appears comparable, but the numerator, denominator or organisational scope changed. | Trend analysis is misleading. — Methodology change log, restatement decision and disclosure. |
| Estimate precision is overstated. | A modelled amount is reported without uncertainty or data-quality explanation. | Users may infer measurement accuracy that does not exist. — Estimate classification, assumptions, sensitivity and uncertainty disclosure. |
| Governance disclosure is boilerplate. | The wording follows a template but meeting evidence shows no relevant oversight. | The disclosure may not faithfully represent the actual process. — Terms of reference plus papers, minutes and decision evidence. |
| Compliance statement is approved too early. | The claim is locked before late technical findings and cross-reference changes are resolved. | The statement can become false at release. — Final compliance checklist and release-gate sign-off. |
| Evidence is stored by person, not by claim. | Files sit in emails and local folders with no index. | Retrieval is slow and key evidence may be lost. — Claim-based evidence register with owners, versions and retention. |
Mock assurance evidence request
The request below is illustrative. It helps a reporting team test readiness before the practitioner issues a formal request list. The actual request will depend on the reporting criteria, assurance level, engagement scope, risk assessment and professional judgement.
Mock evidence request workflow
Requests should be logged, assigned, quality-checked and linked to the published claim. Responses should preserve version, owner and review status rather than sending unindexed files by email.
In practice
| ID | Illustrative request | Primary owner — Expected evidence / response |
|---|---|---|
| AR-01 | Provide the approved IFRS S1/S2 reporting basis and scope memorandum. | Reporting lead — Standards and jurisdictional basis, reporting entity, period, location, transition reliefs and assurance scope. |
| AR-02 | Provide the sustainability risk and opportunity universe and materiality methodology. | Risk / sustainability — Population, sources, criteria, thresholds or qualitative logic, decision log, exclusions and approvals. |
| AR-03 | Explain how SASB disclosure topics and metrics were referred to and considered. | Technical reporting — Industry selection, applicability matrix, modifications and final metric choices. |
| AR-04 | Reconcile the sustainability reporting entity to the financial statements. | Finance — Group structure, subsidiaries, associates/JVs, acquisitions/disposals and metric-specific boundary differences. |
| AR-05 | Provide evidence supporting the disclosed current financial effects. | Finance / FP&A — Line-item mapping, management accounts, calculations, explanations and reviewer sign-off. |
| AR-06 | Provide the anticipated financial-effects model and assumptions. | FP&A / strategy — Forecast, scenarios, time horizons, sensitivities, links to planning and explanation of any relief used. |
| AR-07 | Provide the climate scenario-analysis methodology and outputs. | Climate / risk — Scenario sources, versions, variables, assumptions, model files, uncertainty, management challenge and resilience conclusion. |
| AR-08 | Provide the GHG organisational-boundary reconciliation. | GHG owner / finance — Financial group perimeter, consolidation method, exclusions, leased assets, JVs and changes. |
| AR-09 | Provide source data and calculations for Scope 1 and Scope 2. | Operations / energy — Invoices, meters, fuel data, emission factors, workbooks/system reports and review controls. |
| AR-10 | Provide the assessment of all 15 Scope 3 categories. | Procurement / climate — Category screening, value-chain sources, data hierarchy, estimation methods, exclusions and reassessment. |
| AR-11 | Provide the data-quality and uncertainty assessment for GHG emissions. | GHG owner — Primary/secondary data split, estimates, limitations, sensitivity and improvement plan. |
| AR-12 | Provide the register of other disclosed metrics and targets. | Reporting PMO — Definition, boundary, source, calculation, baseline, target approval, progress and methodology changes. |
| AR-13 | Provide model and spreadsheet governance evidence. | Model owners / IT — Inventory, access, versioning, formula checks, change approvals, validation and backup. |
| AR-14 | Provide evidence for the governance disclosures. | Company secretary — Mandates, committee papers, minutes, skills assessment, management escalation and report approval. |
| AR-15 | Provide the final disclosure-to-evidence index. | Reporting PMO — Claim IDs, source references, controls, owners, reviewers and final report locations. |
| AR-16 | Provide the connected-information and consistency review. | Finance / technical reporting — Assumption reconciliation, currency/period checks, links to financial statements and explanation of differences. |
| AR-17 | Provide the requirements checklist and proposed statement of compliance. | Technical reviewer — Applicable requirements, reliefs, open findings, final conclusion and sign-off. |
| AR-18 | Provide the subsequent-events and publication close process. | Finance / legal / reporting — Post-period events review, authorisation date, simultaneous publication evidence and correction protocol. |
In practice
How to run a readiness dry run
| Phase | Action | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Scope | Confirm criteria, reporting period, assurance objective, expected level, topics, metrics, locations and digital layer. | Readiness scope statement and request universe. |
| 2. Sample | Select high-risk claims across narrative, quantitative, forward-looking and value-chain information. | Representative sample with risk rationale. |
| 3. Retrieve | Ask owners to supply evidence through the normal process without special intervention. | Retrieval-time data and evidence gaps. |
| 4. Reperform | Recalculate metrics, trace narratives, inspect approvals and challenge judgement consistency. | Findings classified by severity and root cause. |
| 5. Remediate | Correct the disclosure, method, control or evidence retention process—not only the requested file. | Action plan, owners, due dates and retest criteria. |
| 6. Reassess | Determine whether findings affect other disclosures, comparatives or the compliance statement. | Cross-report impact assessment. |
| 7. Close | Retest, obtain sign-off and update the evidence request playbook for year-end. | Readiness conclusion with residual limitations. |
Hypothetical example: readiness exposes a hidden boundary problem
The dry run selects the disclosed statement that transition risk is concentrated in carbon-intensive corporate lending. The evidence chain contains a scenario-analysis presentation and a financed-emissions table, but the two use different industry classifications and portfolio cut-off dates. The financial-effects narrative refers to expected credit losses, yet no finance mapping shows whether or how the risk was considered in the financial planning process.
The team does not solve the problem by adding more prose. It creates a common exposure population, documents the classification crosswalk, aligns the cut-off, links the scenario output to portfolio risk analysis, involves finance in the anticipated-effects assessment and narrows the disclosure until the evidence supports it. The resulting narrative is more specific and less ambitious, but it is traceable and more faithfully represented.
Hypothetical scenario
ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIO
A financial group prepares IFRS S1/S2 disclosures and expects limited assurance over selected climate metrics and narrative disclosures. Its Scope 1 and Scope 2 data are controlled, but the risk register, scenario model and financed-emissions data sit in separate teams.
Illustrative only. It shows how the decision is made, not wording that can be copied or relied on.
In practice
Weak versus stronger readiness
| Area | Weak | Stronger |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence collection | Owners are asked for files after the report is drafted. | Evidence requirements are designed with the metric and disclosure process. |
| Judgements | Only the final conclusion is retained. | Inputs, alternatives, challenge, uncertainty and approval are documented. |
| Controls | A senior reviewer signs the final report. | Key risks have defined preventive/detective controls, evidence and remediation. |
| Assurance interaction | The practitioner’s request list becomes the project plan. | The entity has its own evidence register and readiness scope before fieldwork. |
| Compliance claim | A template statement is inserted early. | The statement is released only after the full requirements and publication gate is cleared. |
Rule
MYTH VERSUS REALITY
Myth: “Limited assurance means the evidence can be informal.” Reality: the assurance conclusion differs from reasonable assurance, but the reported information still needs a suitable basis, coherent preparation process and evidence that can be evaluated. Weak records create scope delays, additional procedures, qualifications or inability to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence.
Readiness
Assurance-readiness checklist
- The assurance requirement or voluntary scope, level, criteria and practitioner eligibility have been confirmed.
- Every material disclosure has a stable claim ID and evidence owner.
- Materiality and risk/opportunity conclusions can be reconstructed from retained records.
- The reporting entity and metric-specific boundaries are reconciled to the financial statements.
- Current and anticipated financial effects are linked to finance evidence or a documented IFRS relief.
- Scenario-analysis inputs, model versions, limitations and governance challenge are retained.
- GHG data lineage covers boundaries, all applicable scopes/categories, factors, estimates and controls.
- Metric definitions, target baselines and methodology changes are controlled.
- High-uncertainty estimates are identified and transparently explained.
- Governance disclosures are supported by actual oversight evidence.
- The compliance statement is subject to a final requirements and release gate.
- Evidence can be retrieved by claim without dependence on individual inboxes.
- Findings are remediated at root-cause level and retested.
Evidence for an IFRS materiality judgement should show the population of sustainability-related risks and opportunities considered, the information sources and criteria used, how omission or obscuring was evaluated and how the conclusion connects to the final disclosures. Retain the full risk-and-opportunity universe, exclusion and aggregation decisions, changes from the prior period, approval and the reconciliation from the final disclosure index to the materiality conclusions.
Reviewers normally ask for the selected scenario-analysis approach, scenarios, inputs, time horizons, assumptions, limitations and conclusions, together with evidence that the method is proportionate to the entity's exposure and capabilities. They also need the resulting resilience assessment, links to strategy and financial effects, governance approval and consistency with finance assumptions.
Self-check
- Can the team reconstruct why one risk or metric was included and another excluded?
- Which claims rely on estimates, external information or forward-looking models, and what controls address bias and uncertainty?
- What evidence proves that the board performed the oversight described in the report?
- Could the compliance statement still be supported if a late assurance finding changes one material disclosure?
Questions
Questions people ask
Is assurance mandatory for IFRS S1/S2?
Neither IFRS S1 nor IFRS S2 creates a universal external assurance mandate. Whether assurance is required, what information is covered, the assurance level, the practitioner eligibility rules and the effective date are determined by the applicable jurisdiction, contract or voluntary engagement. Readiness should be broader than the minimum current scope so that future expansion does not require rebuilding the system.
What evidence supports IFRS materiality?
Evidence for an IFRS materiality judgement should show the population of sustainability-related risks and opportunities considered, the information sources and criteria used, how omission or obscuring was evaluated and how the conclusion connects to the final disclosures. Retain the full risk-and-opportunity universe, exclusion and aggregation decisions, changes from the prior period, approval and the reconciliation from the final disclosure index to the materiality conclusions.
What do reviewers ask for on scenario analysis?
Reviewers normally ask for the selected scenario-analysis approach, scenarios, inputs, time horizons, assumptions, limitations and conclusions, together with evidence that the method is proportionate to the entity's exposure and capabilities. They also need the resulting resilience assessment, links to strategy and financial effects, governance approval and consistency with finance assumptions.
How should GHG estimates be evidenced?
GHG disclosures require a particularly strong data lineage because they combine organisational boundaries, activity data, emission factors, calculation methods, estimates and value-chain inputs. IFRS S2 requires disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions, with information about measurement approaches, inputs and assumptions.
What supports an IFRS compliance statement?
An explicit and unreserved statement of compliance can be made only when the disclosures comply with all applicable IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards. It is therefore a conclusion over the full reporting package, not a phrase inserted by the communications team.
Practical conclusion
The best assurance preparation is a reporting system that produces reliable evidence as part of normal work. Start with high-risk judgements and claims, build a claim-to-evidence architecture, align assumptions with finance, retain the limitations as carefully as the headline results, and test retrieval before the formal engagement. This reduces assurance disruption while also improving the quality and defensibility of the IFRS S1/S2 disclosures themselves.
Take it with you
The checklists as a working spreadsheet
Every checklist and table on this page, with empty status, owner and evidence columns for your team to fill in and keep.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Ask about this guide
It answers from this page, and reaches into the linked disclosure cards when your question is about the standard itself. Your first two answers are free without signing in.
Go deeper · IFRS S1 / S2
IFRS S1 and S2 training
Financial materiality, scenario analysis and the S2 climate disclosures, applied to your own reporting.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
