Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how its climate-related targets are governed and kept under review. In practice, that means showing who is responsible for setting, approving, overseeing and updating the targets, and how management checks progress against them. The focus is on the control process around the targets, not just the target numbers themselves.
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.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
＋ Show s2-34 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Track the measures used to monitor progress.
Set out why the measures were changed.
Describe how the review was carried out.
Explain what was updated in the targets.
State whether the data was validated and who validated it.
How to prepare it
1Set 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.
2Define 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.
3Gather 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.
4Assemble 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.
5Record any exclusions, restatements, or changes in approach, and explain why the target was adjusted and how the review was carried out.
6Check 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.
Industry examples
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
Professional preparation tools for s2-34 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
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.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong owner
The 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 terms
The data request is written in reporting jargon, so the business cannot map it to its own tracker, committee pack, or approval log.
Scope left vague
No one states which targets, business units, or reporting boundary are in scope, so different teams send different sets of records.
Wrong period basis
The 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 basis
Some 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 lost
The 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 merged
Records 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 missing
The pack is assembled without the supporting notes, version history, or sign-off record, so no one can show who checked the data or when.
Where judgement is often needed
What counts as the live target set after a buy-in or sale
Use 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 definitions
If 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 scope
Set 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 cycle
State 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 estimates
If 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 summary
Apply 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 data
Where 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 refinement
Explain 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 involved
If 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.
Examples
Illustrative examples
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.
How companies report S2-34 in practice
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited
Retailing · India · 2025
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.
Hotels, Restaurants, Leisure, Tourism Services · China · 2025
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.
Construction and Engineering · South Korea · 2025
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.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context. Your first two answers are free — join LRA Community for free to continue without a limit.
TryHow 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?
2 free answers
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 →Hide answer ↑Set out the measures used to track progress, explain the review steps used to keep the target under watch, identify whether the target was changed and give the reason for that change, and state the validation position together with the person or firm that carried out the check. A possible LRA training template would be to adapt this to your organisation and check the source before sign-off.
Why this matters · The disclosure should connect monitoring, review, revisions, and validation in one clear account.
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 →Hide answer ↑Describe the path used to assess and approve the target, then explain each revision and the reason behind it, rather than leaving the reader with a bare statement that the target changed. A possible LRA training template would be to adapt this to your organisation and check the source before sign-off.
Why this matters · A revision needs context: the process and the trigger for change should both be visible.
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 →Hide answer ↑State the validation status and name the validator, and make sure the description is not broader than what was actually checked. If the check covered only part of the target information, the narrative should not imply a wider review. A possible LRA training template would be to adapt this to your organisation and check the source before sign-off.
Why this matters · Validation details should match the real scope of the check, not an assumed wider assurance.
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 →Hide answer ↑Explain the review arrangement at both management and board level, identify the measures used to monitor progress, and describe any target change together with the reason for that change. A possible LRA training template would be to adapt this to your organisation and check the source before sign-off.
Why this matters · Readers need to see how the target is monitored, how often it is reviewed, and why any change was made.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where can I find real company examples for s2-34?+−
The page has a 'From company reports' table that links to real published reports at the pages where the topic is disclosed. Use those links to see how others have presented similar information in practice.
More questions this page can help with
s2-34 IFRS S2 climate-related disclosures practical checklist for ESG managers2-34 what evidence do I need for assurance readinesss2-34 datapoints to prepare monitoring measures why it changed how it was checkeds2-34 how to assign ownership for disclosure inputss2-34 common reporting gaps and mistakes to avoids2-34 workbook download xlsx prep and assurances2-34 printable library card pdf downloads2-34 synthetic example disclosure quantitative tables2-34 draft output narrative starters content index lines2-34 from company reports real published exampless2-34 ESRS E1 climate change data reuses2-34 assurance claims claim risk evidence
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63171 pages with page-level citations
247 practitioner guides
Free · LRA Community
Get your s2-34 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →