Ir al foco de la divulgación
Gratis · Miembros de la Community
＋ Mostrar 5 más− Mostrar menos
＋ Mostrar 6 más− Mostrar menos
Informes reales publicados
Abrir el informe →
Abrir el informe →
Abrir el informe →
✓ Asistente de IA de LRA · Con supervisión humana
Abrir la fuente oficial →
Explore the ESRS / CSRD course →
ESRS 2: General Disclosures·Disclosure Requirement IRO-1
Description of the Processes to Identify and Assess Material Impacts, Risks and Opportunities
Guía práctica para preparar esta divulgación. Use esta ficha para identificar la información a preparar, verificar afirmaciones y organizar la evidencia de soporte. Para los requisitos exactos, consulte siempre la fuente oficial de European Commission.
Pasaporte publicado
Revisión pendiente
···
En revisión
Revisión editorial en curso
Elaborado a partir de fuentes oficiales y de evidencia de informes publicados. Todavía no consta ninguna persona aprobadora, por lo que esta página no lleva firma.
Úsela junto con la fuente oficial de European Commission mientras dure esa revisión.
Norma
ESRS 2: General Disclosures
Disclosure Requirement IRO-1 · 2026-5010-final
Última revisión
—
Material formativo de LRA · No emitido ni avalado por European Commission
Para preparar esta divulgación
Foco de la divulgación
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it goes about finding and assessing the impacts, risks and opportunities that matter for sustainability reporting. In practice, that means describing the process it uses to identify what is material, how it judges significance, and how it keeps that process up to date. The focus is on the method, not just the final list of topics: readers should be able to understand how the organisation reached its conclusions.
The practical emphasis is on whether the process is broad and systematic enough to cover the organisation’s real footprint, rather than only a few well-known or flagship sites. A useful explanation would show how the organisation looks across its own operations and, where relevant, its wider value chain, and how it makes sure important issues are not missed because they sit outside the most visible parts of the business.
Este material formativo de LRA apoya la preparación de la divulgación. Para los requisitos exactos, consulte siempre la fuente oficial de European Commission.
Antes de empezar
Antes de empezar
Una breve lista de comprobación antes de preparar esta divulgación: marque cada punto a medida que lo resuelva.
Preparación
Información clave que preparar
| Campo de preparación | Qué recopilar | Pista de evidencia | Responsable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment method | Describe the approach used to assess the matter, including the overall method and how it is applied in practice. | Method note, assessment framework, internal guidance, or working paper showing the approach used. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Assessment steps | Set out the sequence of actions followed when carrying out the assessment, in the order they are actually done. | Process map, workflow note, or assessment checklist with the steps recorded. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Decision cut-offs | Record the cut-off points or decision points used to decide what is included, excluded, or escalated. | Scoring guide, decision matrix, or internal threshold note used in the assessment. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Working assumptions | List the assumptions applied when making the assessment, including any simplifying judgments or estimates. | Assumptions log, model note, or working paper showing the assumptions used. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Assessment inputs | Identify the source information fed into the assessment, including internal and external data used to reach the result. | Source data list, data pack, or model input register linking inputs to their origin. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Impact severity basis | Explain how seriousness is judged, including the criteria used to rate how severe an impact could be or is. | Severity rubric, impact scoring guide, or risk methodology note. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Impact likelihood basis | Explain how chance is judged, including the criteria used to rate how probable an impact could be or is. | Likelihood rubric, probability guide, or risk methodology note. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Priority setting approach | Describe how the organisation decides which matters are treated first, including the logic used to rank them. | Prioritisation matrix, ranking method, or decision note showing how priorities were set. | Sustainability / risk team |
| High-risk focus areas | Identify the areas where risk is especially elevated and therefore needs closer attention. | Risk register, hotspot analysis, or issue log highlighting the elevated-risk areas. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Due diligence input | State whether due diligence work informed the assessment. | Yes/no sign-off in the assessment file, due diligence memo, or review checklist. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Consulted stakeholders | List the stakeholder groups or parties that were consulted during the process. | Consultation log, meeting record, or engagement tracker naming the parties consulted. | Sustainability / stakeholder engagement team |
| Outside specialists consulted | List any external specialists or advisers brought in to support the assessment. | Advisor engagement record, expert report, or procurement file showing external input. | Sustainability / legal / technical team |
| Use of input | Explain how the consultation or expert input affected the assessment, decision, or final wording. | Decision memo, response log, or annotated working paper showing how input was used. | Sustainability / risk team |
| Identified changes | Describe any changes that were identified in the review period, including what changed and where. | Change log, revision tracker, or comparison note between reporting periods. | Sustainability reporting / control owner |
| Change explanation | Explain why the identified change happened, using the actual driver rather than a generic label. | Change log commentary, issue investigation note, or management explanation. | Sustainability reporting / control owner |
＋ Mostrar los subelementos de IRO-1 (lista de trabajo de LRA)
State the assumptions used.
Set out the decision steps followed.
List the inputs relied on.
Describe the method applied.
Explain the thresholds used.
Identify the areas with higher risk.
Set the criteria used to judge likelihood.
Explain how priorities were ranked.
Set the criteria used to judge severity.
Say whether due diligence information was used.
Name any outside specialists consulted.
Explain how that input informed the work.
Name the stakeholders consulted.
Identify the changes found.
Explain why each change was made.
Cómo prepararlo
Set the boundary first: state which parts of the business, value chain, time period, and reporting population your process covers, so the reader can see what was in scope for the assessment.
Define your working rules: explain the method you used, the decision path you followed, the cut-offs or trigger points you applied, the assumptions you relied on, and the information sources you drew on.
Explain how you judged importance: set out the criteria you used for seriousness and for chance of occurrence, then describe how those criteria fed into your ranking or sorting of matters, including any areas you treated as especially sensitive or exposed.
Record who informed the process: note whether the assessment drew on due diligence work, identify the internal or external parties you consulted, and explain how their input shaped the outcome.
Compile the output in the form needed: bring together the figures, narrative explanations, or both, using the evidence and working papers that support the conclusions and the way the assessment was carried out.
Document what changed and why, then check the final wording against the official source so any exclusions, updates, or methodological shifts are clear and the disclosure stays aligned with the underlying requirement.
Solicitar los datos
Request the impact-and-risk assessment process evidence
Traduzca la divulgación a una pregunta de negocio interna y adáptela después al lenguaje propio de su organización.
How do we currently identify, screen, prioritise and update the sustainability topics that matter most to the business?
Use your organisation’s own names for the process, committees, scorecards and review cycles first, then map them to the reporting disclosure. Keep the request in the language people actually use internally, and check the source material before sign-off.
Solicitud débil
Please provide the ESRS 2:IRO-1 materiality assessment methodology, decision steps, thresholds, assumptions, inputs, severity criteria, likelihood criteria, prioritisation approach, heightened-risk areas, due diligence input, stakeholders consulted, external experts consulted, how input was used, changes identified and reason for change.
Por qué falla: It uses framework language only, which can be hard for the business owner to recognise. It also bundles many concepts into one long ask, so the recipient may not know which internal documents or systems to check. That makes it slower to answer and easier to miss evidence.
Solicitud mejor
Please share the documents and notes that show how your team reviews and ranks the sustainability topics that matter most for [period]. I need the process steps, the rules used to separate higher-priority items, the main inputs, the criteria used to judge seriousness and chance of occurrence, any higher-risk areas, who was consulted, how their input changed the outcome, and what changed since the last cycle. A short table plus source files or links is fine.
Plantilla de correo formal
Subject: Request for process evidence for sustainability topic assessment Hi [name], We are preparing the reporting pack and need the evidence behind how [team / function] identifies, screens and updates the sustainability topics that are most important to the business. Please could you share, for [period]: - the method used to run the review - the steps followed to decide what was included or escalated - the cut-offs or rules used to separate higher-priority items from the rest - the assumptions and judgement calls made - the main inputs used, including any internal data, workshops, surveys, risk logs or external sources - the criteria used to judge seriousness and chance of occurrence - how items were ranked or prioritised - any areas treated as higher risk - whether due diligence work fed into the review - who was consulted, including any outside specialists - how that input was used - what changed compared with the previous cycle, and why If helpful, please return this in the table below or in your own format with the same information. Please include the source files or links where available. [Insert response table] Thanks, [preparer name]
Versión corta para Teams / Slack
Hi [name] — could you send over the evidence for how [team / function] reviews and ranks the sustainability topics that matter most, for [period]? Please include the method, steps, cut-offs, assumptions, inputs, seriousness/chance criteria, prioritisation approach, higher-risk areas, any due diligence input, who was consulted, how that input was used, and what changed since last time. A table or links to source files is fine. Thanks.
Ejemplos sectoriales
Manufacturing
Contexto. A group with several plants wants evidence from operations and EHS on how site-level issues are screened and escalated into the group review.
Solicitud adaptada. Please send the process note, workshop pack and risk log extracts that show how plant issues are screened, scored and escalated for [period]. Include the cut-offs used, the criteria for judging seriousness and chance of occurrence, the sites or lines treated as higher risk, and any changes made after consultation with site managers or external specialists.
Ejemplo de respuesta. Returned pack includes a process note, a scoring sheet, a list of plants reviewed, the escalation threshold, and a change log showing two new site risks added after the annual workshop.
Retail
Contexto. A consumer business wants evidence from strategy, risk and procurement on how supplier and customer issues are prioritised across the chain.
Solicitud adaptada. Please share the review pack that shows how customer, supplier and store issues were identified and ranked for [period]. Include the method used, the decision rules, the main data sources, the seriousness and chance criteria, any supplier regions or product lines treated as higher risk, and how input from procurement or external advisers was used.
Ejemplo de respuesta. Returned pack includes a workshop deck, a risk register extract, supplier survey results, a prioritisation matrix and notes showing that two supplier regions were moved into the higher-risk group after external input.
Redacte su divulgación
Notas que convierten los datos en una divulgación
Plantillas formativas de LRA: adáptelas a su organización y consulte la fuente oficial antes de la aprobación.
Nota metodológica
We can describe the basis of the assessment by setting out the method used, the steps followed to reach decisions, the cut-offs applied, the assumptions made, and the main inputs relied on.
Nota de contexto
This section can explain what the figures mean in practice by linking the assessment criteria, the ranking approach, any outside input, and the areas identified as needing closer attention.
Declaración sobre las variaciones
If the numbers moved during the period, we can explain that by pointing to the changes identified, the reasons behind them where known, and any shift in the inputs, thresholds, or external input used.
Entrada del índice de contenidos
IRO-1 Description of the Processes to Identify and Assess Material Impacts, Risks and Opportunities — [location / page] / [notes]Centro de descargas
Herramientas y formularios de preparación
Herramientas profesionales de preparación para IRO-1 — gratuitas con la membresía de LRA Community. Regístrese una vez (es gratis) y se desbloquean todas las descargas, junto con la Biblioteca de divulgaciones, las plantillas y el asistente de IA de LRA.
01XLSCuaderno de preparación y aseguramientoPuntos de datos, riesgos, evidencia que verificar, responsable y paquete de evidencia.Consíguelo gratis ↧
02XLSPaquete de solicitud de datosCorreo de solicitud, plantilla de mensaje, campos de respuesta y estructura de aprobación.Consíguelo gratis ↧
03PDFFicha de la bibliotecaResumen imprimible de una página de esta ficha de divulgación.Consíguelo gratis ↧
Preparación para el aseguramiento
Para cada afirmación, compruebe la evidencia
| Afirmación | Riesgos | Evidencia que comprobar |
|---|---|---|
| We used our own process notes to show how we mapped the figure to the parts of the business we actually reviewed, including relevant links in the supply chain and customer side where they mattered. | An assurer may test whether the coverage was genuinely broad enough, or whether important parts of the business or value chain were left out without a clear reason. | Scoping papers, boundary memos, process maps, and working files showing which entities, sites, activities and value-chain stages were included or excluded, with reasons for exclusions. |
| We can point to the step-by-step review trail we followed, from initial screening through to the final judgement on what was included in the report. | An assurer may look for gaps in the decision trail, unclear sequencing, or evidence that the judgement was made informally rather than through a defined process. | Assessment workflow, meeting notes, decision logs, review checklists, sign-off records, and version history showing the sequence of decisions. |
| Our files show how we extended the review beyond our direct operations to the wider chain where that was relevant to the assessment. | An assurer may challenge whether the disclosed scope really covered upstream and downstream matters, or whether the boundary was set too narrowly. | Boundary methodology, scope rationale, supplier/customer screening records, and any maps or matrices showing how the wider chain was considered. |
| We kept a record of the methods, source data, assumptions and cut-offs we relied on when deciding what was material. | An assurer may probe whether the approach was sufficiently robust, whether assumptions were arbitrary, or whether thresholds were set to steer the outcome. | Methodology paper, calculation sheets, assumption register, threshold settings, sensitivity checks, and approvals for any judgement calls. |
| We can show when the last refresh of the assessment was completed. | An assurer may question whether the date is current, whether the assessment has been updated after major events, or whether the reporting period is misstated. | Project timetable, dated sign-off, board or committee papers, and the final version control record showing the update date. |
| The wording in the report reflects our own assessment work rather than a copied template. | An assurer may test whether the narrative is generic, recycled from another report, or too vague to demonstrate the entity’s actual process. | Drafts with tracked changes, internal review comments, source working papers, and evidence that the narrative was tailored to the entity’s own process. |
Paquete de evidencia que preparar
Carencias habituales en los informes
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.
Carencias habituales
Errores que evitar al recopilar los datos
Wrong ownerThe team asks the sustainability lead for process details that sit with operations, risk, legal, or procurement, so the evidence comes from the wrong part of the business.
Framework language onlyPeople ask for answers in ESRS-style terms instead of the organisation’s own working language, which produces vague responses that staff cannot verify against source records.
Scope left unclearThe data request does not state which business units, sites, or activities are in scope, so different teams send mixed coverage that cannot be reconciled.
Wrong time basisOne team uses the reporting year while another uses a later cut-off or an earlier snapshot, so the collected evidence does not line up to the same period.
Counting bases mixedHeadcount, incidents, and spend are gathered using different counting rules without being separated, which makes the underlying figures impossible to compare cleanly.
Source labels lostOriginal file names, system codes, case IDs, or document titles are stripped out during collection, so the trail back to the first record is broken.
Separate groups mergedData from different populations that should stay apart, such as sites, functions, or issue types, is combined too early and the detail needed for review disappears.
No evidence trailThe pack is assembled without notes on where each input came from, who checked it, and who approved it, so there is no clear sign-off history.
Dónde suele hacer falta juicio profesional
Setting the group boundary after a buy-in or saleUse the reporting perimeter that matches the period you are explaining, and if a purchase or disposal changes what sits inside the business, say when that change was brought into the assessment and how it affected the process steps and any updated findings.
Reconciling different local definitions across countriesWhere local rules or operating labels differ by country, choose one internal basis for the assessment, explain the mapping from local terms to that basis, and note any places where the comparison is not exact.
Deciding how to treat people or sites near the edge of scopeIf a worker group, supplier tier, site, customer segment, or community sits close to the boundary, state the rule used to include or exclude it and explain why that rule was applied consistently.
Choosing the cut-off date for the assessmentIf the process uses a year-end snapshot, an average over the period, or another timing point, disclose that choice and make clear how it affects what was seen as significant in the period.
Using estimates where direct measurement is not availableWhen the assessment relies on estimates, proxies, or modelled inputs rather than direct records, identify the main assumptions, explain why they were needed, and distinguish them from information taken straight from source data.
Setting the level at which small items are grouped or roundedIf you group low-value items, combine similar cases, or round figures, explain the rule used, show that the simplification does not change the overall picture, and keep the method consistent across the disclosure.
Handling sensitive people data through aggregationWhen privacy or confidentiality means you cannot show detailed people data, present it in grouped form, explain the aggregation rule, and make clear how that still supports the assessment of significance.
Applying one scoring method when evidence quality variesIf some parts of the business have strong records and others rely on weaker evidence, describe the scoring approach used, note where judgement filled gaps, and explain how you kept the comparison fair across the whole assessment.
Updating the process after a major business changeIf a restructuring, acquisition, disposal, or new operating model changes how the business is reviewed, say what changed, why the process was adjusted, and whether the latest assessment was run on the old or revised basis.
Ejemplos
Ejemplos ilustrativos
Sintéticos, redactados por LRA: no proceden del informe de ninguna empresa ni del texto de ninguna norma.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing
*Illustrative only.* We first mapped the issues most likely to affect our business model and supply chain, then screened them using a simple scoring method that combined scale of effect, how hard it would be to put right, and how likely it was to happen. We treated matters as higher priority where the score crossed our internal cut-off, where our assumptions were more conservative, or where the issue sat in a known higher-risk part of the business; for this exercise, we used 18 internal and external data inputs, consulted 12 people from operations, procurement, HR and worker representatives, and brought in 2 outside specialists, whose views helped us refine the ranking and confirm 4 areas for closer due diligence. - Our method used a three-step review: identify, score, then rank; the cut-off for escalation was a combined score of 12 or more out of 20. - We assumed stable production volumes, unchanged supplier mix, and no major acquisition during the period. - We found 3 changes in the period: 1 new issue added, 1 issue moved up in priority, and 1 issue removed after further review.
Synthetic illustration for training only; not legal, assurance, or filing advice.
Illustrative summary of the internal review used for this example (count)
| Item | Count |
|---|---|
| Total inputs used | 18 |
| People consulted | 12 |
| External experts consulted | 2 |
| Areas flagged for closer due diligence | 4 |
| Changes identified | 3 |
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Apparel manufacturing
*Illustrative only.* We assessed our impacts by starting with a longlist of topics, then testing each one against agreed severity and chance criteria before deciding what to focus on first. In practice, we gave more weight to issues with larger potential effect, longer recovery time, wider reach, and stronger likelihood signals; we also paid special attention to labour-intensive sites and water-stressed locations, which we treated as heightened-risk areas. For this review, we drew on 15 information sources, spoke with 10 internal and external stakeholders, involved 3 independent advisers, and used their input to adjust the scoring, confirm that due diligence was needed for 5 topics, and record 2 material changes from the prior cycle. - Our decision path was: gather evidence, test against the criteria, then prioritise the most significant matters. - The working assumptions were steady demand, no major regulatory shock, and no sudden loss of a key supplier. - The period brought 2 changes: one topic became more significant and one dropped below our threshold.
Synthetic illustration for training only; not legal, assurance, or filing advice.
Illustrative summary of the internal review used for this example (count)
| Item | Count |
|---|---|
| Information sources used | 15 |
| Stakeholders consulted | 10 |
| External advisers consulted | 3 |
| Topics requiring due diligence | 5 |
| Changes identified | 2 |
Informes de empresas
Cómo informan las empresas sobre IRO-1 en la práctica
Ejemplos de práctica de reporte completa y parcial. Son análisis basados en evidencia, no plantillas exactas para copiar.
Abertis
Ground Transportation — Highways and Railtracks · Spain · 2024
Abertis’ 2024 Annual Report provides a description of the processes used to identify and assess material impacts, risks, and opportunities, with specific references to a materiality assessment detailed on pages 169 and 197. The report also notes stakeholder involvement in the double materiality assessment as part of formulating the Sustainability Policy on page 75. However, several datapoints remain unclear or not found, including detailed methodologies, specific impacts on affected communities, and some aspects of risk integration, with related context but no clear disclosures on pages 87, 89, 93, and 174.
Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.
Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Italy · 2024
Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.'s 2024 Annual Integrated Report provides some context on processes to identify and assess material impacts, risks, and opportunities, with references to stakeholder involvement on page 91 and materiality considerations on pages 78, 88, and 89. However, the report lacks clear, quotable disclosures for many specific datapoints related to identifying and assessing adverse impacts, with several marked as not found or unclear, including key elements such as detailed methodologies and comprehensive descriptions. Overall, while some related context is present, the report does not clearly disclose many of the required datapoints for this disclosure.
Aena S.M.E., S.A.
Air Transportation — Airport Services · Spain · 2025
Aena S.M.E., S.A.'s 2025 sustainability report includes a description of the processes to identify and assess material pollution-related impacts, risks, and opportunities, as noted on page 69. There is related context on materiality assessments and identification of impacts and risks on pages 61 and 237, though these do not clearly disclose specific datapoints. Several expected disclosures, including detailed methodologies and certain impact assessments, are not found or remain unclear in the report.
Pregunte al asistente de IA de Study Studio sobre esta divulgación
Obtenga respuestas prácticas para su contexto de reporte. Las dos primeras respuestas son gratuitas: únase gratis a LRA Community para continuar sin límite.
Pruebe
¿Cómo preparo IRO-1?
¿Qué datos necesito recopilar?
¿Dónde puedo ver un ejemplo de un informe real?
¿Qué errores debo evitar?
2 respuestas gratis
Compruebe su comprensión
Escenarios para trabajar
A group is drafting its materiality process note. The team has a workshop map and a spreadsheet of site, supplier and customer inputs, but the write-up only says the board reviewed the outcome.
PWhat extra process detail should be captured so a reader can see how the assessment was actually carried out?
Mostrar la respuesta modelo →Ocultar la respuesta ↑
The note should explain the practical method used to identify and judge the matters in scope, the steps followed to reach the conclusion, the cut-offs or filters applied, the assumptions made, and the main inputs relied on. A board review alone does not show the process behind the result.
Por qué esto importa · Describe the working method, not just the final sign-off.
A preparer has ranked several issues using a scorecard. One issue was placed above the rest because it could cause serious harm even though the team thought it was less likely than others, and the draft does not explain why that issue came first.
PHow should the team explain its ranking approach so the ordering is understandable?
Mostrar la respuesta modelo →Ocultar la respuesta ↑
The explanation should set out the criteria used to judge seriousness and the criteria used to judge chance of occurrence, then show how those criteria were combined to decide which matters were treated as more important. If some areas were given extra weight because they carried greater exposure, that should also be stated.
Por qué esto importa · Show how seriousness, chance and priority were linked in practice.
The sustainability team consulted worker representatives and an external environmental adviser. Their draft mentions the meetings, but it does not say what parts of the assessment were shaped by that input.
PWhat should the preparer add about the use of outside and stakeholder input?
Mostrar la respuesta modelo →Ocultar la respuesta ↑
The draft should say whether the assessment drew on due-diligence work, who was consulted, which outside specialists were involved, and how their views changed or confirmed the conclusions. The point is to show how the input fed into the judgement, not just that meetings happened.
Por qué esto importa · List the contributors and explain how their input affected the assessment.
Last year’s process focused mainly on operational sites. This year the team added a new supplier-screening step and changed the threshold for escalating climate-related issues after a severe weather review.
PWhat should the preparer disclose about changes in the process from one reporting cycle to the next?
Mostrar la respuesta modelo →Ocultar la respuesta ↑
The disclosure should identify what changed in the way the assessment was done and explain why the change was made. In this case, the team should note the new supplier-screening step and the revised escalation threshold, together with the reason for each change.
Por qué esto importa · When the process changes, say what changed and why it changed.
Referencias del marco
Requisitos aplicables de ESRS y divulgaciones relacionadas
Referencias disponibles del marco y divulgaciones cercanas relevantes para preparar este requisito.
ESRS
IRO-1
dentro de ESRS 2: General Disclosures
Relacionado y explorar
General Basis for Preparation of Sustainability Statements → FichaDisclosures in Relation to Specific Circumstances → FichaActions and Resources in Relation to Material Sustainability Matters → FichaMetrics in Relation to Material Sustainability Matters → FichaPolicies Adopted to Manage Material Sustainability Matters → Ficha
Ver todas las divulgaciones →
Más en ESRS 2 → Ver el catálogo completo → Inicio de la Biblioteca de divulgaciones → Buscar en todas las divulgaciones →
Preguntas frecuentes
Preguntas que responde esta página
IRO-1 ESRS 2: what should I collect before drafting the disclosure narrative?+−
Start with the page’s datapoints to prepare: assessment method, steps, cut-offs, assumptions, inputs, severity and likelihood bases, priority setting, high-risk focus areas, due diligence input, stakeholder and specialist input, how that input was used, and any changes identified and explained. The page also has a step-by-step preparation section you can use to turn those inputs into a draft.
How do I use the IRO-1 page to set the scope and methodology for the assessment?+−
Use the page to capture the assessment method, the steps taken, the decision cut-offs, the working assumptions, and the inputs used. That gives you a practical basis for explaining how the assessment was done without relying on a one-line summary.
What evidence should I gather for IRO-1 ESRS 2 to make the disclosure assurance-ready?+−
The page points you to an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each framed as claim, risk and evidence. In practice, that means keeping the underlying support for the assessment process, the inputs, and the reported changes together in one pack.
Who should own the IRO-1 disclosure inputs, and how do I assign responsibilities?+−
The page is designed for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can evidence the assessment method, inputs, and changes. Use the step-by-step preparation section and workbook to allocate tasks and track who provides each input.
How do I turn the IRO-1 workbook into a draft disclosure?+−
Use the Prep & Assurance workbook to organise the datapoints, then use the draft-output section for visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. The page is set up to move you from raw inputs to a draft narrative in a structured way.
What are the common mistakes to avoid when preparing IRO-1 ESRS 2?+−
The page includes a list of common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is meant to help you check for missing method detail, weak evidence, or unclear explanations of change. Use that list as a final review before you lock the draft.
How should I document stakeholder consultation for the IRO-1 disclosure?+−
The datapoints to prepare include consulted stakeholders, outside specialists consulted, and how their input was used. Keep those three elements linked so the disclosure shows not just who was consulted, but what influence the input had on the assessment.
What does the IRO-1 page say about explaining changes from one reporting period to the next?+−
It asks you to capture identified changes and the explanation for those changes. That means you should be able to show what changed, why it changed, and how that affects the current disclosure.
Can I use the synthetic example on the IRO-1 page as a template for my own disclosure?+−
Yes, as a drafting aid only. The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, so you can see how the information may be presented, but you should replace it with your own company data.
Where can I find supporting materials for IRO-1 ESRS 2 disclosure preparation?+−
The Download Centre provides a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf format. The page also links to a 'From company reports' table with real published reports for reference.
Más preguntas con las que puede ayudar esta página
IRO-1 ESRS 2 checklist for assessment method, steps, cut-offs and assumptionsIRO-1 evidence pack for assurance readiness: what should be included?IRO-1 disclosure ownership: who should provide the inputs and sign off the draft?IRO-1 common mistakes and reporting gaps to check before submissionHow to use the IRO-1 Prep & Assurance workbook and Library CardIRO-1 narrative starters and content-index line examplesIRO-1 stakeholder consultation and specialist input: how to record itIRO-1 change explanation: how to describe changes in the current periodIRO-1 high-risk focus areas and priority setting approach: what data do I need?IRO-1 due diligence input: how to capture it in the disclosure packIRO-1 from company reports examples for disclosure draftingIRO-1 assurance claims to verify: claim, risk and evidence
Profundizar · IRO-1
Aprenda a preparar esta divulgación de principio a fin
This guide covers one Disclosure Requirement. The ESRS / CSRD Reporting course walks the full European workflow — double materiality, datapoints, evidence and assurance — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Cómo se construye esta biblioteca
312 informes publicados indexados
63 171 páginas con citas a nivel de página
272 fichas de divulgación creadas por profesionales
/es/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/esrs-iro-1/
Gratis · LRA Community
Consiga sus herramientas para IRO-1 — gratis
Sus herramientas de preparación son gratuitas para los miembros de LRA Community y los estudiantes. Regístrese una vez (es gratis) y su descarga comenzará de inmediato, además de la Biblioteca de divulgaciones, las plantillas y el asistente de IA de LRA.
✓
Ya está: su descarga está comenzando
Su archivo se está descargando. Su Cabinet de Community — con la Biblioteca de divulgaciones, las plantillas y el asistente de IA de LRA — también está listo.
Abrir su Cabinet →