Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain the inputs it used to identify the climate-related topics that matter most to its business, and to show how those inputs led to the topics it selected. In practice, that means describing the information sources, judgments and criteria used to decide which industry topics are relevant, rather than simply listing the topics themselves.
The practical focus is on whether the organisation’s identification process is broad and well-founded across the parts of the business that matter, not just based on a few visible sites or headline issues. It should be clear how the organisation considered its operations, value chain and business model when deciding which topics to report as material or significant.
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 s2-11-12 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Check whether the topic applies to the organisation and record the basis for that judgement.
List any topics left out, together with the reason each one was excluded.
Set out the forecasts and scenario assumptions that were used.
Note which sector-specific matters were reviewed.
Identify the internal and external information sources relied on.
How to prepare it
1Set the boundary for the assessment first: decide which business areas, activities, and time period are in scope, and make that choice explicit so the reader can see what the disclosure covers.
2Work through the relevant sector themes and decide which ones you have actually considered, then record the topics reviewed in plain language so the basis of the assessment is traceable.
3Gather the support behind the assessment from both inside and outside the organisation, keeping enough detail to show where the information came from and how it was used.
4Prepare the disclosure content itself, whether that is a written explanation or a yes/no style response, and make sure it matches the evidence you have assembled.
5List anything you left out and explain why, including any limits in coverage or changes in approach, so the reader can understand the gaps and the reasoning behind them.
6Before finalising, check the draft against the official source to confirm the scope, the topics considered, the evidence trail, and any exclusions are all aligned with the requirement.
Request the data
Request the inputs used to decide scope and topic coverage
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What information did we use to decide which climate-related topics to include, which to leave out, and what internal or external sources supported that judgement?
Use your organisation’s own planning, risk, modelling and source-data terms first, then map them to the disclosure language. Keep the request in business language that the owner already uses, and check the official source before sign-off.
Weak request
Please provide the IFRS S2 identification inputs and industry topics evidence for the disclosure.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only, so the owner may not know which working papers, decisions, or source files are being asked for. It also does not say what period, boundary, exclusions, scenario inputs, or source evidence to send.
Better request
Please send the working pack used to decide which climate topics were reviewed for [period] in [business area]. Include the topics considered, any topics left out and why, any forecast or scenario inputs used, and the internal and external sources behind the judgement. Add the source file names, version, and approver so we can trace the decision.
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
State how the team decided what to include, how it defined each topic under review, what was left out, and the basis used for any forecasts or scenario work, including where the underlying information came from.
Context note
Explain what the review covers in practice: the topics examined, the items excluded, and how the chosen data sources and scenario inputs shape the picture being reported.
Fluctuation statement
If the scope or results changed from the prior period, point to shifts in the topics reviewed, changes in exclusions, or updates to the forecast and scenario inputs, and explain how those changes affected the reported outcome.
Content index entry
s2-11-12 Identification inputs and industry topics — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for s2-11-12 — 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 asked
The team chases the sustainability lead for source details that sit with finance, operations, risk, or the business unit that actually holds the records.
Framework terms used too early
People ask for answers in disclosure language instead of the organisation’s own process terms, so the source team cannot map the request to their records.
Scope not pinned down
The data pull starts before the boundary is fixed, so some sites, entities, or activities are included in one file and left out in another.
Wrong period basis
The team mixes current-year, prior-year, and forward-looking inputs without stating which date range or cut-off each source covers.
Counting bases mixed
Headcounts, counts of topics, and yes/no flags are combined without a clear rule, so the same item is treated as both a tally and a binary check.
Source labels lost
Original file names, system tags, or report titles are stripped away, making it impossible to trace each input back to the record it came from.
Populations merged
Internal records and outside inputs are blended into one list even though they should stay separate for review and sign-off.
Evidence metadata missing
The pack contains the data itself but not the date, owner, version, or retrieval note needed to show where it came from and when it was captured.
No sign-off trail
Draft inputs move forward without a named reviewer and approval record, so nobody can show who checked the source set before it was used.
Where judgement is often needed
Which business units count after a deal closes or a site is sold
Use the same cut-off date across your input list, and explain any additions or removals from the group of operations you used to identify the relevant topics.
How to handle different local meanings for the same activity or risk
Where country-level labels or thresholds differ, set out the rule you used to align them and note any local exceptions that changed the topics you reviewed.
Whether a small or newly acquired operation is included
Decide and disclose the basis for bringing in marginal operations, joint arrangements, or recently acquired assets, especially where their data is partial or not yet embedded in group reporting.
Choosing the period basis for the input set
State whether you used the latest year-end position, an average over the period, or another cut-off, and explain why that basis best matched the way you identified the topics.
Using estimates instead of direct measurements
If you relied on modelled, sampled, or proxy information, say where that happened, why it was needed, and how you checked it was good enough for the topic selection exercise.
Rounding and small differences in counts or percentages
Apply one rounding approach consistently, and explain any minor differences so users can see they come from presentation rather than a change in the underlying input set.
Aggregating sensitive data to protect privacy
When you combine or blur detail to avoid exposing personal or commercially sensitive information, disclose the level of aggregation and whether that could affect how the topic list is interpreted.
Reconciling internal records with external sources
If internal records and outside datasets point to different topic inputs, explain which source you relied on, how you resolved the mismatch, and whether any exclusions followed from that choice.
Deciding whether forecasts and scenario inputs are relevant
Make clear which forward-looking assumptions fed into the topic review, and if some were left out, give the reason so readers can see the boundary of the input set.
Selecting which industry topics were actually reviewed
List the topic areas you considered and explain any that were not taken forward, so the reader can follow the judgement used to narrow the review.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity generation and retail
We first checked whether this topic was relevant to our business model and reporting scope, then limited the disclosure to the parts that were actually in scope for the year. We left out activities that were not material to the assessment and explained why they were excluded. - We used our 3-year demand outlook, a 10-year capital plan, and two climate pathways to test the assumptions behind the figures. - The review covered grid reliability, fuel mix, carbon costs, and customer demand trends, with input from our risk team and an external climate modeller. - Our evidence came from internal management accounts, asset plans, and scenario work, plus market data, regulator publications, and third-party weather datasets.
Illustrative only; shows how a reporter might explain the scope check, what was left out and why, the forward-looking inputs and scenarios used, the topics considered, and the mix of internal and external sources.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food manufacturing
We assessed which parts of the topic applied to our operations and supply chain, then reported only the areas that met our internal threshold for inclusion. Items outside that boundary were omitted, with a short explanation of why they did not qualify. - Our forecasts drew on a 5-year sales plan, commodity price assumptions, and three stress-test cases built around water availability and heat exposure. - The review focused on agricultural sourcing, packaging, logistics, and labour availability, using input from procurement, operations, and an outside supply-chain specialist. - We relied on internal production records, supplier questionnaires, and budget models, alongside trade statistics, satellite-based crop indicators, and public climate projections.
Illustrative only; shows a second plausible reporter describing how it decided the topic applied, what was excluded, the planning and scenario inputs used, the business topics reviewed, and the internal and external evidence base.
How companies report S2-11-12 in practice
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
DBS Group Holdings
None · Singapore · 2025
DBS Group Holdings’ Sustainability Report 2025 includes coverage of industry topics reviewed related to climate disclosures, referencing industry-based metrics aligned with IFRS S2 guidance on page 114. The report also discusses integration of climate-related risks and opportunities into the entity’s overall risk management process (p.114) and provides some context on forecasts and scenario inputs, though this disclosure is unclear and not fully detailed (p.113). Notably, the report lacks explicit information on applicability assessment, exclusions and rationale, and internal or external data sources, with no quotable evidence found for these datapoints.
WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd.
Pharmaceuticals / Biotech / Life Sciences · China · 2024
WuXi AppTec Co., Ltd.’s 2024 Environmental, Social and Governance Report includes coverage of industry topics reviewed in relation to IFRS S2 Industry-based Guidance on implementing disclosure topics (p.97). The report also references climate-related analysis by referring to IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures and related conclusions, indicating some level of applicability assessment (p.50). However, the report does not provide clear disclosures on exclusions and rationale, forecasts and scenario inputs used, or internal and external data sources, which remain unaddressed.
Hang Lung Properties Limited
Real Estate · Hong Kong · 2025
Hang Lung Properties Limited’s Sustainability Report 2025 includes evidence on the applicability of industry-based metrics related to IFRS S2 disclosure topics, as noted on page 196. The report also references climate-related financial disclosures aligned with IFRS S2, including governance (p.221), strategy regarding risks and opportunities (pp.215, 225), and mentions the use of climate-related scenario analysis (p.228). However, the report does not provide clear information on applicability assessment, exclusions and rationale, forecasts, or internal and external data sources.
✓ 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 s2-11-12?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 reporting team has mapped climate-related risks and opportunities for a manufacturing group. They used internal production data, supplier information, and a consultant’s sector outlook, but one business unit was left out because its data was incomplete.
QHow should the team decide whether to include that business unit in the explanation of what was reviewed, and what should they do about the omission?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑They should first assess whether the omitted unit was part of the information base used to identify the climate matters being reported on. If it was left out, they should explain that exclusion and give the reason for it, rather than implying the review covered the whole group. The explanation should match the actual scope of the assessment and be supported by the records used in the process.
Why this matters · Describe the scope of the review honestly, and explain any deliberate exclusions with the reason behind them.
A finance team used a five-year sales forecast and a temperature pathway from an external adviser to test future climate effects. The same forecast also fed the annual budget, and the team is unsure whether to mention it because it was not created specifically for climate reporting.
QShould the team disclose those inputs, and how should they frame them?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Yes. If forecasts or scenario assumptions were used to identify or assess climate matters, they belong in the explanation even if they were originally prepared for another business purpose. The team should state that these inputs were used, identify them clearly, and keep the description aligned with the actual analysis performed.
Why this matters · If a forecast or scenario shaped the assessment, it should be disclosed as part of the evidence trail, even when it came from another process.
A retailer reviewed only transition-related matters because physical risk analysis was still underway. The team also used internal loss data and a third-party climate model, but the draft note only says that ‘relevant sector matters were considered’ without naming which ones.
QWhat should the preparer do before sign-off so the disclosure is clear enough for readers and reviewers?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑They should identify the industry matters that were actually reviewed, not just refer to them in general terms. The note should also show the main internal and outside sources used, so a reader can see what informed the assessment and what was not yet covered. If some matters were not reviewed, that should be made clear with the reason.
Why this matters · Name the industry matters and the information sources that shaped the assessment, rather than relying on broad labels.
A group used internal emissions data, supplier questionnaires, and an external scenario set to build its climate assessment. One subsidiary contributed only partial data, and the team is debating whether to mention the outside scenario set because it was not the final basis for every conclusion.
QWhat is the right way to handle the source list and the partial subsidiary data in the disclosure?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The source list should reflect the main internal and external inputs that were actually used in the assessment, including the scenario set if it informed the analysis at any stage. The partial subsidiary data should be described accurately, with any limitations or exclusions explained so the reader understands the completeness of the evidence base. The disclosure should not suggest a fuller or cleaner data set than was really available.
Why this matters · List the real inputs and be transparent about data gaps or limits, so the assessment can be understood in context.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
For s2-11-12, what should I check first before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step preparation section, then work through the datapoints to prepare: applicability check, omitted items and reasons, scenario inputs used, topics considered and source data map. That gives you a practical starting point for scope, ownership and evidence.
What data do I need to gather for s2-11-12 before I can write the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare an applicability check, any omitted items and the reasons for them, the scenario inputs used, the topics considered and a source data map. Collecting those items first helps you turn the disclosure into a draft with a clear audit trail.
How do I decide the scope for s2-11-12 using this page?+−
Use the applicability check, the topics considered and the scenario inputs used to define what is in scope for your draft. If anything is left out, record the omitted items and the reasons so the scope decision is visible and supportable.
Who should own the s2-11-12 data and evidence pack in practice?+−
The page is designed for sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can confirm the source data map and the evidence pack. The practical aim is to make it clear who can explain the numbers, the scenario inputs and any omissions.
What should be in the evidence pack for s2-11-12 assurance readiness?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and five assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence angle. Use those together so you can show how the disclosure was prepared and what supports each key point.
What are the common mistakes to avoid when preparing s2-11-12?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is useful as a pre-submission check. In practice, use it to spot missing datapoints, weak source mapping or unsupported narrative before you finalise the draft.
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s2-11-12?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is meant to help you organise the preparation and assurance steps. Use it alongside the page’s datapoints, assurance claims and evidence pack to build a draft and track what still needs support.
What can I take from the synthetic example disclosure for s2-11-12?+−
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, so you can see how the information might be presented in practice. Treat it as a drafting aid only and make sure any real figures in your own disclosure stay internally consistent.
How do I turn the s2-11-12 page into a draft disclosure?+−
Use the draft-output section for visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line. That section is there to help you convert the prepared data and evidence into a readable draft rather than starting from a blank page.
Can I reuse data from an ESRS E1 climate disclosure for s2-11-12?+−
The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS E1 (Climate Change), so there may be useful overlap in the data you already hold. Reuse the data where it fits your process, but do not assume the requirements are identical.
More questions this page can help with
s2-11-12 disclosure checklist for sustainability managers2-11-12 evidence pack what to include for assurances2-11-12 applicability check and omitted items templates2-11-12 source data map how to build its2-11-12 scenario inputs used how to documents2-11-12 common reporting gaps and mistakess2-11-12 workbook download prep and assurances2-11-12 printable library card pdfs2-11-12 draft narrative starters and content index lines2-11-12 synthetic example disclosure quantitative tables2-11-12 from company reports examples pages2-11-12 ESRS E1 climate change data reuse
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63171 pages with page-level citations
247 practitioner guides
Free · LRA Community
Get your s2-11-12 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 →