Objet de l’information
The practical focus is on coverage and credibility: readers should be able to see whether the targets apply to the whole organisation or only to selected activities, sites, regions, or business lines. If some parts of the business are excluded, that should be clear, along with any differences in scope, timing, or ambition between targets. The aim is to help users judge how comprehensive the target-setting is, rather than just seeing a headline commitment for a flagship site or a single initiative.
Ce support pédagogique LRA aide à préparer l’information. Pour les exigences exactes, reportez-vous toujours à la source officielle European Commission.
Préparer
Que rassembler avant de rédiger
Cochez chaque champ à l'arrivée des preuves. Les responsables sont les équipes qui détiennent habituellement les fichiers sources.
-
Direct emissions target
Sustainability / Climate teamState the organisation’s own emissions target covering emissions it directly produces, using plain terms and the agreed target wording.
Éléments probants Evidence required: approved target statement, board paper, or sustainability plan showing the direct-emissions target.
Point de vigilance Direct emissions are mixed up with purchased-energy or value-chain emissions, so the target is assigned to the wrong emissions scope.
-
Purchased energy target
Sustainability / Climate teamState the target that applies to emissions linked to bought-in electricity, heat, steam or cooling, in the organisation’s own wording.
Éléments probants Evidence required: approved target statement, board paper, or sustainability plan showing the purchased-energy target.
Point de vigilance Purchased-energy emissions are confused with direct emissions, so the target is mapped to the wrong scope.
-
Value chain target
Sustainability / Climate teamState the target covering emissions outside the organisation’s direct operations and bought-in energy, using the organisation’s chosen wording.
Éléments probants Evidence required: approved target statement, board paper, or sustainability plan showing the value-chain target.
Point de vigilance Value-chain emissions are left out or blended with operational emissions, so the target does not match the intended scope.
-
Target coverage share
Sustainability / Climate teamCapture the percentage of the organisation’s emissions footprint that the target is meant to cover, using the same boundary and period as the target itself.
Éléments probants Evidence required: target coverage calculation, inventory mapping, and sign-off from the climate reporting owner.
Point de vigilance The percentage is calculated from a different boundary or period than the target, so the coverage figure does not reconcile to the target basis.
-
Absolute reduction target
Sustainability / Climate teamDescribe the target as a fixed emissions reduction amount, with the unit and time basis used by the organisation.
Éléments probants Evidence required: approved target wording, target schedule, or climate plan showing the absolute reduction measure.
Point de vigilance An absolute target is reported as if it were a rate-based target, so the target type is misclassified.
-
Emissions intensity target
Sustainability / Climate teamDescribe the target as a reduction relative to business output or activity, and state the measure used for the denominator.
Éléments probants Evidence required: approved target wording, target schedule, or climate plan showing the intensity measure and denominator.
Point de vigilance The intensity measure is stated without the correct output basis, so the denominator does not match the target definition.
-
Target metric unit
Sustainability / Climate teamRecord the unit used to express the target, such as tonnes, percentage, or emissions per unit of output, exactly as set in the target documentation.
Éléments probants Evidence required: target document, KPI schedule, or reporting template showing the unit used for the target.
Point de vigilance The unit is entered in a different format from the target source, so the metric cannot be compared like-for-like.
-
Target boundary
Sustainability / Climate teamCapture the organisational boundary used for the target, including which parts of the business and which emissions sources are in or out.
Éléments probants Evidence required: target methodology, boundary memo, or board-approved climate plan defining the target boundary.
Point de vigilance The target boundary is taken from a different group structure or source list than the target itself, so the boundary is not aligned.
-
Inventory boundary
Sustainability / Climate teamCapture the boundary used for the emissions inventory that supports the target, including the entities and sources counted in the inventory.
Éléments probants Evidence required: emissions inventory methodology, consolidation note, or assurance pack showing the inventory boundary.
Point de vigilance The inventory boundary is not the same as the target boundary, so the emissions base used for tracking does not reconcile.
-
Boundary alignment share
Sustainability / Climate teamRecord the percentage of the target boundary that matches the inventory boundary, using the same consolidation approach on both sides.
Éléments probants Evidence required: boundary comparison schedule, consolidation mapping, and sign-off from the reporting owner.
Point de vigilance The percentage is based on mismatched entity lists or source sets, so the alignment figure is overstated or understated.
-
Science-based flag
Sustainability / Climate teamIndicate whether the target has been set using a recognised science-based approach, as confirmed by the organisation.
Éléments probants Evidence required: target approval pack, external validation letter, or internal sign-off confirming the science-based status.
Point de vigilance The yes/no flag is set from an outdated approval status, so a validated target is reported as unvalidated, or vice versa.
-
Target-setting method
Sustainability / Climate teamDescribe the approach used to set the target, including the calculation or framework applied and the main assumptions used.
Éléments probants Evidence required: methodology paper, model output, or target-setting memo showing the approach used.
Point de vigilance The method description does not match the model or framework actually used, so the target basis is misdescribed.
-
Planning scenario
Sustainability / Climate teamState the future-looking scenario used to test or shape the target, using the organisation’s own scenario name and description.
Éléments probants Evidence required: scenario analysis pack, climate model, or board paper naming the scenario used.
Point de vigilance The scenario name is taken from a different analysis than the target, so the scenario basis is not the one actually used.
-
Reference year
Sustainability / Climate teamCapture the chosen starting year for the target, exactly as used in the target calculation and reporting timeline.
Éléments probants Evidence required: target schedule, baseline memo, or board-approved climate plan showing the reference year.
Point de vigilance The starting year is confused with the reporting year or a later reset year, so the base year is wrong.
-
Starting emissions level
Sustainability / Climate teamRecord the emissions amount used as the starting point for the target, with the same boundary, unit and year as the reference year.
Éléments probants Evidence required: baseline inventory, calculation workbook, or assurance file showing the starting emissions figure.
Point de vigilance The baseline figure is pulled from a different boundary or unit than the reference year, so the starting emissions level does not reconcile.
-
Interim target path
Sustainability / Climate teamDescribe the intermediate target points on the way to the long-term goal, including the years and values set for each step.
Éléments probants Evidence required: target roadmap, climate plan, or board paper listing the interim target path.
Point de vigilance Interim targets are omitted or the wrong years are used, so the pathway does not match the approved plan.
-
Progress checkpoints
Sustainability / Climate teamCapture the milestone points used to track progress against the target, including the dates and expected outcomes for each checkpoint.
Éléments probants Evidence required: target tracker, implementation plan, or board reporting pack showing the milestones.
Point de vigilance Milestones are reported from a different plan version or period, so the checkpoints do not line up with the target timeline.
Avant de commencer
- Have you settled which emissions are included in the target set: direct fuel and process emissions, purchased energy, and any wider value-chain emissions you plan to cover?
- Before you write the figures, have you fixed the basis and timing for them — for example, the reference year, the starting emissions level, and the period each milestone relates to?
- Can every target number be traced back to a source record or calculation file, with the same boundary used for the target and the emissions inventory it sits on?
- Have you decided whether the target is an overall cut in emissions or an intensity-based goal, and what business measure or unit will be used if it is intensity-based?
- If you are claiming the target is science-aligned, have you already chosen the method, the scenario, and the baseline year and emissions level that support that claim?
- Have you confirmed the interim steps and milestone dates you will use, and whether the target covers the whole footprint or only the part you can credibly align today?
Comment le préparer
Demander les données
Request the climate target pack from the climate strategy owner
Traduisez l’information en une question métier interne, puis adaptez-la au vocabulaire de votre organisation.
What climate targets has the business set, what do they cover, and how are they defined and tracked against the emissions inventory?
Use your organisation’s own names for the team, target types, emissions categories, and tracking tools first; then map them to the reporting fields below. Keep the request in business language that the owner already uses, rather than framework wording.
Demande faible
Please provide the ESRS E1-6 target disclosures, including scope coverage, absolute and intensity targets, boundary alignment, science-based methodology, scenario, base year, baseline emissions, interim targets, and milestones.
Pourquoi elle échoue : It uses framework language that many operational owners will not use day to day, so it is harder to action and easier to misread. It also bundles the ask in reporting terms rather than the team’s own target-tracking language, which can slow down retrieval and increase the chance of incomplete evidence.
Meilleure demande
Please send the latest approved climate target tracker or board paper for [reporting period], using your own terms for the target, the emissions categories it covers, the unit, the boundary used for the target, the boundary used for the emissions inventory, how closely those boundaries match, whether the target follows a science-aligned approach, the method and scenario used, the base year and baseline emissions, and any interim checkpoints or milestones.
Modèle d’e-mail formel
Subject: Request for climate target evidence for [reporting period] Hi [name/team], I’m pulling together the evidence pack for our climate target disclosure and would appreciate your help with the latest approved information. Please send, for [reporting period], the following in your own working terms where possible: - the current target set and how it is described internally - which emissions categories it covers - the share of emissions covered, if tracked - whether it is a gross reduction goal, an intensity goal, or another target type - the unit used - the boundary used for the target and the boundary used for the emissions inventory - any note showing how closely the target boundary matches the inventory boundary - whether the target is based on a science-aligned approach - the method or memo used to assess that - the scenario or pathway referenced - the base year and baseline emissions - any interim checkpoints and milestone dates If there is a board paper, approved target tracker, or signed-off memo, please attach it as supporting evidence. A simple table is fine if that is easier. Please adapt this to your organisation’s language and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Version courte pour Teams / Slack
Hi [name/team] — could you share the latest approved climate target info for [reporting period]? Please use your own internal terms and attach the tracker / board paper / memo if available. I need: target type, emissions categories covered, % coverage, unit, target boundary, inventory boundary, boundary match note, science-alignment note, method, scenario, base year, baseline emissions, and interim checkpoints / milestones. Please adapt to your organisation’s language and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Exemples sectoriels
Manufacturing
Contexte. The business tracks plant energy, process emissions, and product output in separate systems.
Demande adaptée. Please share the approved target tracker for [reporting period], including the plant-level reduction goal, the emissions categories it covers, the unit used per tonne of product, the site boundary, the inventory boundary, the boundary match note, the science-alignment memo, the pathway used, the base year, the baseline emissions, and the interim checkpoints.
Exemple de réponse. Attached spreadsheet with site names, target type, coverage, unit, boundary notes, science-alignment memo reference, base year 2020, baseline emissions 980,000 tCO2e, and checkpoints for 2027 and 2030.
Retail
Contexte. The business manages store energy, logistics, and supplier-related emissions through a central sustainability team.
Demande adaptée. Please send the latest approved climate target summary for [reporting period], using our internal terms for store operations, distribution, and value-chain emissions. Include the target type, what it covers, the unit, the boundary used for the target, the inventory boundary, the match between them, the science-alignment assessment, the scenario, the base year, the baseline emissions, and the interim milestones.
Exemple de réponse. Board-approved target note and tracker showing a group-wide gross reduction goal, coverage across stores and logistics plus selected supplier categories, unit in tCO2e per £m revenue, base year 2019, baseline emissions 1,240,000 tCO2e, and milestones for 2026, 2030, and 2035.
Rédigez votre information
Des notes qui transforment les données en information publiée
Modèles pédagogiques LRA — adaptez-les à votre organisation et vérifiez la source officielle avant validation.
Note méthodologique
State how the emissions figures were built, including which emissions sources are included, how the reporting boundary was set, what the coverage percentage refers to, and whether the target is framed as an overall reduction or an intensity-based goal.
Note de contexte
Explain what the numbers mean in practice by linking the three emissions scopes to the organisation’s target, the unit used for the target, and the extent to which the inventory and target boundaries match.
Déclaration sur les variations
If the figures move materially, explain whether the change came from a shift in the included emissions sources, a change in the boundary, a different base year comparison, or a revised target approach.
Entrée de l’index de contenu
E1-6 Targets related to climate change — [location / page] / [notes]Centre de téléchargement
Outils et formulaires de préparation
Téléchargez les outils de préparation pour E1-6 pendant 24 heures après confirmation gratuite de votre adresse e-mail. Les liens vers les rapports sources restent publics.
Vérifier
Pour chaque affirmation, vérifiez les preuves
We limited the coverage figure to the operations and emissions streams we actually included in the calculation, and we can show how any exclusions were decided.
Risque An assurer will test whether the reported coverage is overstated, whether exclusions were applied consistently, and whether the stated percentage matches the underlying population used for the figure.
Preuves à vérifier Boundary memo; calculation workbook; list of included and excluded sites, entities and emission sources; management sign-off on scope decisions; reconciliation between the coverage figure and the source population.
We prepared the disclosed target on the same boundary basis as the comparison inventory, and any differences between the two are documented.
Risque An assurer will probe whether the target boundary and the inventory boundary were aligned, whether any divergence was clearly identified, and whether the comparison is like-for-like.
Preuves à vérifier Boundary mapping; target-setting paper; inventory boundary description; reconciliation schedule showing overlaps and differences; evidence of review by the preparer and approver.
We used a defined calculation method for the electricity-related emissions line, and we retained the working papers that show how the method was applied.
Risque An assurer will check whether the method was chosen deliberately, applied consistently, and supported by traceable inputs rather than estimates without basis.
Preuves à vérifier Methodology note; source data extracts; calculation model; emission factor source records; review notes showing the method was checked before publication.
We based the target on a recent reference year and kept the baseline emissions figure that underpins the comparison.
Risque An assurer will test whether the base year is sufficiently representative, whether the baseline value is complete and accurate, and whether later restatements were handled properly.
Preuves à vérifier Base-year selection rationale; baseline calculation file; supporting activity and emissions data; restatement log, if any; approval evidence for the chosen reference year.
We set the target as an absolute emissions figure, with the unit shown in the published table, and the numbers tie back to the source model.
Risque An assurer will check whether the target is expressed in a clear absolute measure, whether the unit is consistent throughout, and whether the published value agrees with the underlying model.
Preuves à vérifier Target schedule; model output; unit convention note; cross-check between draft disclosure and source workbook; sign-off showing the final figure was reviewed.
Where we used an intensity measure, we kept the ratio basis and the related absolute figures for the target years so the reader can see the scale behind the ratio.
Risque An assurer will probe whether the ratio is calculated from the stated numerator and denominator, whether the linked absolute figures are complete, and whether the presentation could mislead without the supporting amounts.
Preuves à vérifier Intensity calculation sheet; denominator definition; absolute emissions figures for target and interim years; reconciliation between ratio and absolute values; review evidence for the published presentation.
Dossier de preuves à préparer
Lacunes fréquentes dans les rapports
- A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).
- The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.
- Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.
- One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.
- Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.
- Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Là où les brouillons dérapent
Erreurs à éviter et points nécessitant un jugement
La colonne de gauche montre ce que les préparateurs font mal lors de la collecte ; celle de droite, où vous devrez exercer et expliquer un jugement.
Erreurs à éviter
- Wrong ownerChasing the sustainability team alone can miss the person who actually holds the target file, the emissions inventory, or the board-approved plan.
- Using framework labels too earlyAsking for data in disclosure language can confuse colleagues, so they send back the wrong internal report or a partial extract that does not match how the business tracks the target.
- No clear boundaryIf the team does not pin down which sites, entities, or activities sit inside the target and the emissions inventory, the numbers can be built on different populations.
- Wrong time basisPulling figures from a different reporting period, cut-off date, or update cycle can make the target data out of step with the rest of the climate pack.
- Mixed counting basisCombining absolute figures with intensity measures, or mixing units without a clean check, can produce a target record that cannot be compared like-for-like.
- Source labels lostCopying values into a new tracker without keeping the original file names, field names, or source tags makes it hard to trace where each target figure came from.
- Populations mergedRolling separate target sets together, such as different business lines or target types, can hide important differences that should stay split in the working papers.
- Missing evidence trailIf the team saves the number but not the supporting note, version history, or sign-off record, no one can later show how the target data was checked and approved.
Jugement requis
- Choosing which emissions sources sit inside the targetState clearly whether the target covers direct fuel use, purchased energy, and value-chain emissions, and explain any deliberate exclusions so readers can see how the target set matches the emissions inventory used for reporting.
- Setting the organisational perimeter after buying or selling businessesIf the group has changed through acquisitions or disposals, explain whether the target base and future tracking have been reset, restated, or left unchanged, and give the reason for the approach taken.
- Handling mixed country rules and local operating definitionsWhere sites use different local definitions or calculation conventions, describe the common company-wide basis used for the target and note any country-level exceptions or conversions applied to keep the figures comparable.
- Deciding how to treat activities that sit near the boundaryExplain the rule used for borderline operations, joint ventures, leased assets, contractors, or other near-scope activities, and disclose any material judgement about inclusion or exclusion.
- Choosing the measurement basis for the target lineIf the target is set on an absolute basis or on an intensity basis, state the metric, the unit, and the denominator or activity driver used, so the reader can understand what is being tracked over time.
- Linking the target to a baseline year and starting emissions figureDisclose the year chosen as the starting point, the emissions figure used for that year, and whether that figure is measured, estimated, or restated, especially where later corrections affect comparability.
- Explaining the method behind science-aligned targetsWhen the target is described as science-aligned, name the method, scenario, and milestone path used, and explain any assumptions or simplifications that affect how the pathway was built.
- Showing how much of the business the target actually coversGive the percentage of the organisation’s emissions or operations included in the target, explain the basis for that coverage figure, and note any parts of the business left out because the data were not available or not reliable enough.
- Rounding and aggregation choices for sensitive or fragmented dataUse a consistent rounding rule and, where detailed site or country data cannot be shown for confidentiality or practicality reasons, aggregate the information and explain the level at which it has been combined.
Exemples
Ce que cela donne sur la page
Synthétiques, rédigés par LRA — ils ne proviennent ni d’un rapport d’entreprise ni du texte d’une norme.
we set a group-wide emissions pathway from a 2024 base year, with a 2030 absolute cut and an intensity reduction, and we state how much of our footprint sits inside the boundary used for the target and the inventory. We also note whether the pathway is science-based, the method used, and the scenario behind it.
Synthetic target summary for a manufacturing group (tCO2e)
| Measure | Scope 1 | Scope 2 | Scope 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current emissions | 120000 | 80000 | 300000 |
| Target emissions | 72000 | 48000 | 180000 |
| Coverage of footprint | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Illustrative only; figures are internally consistent and intended to show how the datapoints can be presented in practice.
our 2022 baseline supports a 2030 reduction plan covering direct, purchased-energy, and value-chain emissions, with the same boundary used for both the target and the inventory. We disclose the share covered, the absolute and intensity goals, and whether the pathway follows a science-based approach and scenario.
Synthetic target summary for a food retail group (tCO2e)
| Measure | Scope 1 | Scope 2 | Scope 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current emissions | 15000 | 25000 | 110000 |
| Target emissions | 9000 | 15000 | 66000 |
| Coverage of footprint | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Illustrative only; figures are internally consistent and intended to show how the datapoints can be presented in practice.
Échelle de qualité
- Basique
We have a climate target to cut our emissions by 30%.
- Meilleur
We have a 30% emissions-cut target covering Scopes 1, 2 and 3 across 80% of our footprint, measured against our 2020 baseline.
- Optimal
We have a science-aligned plan to reduce Scopes 1, 2 and 3 by 30% by 2030 across 80% of our footprint, using a 2020 base year and interim milestones, and the latest update is lower than last year because we sold a high-emitting site.
Vérifiez votre compréhension
Scénarios à travailler
Your group has set a climate target for its own operations and purchased electricity, but the draft note only says the target covers 'operations' and gives one headline percentage. The working papers also show a separate supply-chain target, yet no one has checked whether that is part of the same target set or a different one.
The sustainability team has a reduction target expressed as 'cut emissions per unit of output by 30% by 2030'. Finance has also drafted a separate absolute reduction goal for the same period, but the reporting pack currently mentions only the intensity measure.
A company says its climate target is 'science-aligned' because an external adviser reviewed it, but the file does not show the method used, the scenario behind it, or the base year and starting emissions. The team is unsure whether that level of detail matters if the target has board approval.
The reporting team has a target that was set for the whole group, but the emissions inventory used in the report excludes a newly acquired subsidiary for part of the year. The draft note says the target is 'group-wide' and gives an alignment percentage of 100%, even though the inventory boundary is narrower than the target boundary.
Interrogez l’assistant IA du Knowledge Hub sur cette information
Obtenez des réponses pratiques adaptées à votre contexte de reporting.
Vérifier votre texte
Collez un ou deux paragraphes. L’extrait est utilisé uniquement pour cette vérification et n’est pas enregistré dans votre conversation.
La comparaison utilise les exemples de cette fiche, et non leur fréquence dans le corpus de rapports.
Conseil, pas assurance
Références au référentiel
Exigences ESRS applicables et informations connexes
ESRS
E1-6
au sein de ESRS E1 : Climate Change
Guides that settle this question
Connexes et exploration
Plus dans ESRS E1 →Parcourir le catalogue complet →Rechercher dans toutes les informations →
FAQ
Questions auxquelles cette page répond
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints list. The page is designed to help you turn your source data into a draft disclosure, not to replace your own reporting judgement.
The page lists the datapoints to prepare, including target type, coverage, boundary, method, scenario, reference year, starting emissions level, interim path and checkpoints. Use that list as your collection checklist so you can see what is missing before drafting.
Use the datapoints on target boundary, inventory boundary and boundary alignment share to define what the target covers and how it lines up with the inventory. The page is meant to help you document the scope clearly rather than guess at it later.
The page is useful for assigning ownership because it shows which datapoints need input from different teams and which evidence items should sit behind the disclosure. In practice, the ESG lead can coordinate, while data owners provide the underlying target, emissions and methodology evidence.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and also sets out six assurance claims to verify. Use those together to build a file that shows the claim, the risk and the supporting evidence for each key point.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can check for missing datapoints, unclear boundaries and weak support for the target narrative. It is intended as a practical quality check before you finalise the draft.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is there to help you organise the datapoints, evidence and assurance checks. Use it alongside the page content to structure your working papers and draft output.
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line to help you convert the data into report-ready wording. The synthetic example disclosure also shows how the information can be presented in a structured way.
It shows how the disclosure can look in practice, including a quantitative table where relevant. Because it is synthetic, you can use it as a formatting and completeness check without treating it as a real company benchmark.
The table points you to real published reports where the topic is disclosed, so you can see how others have presented similar information. It is a reference aid for drafting and benchmarking, not a one-to-one mapping or official template.
Autres questions auxquelles cette page peut aider