Ga naar de kern van de disclosure
Gratis · Community-leden
＋ Nog 5 tonen− Minder tonen
＋ Nog 5 tonen− Minder tonen
Echte gepubliceerde rapporten
Rapport openen →
Rapport openen →
Rapport openen →
✓ LRA AI-assistent · Met menselijke controle
Officiële bron openen →
Explore the IFRS S1 & S2 course →
IFRS S1: General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information·Paragraphs 41–42
Resilience
Praktische leidraad voor het opstellen van deze disclosure. Gebruik deze kaart om te bepalen welke informatie u voorbereidt, om beweringen te toetsen en om onderbouwend bewijs te ordenen. Raadpleeg voor de exacte vereisten altijd de officiële IFRS-bron.
Gepubliceerd paspoort
Review in behandeling
···
In review
Redactionele review loopt
Opgesteld op basis van officiële bronmaterialen en bewijs uit gepubliceerde rapporten. Er is nog geen goedkeurder vastgelegd, dus deze pagina heeft geen auteursvermelding.
Gebruik deze naast de officiële IFRS-bron zolang die review loopt.
Standaard
IFRS S1: General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information
Paragraphs 41–42 · 2024
Laatst beoordeeld
—
Educatief materiaal van LRA · Niet uitgegeven of goedgekeurd door IFRS
Voor deze disclosure
Kern van de disclosure
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how it has thought about resilience in relation to sustainability-related risks and opportunities. In practice, that means describing whether and how the organisation has assessed its ability to withstand, adapt to, and continue operating through those matters over time, rather than simply listing the risks themselves.
The practical focus is on the organisation’s own judgement and evidence of resilience across the business as a whole. It should not be limited to a few flagship sites or isolated examples unless those are genuinely representative; the explanation should reflect the parts of the organisation that matter most to understanding how resilient the wider operations, strategy, and business model are.
Dit educatieve materiaal van LRA ondersteunt het opstellen van de disclosure. Raadpleeg voor de exacte vereisten altijd de officiële IFRS-bron.
Voordat u begint
Voordat u begint
Een korte checklist voordat u deze disclosure opstelt — vink elk punt af zodra het geregeld is.
Voorbereiding
Belangrijkste voor te bereiden informatie
| Voorbereidingsveld | Wat vast te leggen | Aanwijzing voor bewijs | Eigenaar |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy impacts | A plain summary of how the issue changes the organisation’s plan, operating model, or commercial direction. | Board papers, strategy decks, business model reviews, and approved planning documents. | Strategy |
| Planning assumptions | The main assumptions used in the assessment, including the business judgments that shape the conclusions. | Scenario packs, planning notes, model inputs, and sign-off papers showing the assumptions used. | Finance / Strategy |
| Assessment method | Whether a scenario-based approach or another assessment method was used, and which approach was applied. | Methodology note, assessment protocol, or workshop pack showing the approach selected. | Sustainability / Risk |
| Assessment findings | The main non-numeric conclusions from the assessment, including the practical implications identified. | Assessment report, workshop outputs, and management summary of findings. | Sustainability / Risk |
| Assessment ranges | Any numbers, ranges, or other quantified outputs from the assessment, where these were produced and are relevant. | Model outputs, scenario results, calculation files, and summary tables used in the assessment. | Finance / Risk |
| Assessment period | The time period or horizon covered by the assessment, stated in a way that matches the analysis performed. | Assessment scope note, scenario brief, or model settings showing the period covered. | Strategy / Risk |
| Resilience check | A clear yes/no statement on whether a resilience assessment was carried out for the reporting period. | Assessment register, board paper, or sign-off record confirming whether the review took place. | Risk / Sustainability |
＋ Subelementen van s1-41-42 tonen (LRA-werkchecklist)
Set out what the results mean for the organisation’s strategy and operating model.
State the main assumptions used in the assessment.
Describe the approach used, including scenario analysis where that is relevant.
Summarise the non-numeric findings from the assessment.
Provide any figures or ranges from the assessment, where relevant.
Specify the period over which the assessment was carried out.
Confirm whether a resilience check was completed.
Hoe u dit voorbereidt
Set the assessment boundary first: decide which parts of the business, which time period, and which future outlook you are covering, so the response is anchored to one clear scope.
Agree the working definitions before you start drafting: confirm what you will treat as the relevant business effects, the assumptions behind the assessment, and the method you used to reach the result, including whether a scenario-based approach was used where that applies.
Gather the support behind the assessment: collect the papers, models, calculations, management papers, and other source material that show how the conclusions were reached and what evidence sits behind them.
Prepare the actual disclosure content: write the narrative on how the assessment affects strategy and the operating model, state the main assumptions, explain the approach taken, and include the qualitative conclusions together with any numbers or ranges where they are relevant.
Record any limits or changes clearly: note any exclusions, judgement calls, changes in approach, or updates to assumptions so readers can see what was left out and what moved since the last assessment.
Check the draft back to the source material: make sure the final wording matches the underlying evidence, the assessment period, and the official source, and confirm that the disclosure says whether a resilience assessment was carried out.
De gegevens opvragen
Request the resilience assessment evidence
Vertaal de disclosure naar een interne bedrijfsvraag — en pas die daarna aan op het taalgebruik van uw organisatie.
Has the business tested how the current strategy and operating model hold up under different future conditions, and what did it find?
Use your organisation’s own language first, then map it to the disclosure terms. For example, if your teams talk about stress tests, outlook reviews, business planning scenarios, or long-range planning, use those labels in the request and only translate them later for reporting.
Zwak verzoek
Please provide the resilience disclosure evidence for the sustainability report, including whether the entity performed a resilience assessment, the method used, assumptions, time horizon, qualitative findings, quantitative findings or ranges, and implications for strategy and business model.
Waarom dit misgaat: This is too close to reporting language and does not tell the owner what internal material to pull. It also mixes disclosure labels with the practical evidence source, so the recipient has to translate the ask before they can respond.
Beter verzoek
Please send the latest strategy or planning pack that tested how our current plan holds up under different future conditions for [business unit] and [period]. Include the internal method name, horizon, assumptions, main findings, any numbers or ranges, and the file version/date/owner. If your team uses different labels, keep them in your own terms and I’ll map them later.
Sjabloon voor een formele e-mail
Subject: Request for resilience assessment evidence for [reporting period]\n\nHi [name],\n\nI’m pulling together the sustainability reporting support pack and need the material your team used to test how our current plan and operating model hold up under different future conditions.\n\nPlease send, for [entity / business unit] and [period]:\n- the latest assessment pack or workbook\n- the planning horizon(s) used\n- the method name your team uses internally\n- the key assumptions behind the exercise\n- the main findings in plain business language\n- any numbers, ranges, or sensitivities that were produced\n- the source file name, version, date, and owner\n- any board, committee, or leadership paper that reviewed it\n\nIf the team uses different internal labels, please keep those labels in your response and I’ll map them for reporting. Please also flag any gaps, exclusions, or caveats.\n\nThis is a draft training request for internal use; please adapt it to your organisation’s terms and check the source material before sign-off.\n\nThanks,\n[preparer name]
Korte versie voor Teams / Slack
Hi [name] — could you share the latest resilience / outlook / scenario pack for [business unit] and [period]? I need the method used, assumptions, horizon, main findings, any ranges, plus the file version/date and owner. Please use your team’s own labels and I’ll map them later. Thanks.
Sectorvoorbeelden
Manufacturing
Context. A plant network team runs annual supply and energy planning scenarios for a multi-site producer.
Aangepast verzoek. Please share the latest plant network scenario pack for [period] covering [sites / business unit]. I need the planning horizon, the assumptions on energy, demand, downtime and logistics, the main findings, any output ranges, and the file version/date/owner. Use your team’s own labels for the exercise and I’ll map them later.
Voorbeeldantwoord. Workbook: FY2025 supply outlook v4; horizon: 3 and 5 years; method label: plant stress test; assumptions: gas price, freight lead times, customer demand, outage rates; findings: two sites remain stable, one site shows margin pressure under the downside case; outputs: EBITDA range and capacity range; owner: Head of Operations Planning.
Financial services
Context. A bank’s finance and strategy teams run long-range planning and capital sensitivity work.
Aangepast verzoek. Please send the latest planning and sensitivity pack for [period] covering [entity / business line]. I need the internal exercise name, horizon, assumptions on rates, credit loss, funding and growth, the main findings, any ranges, and the source file details. Please keep your team’s own wording and I’ll map it for reporting.
Voorbeeldantwoord. Pack: FY2025-2028 outlook deck v2; horizon: 3 years; method label: balance sheet sensitivity review; assumptions: rate path, deposit mix, impairment trend, lending growth; findings: core business remains stable, downside case reduces profit and capital headroom; outputs: profit range and capital ratio range; owner: Finance Planning Lead.
Stel uw disclosure op
Notities die gegevens tot een disclosure maken
LRA-trainingssjablonen — pas ze aan op uw organisatie en controleer de officiële bron vóór goedkeuring.
Methodenotitie
Set out the basis of the review by naming the approach used, the period covered, the main assumptions applied, and whether the business tested resilience at all.
Contextnotitie
Explain what the results mean for the business by linking the findings to strategy and the operating model, and by summarising both the narrative and numerical outputs.
Toelichting op schommelingen
If the results changed materially, point to the assumptions, time period, or method choices that drove the shift, and note whether the business impact became stronger or weaker.
Vermelding in de inhoudsindex
s1-41-42 Resilience — [location / page] / [notes]Downloadcentrum
Hulpmiddelen en formulieren voor de voorbereiding
Professionele voorbereidingshulpmiddelen voor s1-41-42 — gratis met een LRA Community-lidmaatschap. Registreer u eenmalig (gratis) en alle downloads komen vrij, samen met de Disclosure-bibliotheek, de sjablonen en de LRA AI-assistent.
01XLSWerkboek voorbereiding & assuranceDatapunten, risico’s, te controleren bewijs, eigenaar en bewijsdossier.Gratis downloaden ↧
02XLSPakket voor de gegevensaanvraagAanvraagmail, berichtsjabloon, antwoordvelden en goedkeuringsstructuur.Gratis downloaden ↧
03PDFBibliotheekkaartPrintbare samenvatting van één pagina van deze disclosure-kaart.Gratis downloaden ↧
Assurance-gereedheid
Controleer bij elke bewering het bewijs
| Bewering | Risico | Te controleren bewijs |
|---|---|---|
| We have set out whether we carried out a forward-looking robustness check on the disclosed operations and the wider business model. | The assurer may find that no such review was done, or that the statement overstates the work performed. | Project plan or scoping note, management sign-off, working papers showing the review was completed, and any board or committee paper noting the decision to perform it. |
| We used a clearly documented approach to test how the business would cope with sustainability-related uncertainty. | The method may be vague, inconsistently applied, or not actually used in the analysis. | Methodology paper, model instructions, scenario or stress-test pack where relevant, and evidence that the same approach was followed through the analysis. |
| Our assessment was built on stated assumptions and a recorded basis for those assumptions. | Assumptions may be incomplete, unsupported, or chosen after the fact to fit the result. | Assumptions log, source references, internal approvals, sensitivity notes, and version history showing when assumptions were set and updated. |
| Where we used a scenario-style approach, the inputs and settings were documented and traceable. | The assurer may question whether the scenario work was genuine, internally consistent, or aligned to the stated method. | Scenario pack, input tables, model outputs, parameter files, and review comments showing how the scenario work was prepared and checked. |
| We have retained the working papers behind the qualitative conclusions, including the evidence used to support the narrative. | The narrative may be unsupported, selective, or not match the underlying analysis. | Drafts, analysis notes, interview records, source data extracts, and cross-references from the final wording back to the supporting files. |
| Any figures or ranges included in the disclosure were taken from the underlying analysis and checked before publication. | Numbers may be misstated, rounded inconsistently, or not reconcile to the source calculations. | Calculation files, reconciliation to source data, rounding policy, review sign-off, and evidence of final checks against the published text. |
Voor te bereiden bewijsdossier
Veelvoorkomende hiaten in de rapportage
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.
Veelvoorkomende hiaten
Fouten om te vermijden bij het verzamelen van gegevens
Wrong ownerThe request goes to the board pack owner or another unrelated team, so the person who actually ran the assessment never confirms the facts.
Framework words instead of business termsThe data request uses technical labels from the reporting framework, and the operational team cannot map them to the way they describe the work internally.
Scope left vagueNo one states which part of the business, which activities, or which assessment cycle the data should cover, so different teams send different slices of information.
Wrong timing basisThe team pulls figures from a different period or cut-off than the one used for the assessment, which makes the evidence and the narrative inconsistent.
Mixed counting basisHeadcounts, totals, and ranges are combined without agreeing the same counting rule first, so the numbers cannot be reconciled cleanly.
Source labels lostOriginal file names, system tags, or document references are stripped out during collation, making it hard to trace each point back to the source.
Separate populations mergedData for different business units, scenarios, or assessment horizons is rolled together even though it should stay separate for analysis.
Evidence trail incompleteThe pack is assembled without the supporting notes, version history, or sign-off record needed to show who checked the inputs and when.
Waar vaak een professionele afweging nodig is
Choosing the assessment cut-off after a deal or disposalSet a clear cut-off date for the review period, explain whether newly bought or sold operations were included, and note any material change in the picture because the group boundary moved.
Aligning local business units that use different risk labelsUse one internal mapping where country teams describe the same issue in different ways, disclose the translation rule you applied, and explain any areas where local wording could not be matched exactly.
Deciding how to handle operations near the edge of scopeState the inclusion rule for sites, entities or activities that sit just inside or outside the review perimeter, and explain any exclusions or partial coverage that could affect the result.
Picking the basis for the assessment periodMake clear whether the review uses the latest year-end position, an average over the period, or another stated cut-off, and explain why that basis best fits the way the business is run.
Using modelled outputs versus direct measurementsSay where the conclusion comes from estimates, proxy data or scenario modelling rather than direct observation, and describe the main assumptions and any known limits on confidence.
Rounding and presentation of rangesApply one rounding rule consistently across the disclosure, explain it if it affects the headline result or range, and avoid presenting precision that the underlying data do not support.
Aggregating sensitive workforce or customer informationCombine small or sensitive data groups where needed to protect privacy, explain the aggregation rule, and note any effect on the level of detail available for the resilience view.
Reconciling different time horizons used in the reviewIf short-, medium- and longer-term views are assessed separately, explain how each horizon was defined, how they were compared, and which horizon drove the main conclusion.
Voorbeelden
Illustratieve voorbeelden
Synthetisch, geschreven door LRA — niet afkomstig uit een bedrijfsrapport en geen tekst uit een standaard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity generation and supply
We carried out a forward-looking check of how our business would hold up under a low-carbon transition and a hotter, more volatile weather pattern, using scenario-based modelling over the next 10 years and a separate longer-range view to 2050.
- Our main planning choices were to accelerate grid-balancing investment, retire the least efficient plant earlier, and shift more capital towards flexible generation and storage.
- The assessment assumed carbon prices rise steadily, demand grows more slowly than in our base plan, and outage risk increases during peak summer periods; under the adverse case, 18% of annual output is at risk of curtailment by 2035 versus 6% in our base case.
- Overall, we judged the group to remain viable, but with lower margins and a need to re-time some projects; the review was completed and we concluded the strategy is resilient within the tested range, although the most exposed assets need active management.
Synthetic, illustrative narrative showing a resilience review, the approach used, the main assumptions, the time periods considered, the practical effect on strategy, and the qualitative and quantitative outcome.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Commercial property and real estate services
We tested how our portfolio would perform under a severe heat-and-flood pathway and a higher-cost financing environment, using stress testing and scenario analysis across a 5-year operating horizon and a 15-year capital planning view.
- The exercise pointed to a need to prioritise flood defences, upgrade cooling systems, and slow the pace of acquisitions in the most exposed locations.
- We assumed insurance premiums rise by 30% over the period, tenant demand weakens in the most climate-sensitive submarkets, and refurbishment costs increase by 12%; in the downside case, 9 of 60 assets would fall below our target return threshold, compared with 2 of 60 in the base case.
- We completed the review and found the portfolio broadly robust, but with a narrower buffer in older buildings and a clear concentration of risk in low-lying sites; the findings informed our capital allocation and asset-management plan.
Synthetic, illustrative narrative showing a completed resilience check, the method, the planning horizons, the assumptions, the business implications, and the qualitative and quantitative results.
Bedrijfsrapporten
Hoe bedrijven S1-41-42 in de praktijk rapporteren
Voorbeelden van volledige en gedeeltelijke rapportagepraktijk. Dit zijn op bewijs gebaseerde analyses, geen sjablonen om over te nemen.
SITC International Holdings Company Limited
Water Transportation · Hong Kong · 2025
SITC International Holdings Company Limited’s 2025 Environmental, Social and Governance Report includes coverage of the method used for assessing sustainability-related risks through scenario analysis (p.190) and reports on the time horizon used in its resilience assessment (p.195). The report also indicates that a resilience assessment of the strategy and business model was performed, including qualitative and potentially quantitative elements (p.189). However, clear disclosures on the entity’s capacity to adjust or adapt its strategy and business model, key assumptions made in the analysis, and qualitative findings are unclear or not explicitly presented (pp.188, 195), and no quantitative findings or ranges were found.
Hang Lung Properties Limited
Real Estate · Hong Kong · 2025
Hang Lung Properties Limited’s Sustainability Report 2025 includes evidence of assessing the resilience of its strategy and business model to climate-related changes, with specific mention of the entity’s capacity to adjust or adapt its strategy and business model to climate change (p.218, p.226). The report also describes the use of scenario analysis to identify climate-related risks (p.228). However, the report does not clearly disclose key assumptions underlying the analysis (p.227) or the time horizon of the assessment (p.218), and it lacks qualitative or quantitative findings related to the resilience assessment.
Bank of America
None · United States · 2025
Bank of America's 2025 report provides covered disclosures on the method used, specifically scenario analysis, to identify climate-related opportunities and assess climate resilience (p.28), as well as the time horizon of assessment across multiple pathways (p.11). It also covers whether a resilience assessment was performed, describing how climate-related scenario analysis informs this process (p.27). However, the report is unclear on the implications for the company’s strategy and business model (p.27) and on key assumptions underlying the analysis (p.22), while qualitative and quantitative findings or ranges are not found.
Vraag de Study Studio AI-assistent naar deze disclosure
Krijg praktische antwoorden voor uw rapportagecontext. Uw eerste twee antwoorden zijn gratis — word gratis lid van LRA Community om zonder limiet door te gaan.
Probeer
Hoe bereid ik s1-41-42 voor?
Welke gegevens moet ik verzamelen?
Waar kan ik een voorbeeld uit een echt rapport zien?
Welke fouten moet ik vermijden?
2 gratis antwoorden
Toets uw begrip
Scenario’s om door te werken
A reporting team has tested how the business would cope if carbon costs rise faster than planned and a key supplier is delayed for six months. The draft note says the company is 'well placed for the future' but does not explain what was tested or what changed in the plan.
VShould the disclosure spell out the assessment approach, the main assumptions, and what the test means for the strategy and operating model?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
Yes. The write-up should explain whether a resilience check was carried out, describe the method used, set out the main assumptions, and then link the findings back to the strategy and business model in plain terms. If the team used a forward-looking stress test or similar tool, that should be identified, and the result should show what parts of the plan look robust and what parts may need adjustment.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · A resilience disclosure should connect the testing approach to the practical effect on strategy and the way the business is run.
A finance team has modelled two future paths over a five-year period: one with stable demand and one with a sharp fall in sales in year three. The paper includes the numbers, but it does not say which assumptions drove the outcome or whether the result was a single figure or a range.
VHow should the team present the findings so readers can understand the judgement behind them?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The team should explain the key assumptions that shaped the assessment and present the outcome in a way that matches the analysis. If the result is not a single point estimate, a range is acceptable, provided it is clear what the range represents and why it was used. The explanation should make it possible to see how the assumptions feed into the conclusion about resilience.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · Readers need to see both the assumptions and the form of the result so they can judge how robust the conclusion is.
A preparer has only done a qualitative review because the business has not yet built a full numerical model. The draft says the company 'considered resilience' but gives no time period and no detail on what the review found.
VCan the disclosure stop at a general statement, or does it need to say more about the period assessed and the nature of the findings?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
It needs more than a general statement. The disclosure should say whether a resilience assessment was performed, identify the time period covered, and summarise the qualitative outcome in a way that is useful to users. If no numerical output is available, the narrative still needs to explain what the review showed about the business's ability to cope with the conditions considered.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · Even when the assessment is mainly narrative, the period covered and the substance of the findings still need to be clear.
A group has run a scenario exercise and found that, under one adverse path, margins fall by 8% in year two and capital spending must be delayed by 12 months. The draft report mentions the numbers but does not explain whether the exercise was actually used to assess resilience or how the result affects the business model.
VWhat should the preparer check before finalising the note?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The preparer should confirm that the method is described in a way that shows how the assessment was done, not just the numbers produced. If scenario analysis was the tool used, that should be made clear, along with the main assumptions, the quantitative outcome or range, and the practical implications for strategy and the business model. The note should read as an assessment of resilience, not just a list of outputs.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · A good disclosure shows the method, the assumptions, the result, and the business implications as one connected story.
Verwijzingen naar het raamwerk
Relevante IFRS / ISSB-vereisten en verwante disclosures
Beschikbare verwijzingen naar het raamwerk en aanpalende disclosures die relevant zijn voor deze vereiste.
IFRS / ISSB
s1-41-42
binnen IFRS S1: General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information
Gerelateerd & verkennen
Fair presentation →Materiality →Reporting entity →Connected information →Core content architecture →
Alle disclosures bekijken →
Meer in IFRS S1 → Volledige catalogus bekijken → Home van de Disclosure-bibliotheek → Zoeken in alle disclosures →
FAQ
Vragen die deze pagina beantwoordt
For s1-41-42, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare seven datapoints: strategy impacts, planning assumptions, assessment method, assessment findings, assessment ranges, assessment period and the resilience check. Use those as your starting checklist before you draft anything.
How do I use the step-by-step preparation section for s1-41-42 in practice?+−
Use it as a working sequence for getting from raw information to a draft disclosure. The page is set up to help you define scope, collect the right inputs, and then turn them into a report-ready narrative.
What should I include in the evidence pack for s1-41-42 if I want to be assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items to support assurance readiness. Build your file set around those items so you can show where the numbers and narrative came from if someone reviews them.
What are the six assurance claims I need to verify for s1-41-42?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to check, each with a claim, risk and evidence angle. Use that section to test whether your draft is supported and whether the evidence pack is complete enough for review.
What are the common reporting gaps or mistakes on the s1-41-42 page, and how do I avoid them?+−
The page lists common gaps and mistakes to watch for when preparing the disclosure. Use that list as a pre-submission check so you can spot missing scope, weak evidence or unclear methodology before the draft goes out.
How do I use the synthetic example disclosure on s1-41-42 without copying it into my report?+−
Treat the example as a model for structure, level of detail and how the narrative can connect to the data table. It is synthetic and illustrative, so it is there to help you draft your own version, not to be reused as-is.
What is the best way to turn the s1-41-42 example table into my own draft output?+−
Use the example table to see how quantitative information can be presented alongside the narrative. The page also gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a content-index line to help you turn the inputs into a draft.
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s1-41-42?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the preparation steps, track the evidence you need and keep the disclosure work moving toward an assurance-ready draft.
What is the printable Library Card PDF for s1-41-42 for?+−
The Download Centre includes a printable Library Card in PDF format. Use it as a quick reference while you work through the disclosure, especially if you want a paper checklist alongside the workbook.
Can I reuse data from an ESRS 2 General Disclosures process for s1-41-42?+−
The page notes ESRS 2 as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable where your internal information already covers the topic. It does not say the frameworks are identical, so you still need to check the page’s own datapoints and evidence needs.
Meer vragen waarbij deze pagina helpt
s1-41-42 IFRS S1 general requirements disclosure checklist for sustainability managers1-41-42 what evidence do I need for assurance readinesss1-41-42 how to prepare the disclosure step by steps1-41-42 workbook download prep and assurance xlsxs1-41-42 printable library card pdfs1-41-42 common reporting mistakes and gapss1-41-42 synthetic example disclosure tables1-41-42 narrative starters and content index lines1-41-42 assessment method and assessment findings data pointss1-41-42 resilience check planning assumptions assessment rangess1-41-42 evidence pack five itemss1-41-42 closest ESRS correspondence general disclosures
Verder verdiepen · s1-41-42
Leer deze disclosure van begin tot eind op te stellen
This guide covers one requirement. The IFRS S1 & S2 Reporting course walks the full ISSB workflow — governance, strategy, risk management and metrics — with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
Hoe deze bibliotheek is opgebouwd
312 gepubliceerde rapporten geïndexeerd
63.171 pagina’s met verwijzingen op paginaniveau
272 door practitioners gemaakte Disclosurekaarten
/nl/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/s1-41-42/
Gratis · LRA Community
Ontvang uw s1-41-42-hulpmiddelen — gratis
Uw voorbereidingshulpmiddelen zijn gratis voor leden van LRA Community en voor studenten. Registreer u eenmalig (gratis) en uw download start meteen — plus de Disclosure-bibliotheek, sjablonen en de LRA AI-assistent.
✓
Gelukt — uw download begint
Uw bestand wordt nu gedownload. Ook uw Community-Cabinet — met de Disclosure-bibliotheek, sjablonen en de LRA AI-assistent — staat klaar.
Open uw Cabinet →