Ga naar de kern van de disclosure
Gratis · Community-leden
＋ Nog 7 tonen− Minder tonen
＋ Nog 7 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 S2: Climate-related Disclosures·Paragraphs 22–b
Scenario analysis method, inputs and assumptions
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 S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Paragraphs 22–b · 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 the method it used for scenario analysis and the main inputs and assumptions behind it. In practice, that means setting out how the scenarios were built, what time horizons were considered, what data or parameters were used, and any key judgement calls that shaped the analysis. The aim is to make clear how the organisation tested climate-related risks and opportunities under different possible futures.
The practical focus is on transparency and consistency: a reader should be able to understand what was included, what was left out, and how robust the analysis is. Organisations should be clear about the scope of coverage across the business, such as whether the analysis applies to the whole group, selected operations, or only certain assets or sites, and whether the same approach was used across those areas or tailored in different ways.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy and tech assumptions | Record the main policy, market and technology assumptions used in the analysis, including the basis for each assumption and any key judgement calls. | Model assumptions log, scenario notes, board or management papers, and source references used to set assumptions. | Strategy / Finance / Sustainability |
| Paris pathway use | State whether a climate pathway aligned to the Paris goal was used, and how it was applied in the analysis. | Scenario selection memo, model setup file, and analysis notes showing the chosen pathway and its use. | Sustainability / Strategy |
| Hazard and transition coverage | Describe which parts of the analysis cover climate hazards and which parts cover the move to a lower-carbon economy, including any gaps or exclusions. | Scenario scope note, risk register, and model documentation showing the covered impact types and exclusions. | Risk / Sustainability |
| Why it matters | Set out the reason this analysis is relevant to the organisation, including the business area, risk, opportunity or decision it informs. | Materiality assessment, risk register, strategy paper, or committee paper explaining the business relevance. | Sustainability / Risk / Strategy |
| Analysis period | Capture the exact period the analysis covers, including start and end dates and whether it is a point-in-time or multi-period review. | Model run date, reporting timetable, scenario analysis pack, and any period labels used in source files. | Finance / Sustainability |
| Scenario set and sources | List the scenarios used and where each one came from, including the source organisation, version or publication date where available. | Scenario library, source documents, download records, and model input register. | Sustainability / Risk / Strategy |
| Operational scope | Define which operations, entities, sites or activities are included in the analysis and which are left out. | Boundary memo, consolidation schedule, entity list, site register, and model scope notes. | Finance / Sustainability / Operations |
| Forecast horizons | State the time horizons used for the analysis, with the labels and lengths applied to each horizon. | Scenario analysis template, planning assumptions, and model outputs showing the horizon labels and dates. | Strategy / Finance / Sustainability |
＋ Subelementen van s2-22-b tonen (LRA-werkchecklist)
Set out the main policy, economic and technology assumptions used in the analysis.
Explain how a Paris-aligned scenario was applied.
Show whether the assessment covers physical risks, transition risks, or both.
State why these scenarios or assumptions are relevant to the business.
Identify the reporting period used for the analysis.
Name the scenario set used and where it came from.
Specify which parts of the organisation or operations were included.
Set out the time periods considered in the assessment.
Hoe u dit voorbereidt
Set the boundary for the analysis first: decide which operations, sites, activities and time periods are in scope, and make sure the period you analyse is stated clearly.
Define the content of the assessment in business terms: identify the policy, macroeconomic and technology assumptions you will use, the climate scenarios you will rely on, and the time horizons you are applying.
Gather the support for each input: keep the source material for the scenario set, the origin of the assumptions, and any documents showing how physical and transition risks were covered.
Prepare the disclosure content itself: write the narrative or compile the figures so they explain why the chosen scenarios and assumptions matter for the entity and how they were used in the analysis.
Record any limits or changes to the analysis: note what was left out, any changes from prior periods, and the reason each item is relevant to the disclosure.
Check the draft against the official source before finalising: confirm the scope, assumptions, scenario sources, coverage, rationale and reporting period all match the underlying evidence and the source requirements.
De gegevens opvragen
Request the scenario analysis pack from Strategy / Risk
Vertaal de disclosure naar een interne bedrijfsvraag — en pas die daarna aan op het taalgebruik van uw organisatie.
What assumptions, scenario set, coverage, time horizons and supporting evidence were used for the latest climate scenario analysis?
Please use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the disclosure labels. For example, if you call this work a climate stress test, resilience review or planning case, keep that language in the request and only translate it to the reporting label at the end. This is a training template only; adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off.
Zwak verzoek
Please provide the scenario analysis information for the disclosure, including the method, inputs and assumptions.
Waarom dit misgaat: This uses reporting jargon that may not match how the team works day to day, and it does not say what evidence is needed, which period is in scope, what parts of the business were covered, or which assumptions and source materials should be returned.
Beter verzoek
Please send the latest climate scenario analysis pack for [period], including the scenario cases used, the main policy / market / technology assumptions, the parts of the business covered, whether physical risks, transition risks, or both were assessed, the time horizons used, and the note explaining why these cases were relevant. Include the source file or link, version/date, and the person who prepared and reviewed it. Use your team’s own labels if different; we will map them for reporting.
Sjabloon voor een formele e-mail
Subject: Request for the climate scenario analysis pack Hi [name/team], We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need the latest scenario analysis evidence for [reporting period]. Please share the materials used for the analysis, including: - the scenario set and where each case came from; - the main policy, market, technology and other assumptions; - which parts of the business were covered; - whether physical risks, transition risks, or both were assessed; - the time horizons used; and - the note explaining why these scenarios were relevant to the business. Please also include the source files or links, the version/date, and the person who prepared and reviewed the pack. If your team uses different internal labels for this work, please keep those labels in the response and we will map them for reporting. This is a training template only; please adapt it to your organisation and check the source material before sign-off. Many thanks, [preparer name] [team] [contact details]
Korte versie voor Teams / Slack
Hi [name/team] — could you send over the latest climate scenario analysis pack for [period]? We need the scenario list, key assumptions, what was covered, the time horizons, and the note on why these cases were chosen. Please include the source file/link, version/date, and owner/reviewer. Use your team’s own labels if different; we’ll map them later. Thanks, [name]
Sectorvoorbeelden
Manufacturing
Context. A group with factories, warehouses and a distribution network wants evidence from the sustainability planning team and operations risk team.
Aangepast verzoek. Please share the latest climate scenario analysis pack for [period] covering our plants, warehouses and logistics network. Include the scenario cases used, the main assumptions on policy, energy prices, technology shifts and weather impacts, the parts of the network covered, the time horizons used, and the note on why these cases were chosen for our operations. Please attach the source workbook or model link, version/date, and the owner/reviewer. Use your internal labels for the analysis and we will map them later.
Voorbeeldantwoord. Pack title: FY2025 climate planning case review; Scenario names: base, delayed policy, rapid transition, severe weather; Coverage: 12 plants, 4 warehouses, 1 distribution hub; Time horizons: 2027, 2030, 2040; Evidence reference: workbook link and assumptions log.
Financial services
Context. A lender wants evidence from the risk function and portfolio analytics team for a portfolio-level climate planning exercise.
Aangepast verzoek. Please send the latest climate scenario analysis pack for [period] covering the lending portfolio. Include the scenario set and source, the main policy, market, technology and physical assumptions, the portfolio segments covered, the time horizons used, and the note explaining why the selected cases were relevant to the portfolio and strategy. Please include the source files, version/date, and the person who prepared and reviewed the pack. Keep your team’s own labels in the response; we will map them for reporting.
Voorbeeldantwoord. Pack title: Portfolio climate planning pack; Scenario names: orderly transition, disorderly transition, hot-house world; Coverage: corporate lending, commercial real estate and project finance; Time horizons: 2026, 2030, 2050; Evidence reference: scenario memo, model outputs and review sign-off.
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
Start by stating which scenarios were used, where they came from, which assumptions were applied, which parts of the business were included, and the time periods covered, so readers can see the basis of the analysis.
Contextnotitie
Explain what the scenario work is intended to show for the business, including how the chosen scenarios help assess climate-related exposure across the operations in scope and over the selected horizons.
Toelichting op schommelingen
If the analysis changed from the prior period, note whether the shift came from different scenarios, updated assumptions, a wider or narrower scope, or a change in the time horizons reviewed.
Vermelding in de inhoudsindex
s2-22-b Scenario analysis method, inputs and assumptions — [location / page] / [notes]Downloadcentrum
Hulpmiddelen en formulieren voor de voorbereiding
Professionele voorbereidingshulpmiddelen voor s2-22-b — 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 kept a written note of the main policy, market, country-level, energy and technology assumptions used in the scenario work. | The assurer may ask whether the assumptions were actually documented, whether they were the ones used in the analysis, and whether the note matches the final published figure. | Scenario model inputs; assumption log or working paper; version history showing the assumptions used; sign-off pack linking the assumptions note to the published disclosure. |
| We used a scenario set that included a climate case linked to the latest global climate agreement. | The assurer may probe whether that type of case was really included, how it was identified, and whether the wording in the disclosure overstates what was used. | Scenario list; source documents for each scenario; internal mapping showing which scenario was treated as the agreement-linked case; review notes confirming the published description. |
| We based the coverage on a mix of scenarios that covered different risk types, rather than a single narrow case. | The assurer may check whether the set was genuinely varied, whether it covered one or both risk categories, and whether the published wording matches the actual set used. | Scenario selection paper; risk mapping matrix; source materials for each scenario; evidence of review and approval of the final set. |
| We can explain why the chosen scenarios were the right ones for judging how the business might hold up under climate-related change and uncertainty. | The assurer may challenge whether the rationale is specific enough, whether it is supported by the business context, and whether the explanation is consistent with the analysis performed. | Rationale memo; board or management papers; links between scenarios and strategic risks; working papers showing how the scenarios were selected for relevance. |
| We recorded the reporting year in which the scenario analysis was performed. | The assurer may verify that the stated year is correct, that the work was completed in that period, and that the disclosure does not blur preparation timing with publication timing. | Project timetable; dated working papers; meeting minutes; approval records showing when the analysis was carried out. |
| We can identify the scenarios we used and where each one came from. | The assurer may ask whether every scenario is named, whether the sources are traceable, and whether any internally adapted material is clearly distinguished from external material. | Scenario register; source references or links; copies of external scenario publications; internal notes showing any adaptations or selections made. |
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 owner, wrong languageThe request goes to a team that does not hold the underlying model or assumptions, so the reply comes back in framework terms instead of the business terms used by the people who actually ran the analysis.
No clear boundaryThe data pull is started without agreeing which sites, entities, or activities are in scope, so different teams send different slices of the business and the set cannot be reconciled.
Period mismatchOne team sends the latest forecast while another sends the period used in the analysis, so the inputs no longer match the reporting window being described.
Mixed counting basisHeadcount, emissions, spend, or asset data are gathered on different bases and then merged, which makes the scenario inputs inconsistent and hard to compare.
Source labels lostOriginal file names, version tags, or source notes are stripped out during collection, so nobody can trace a figure back to the document it came from.
Separate groups mergedPhysical and transition information, or other distinct populations, are combined into one file even though they need to stay separate for the analysis to make sense.
Missing evidence trailThe team captures the numbers but not the supporting notes, screenshots, or file references, leaving no proof of how each input was assembled.
No sign-off recordDraft inputs are circulated informally and then used without a dated approval trail, so it is unclear who checked the assumptions and when.
Scenario set not pinned downThe collection request does not name which scenario pack and source documents to use, so different contributors pull from different versions and the dataset becomes inconsistent.
Relevance not capturedThe team records the inputs but never asks why each assumption matters to the analysis, so later reviewers cannot see the link between the data and the business judgement.
Waar vaak een professionele afweging nodig is
What to do when the business perimeter changes mid-yearUse the same cut-off point across the analysis, then explain whether bought-in or sold-off activities were included, excluded, or only partly reflected, and why that treatment best matches the period being described.
How to handle different local meanings for the same inputWhere country teams use different definitions or source data, pick one basis for the analysis, state the mapping or conversion used, and explain any places where local practice could not be made fully comparable.
Whether small or borderline activities stay in or drop outSet a clear inclusion rule for operations that sit near the edge of the chosen scope, apply it consistently, and disclose the rule so readers can see why some marginal items were kept or left out.
Which date or period anchors the analysisChoose one timing basis for the scenario work, use it consistently across the narrative and inputs, and explain if the analysis reflects a point-in-time view, an average, or another period basis.
When to use estimates instead of direct measurementsIf actual readings are missing or impractical, use the best available estimate, say where it was used, and explain the main assumptions and any known limits on accuracy.
How far to round figures before they lose meaningApply one rounding approach across the disclosure, keep the level of precision consistent with the underlying data, and note any material effect that rounding could have on the results.
How to summarise sensitive location or workforce dataIf detailed site or people data cannot be shown without privacy risk, group it into broader bands, explain the aggregation method, and make clear what detail has been withheld.
How to treat scenario sources that do not line up neatlyWhen external scenario material is mixed or incomplete, identify the source set used, explain any selection or blending choices, and state the assumptions made to bridge gaps.
How to explain the link between the scenario set and the business modelDescribe why the chosen scenario set is relevant to the organisation’s operations, and spell out the main policy, market, and technology assumptions that connect the scenario to the business.
How to separate physical and transition coverageState which parts of the analysis look at weather- or location-driven effects and which parts look at policy, market, or technology change, and explain any areas where the two overlap.
Voorbeelden
Illustratieve voorbeelden
Synthetisch, geschreven door LRA — niet afkomstig uit een bedrijfsrapport en geen tekst uit een standaard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Electricity generation
We assessed climate-related risks and opportunities for our power stations, grid connections and fuel supply chain across our owned sites and joint ventures in Europe and North America, using a 2024 reporting year view with analysis to 2030, 2040 and 2050. Our scenario set combined a Paris-consistent pathway from the IEA and NGFS with a higher-warming pathway from the IPCC, and we used it to test both heat, flood and water stress impacts as well as carbon price, demand and technology-shift effects.
- The assessment rests on assumptions about policy tightening, fuel prices, carbon costs, renewable build-out, storage costs and plant efficiency, with the same assumptions applied consistently across the portfolio.
- We judged the exercise relevant because it covers 92% of our owned generation capacity and 88% of our contracted fuel volume, which together represent the parts of the business most exposed to climate change and the energy transition.
Synthetic example for practitioner training only; not legal, compliance or assurance advice.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Commercial property
For our 2024 reporting period, we reviewed climate scenarios for our directly managed offices and logistics assets in the UK and Asia-Pacific, looking ahead to 2030, 2040 and 2050. We used a Paris-aligned pathway from the Network for Greening the Financial System together with a severe-warming pathway from the IPCC, and we tested both physical hazards such as heat and flooding and transition effects such as retrofit cost, energy-price change and tenant demand.
- Our working assumptions covered building-code tightening, grid decarbonisation, financing costs, retrofit technology performance and occupancy trends, and we applied them to the full managed portfolio.
- We considered the analysis material because it spans 74 of our 80 buildings and 6.2 million of our 6.8 million square feet, so it captures the assets most likely to be affected by climate-related change.
Synthetic example for practitioner training only; not legal, compliance or assurance advice.
Bedrijfsrapporten
Hoe bedrijven S2-22-b in de praktijk rapporteren
Voorbeelden van volledige en gedeeltelijke rapportagepraktijk. Dit zijn op bewijs gebaseerde analyses, geen sjablonen om over te nemen.
WuXi Biologics (Cayman) Inc.
Pharmaceuticals / Biotech / Life Sciences · China · 2024
WuXi Biologics (Cayman) Inc.'s Sustainability Report 2024 includes coverage of Paris-aligned scenario use and physical transition risk identification, with specific reference to alignment with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C trajectory and the application of four climate scenarios for analysis (p.89). The report also discusses scenario sets and sources, including scenarios consistent with ambitious greenhouse gas emission reductions (p.89-90). However, the report lacks clear disclosure on key policy macro technology assumptions, relevance rationale, scope of operations, and time horizons, and the reporting period of analysis is mentioned but not clearly defined (p.133).
Nedbank Group
None · South Africa · 2025
Nedbank Group’s 2025 Climate Report provides coverage of physical and transition climate risks, including physical climate scenario analysis and transition risk assessments such as the EU CBAM, as noted on page 29. The report also details the scenario set and sources used, referencing publicly available NGFS variables and IPCC Sixth Assessment narratives on the same page. However, key disclosures remain unclear or missing, including the bank’s key policy macro technology assumptions (p.30), use of Paris-aligned scenarios (p.64), rationale for relevance, reporting period of analysis, and time horizons, with only partial context on the scope of operations provided (p.59).
ANZ Group Holdings
None · Australia · 2025
ANZ Group Holdings’ 2025 Climate Report provides a covered datapoint on physical transition risk coverage, noting low physical and moderate transition risk with approximately 1.5°C warming by 2100 (p.59). The report includes unclear disclosures regarding key policy macro technology assumptions (p.29), Paris-aligned scenario use (p.15), reporting period of analysis (p.59), scenario set and sources (p.59), scope of operations (p.57), and time horizons (p.3), where related context is present but no clear, explicit disclosures are made. There is no found evidence for a rationale explaining the relevance of the scenario analysis.
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 s2-22-b 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 manufacturer has run a climate scenario exercise for its main plants and distribution network. The team used one pathway from a recognised climate model, but the draft note only says the exercise was done and does not explain why that pathway was chosen or what business areas were included.
VWhat should the preparer check before signing off the disclosure?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The note should explain why the chosen scenario set is relevant to the business, identify the source of the scenarios used, and make clear which parts of the organisation and operations were covered. If the exercise only covered some sites or activities, that limitation should be stated so readers can see the scope of the analysis.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · Readers need enough context to judge whether the scenario work is relevant and how far it reaches across the business.
A retailer has modelled both flood disruption and a rapid policy shift on carbon pricing. The draft wording mentions the two scenario types, but it does not say whether the analysis looked at both short and longer time periods, or how the assumptions were set for policy, market and technology change.
VHow should the preparer decide whether the disclosure is complete enough?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The preparer should check that the time periods used in the analysis are described, and that the main assumptions behind the exercise are clear, including the policy, market and technology views that shaped the scenarios. The disclosure should let a reader understand the time frame and the key drivers behind the modelling, not just the names of the scenarios.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · A scenario description is stronger when it shows both the time frame and the assumptions that drive the results.
An energy company has used a Paris-aligned pathway for part of its transition planning and a separate physical-risk case for its coastal assets. The draft report says the scenarios were “aligned with climate goals” and “covered risks”, but it does not say whether the analysis included both transition and physical effects, or why those choices were relevant to the company.
VWhat judgement should the preparer make about the wording and content?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The preparer should make sure the disclosure states whether the analysis covered transition effects, physical effects, or both, and should explain why those areas were selected as relevant to the business. If a Paris-aligned pathway was used, the note should identify it clearly in plain language and show how it fits the company’s scenario set rather than leaving the reader to infer the link.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · The disclosure should show the type of climate risk tested and why that mix matters for the business.
A diversified group has prepared a scenario analysis for the current reporting year, but the draft note mixes together assumptions from last year’s model with new assumptions from this year’s planning cycle. It also leaves out the period the analysis relates to, making it hard to tell which year the results describe.
VWhat should the preparer do before finalising the note?
Modelantwoord tonen →Antwoord verbergen ↑
The preparer should tie the analysis to the reporting period it relates to and make sure the assumptions described are the ones actually used for that period’s work. If assumptions changed from the prior year, the disclosure should not blur them together; it should present the current-year basis clearly so the reader can follow the analysis.
Waarom dit ertoe doet · Scenario disclosures should be anchored to the reporting period and the assumptions used for that period’s analysis.
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
s2-22-b
binnen IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Gerelateerd & verkennen
Climate-related risks and opportunities → KaartIdentification inputs and industry topics → KaartObjective →Business model and value chain impact → KaartStrategy response and transition plan → Kaart
Alle disclosures bekijken →
Meer in IFRS S2 → Volledige catalogus bekijken → Home van de Disclosure-bibliotheek → Zoeken in alle disclosures →
FAQ
Vragen die deze pagina beantwoordt
How do I use the s2-22-b page to draft the climate-related disclosure in practice?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the datapoints to prepare, the step-by-step preparation section, and the draft-output ideas. The page is designed to help you turn source data into a first draft, not to act as an official standard.
What data do I need to gather for s2-22-b before I start writing the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare policy and technology assumptions, Paris pathway use, hazard and transition coverage, why it matters, the analysis period, scenario set and sources, operational scope, and forecast horizons. Use that list as your collection checklist before drafting.
How should I set the scope and methodology for s2-22-b using this page?+−
Use the page’s preparation list to define the operational scope, analysis period, forecast horizons, scenario set and sources, and the assumptions behind the analysis. That gives you a practical basis for explaining how the disclosure was built.
Who should own the inputs for s2-22-b in my organisation?+−
The page is useful for assigning ownership by datapoint: policy and technology assumptions, scenario sources, scope, and forecast horizons will usually need named data owners. It is set up to help a sustainability, HR or data owner coordinate inputs into one draft.
What should I include in an evidence pack for s2-22-b assurance?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and also lists six assurance claims to verify. Use those sections to assemble the supporting documents and link each claim to the evidence you can show a reviewer.
What are the six assurance claims on the s2-22-b page and how do I use them?+−
The page says there are six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk and evidence. Use them as a review checklist so you can test whether the disclosure is supported before it goes to assurance.
What are the common mistakes people make when reporting s2-22-b?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can spot weak points before finalising the disclosure. Use that section as a pre-submission check to avoid missing data, unclear scope, or unsupported statements.
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for s2-22-b?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf. Use the workbook to organise the preparation steps, evidence, and draft inputs, then use the PDF as a quick reference.
What can I take from the synthetic example disclosures for s2-22-b?+−
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show what a finished draft can look like. Treat them as examples only and use them to shape your own narrative and presentation.
How can I turn the s2-22-b page into a draft narrative and content index line?+−
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. Use those prompts to convert your prepared data into a short draft and a clear index entry for the report.
Can I reuse data prepared for ESRS E1 (Climate Change) for s2-22-b?+−
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the same data may be reusable where it fits your reporting needs. It does not say the requirements are identical, so check the disclosure-specific page content before reusing anything.
Meer vragen waarbij deze pagina helpt
s2-22-b IFRS S2 climate-related disclosures checklist for sustainability managers2-22-b what evidence do I need for assurance readinesss2-22-b how to complete the Prep & Assurance workbooks2-22-b common reporting gaps and mistakes to avoids2-22-b synthetic example disclosure narrative and tables2-22-b how to define operational scope and forecast horizonss2-22-b what assumptions should be documenteds2-22-b who should own scenario sources and analysis period datas2-22-b draft output visualisation ideas and narrative starterss2-22-b evidence pack items for assurance reviewers2-22-b from company reports examples pages2-22-b ESRS E1 data reuse for climate disclosure
Verder verdiepen · s2-22-b
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/s2-22-b/
Gratis · LRA Community
Ontvang uw s2-22-b-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 →