IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures·Paragraphs 29–c
Physical-risk vulnerability metric
Практическое руководство по подготовке этого раскрытия. Используйте карточку, чтобы определить, какую информацию подготовить, проверить утверждения и организовать подтверждающие доказательства. За точными требованиями всегда обращайтесь к официальному источнику IFRS.
Опубликованный паспорт
Проверка ожидаетсяСтандарт
IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Paragraphs 29–c · 2024
Последняя проверка
—
Учебные материалы LRA · Не выпущено и не одобрено IFRS
Суть раскрытия
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how exposed its operations are to physical climate risks, using a vulnerability measure that is relevant to the business as a whole. In practice, the report should not just describe isolated examples or a few high-profile sites; it should show how the organisation has assessed vulnerability across the parts of the business that matter most, and what that means for the organisation’s overall risk profile.
The practical focus is on breadth and comparability: readers should be able to understand whether the assessment covers only selected locations or extends across operations, assets, and activities that could be affected by climate-related physical events. The aim is to give a clear picture of where vulnerability sits, how widespread it is, and whether the organisation’s exposure is concentrated in a small number of places or spread more widely across the business.
Это учебное руководство LRA помогает в подготовке раскрытия. За точными требованиями всегда обращайтесь к официальному источнику IFRS.
Прежде чем начать
Прежде чем начать
Короткий чек-лист перед подготовкой этого раскрытия — отмечайте пункты по мере их закрытия.
Подготовка
Ключевая информация для подготовки
| Поле подготовки | Что зафиксировать | Подсказка по доказательствам | Ответственный |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acute and chronic split | Whether the figure is broken out into short-term and longer-term parts, if that split is being used. | Method note or working paper showing the split approach, plus the source schedule used to prepare the figures. | Sustainability reporting / risk analytics |
| Exposure concentration by location | How the exposure is grouped by country or region, site or facility, and asset type, using the same grouping basis throughout. | Asset register, site list, and geography mapping used to build the concentration view. | Risk management / asset management |
| Underlying hazard basis | The hazard measure or classification used as the basis for the reported figure, including the rule used to assign it. | Methodology note, hazard taxonomy, and source assessment records showing how the basis was determined. | Risk / environmental data |
| Share of total | The portion of the whole that this item represents, calculated against the correct total for the same scope and period. | Calculation sheet showing numerator, denominator, and the source total used for the percentage. | Finance / sustainability reporting |
| At-risk assets and activities | The monetary value of assets or activities that are exposed or vulnerable, using the same scope and valuation basis as the source records. | Asset valuation file, impairment or risk assessment support, and the reconciliation to the ledger or asset register. | Finance / risk management |
Как это подготовить
Запросить данные
Request the site vulnerability data from Operations
Переведите раскрытие на язык внутреннего бизнес-вопроса, а затем адаптируйте его под терминологию вашей организации.
Which sites, assets or activity groups are most exposed to physical climate hazards, and what share of the total do they represent?
Please use your organisation’s own site, asset and risk terms first, then map them to the reporting labels in the pack. Keep the request in operational language rather than framework wording, and check the official source before sign-off.
Слабый запрос
Please provide the physical-risk vulnerability metric for the disclosure.
Почему он не работает: It uses framework language only, gives no boundary, no source, no grouping method, and does not say what internal data is needed to calculate the share of total or the vulnerable asset/activity value.
Более удачный запрос
Please send the current operations view of which sites, facilities, assets or activity groups are most exposed to physical climate hazards for [reporting period], including the hazard basis, the share of total, the value of vulnerable assets or activities, and whether you separate short-sharp events from longer-duration stress effects. Use your normal site and asset terms, and attach the source register or assessment file.
Шаблон официального письма
Subject: Request for site and asset vulnerability data for [reporting period] Dear [name/team], We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need your help with the data on which sites, assets or activity groups are most exposed to physical climate hazards. Please send the information for [reporting period] covering [boundary]. We need it in your normal operational terms, with a short note explaining the hazard basis used, how the groupings were built, and whether any split was made between short-sharp events and longer-duration stress effects. Please include: - the sites, facilities, assets or activity groups covered - the hazard basis used in your assessment - the measure used to identify exposure - the share of the total for each group - any supporting file, register extract or assessment note - the source system and date extracted If you already have a table or dashboard, please send that and we will map it into the reporting pack. Please also flag any assumptions, exclusions or known limitations. Thank you, [preparer name] [team] Please adapt this to your organisation’s own terms and check the official source before sign-off.
Короткая версия для Teams / Slack
Hi [name/team] — could you share the latest site/asset exposure data for [reporting period]? We need the list of affected sites/assets/activity groups, the hazard basis, the share of total, and any split between short-sharp events and longer-duration stress effects if you use one. Please send it in your normal terms plus the source file/register. Thanks, [preparer name]
Отраслевые примеры
Manufacturing
Контекст. A multi-site producer tracks exposure across plants, warehouses and critical production lines.
Адаптированный запрос. Please share the plant and asset exposure table for [reporting period], showing which sites, lines or equipment are most exposed to flood, heat or storm hazards, the basis used to rank them, the share of total, and the value of vulnerable assets. If you split short-sharp events from longer-duration stress effects, please include that flag.
Пример ответа. Plant A; production line 3; flood and heat basis; replacement cost of vulnerable equipment 2,400,000; share of total 18.5%; split used: yes; notes: coastal floodplain site, critical cooling equipment included.
Transport / Logistics
Контекст. A logistics operator assesses depots, vehicle fleets and route hubs for weather-related disruption exposure.
Адаптированный запрос. Please send the depot and fleet exposure summary for [reporting period], using your normal network terms. Include the hazard basis, the hubs or assets most exposed, the share of total network value or activity, and the value of vulnerable assets or activities. Please note whether the assessment separates short-sharp events from longer stress effects.
Пример ответа. North hub; depot and trailer fleet; storm and flood basis; vulnerable asset value 1,150,000; share of total 12.0%; split used: no; notes: exposure based on route interruption and site flood mapping.
Составьте раскрытие
Заметки, которые превращают данные в раскрытие
Учебные шаблоны LRA — адаптируйте их под вашу организацию и сверьтесь с официальным источником перед утверждением.
Примечание о методике
Set out the basis used to define the hazard categories, explain whether the figures are split into short-term and longer-term effects, and describe how the reported concentrations and percentages were calculated for the relevant assets, facilities or locations.
Примечание о контексте
Explain what the reported concentrations mean in practice by linking them to the places, facilities or asset groups where exposure is highest and to the assets or activities that are most vulnerable.
Заявление о колебаниях
If the figures move materially, point to the underlying driver such as a change in the mix of locations, facilities or asset classes, a shift in the hazard basis used, or a reclassification of which assets or activities are most exposed.
Запись в указателе содержания
s2-29-c Physical-risk vulnerability metric — [location / page] / [notes]Центр загрузок
Инструменты и формы для подготовки
Профессиональные инструменты подготовки для s2-29-c — бесплатно с членством в LRA Community. Зарегистрируйтесь один раз (это бесплатно), и откроются все загрузки, а вместе с ними Библиотека раскрытий, шаблоны и AI-ассистент LRA.
Готовность к заверению
Для каждого утверждения проверьте доказательства
| Утверждение | Риски | Доказательства для проверки |
|---|---|---|
| We have shown whether the figure separates short-term event exposure from longer-running exposure, and we can explain why that split was used or not used. | An assurer may ask whether the split was applied consistently, whether the basis for the split is documented, and whether the presentation could mislead if the categories were mixed or left unclear. | Working paper showing the classification approach; source data or model outputs used to assign items to each bucket; reviewer sign-off on the chosen basis; final disclosure wording or table showing the split or a clear note that no split was applied. |
| We have grouped the exposed items by where they sit, what site they relate to, or what type of asset they are, and we can trace each grouping back to the underlying records. | An assurer may probe whether the grouping logic is complete, whether items were double-counted or omitted, and whether the location/site/asset-type labels match the source records. | Asset or activity register; mapping file showing the grouping fields used; reconciliation from source records to the published totals; review checks for duplicates, omissions, and classification errors. |
| We have documented the climate hazard basis we used when deciding what counted as exposed, including any assumptions where the source information was incomplete. | An assurer may challenge whether the hazard basis was appropriate, whether assumptions were applied consistently, and whether the same basis was used across all relevant items. | Method note describing the hazard set or assumptions used; scenario, map, or other source inputs relied on; evidence of management review of the hazard basis; change log if the basis differed from prior periods. |
| We have calculated both the amount and the share of the total that is exposed, and the percentage ties back to the same denominator used in the underlying calculation. | An assurer may test whether the numerator and denominator are aligned, whether the percentage has been rounded or calculated correctly, and whether the total used is the right one for the population being reported. | Calculation sheet showing the amount, total base, and percentage formula; reconciliation to the source population total; rounding policy or calculation controls; independent check of the arithmetic before publication. |
| We have identified the assets or activities that are exposed and kept evidence showing how each item was included in the final population. | An assurer may ask whether the inclusion criteria were applied consistently, whether any items were excluded without support, and whether the final list matches the published figure. | Population listing with inclusion/exclusion flags; source documents supporting each included item; review notes for exceptions or exclusions; final sign-off pack linking the list to the reported figure. |
Пакет доказательств для подготовки
Типичные пробелы в отчётности
Типичные пробелы
Ошибки, которых стоит избегать при сборе данных
Где часто требуется профессиональное суждение
Примеры
Иллюстративные примеры
Синтетические, написаны LRA — это не выдержки из отчёта компании и не текст какого-либо стандарта.
We describe how weather-related and longer-term climate pressures affect our assets, splitting the figures between sudden events and slower-moving stress where that helps users understand the pattern.
- Our exposed assets are concentrated in coastal generation sites and one inland transmission corridor; the coastal sites account for 60% of the affected asset base, the corridor for 25%, and the remaining 15% sits in smaller support facilities.
- We assess these exposures using flood, heat and storm hazard maps, alongside wildfire screening for the inland corridor.
- In total, 40% of our asset base is in higher-risk locations, including 24% in coastal sites, 10% in the inland corridor and 6% in support facilities; within that total, 18% relates to sudden-event risk and 22% to longer-duration stress.
- The most exposed activities are generation at the coastal sites and grid balancing at the inland corridor, while the support facilities are vulnerable mainly through access disruption rather than direct physical damage.
Illustrative only: this shows how a reporter might narrate where physical climate exposure sits, what hazards are used to assess it, how much of the asset base is affected, and how that exposure can be split between abrupt and slower-building climate effects.
We summarise the parts of our portfolio that sit in climate-sensitive locations, using a simple split between one-off events and gradual stress where that is the clearest way to explain the exposure.
- The main concentrations are in river-adjacent offices, a coastal retail cluster and a logistics park near a heat-stressed urban area; these represent 50%, 30% and 20% of the exposed portfolio respectively.
- We base the assessment on flood, storm and heat hazard screening, with subsidence checks for the logistics park.
- Overall, 35% of the portfolio is in higher-risk locations: 18% river-adjacent offices, 10% coastal retail and 7% the logistics park; of that 35%, 14% is linked to abrupt events and 21% to gradual deterioration.
- The most vulnerable uses are ground-floor retail and warehouse operations, while upper-floor offices are less exposed because they can be relocated more easily within the building.
Illustrative only: this example shows a property reporter describing where the exposure is concentrated, which hazard types were used, how much of the portfolio is affected, and how the affected share can be divided between acute and chronic climate effects.
Отчёты компаний
Как компании раскрывают S2-29-c на практике
Примеры полного и частичного раскрытия на практике. Это разборы на основе доказательств, а не готовые шаблоны для копирования.
Спросите AI-ассистента Study Studio об этом раскрытии
Получайте практические ответы для вашего контекста отчётности. Первые два ответа бесплатны — вступите в LRA Community бесплатно, чтобы продолжить без ограничений.
Проверьте себя
Сценарии для разбора
A manufacturer has mapped flood exposure across three sites. One site holds 40% of the group’s plant value, and the team has split the exposure into short-term storm damage and longer-term water stress because both matter to the same location.
A logistics group has depots in a coastal region, a river basin and an inland hub. The preparer has one model for storm surge and another for heat stress, but the board paper only shows a single group-wide percentage.
An energy company has calculated that 18% of its generating assets are exposed to wildfire risk. The team can support the number with site-level evidence, but the draft note does not say whether the figure is based on asset value, output capacity or another internal measure.
A retailer has 12 warehouses in a floodplain, representing £96 million of the group’s £800 million warehouse portfolio. The draft says only that the business is “materially exposed” and gives no percentage.
Ссылки на стандарты
Соответствующие требования IFRS / ISSB и смежные раскрытия
Доступные ссылки на стандарты и близкие раскрытия, полезные при подготовке этого требования.
IFRS / ISSB
s2-29-c
в составе IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures
Связанное и другое
Больше в IFRS S2 → Открыть полный каталог → Главная Библиотеки раскрытий → Искать по всем раскрытиям →
FAQ
Вопросы, на которые отвечает эта страница
Start with the plain-language explainer and the step-by-step preparation section, then work through the listed datapoints: acute and chronic split, exposure concentration by location, underlying hazard basis, share of total, and at-risk assets and activities. The page is set up to help you turn those inputs into a draft, including narrative starters and a content-index line.
The page says to prepare five datapoints: acute and chronic split, exposure concentration by location, underlying hazard basis, share of total, and at-risk assets and activities. Use those as your data collection checklist before drafting.
Use the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints list to define what is in scope and how each figure will be built. The page also flags common reporting gaps, which is useful for checking whether your method is consistent and complete.
The page is designed for practitioners to assign ownership around the listed datapoints and evidence pack items, so the right owner depends on who holds the underlying information. Use the workbook to map each datapoint and evidence item to a named owner before drafting.
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and five assurance claims to verify, so build your pack around those and keep the claim, risk, and evidence linked. That gives reviewers a clear trail from the reported figure back to source support.
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so use that section as a pre-submission check. It is especially useful for spotting missing datapoints, weak evidence, or a draft that does not line up with the page’s preparation structure.
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook (.xlsx) that is meant to help you organise the disclosure inputs and assurance evidence. Use it alongside the page’s step-by-step guidance, evidence pack, and draft-output section to build a complete working file.
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure can be presented in practice. Treat it as a formatting and structure aid only, and make sure any real figures in your draft are internally consistent.
Use the draft-output section, which gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a content-index line. That section is there to help you convert the prepared data into a readable draft rather than starting from a blank page.
The page notes ESRS E1 (Climate Change) as the closest correspondence, so the same underlying data may be reusable where it fits your reporting needs. The page does not say the requirements are identical, so check the disclosure-specific page content before reusing anything.
Другие вопросы, с которыми поможет эта страница
Углубиться · s2-29-c
Научитесь готовить это раскрытие от начала до конца
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.
Получите инструменты для s2-29-c — бесплатно
Инструменты подготовки бесплатны для участников LRA Community и студентов. Зарегистрируйтесь один раз (это бесплатно), и ваша загрузка начнётся сразу же — плюс Библиотека раскрытий, шаблоны и AI-ассистент LRA.
Готово — загрузка начинается
Файл загружается. Ваш кабинет Community — с Библиотекой раскрытий, шаблонами и AI-ассистентом LRA — тоже готов.
Открыть кабинет →