AASB S2 climate disclosure

AASB S2 asks for something specific and awkward: a description of how climate-related risks affect your business, quantified where you can quantify it. For most reporters the hardest part is not the narrative. It is the physical risk evidence — which of our sites are exposed, to what, under which scenario, and how do we know.

That is the part this workflow handles.

What the standard actually asks for

AASB S2 is the Australian implementation of IFRS S2, issued as part of the Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards. It organises disclosure into four pillars:

• Governance — who oversees climate-related risks and opportunities.
• Strategy — the risks and opportunities themselves, their financial effects, and your resilience under different climate scenarios.
• Risk management — how you identify, assess and prioritise those risks.
• Metrics and targets — including the assets or business activities exposed to physical and transition risk.

The strategy and metrics pillars are where a site-level physical risk assessment becomes unavoidable. You need to say how many assets sit in areas of material physical risk, and you need to have used at least two climate scenarios to get there.

The workflow

Agent prompt

›

Score our 240 sites against flood, bushfire, coastal retreat and SSP2/SSP5 heat-days, then output the AASB S2 disclosure table with a methodology appendix.

Hazard	Sites at risk	2050 SSP5-8.5	Exposed value
Riverine flood	31 / 240	High	$84.2m
Bushfire	18 / 240	High	$41.7m
Coastal inundation	6 / 240	Moderate	$22.9m

1. Bring the portfolio. A CSV of addresses, lot/plan references, or coordinates. Leases and owned sites both work; so do supplier and customer locations if that is where your exposure sits.
2. Resolve to the land spine. Addresses are geocoded against G-NAF, then matched to cadastral parcels. This matters more than it sounds — a rooftop pin sitting 40 metres from a flood planning area boundary gives a different answer to the parcel it actually belongs to.
3. Join hazard and climate layers. Flood study extents, bushfire-prone land, coastal recession lines and CMIP6 heat projections are intersected with each parcel, at the scenarios and horizons you nominate.
4. Read the output. An exposure table shaped for the metrics disclosure, plus a methodology appendix naming every dataset, its vintage, its licence and the assumption applied where coverage was incomplete.

What comes out

The disclosure table reports counts and exposed value by hazard, scenario and horizon. The appendix is the part reviewers care about: it lists the flood studies used per council area, flags the sites where no study exists, and records the substitution rule applied in those gaps rather than quietly interpolating.

Gaps are disclosed, not smoothed. Australian flood mapping in particular is uneven — some councils have detailed probabilistic studies, others have nothing digitised. Pretending otherwise is how an assessment fails review.

Who this is for

Group 2 entities reporting from FY2026-27, and Group 3 entities preparing for FY2027-28. If you are a Group 1 reporter already working with a large consultancy, this is useful as a cross-check rather than a replacement.