ASRS Readiness Checker

Section 01

Governance & Oversight

How effectively does your board and senior management govern sustainability and climate-related risks and opportunities? (AASB S1 para 26–27, AASB S2 para 5–7)

Does your board (or a board committee) have formal oversight of sustainability and climate-related risks and opportunities?

Q1

No board-level involvement — sustainability is not on the board agenda Ad-hoc board discussions when issues arise, but no formal mandate or committee charter Board or committee has a documented sustainability oversight mandate with periodic reporting Dedicated sustainability committee (or Risk/Audit committee with explicit ESG charter) reviews risks, targets, and progress quarterly Board integrates sustainability into strategic decisions, with named director accountability, skills matrix review, and remuneration linked to ESG outcomes

Does management have defined roles and responsibilities for sustainability reporting and climate risk?

Q2

No one is formally accountable — sustainability tasks are distributed informally or not done A single person (e.g. sustainability coordinator) manages it part-time without dedicated resources A sustainability function exists with RACI clarity, but limited integration with Finance, Risk, and Operations Cross-functional steering group with executive sponsor, clear RACI, and sustainability KPIs embedded in business unit plans Chief Sustainability Officer (or equivalent) with dedicated team, budget, and direct board reporting line — sustainability is treated like financial reporting in rigour

How well do your internal controls and governance processes cover sustainability-related disclosures?

Q3

No internal controls exist for sustainability data — it is compiled ad-hoc without review or sign-off Basic review by the sustainability team, but no formal control framework or audit trail Documented data collection procedures with sign-off workflows, though not yet integrated into the broader internal control framework Sustainability disclosures are covered by the same internal control framework as financial reporting (SOX-style controls, management review, segregation of duties) Fully integrated assurance model — sustainability data flows through the same control environment as financial data, with internal audit coverage and external limited/reasonable assurance

Section 02

Strategy & Business Integration

How well are sustainability and climate-related risks and opportunities integrated into your business strategy, planning, and financial decisions? (AASB S1 para 28–35, AASB S2 para 8–22)

Has your organisation identified and assessed the sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect its prospects?

Q4

No structured identification exercise has been done — sustainability risks are not on the risk register Some high-level risks are acknowledged (e.g. in the annual report narrative) but without systematic assessment A structured materiality or double-materiality assessment has been conducted covering climate, nature, and social risks Comprehensive assessment with stakeholder input, time-horizon mapping (short/medium/long-term), and quantified financial impacts where possible Dynamic, regularly refreshed assessment integrated with enterprise risk management — sustainability risks are treated with the same rigour as financial and operational risks

How well does your strategy and capital allocation reflect identified sustainability-related risks and opportunities?

Q5

Sustainability is not a factor in strategic planning or investment decisions Sustainability is mentioned in strategy documents but does not meaningfully influence capital allocation Climate and sustainability risks are considered in major investment decisions and strategic planning processes Internal carbon pricing or shadow pricing used in investment appraisals; transition plan informs capital allocation Sustainability is fully embedded in strategy — transition plan is board-approved, decarbonisation pathways inform CAPEX, and climate opportunities drive growth initiatives

Can your organisation describe how sustainability-related risks and opportunities have affected (or are expected to affect) its financial position, performance, and cash flows?

Q6

No connection has been drawn between sustainability factors and financial statements Qualitative acknowledgement only — e.g. "climate change may impact future costs" without quantification Some quantitative estimates exist (e.g. asset impairment exposure, carbon liability) but they are not comprehensive Financial impacts are quantified across balance sheet, P&L, and cash flow — with connectivity between sustainability and financial reports Full financial connectivity — sustainability-related adjustments are reflected in accounting estimates, impairment testing, provisions, and forward-looking financial statements

Section 03

Risk Management

How mature are your processes for identifying, assessing, prioritising, and monitoring sustainability-related risks? (AASB S1 para 36–42, AASB S2 para 23–24)

Do you have a defined process for identifying and assessing sustainability-related risks (including climate-related physical and transition risks)?

Q7

No process — sustainability risks are not systematically identified or assessed Informal identification based on media coverage or stakeholder pressure — reactive rather than structured Structured risk identification process covering physical risks, transition risks, and opportunities with defined criteria Comprehensive risk assessment with likelihood/impact scoring, value chain analysis, and time-horizon categorisation aligned to AASB S2 definitions Continuous risk monitoring with automated triggers, scenario-linked risk updates, and full integration into enterprise risk management frameworks

Are sustainability-related risks integrated into your overall enterprise risk management (ERM) framework?

Q8

Sustainability risks are managed separately (or not at all) — no integration with ERM Some sustainability risks are included in the enterprise risk register but without consistent methodology Climate and key sustainability risks are formally included in ERM with consistent scoring methodology Full integration — sustainability risks use the same risk taxonomy, appetite thresholds, and escalation protocols as financial and operational risks Sustainability risks are embedded in ERM with automated monitoring, cross-risk correlation analysis, and board-level risk appetite statements that explicitly cover climate

How effectively do you monitor and manage climate-related physical and transition risks across your value chain?

Q9

No value chain risk assessment — we only consider risks within our own operations Some awareness of supply chain climate risks but no formal assessment or monitoring Key value chain risks mapped (e.g. critical supplier exposure, customer transition risk) with periodic review Systematic value chain risk assessment with supplier engagement, physical risk mapping tools, and transition risk modelling Real-time value chain monitoring with geospatial risk platforms, supplier ESG scoring, and automated exposure reporting across upstream and downstream activities

Section 04

Metrics & Targets

How well does your organisation measure sustainability performance and set targets aligned to ASRS requirements? (AASB S1 para 43–53, AASB S2 para 29–36)

Does your organisation track and disclose metrics that reflect material sustainability-related risks and opportunities (beyond just GHG emissions)?

Q10

No sustainability metrics are tracked or reported A few metrics are tracked (e.g. energy use, waste) but not linked to identified risks/opportunities or ASRS requirements Key metrics identified for each material sustainability topic with defined calculation methodologies Comprehensive metric set aligned to AASB S1/S2 and relevant industry standards (e.g. SASB industry metrics), with year-on-year comparability Fully mature metrics programme with automated data collection, assured data quality, benchmarking against peers, and connectivity to financial KPIs

Has your organisation set quantitative targets for sustainability and climate performance, including interim milestones?

Q11

No targets set — sustainability goals are aspirational statements without measurable commitments High-level targets exist (e.g. "net zero by 2050") but without defined baselines, interim milestones, or clear scope Quantitative targets with base year, scope, and interim milestones defined — though not yet validated by external frameworks Science-based targets (SBTi validated or equivalent) with clear interim milestones, annual progress tracking, and board-level accountability Comprehensive target framework covering emissions, water, waste, biodiversity, and social metrics — with validated pathways, annual recalibration, and transparent progress reporting

How mature is your approach to climate-related remuneration and incentive linkage (AASB S2 requires disclosure of whether and how climate is factored into remuneration)?

Q12

No link between sustainability performance and executive or management remuneration Sustainability is acknowledged in remuneration policy but not tied to specific, measurable outcomes ESG metrics included in short-term incentive (STI) plans for senior management with defined weighting Climate and sustainability KPIs embedded in both STI and LTI for executives, with clear targets and independent verification of outcomes Sustainability incentives cascaded through the organisation — from board to operational management — with transparent disclosure of targets, weightings, and outcomes

Section 05

GHG Emissions Measurement

How capable is your organisation at measuring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions across Scope 1, 2, and 3? (AASB S2 para 29(a), Aus-modified requirements for Scope 3 phase-in)

How mature is your Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions measurement capability?

Q13

We have not calculated Scope 1 or 2 emissions — no data collection or methodology in place Rough estimates exist using spend-based proxies or high-level activity data, but no formal GHG inventory Formal GHG inventory using GHG Protocol and NGER methodology; Scope 1 and 2 calculated annually with documented emission factors Comprehensive Scope 1 and 2 with facility-level granularity, market-based and location-based Scope 2, and annual limited assurance Automated emissions measurement (metered data, IoT sensors), monthly/quarterly reporting cadence, reasonable assurance, and multi-year trend analysis

How prepared are you to measure and report Scope 3 (value chain) emissions — noting ASRS allows phased introduction?

Q14

No Scope 3 work has been started — we have not identified relevant categories or data sources We have identified the most material Scope 3 categories but only have spend-based estimates for a few Scope 3 screening completed across all 15 GHG Protocol categories; top categories calculated with a mix of spend-based and activity-based methods Material Scope 3 categories calculated with supplier-specific or hybrid data where available; data quality improvement roadmap in place Comprehensive Scope 3 with supplier-specific data for top categories, automated data exchange with key suppliers, and limited assurance over material categories

How well do your emissions data collection processes meet the quality and auditability requirements for external assurance?

Q15

Data is collected in spreadsheets with no documentation of sources, assumptions, or emission factors used Basic documentation exists but data trails are incomplete — an auditor would struggle to verify calculations Documented methodology with source references and emission factor databases; data collected centrally with review steps Auditable data management with source documentation, change logs, uncertainty analysis, and successful limited assurance engagement Enterprise-grade GHG data platform with automated source data ingestion, version-controlled emission factors, full audit trail, and pathway to reasonable assurance

Section 06

Climate Scenario Analysis

How well prepared are you to conduct and disclose climate scenario analysis as required by AASB S2? (AASB S2 para 22, Aus-modified guidance on scenario analysis expectations)

Has your organisation conducted climate scenario analysis to assess the resilience of its strategy?

Q16

No scenario analysis has been done — we are unfamiliar with the TCFD/ISSB scenario analysis requirements Aware of the requirement but have not yet selected scenarios or started the analysis Qualitative scenario analysis completed using at least two scenarios (e.g. 1.5°C and 3°C+) with narrative descriptions of impacts Quantitative scenario analysis with financial modelling of physical and transition impacts under multiple scenarios, using recognised frameworks (IEA, NGFS, IPCC) Dynamic scenario modelling integrated into strategic planning — regularly refreshed, stress-tested against emerging data, and used to inform board-level decisions on resilience and adaptation

How well do you understand and can you disclose the financial impacts of different climate scenarios on your assets, operations, and business model?

Q17

No understanding of how different scenarios would impact the business financially General awareness (e.g. "carbon pricing would increase costs") but no quantified impact analysis Key financial exposures estimated under scenarios — e.g. carbon cost impact, asset stranding risk, physical damage exposure for major facilities Detailed financial impact analysis across revenue, costs, capital expenditure, and asset values under each scenario with documented assumptions Scenario financial impacts integrated into long-range planning, impairment testing, and investor communications — with clear linkage to the transition plan and adaptation strategy

Section 07

Data, Systems & Assurance Readiness

How ready are your data infrastructure, reporting systems, and assurance arrangements to meet ASRS disclosure requirements on an ongoing basis?

Do you have systems and tools in place to collect, consolidate, and report sustainability data at the required frequency and granularity?

Q18

Sustainability data is collected manually in spreadsheets with no centralised system Some tools in place (e.g. carbon accounting software) but data collection is still largely manual and disconnected from financial systems Dedicated sustainability reporting platform with automated data feeds for major data streams (energy, waste, water) and annual reporting capability Integrated reporting platform with ERP connectivity (e.g. SAP Sustainability Control Tower, Greenledger, Persefoni), quarterly reporting cadence, and role-based workflows Enterprise-grade sustainability data platform fully integrated with financial reporting, automated regulatory tagging (XBRL/iXBRL), and real-time dashboards for management

How prepared are you for mandatory external assurance of sustainability disclosures (ASRS requires limited assurance initially, moving to reasonable assurance)?

Q19

We have not considered external assurance and have no audit trail for sustainability data Aware of the assurance requirement but not yet engaged an assurance provider or assessed readiness gaps Assurance provider selected and readiness assessment completed — working on closing identified control gaps Successfully completed limited assurance engagement over key sustainability metrics with clean opinion and manageable findings Multiple years of limited assurance with a clear roadmap to reasonable assurance — controls, data quality, and documentation meet financial-grade audit standards

How well does your team understand the ASRS requirements (AASB S1, AASB S2) and the specific Australian modifications and transition reliefs?

Q20

We are not aware of the ASRS requirements or when they apply to our organisation General awareness that mandatory sustainability reporting is coming, but haven't read the standards or assessed applicability Key team members have reviewed AASB S1/S2 and understand the reporting entity thresholds, timelines, and transition reliefs relevant to our organisation Detailed gap analysis completed against AASB S1/S2 requirements with a costed implementation roadmap and project plan Full ASRS implementation programme underway — standards interpreted, policies drafted, dry-run disclosures completed, and team trained across Finance, Sustainability, and Operations

Get Your ASRS Readiness Report

Enter your details below to see your full pillar-by-pillar breakdown with tailored recommendations for ASRS compliance.

First Name

Last Name

Business Email *

Company

Reporting Group

Industry

Please answer all questions and provide a valid email to see your results.

ASRS Readiness Checker

Governance & Oversight

Strategy & Business Integration

Risk Management

Metrics & Targets

GHG Emissions Measurement

Climate Scenario Analysis

Data, Systems & Assurance Readiness

Get Your ASRS Readiness Report

Your ASRS Readiness Report

Pillar Breakdown

Priority Recommendations

Need Help Getting ASRS-Ready?