Climate Disclosure Readiness: Moving From Awareness to Operational Reality
Climate-related financial disclosure in Australia has entered a decisive new phase. By October 2025, most medium and large organisations are no longer debating whether climate reporting will apply to them. The real question has become whether their organisation is genuinely prepared to deliver climate disclosures that are credible, defensible and decision-useful under increasing regulatory and stakeholder scrutiny.
Over the past two years, climate disclosure has largely been approached as a future compliance obligation. Organisations have invested time in understanding emerging requirements, attending briefings and developing high-level readiness assessments. That awareness phase is now largely complete. What is becoming clear is that climate disclosure readiness is not a reporting exercise alone. It is an operational transformation that touches governance, risk management, strategy, data systems and internal controls.
For Boards, Executives and sustainability leaders, October 2025 marks the point where intent must translate into capability.
Why the regulatory context now demands execution, not planning
Australia’s sustainability reporting framework has fundamentally shifted following the introduction of mandatory climate-related financial disclosures aligned with international standards. The Australian Accounting Standards Board has issued AASB S2 Climate-related Financial Disclosures, aligned with IFRS S2 developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). These standards build on the structure of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) but move climate reporting from voluntary guidance into mandatory, auditable disclosure.
Under AASB S2, organisations are required to disclose climate-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital across the short, medium and long term. This includes disclosures across four core pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets, including greenhouse gas emissions.
Crucially, these disclosures are intended to sit alongside general purpose financial statements. They are not sustainability communications or marketing narratives. They form part of the financial reporting ecosystem and will increasingly be subject to regulatory oversight and assurance expectations. Further detail on the structure and intent of IFRS S2 is available via the ISSB website (https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/).
For organisations operating in asset-intensive, regulated and publicly scrutinised sectors such as mining, construction and government-linked services, this shift materially raises the bar.
Climate governance: from nominal oversight to executive accountability
One of the most consistent implementation gaps emerging in October relates to climate governance. AASB S2 requires organisations to disclose the governance processes, controls and procedures used to monitor and manage climate-related risks and opportunities. On paper, many organisations appear well positioned. Climate is frequently referenced at Board level, included in committee charters and discussed in executive forums.
In practice, however, governance arrangements often lack clarity and authority.
A common issue is that climate responsibility is broadly allocated without clearly defined decision rights. Boards may receive climate updates, but it is often unclear who is accountable for approving transition plans, endorsing scenario assumptions or resolving trade-offs between climate risk mitigation and short-term financial performance. In some organisations, climate oversight remains largely with sustainability teams that lack direct influence over capital allocation or strategic planning.
For Boards and Managing Directors, this creates a governance risk. Under AASB S2, governance disclosures are not satisfied by describing structures alone. Organisations must explain how climate-related information is used in oversight and decision-making. Regulators and assurance providers are increasingly focused on whether governance arrangements are effective, not merely documented.
This expectation aligns with longstanding guidance from ASIC, which has repeatedly stated that climate risk represents a foreseeable financial risk that directors must consider as part of their duties of care and diligence (https://asic.gov.au). October has reinforced that organisations with unclear climate accountability are likely to face increasing scrutiny as mandatory reporting approaches.
Data readiness remains the primary constraint on credible disclosure
Across industries, data readiness continues to be the most significant barrier to effective climate disclosure. AASB S2 requires disclosure of Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions, and Scope 3 emissions where material, along with transparency around methodologies, assumptions and estimates.
Many organisations are discovering that their emissions data is fragmented, manually collected and poorly controlled. Data is often sourced from multiple sites, contractors or legacy systems, with limited standardisation or documentation. In some cases, emissions calculations rely heavily on spreadsheets that have evolved over time without formal review or validation processes.
For Executives and sustainability leaders, this creates three material challenges.
First, weak data foundations undermine consistency and comparability over time. Changes in emissions factors, organisational boundaries or methodologies can materially affect reported outcomes, making it difficult to demonstrate progress or explain year-on-year movements.
Second, data weaknesses increase assurance risk. As climate disclosures move toward external assurance, organisations will need to demonstrate how data is collected, reviewed, approved and retained. Manual processes without clear ownership or audit trails are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.
Third, poor data quality limits strategic value. When leadership lacks confidence in emissions data, it becomes difficult to prioritise abatement initiatives, assess transition risk or inform investment decisions.
While AASB S2 recognises that data maturity will evolve, it also requires transparency around limitations. Transparency alone, however, does not remove the need for fit-for-purpose systems. October has shown that organisations delaying investment in climate data infrastructure are accumulating risk that will become increasingly difficult to manage.
Get support with system and data management planning.
Scenario analysis: accepted in principle, underutilised in strategy
Climate scenario analysis remains one of the least well-understood components of AASB S2. The standard requires organisations to disclose how resilient their strategy is to climate-related changes, using scenario analysis where appropriate.
Most organisations now acknowledge this requirement. Far fewer have embedded scenario analysis into strategic decision-making.
In practice, scenario analysis is often treated as a technical modelling exercise delivered as a standalone report. While these exercises can provide useful insight, they frequently remain disconnected from core business planning, capital allocation and risk appetite discussions. Scenarios may be disclosed, but they do not meaningfully influence decisions.
This undermines the intent of AASB S2 and earlier TCFD guidance (https://www.fsb-tcfd.org). Scenario analysis is not about predicting the future with precision. It is about exploring uncertainty and testing the resilience of business models under different plausible futures.
For organisations in capital-intensive sectors, this is particularly important. Transition scenarios may affect asset lifecycles, project viability or customer demand. Physical risk scenarios may influence site selection, insurance costs or operational continuity. When scenario analysis is integrated into planning cycles, it becomes a strategic asset rather than a compliance output.
The most effective approaches observed in October are fit-for-purpose, decision-focused and proportionate, rather than overly complex models that sit outside management processes.
Integrating climate risk into enterprise risk management
Another recurring theme is the ongoing separation between climate risk and enterprise risk management. While climate change is often identified as a material risk, it is frequently assessed in parallel to, rather than within, existing risk frameworks.
AASB S2 requires disclosure of how climate-related risks are identified, assessed and managed, and how these processes are integrated into overall risk management. This integration is critical. Treating climate risk as a standalone sustainability issue increases the likelihood that it will be deprioritised or inconsistently managed.
For Boards and Executives, integrating climate risk into enterprise risk management supports clearer oversight, more consistent risk prioritisation and better-informed decision-making. Organisations making progress in this area are aligning climate risks with existing risk categories, thresholds and reporting mechanisms, rather than creating separate processes.
Transition planning: moving beyond ambition to credibility
Transition planning remains an area where ambition often outpaces execution. AASB S2 requires organisations to disclose transition plans where they exist, including how strategies and business models will adapt in response to climate-related risks and opportunities.
October has highlighted growing scrutiny of whether transition plans are credible, costed and operationally realistic. High-level commitments without clear interim targets, governance oversight or integration into business planning are increasingly viewed as insufficient.
For Managing Directors and project leaders, this has direct commercial implications. Transition plans increasingly intersect with capital allocation, asset management and project approvals. Plans that are disconnected from financial and operational realities risk being challenged by investors, regulators and delivery teams alike.
Organisations demonstrating stronger maturity are treating transition planning as an iterative, embedded process, informed by scenario analysis and aligned with strategic planning cycles.
Climate disclosure readiness is an organisational transformation
One of the clearest insights from October is that climate disclosure readiness should be understood as an organisational transformation, not a reporting task. Implementing AASB S2 requires coordination across finance, sustainability, risk, operations and governance functions.
Organisations that approach climate disclosure as a narrow compliance exercise often underestimate the scale of change required and struggle to deliver coherent outcomes. Those that recognise the broader implications are better positioned to build capability that supports both compliance and long-term value creation.
Get support with climate disclosure and reporting.
What this means for leadership teams
For Boards, Executives and sustainability leaders, climate disclosure is no longer about signalling intent. It is about demonstrating organisational capability under increasing regulatory and stakeholder scrutiny.
October 2025 has marked the transition from awareness to execution. Organisations that invest now in governance clarity, data maturity and strategic integration will be better positioned to meet mandatory reporting requirements and respond to future scrutiny. Those that delay may find themselves reacting under pressure, with limited ability to shape their climate narrative.
Climate disclosure has moved beyond aspiration. It is now a test of governance, discipline and decision-making.