Glossary›Measurement and governance / Governance, board and directors›Climate governance framework
Glossary term
Cluster E · E4
Tier 2
Climate governance framework
Definition
A climate governance framework is the documented structure setting out who is responsible for climate-related risk at board, committee and management level, what each body decides, how information moves upward and how often. It is the architecture behind the AASB S2 governance disclosures and the evidence base an assurance provider tests those disclosures against.
· paragraph 6 · practice artefact supporting a disclosure requirement
On this page
In practice
No standard requires a document called a climate governance framework. AASB S2 paragraph 6 requires disclosure about governance body oversight and management’s role, and the framework is simply the artefact that makes those disclosures evidenceable in one place rather than assembled from fragments each year.
The version that works is short and specific. A framework that runs to twenty pages of principles is a compliance artefact; one that runs to three pages and names people is a working document.
Four components carry the weight.
Component
What it must contain
A responsibility map
Every body and role with a climate responsibility, and what each one actually decides. Board approves the report and the targets. Audit and risk committee challenges the numbers, the judgements and the control environment. CFO owns the disclosure. A named manager owns the data. The test of this section is whether a reader can identify who would be at fault if a figure were wrong.
An information flow and calendar
What goes to which body, when. This is the item that directly supports the 6(a)(iii) disclosure of how and how often the governance body is informed, and it is the one that most reliably fails in year one because nothing was scheduled.
A decision rights schedule
Which judgements require which approval. Boundary approach, factor set, materiality thresholds for Scope 3 screening, estimation methods, restatements. Setting approval levels before the judgements arise is the same discipline as writing a recalculation policy before a recalculation is needed, and it earns the same credibility.
A skills and capability statement
What competence exists, what is being developed, and how it was assessed. This supports 6(a)(ii) and it is frequently the only thing standing between a disclosure and an unsupported assertion.
For a private Australian business the framework should be built to match reality and then reality nudged upward, not the reverse. A framework describing quarterly deep-dive sessions that never happen is worse than one describing two meetings a year that do, because the disclosure derived from it will be contradicted by the minutes.
The framework also does work that has nothing to do with compliance. First-year climate reporting is usually carried by one or two people, and the framework is what survives their departure. An entity whose emissions process exists only in an analyst’s head has a continuity risk that will eventually present as a restatement.
What the assurer does with it
The assurer does not test the framework as a document. They test the disclosures, and a good framework simply means every test resolves quickly because the evidence is where the framework says it is.
Where a framework exists they use it as an index: it tells them which charter, which calendar, which minutes and which delegation to request. Where one does not, they assemble the same evidence from constitutional documents, minutes and inquiry, which takes longer and produces more queries for the same result.
They accept a framework that matches the charters, the minutes and the disclosure. They reject a framework that describes a structure the minutes do not evidence, a framework approved after the reporting period and presented as governing it, and any framework whose responsibility map conflicts with the delegations register: a conflict there means one of the two documents is not being followed and the assurer will want to know which.
Commonly confused with
The risk management framework, which covers how climate risks are identified, assessed and managed and feeds the separate AASB S2 risk management disclosures. The governance framework covers who oversees; the risk framework covers how risk is handled. Entities with a mature enterprise risk framework frequently assume it covers governance disclosure, and it usually does not name the bodies or the information flow at the level paragraph 6 requires.
Sources
1
2
ASSA 5010 Timeline for Audits and Reviews of Information in Sustainability Reports under the Corporations Act 2001
AUASB
Review status
Review required
Last reviewed
15 September 2026
Editorial pass, unsigned
Reviewer required
Company secretary or governance practitioner
Next scheduled review
1 July 2027
Part of
Cluster E, Measurement and governance / Governance, board and directors
10 terms on what the board must be able to evidence, what personal exposure directors carry, and how the audit and risk committee engages with the assurer. Governance disclosures sit inside the year-one assurance scope.
Related terms
The paragraph 6(a) disclosure the framework exists to evidence
The paragraph 6(b) roles the responsibility map has to name
The body whose charter and minutes the framework indexes
Related questions
What governance evidence does the assurance provider look for?
−
Evidence that the governance you described actually happened: board and committee minutes and papers showing climate was considered, terms of reference allocating oversight, the delegation to management, and dated records of the decisions you disclose. Governance disclosures are assured from year one, so the paper trail matters immediately.
How do we prepare for assurance without a sustainability team?
+
You need three things and only one has to sit inside your business: someone to retrieve data from your own systems, someone who knows what evidence the assurance standard requires, and a governance record. The first is a retrieval task for finance, the second can be bought, and the third is a discipline rather than a headcount. A first-year filing is a defined project, which is why a permanent hire is usually the wrong first move.
What will our audit and risk committee ask us?
+
The same questions they ask about the financial report, applied to information the committee has never seen before. Expect them on capture and scope, where each number comes from and what controls sit over it, the significant judgements and materiality, who your assurance provider is and whether they are independent of the preparer, and what liability protection applies and until when. It works as a self-test: anything you cannot answer today is a work item.
Other terms in this cluster
Climate governance framework