Two complementary sub-disclosures within IFRS S2 § 22. § 22(a) requires qualitative assessment of the company’s climate resilience — strategy and business model assessed against a range of climate-related scenarios, with the company’s adaptive capacity documented. § 22(b) requires quantitative scenario analysis of financial impact “to the extent reasonably available” — revenue at risk, operating cost impact, asset impairment, capex requirements, financing cost implications.

The “reasonably available” language in § 22(b) gives companies room — but the threshold for what counts as reasonably available is rising. External assurance providers increasingly challenge claims that quantification is not reasonably available when industry-standard methodologies (NGFS Phase IV, IPCC AR6 SSPs, sector-specific risk frameworks) are publicly available. The defensible position in 2026 is range-based quantification with methodology documented, rather than no quantification at all. § 22(a) is universal; § 22(b) is increasingly expected.

Three reasons. (1) Regulatory alignment — NGFS is the reference scenario set for IFRS S2, TCFD legacy, CDP Climate Change, ECB climate stress testing, Bank of Thailand climate stress testing, Bank of England climate stress testing, and most other central bank and regulatory frameworks. Using NGFS makes the disclosure portable across regulatory and rating-agency consumption.

(2) Methodological rigour — NGFS scenarios are produced by leading climate-economy modelling teams (Potsdam Institute PIK, IIASA, the University of Maryland) with peer-reviewed methodology, IPCC AR6 alignment, and regular methodology updates (Phase I 2020, Phase II 2021, Phase III 2022, Phase IV 2023). The scenarios are accepted across institutional users.

(3) Family structure — the three-family architecture (Orderly / Disorderly / Hot House) gives systematic scenario range coverage. Orderly maps to high transition risk + low physical risk; Hot House maps to the inverse; Disorderly maps to high-on-both. Selecting one scenario from each family — typically Net Zero 2050 + Delayed Transition + Current Policies — gives risk coverage across the full plausible outcome distribution. Other scenario frameworks (IEA WEO, IPCC SSP-direct) can supplement but rarely substitute.

IFRS S2 § 22 requires disclosure under “a range of climate-related scenarios” — without specifying a number. Industry practice converges on 2–3 scenarios, with most SET-listed companies that have published quantitative scenario analysis using either: 2 scenarios (typically Net Zero 2050 + Current Policies, the orderly transition vs hot house physical extremes), or 3 scenarios (Net Zero 2050 + Delayed Transition + Current Policies, adding the disorderly stress test in the middle).

Adding more scenarios (4+) is uncommon for non-financial sector companies — each scenario requires its own quantification work, which substantially scales engagement cost without proportional disclosure benefit. The exception is financial sector companies doing portfolio-level scenario analysis under SBTi Financial Sector Standard or PCAF-aligned methodology, where 4–5 scenarios may be needed to cover counterparty heterogeneity. Othello’s Standard Tier uses 2–3 scenarios by default with the selection documented for disclosure defensibility.

IFRS S2 § 10 requires the company to define short, medium, and long term time horizons appropriate to its planning cycle, with the rationale documented. The standard does not prescribe specific year ranges. Industry practice converges on 0–5 / 5–15 / 15–30+ years — but specific year boundaries vary by sector. Real estate and infrastructure companies often use longer long-term horizons (40+ years). Financial services often use shorter horizons aligned to underwriting cycles. Manufacturing and consumer goods typically use 5 / 15 / 30 boundaries.

The substantive choice is where the strategic planning horizon ends and the strategic positioning horizon begins. Short term is typically the budget + 5-year strategic plan window where quantification certainty is highest. Medium term is the capex cycle window where transition risk crystallises most concretely. Long term is the strategic positioning window where chronic physical impacts cumulate and stranded asset scenarios become material. Othello documents the horizon definitions in the Scenario Selection Memo for IFRS S2 § 10 + § 22 cross-reference.

The phrase “to the extent reasonably available” in § 22(b) is one of the most-litigated phrases in early IFRS S2 implementation. The standard’s intent is to allow companies time to develop quantification capability while requiring genuine effort — not to provide a permanent opt-out from quantification.

กระบวนการรับรองนิติกรณ์เอกสารของ current practical interpretation developed by IFRS Foundation guidance, external assurance practice, and rating-agency challenge: (1) industry-standard methodology is reasonably available if the methodology is publicly documented (NGFS scenarios, IPCC AR6 SSPs, GHG Protocol Scope 3 quantification); (2) range-based quantification is reasonably available even where point estimates aren’t — disclosing “revenue at risk USD 50–150 million under Delayed Transition scenario by 2035” is reasonably available, even if precise modelling isn’t; (3) directional quantification is reasonably available for risks where range modelling isn’t yet possible — “material” / “potentially significant” / “not material” tagged per risk × scenario × horizon. The Quantification Workbook deliverable provides whichever level applies per risk, with methodology documentation. Pure “not reasonably available” claims with no methodology effort are increasingly challenged.

The two services are complementary inputs into IFRS S2 climate disclosure. Net-Zero Pathway develops the company’s own decarbonisation trajectory — the response to transition risk. Scenario Analysis assesses the company’s resilience under a range of external climate scenarios — the exposure to physical + transition risk.

The pathway answers “what is the company doing about its emissions”; the scenario analysis answers “what happens to the company under different climate futures”. Both are required for complete § 22 disclosure: § 14 transition plan disclosure draws from the pathway; § 22(a)(b) resilience disclosure draws from the scenario analysis. They share methodology layers (trajectory mathematics, climate science inputs, internal carbon prices) — engagements that bundle both services benefit from substantial methodology reuse. Where both are scoped together (multi-engagement discount applies), the combined output produces the full § 14 + § 22 climate disclosure backbone in coordinated workflow.

Thai SET-listed company physical risk exposure has several distinctive features. Bangkok subsidence — Bangkok is sinking 1–2 cm per year due to groundwater extraction, compounding sea level rise impact on the capital region. 2011-flood corporate memory — the Thai floods of October–December 2011 caused USD ~45 billion in damages (Bank of Thailand estimate), shutting down major industrial estates including Rojana, Hi-Tech, Bang Pa-In; this is the dominant flood-risk reference event for Thai corporate scenario analysis. Eastern Seaboard industrial concentration — Map Ta Phut, Laem Chabang, Pluak Daeng concentrate substantial petrochemical, automotive, and electronics capacity in coastal-proximate locations with hazard exposure. Agricultural water stress — Central Thailand drought stress affects rice, sugarcane, cassava supply chains.

The Thai physical risk module in Tier 03 Deep engagements includes: geolocated asset mapping against Thai DDPM flood hazard data, Bangkok subsidence trajectory overlay, 2011-flood-equivalent stress scenario for industrial estate-exposed operations, TGO climate change indicator alignmentและ Bank of Thailand climate stress testing methodology compatibility for bank counterparty reporting requirements.

Scenario analysis quality is one of the most concentrated scoring drivers across rating-agency methodologies for the 2025+ scoring cycles. CDP Climate Change C3 — the entire C3 questionnaire section weights scenario analysis depth and quality. Generic narrative responses score poorly; quantified responses with documented methodology score well. FTSE Russell Climate Change theme — explicit indicators for scenario analysis depth, quantification presence, and time horizon coverage.

MSCI ESG Climate Risk — methodology weights physical + transition risk quantification per company-disclosed scenario analysis where available, supplemented by MSCI’s own modelling where not. Disclosed scenario analysis provides MSCI with the company’s view alongside MSCI’s. S&P CSA / DJSI Climate Risk Quantification — questionnaire section explicitly tests scenario analysis methodology and quantification. Sustainalytics Climate Risk Exposure — uses company-disclosed scenario analysis as the primary input, supplemented by sector-default modelling where not. Across all five major rating agencies, scenario analysis is one of the highest-leverage scoring sections for companies entering 2026 disclosure with strong scenario methodology.

Yes. Othello responds to formal procurement processes for climate scenario analysis engagements from SET-listed corporates, prospective listing applicants, post-M&A integration teams, sustainable finance issuers, financial sector firms under Bank of Thailand climate stress testing, hard-to-abate sector companies, and procurement teams scoping larger ESG advisory engagements. Standard procurement requirements are met: ISO 17100:2015 certification, in-house IFRS Foundation S2 certified specialist for § 22(a)(b) disclosure alignment, in-house ISO 14064 Lead Auditor (CQI/IRCA accredited) for quantification methodology to ISO 14064-2 project-level rigour, in-house AA1000AS ACSAP for assurance-readiness, in-house TGO CFO + CFP Auditor for Thai national reconciliation, NGFS Phase IV scenario methodology, IPCC AR6 SSP physical risk methodology, GDPR + PDPA compliance, mutual NDA from first email, and SET-listed engagement references available under mutual NDA at procurement stage.

Standard RFP response is 3–5 วันทำการ. RFP response covers: methodology approach (6-phase Othello workflow from scenario selection to disclosure pack), NGFS Phase IV scenario set selection rationale, IPCC AR6 SSP mapping for physical risk modules, tier recommendation per scenario, in-house bench credentials, capacity allocation, pricing structure (fixed engagement fee + optional annual maintenance retainer), engagement timeline with IFRS S2 disclosure cycle alignment, integration approach with IFRS S2 § 14 transition plan + § 22 resilience, and sample quantification excerpt (anonymised). Quote response on engagement scoping is within one business hour of receipt of source files and signed NDA.