About GreenScreened

From your documents
to your score

01

What you get

One upload produces a structured AASB S2 readiness assessment for management, directors and assurance review.

AASB S2 Climate Readiness

Who it’s for

Prepared for management, directors and assurance reviewers to identify disclosure evidence and remaining preparation needs. This draft is not a compliance certificate or a lodgement-ready statutory report.

This assessment organises uploaded evidence against AASB S2 requirements across Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, Metrics & Targets, and General Requirements. It measures completeness of the required information, highlights missing evidence and flags matters requiring human judgement. The readiness score is an internal evidence measure, not percentage compliance.

02

How AASB is calculated

AASB S2’s four core pillars (Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics & Targets) plus a fifth section of general reporting requirements break down into 64 individual criteria. Each pillar has its own set of these; your uploaded documents are checked against every one of them, criterion by criterion.

Governance

Which board or committee oversees climate risk, how often it actually considers climate matters, and how management escalates to it.

Strategy

The physical and transition risks identified, the time horizons used, and whether scenario analysis (including a 1.5°C or well-below-2°C case) was actually run rather than just mentioned.

Risk Management

How climate risk is identified and assessed, and whether that process is integrated into the same enterprise risk management used for everything else, rather than run separately.

Metrics & Targets

Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions figures, the methodology and boundary used, and whether any target has a base year, a target year and a stated scope.

General Requirements

Materiality, fair presentation, comparatives and how consistently metrics are reported over time.

What the statuses mean

Present

Every piece of information the criterion requires was found and extracted from the evidence you provided.

Partial

Some, but not all, of the required information was found. This is common when a company discloses that it does something without the specifics the standard actually asks for.

Requires human judgement

Evidence was found, but confirming it actually satisfies the criterion needs a qualified reviewer, not something a checklist can settle on its own.

Missing

None of the required information was found anywhere in the documents provided.

From rating to number

Step 01

Every criterion has its own checklist.

AASB S2 criteria aren't yes/no. Scope 1 emissions, for instance, needs a value, a unit, a reporting period and a boundary, each checked off only when it's backed by evidence extracted from your documents.

Step 02

How much of that checklist is satisfied sets the status.

Present when every required element is backed by evidence, Partial when some are, Missing when none are, Requires human judgement when the evidence exists but needs a reviewer to confirm it's enough.

Step 03

Each status carries a fixed weight.

Complete counts as 1, evidence requiring judgement as 0.75, partial as 0.5, human confirmation as 0.25, and missing as zero. These fixed weights are published in the report methodology.

Step 04

The overall score is the weighted average across every applicable criterion.

Not-applicable criteria are excluded rather than counted as missing, and the score can be capped below what that average implies if something like the reporting period or applicable standard version is still unresolved.

Disclaimer

A Missing status means no supporting evidence was found in the documents provided. It is not proof that the underlying practice does not exist, only that it was not disclosed anywhere we could read it.

03

Privacy & your documents

What actually happens between an upload and a report. Tap any of these for the full explanation.

04

AI policy

Every judgement in a report, including what a passage says, whether it satisfies a criterion, and how confident that reading is, is made by Gemini, not a person. The scoring math on top of that judgement is deterministic; the judgement itself is not independently verified, beyond one mechanical check.

This is AI, not a compliance sign-off

Nothing in a report has been checked by a human reviewer, an auditor, or a lawyer. Treat every finding as a starting point for your own professional review, not as a finished disclosure, an assurance opinion, or advice you can act on directly, especially before anything here is disclosed externally or lodged with a regulator.