GN broadly aligns time horizons for ESG-related risk assessment with that of the Corporate Risk Management (CRM) process, which apply a 1-to-3-year horizon (0 to 1 years for short-term and 2 to 3 years for medium-term). While our short-term time horizon is aligned with that of the ESRS-defined time horizons, the medium- and long-term time horizons deviate slightly. The main reason for this is to align with the existing CRM process. In the context of both climate-related physical and transition risks, the 1-to-3-year horizon is part of the CRM process, whereas longer term climate-related risks are considered only as part of the double materiality process, as well as in conjunction with the scenario analysis, where we have defined a 10-30 year long-term time horizon. From the scenario analysis, we assessed GN’s exposure to climate-related hazards and transition events in our own operations and across the value chain.

Physical and transition risks We applied different climate scenario analysis over the short, medium and long term to identify and assess climate-related acute and chronic physical risks, such as extreme weather events, heat and water stress and sea level rise, as well as transition risks, such as carbon pricing, regulatory change, changing customer behavior, and availability of materials. For climate-related physical risks, geolocations data for our facilities and those of our suppliers was used to assess relevant risks. A high-level qualitative assessment was carried out using the RCP8.5, IEA Net-Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE) and IEA STEPS scenarios. The RCP8.5 scenario gives us the likely upper end of risk exposure of the business to climate-related hazards in the future. Here, the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 3 was chosen to reflect recent trends in international affairs. The IEA’s new Net Zero Roadmap report and IEA’s NZE and STEPS scenario were applied to identify and assess climate-related transition risks and opportunities that GN may face in the future if the world pursues a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 or if climate action is less aggressive and policymaking is assumed to remain as today.

Risks and opportunities have been assessed by looking at our impacts in terms of financial loss or gain and reputational damage or gain. The assessment used our product life cycle assessments (LCA), corporate GHG accounting and publicly available tools, such as the WWF Water Risk Filter and climate impact projections from IPCC AR6. We also looked at historical incidence of extreme weather events and consequent disruption in own operations and supply chain as well as cost variability, and expected changes to, for example, carbon taxes placed on GN goods. Physical and transition risks We applied different climate scenario analysis over the short, medium and long term to identify and assess climate-related acute and chronic physical risks, such as extreme weather events, heat and water stress and sea level rise, as well as transition risks, such as carbon pricing, regulatory change, changing customer behavior, and availability of materials. For climate-related physical risks, geolocations data for our facilities and those of our suppliers was used to assess relevant risks. A high-level qualitative assessment was carried out using the RCP8.5, IEA Net-Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE) and IEA STEPS scenarios. The RCP8.5 scenario gives us the likely upper end of risk exposure of the business to climate-related hazards in the future. Here, the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 3 was chosen to reflect recent trends in international affairs. The IEA’s new Net Zero Roadmap report and IEA’s NZE and STEPS scenario were applied to identify and assess climate-related transition risks and opportunities that GN may face in the future if the world pursues a path to net-zero emissions by 2050 or if climate action is less aggressive and policymaking is assumed to remain as today.

GN’s Environmental Policy addresses our pollution-related negative impact in terms of substances used during both production in our own operations and outsourced manufacturing. Our policy commitments include compliance with all pollution-related legislation related to the use of substances of concern and very high concern, such as REACH and RoHS, and the substitution of substances with less harmful alternatives that can fulfill the same purpose, even when not legally required. This policy is supported by internal procedures on controlling and limiting the impact of incidents and emergency situations. Our Supplier Code of Conduct covers supplier requirements in terms of pollution, specifically addressing our negative impacts relating to our value chain. Through this, we expect suppliers to comply with all pollution-related legislation and proactively minimize or eliminate emissions and discharges of pollution, which can have a potential negative impact on the pollution of water, soil and food.

GN’s Environmental Policy includes commitments to substitute or reduce the use of hazardous substances in our own operations and value chain wherever possible. Current and planned actions are undertaken within the parameters of our existing product development programs, financial planning, and business model. For products for which we depend on outsourced manufacturing, the focus is on phasing out halogens, specifically bromine, choline, and fluorine. For Jabra products, requirements for suppliers and verification compliance through in-house testing are set. The phase-out of bromine and chlorine is expected in 2025, and fluorine by 2026 for the same parts.

GN’s Environmental Policy is supported by internal procedures on controlling and limiting the impact of incidents and emergency situations. The implementation of these policy commitments is managed by senior management functions in our quality and legal functions. In support of achieving our policy intentions, we continuously evaluate and test performance to ensure compliance with legal requirements.

GN’s Environmental Policy addresses our pollution-related negative impact in terms of substances used during both production in our own operations and outsourced manufacturing. Our policy commitments include compliance with all pollution-related legislation related to the use of substances of concern and very high concern, such as REACH and RoHS, and the substitution of substances with less harmful alternatives that can fulfill the same purpose, even when not legally required. This policy is supported by internal procedures on controlling and limiting the impact of incidents and emergency situations. Our Supplier Code of Conduct covers supplier requirements in terms of pollution, specifically addressing our negative impacts relating to our value chain. Through this, we expect suppliers to comply with all pollution-related legislation and proactively minimize or eliminate emissions and discharges of pollution, which can have a potential negative impact on the pollution of water, soil and food.

Pollution of air, water, and soil is allocated to both own operations and value chain (VC).

GN has identified two negative impacts related to pollution: 1) The use of substances of concern during production processes within own operations, affecting human health and ecosystems. 2) The release of harmful substances during raw material extraction and transportation in the upstream value chain, polluting water, soil, and food. Actions include substituting hazardous substances, auditing suppliers for compliance, and phasing out specific substances in outsourced manufacturing.

Pollution of air, water, and soil is allocated to both own operations and value chain (VC).