Overview of substances of very high concern

Overview of substances of very high concern

Overview of substances of very high concern

Overview of substances of very high concern

Overview of substances of very high concern

In 2023, we commenced our double materiality process, in accordance with the process set out in ESRS 1, which covers general requirements for reporting in accordance with CSRD. We mapped our value chain and identified the industries on which we depend across our value chain. Next, we identified impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs) across our full value chain for all ESG sub-topics and sub-sub-topics contained in Appendix A of ESRS 1. To assess the materiality of different IROs and topics, we developed a scoring key from 0-5 for both impact and risk materiality and set a materiality threshold at 2 or above for materiality and 3 or above for highly material topics, where 2 represented low scale, concentrated scope, remediable with some effort and a low likelihood, while a 3 represented medium across the same variables. Through this process we assessed 31% of topics to be highly material and 21% of topics to be material for our own operations, and 45% of topics to be highly material and 35% of topics to be materials for our value chain. In 2024, we finalized our double materiality process through the following steps: We made updates to IROs and scoring based on further inputs from stakeholders and additional guidance from EFRAG. We set the reporting threshold at 3 or higher to focus reporting on the most material topics. We then mapped disclosure requirements and data points against material IROs to determine the contents of this Sustainability Statement, taking into account the specificity of IROs where needed to scope out data points where the IROs are limited to for example specific parts of our value chain, employee groups, or geographies. We applied three analytical approaches in our double materiality process: Desk research: we consulted 40 reports from NGOs, governments, and key suppliers. Internal workshops: we held five internal workshops with 27 subject matter experts. External stakeholder interviews: we interviewed eight external stakeholders, constituting both readers of the report and impacted stakeholders. We selected external stakeholders based on the areas where we lacked visibility through our existing stakeholder engagement mechanisms: pollution, resource outflows, and human rights impacts far down our supply chain. We assumed our impacts and risks to be similar to industry averages in cases where we lacked clear data or were unable to allocate impacts prevalent to GN in our value chain. Our double materiality assessment was subject to ongoing review by senior management. It was formally approved by the Audit Committee in August 2024. Identification and assessment of impacts In scoring impacts, we gave equal weight to the three factors constituting severity combined (scale, scope, and irremediable character), and likelihood, prioritizing negative impacts based on their relative severity and likelihood.

In 2023, we commenced our double materiality process, in accordance with the process set out in ESRS 1, which covers general requirements for reporting in accordance with CSRD. We mapped our value chain and identified the industries on which we depend across our value chain. Next, we identified impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs) across our full value chain for all ESG sub-topics and sub-sub-topics contained in Appendix A of ESRS 1. To assess the materiality of different IROs and topics, we developed a scoring key from 0-5 for both impact and risk materiality and set a materiality threshold at 2 or above for materiality and 3 or above for highly material topics, where 2 represented low scale, concentrated scope, remediable with some effort and a low likelihood, while a 3 represented medium across the same variables. Through this process we assessed 31% of topics to be highly material and 21% of topics to be material for our own operations, and 45% of topics to be highly material and 35% of topics to be materials for our value chain. In 2024, we finalized our double materiality process through the following steps: We made updates to IROs and scoring based on further inputs from stakeholders and additional guidance from EFRAG. We set the reporting threshold at 3 or higher to focus reporting on the most material topics. We then mapped disclosure requirements and data points against material IROs to determine the contents of this Sustainability Statement, taking into account the specificity of IROs where needed to scope out data points where the IROs are limited to for example specific parts of our value chain, employee groups, or geographies. We applied three analytical approaches in our double materiality process: Desk research: we consulted 40 reports from NGOs, governments, and key suppliers. Internal workshops: we held five internal workshops with 27 subject matter experts. External stakeholder interviews: we interviewed eight external stakeholders, constituting both readers of the report and impacted stakeholders. We selected external stakeholders based on the areas where we lacked visibility through our existing stakeholder engagement mechanisms: pollution, resource outflows, and human rights impacts far down our supply chain. We assumed our impacts and risks to be similar to industry averages in cases where we lacked clear data or were unable to allocate impacts prevalent to GN in our value chain. Our double materiality assessment was subject to ongoing review by senior management. It was formally approved by the Audit Committee in August 2024. Identification and assessment of impacts In scoring impacts, we gave equal weight to the three factors constituting severity combined (scale, scope, and irremediable character), and likelihood, prioritizing negative impacts based on their relative severity and likelihood.

To assess the materiality of IROs in terms of financial risks or opportunities, we used the same prioritization in terms of value chain industries and economic activities in our own operations as impact scoring. We used our existing enterprise risk management mechanism to score risks on a 0-5 scale, meaning we gave equal weight to likelihood and two factors constituting magnitude combined: revenue impact and reputational risk. For revenue impact, we used the same thresholds as for other risks to score risks between minor and critical, thereby giving equal weight to sustainability-related risks as to other risks. Our double materiality process is aligned with our enterprise risk management and overall business strategy processes, as we use the insights gathered in the double materiality assessment to improve our assessment of the relative financial risk materiality of ESG topics to inform business decisions related to risk mitigation in accordance with the overall enterprise risk management process. For opportunities, we apply the same process where instead of financial risk we assess the relative financial upside.

Our Environmental Policy, covering GN’s approach to all material environmental topics across our own operations and value chain, includes a section on resource inflows, stating that our commitment to reducing resource inflows by optimizing for efficient resource use in the design of our product and avoiding unnecessary production waste. Where this is technically and operationally feasible, we are committed to introducing recycled or renewable alternatives for materials used in our products. For biological or renewable materials, such as paper and cardboard used in our packaging, we strive to source these materials sustainably to ensure this does not lead to deforestation. The provenance of the materials we use is pivotal to the impact of our value chain, which is why we source materials with credible third-party certifications, such as FSC, ISCC Plus and Global Recycling Standard.

Our Environmental Policy, covering GN’s approach to all material environmental topics across our own operations and value chain, includes a section on resource inflows, stating that our commitment to reducing resource inflows by optimizing for efficient resource use in the design of our product and avoiding unnecessary production waste. Where this is technically and operationally feasible, we are committed to introducing recycled or renewable alternatives for materials used in our products. For biological or renewable materials, such as paper and cardboard used in our packaging, we strive to source these materials sustainably to ensure this does not lead to deforestation. The provenance of the materials we use is pivotal to the impact of our value chain, which is why we source materials with credible third-party certifications, such as FSC, ISCC Plus and Global Recycling Standard.