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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 double materiality assessment was subject to ongoing review by senior management. It was formally approved by the Audit Committee in August 2024. 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.

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 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.

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.