The organization maintains continuous dialogue with stakeholders to understand their requirements and work in partnership to strengthen the business and societies. Key stakeholders include customers, employees, investors, regulatory authorities, suppliers, and industry and ESG associations. Customer engagement is proactive and includes direct dialogues, customer councils, and surveys. Employee engagement occurs through biannual dialogues, surveys, and employee groups, with representation in the Board of Directors. Investors are engaged through open dialogue, announcements, press releases, and roadshows. Regulatory authorities are engaged to ensure compliance with ESG legislation, and suppliers are engaged through regular business processes and compliance tools. Industry and ESG associations are engaged for joint standards and policy positions.

The purpose of stakeholder engagement activities is to ensure understanding of stakeholder requirements and to work in partnership to strengthen the business and societies. For customers, the purpose is to understand needs and integrate their views into strategy and product design, supporting their ESG objectives. For employees, the purpose is to ensure well-being and maintain a diverse, engaged workforce, integrating their views into strategy development and decision-making. For investors, the purpose is to provide timely information to ensure fair pricing of shares and to maintain proactive communication on ESG topics. For regulatory authorities, the purpose is to ensure compliance with ESG legislation and understand implications of specific legislation. For suppliers, the purpose is to ensure compliance with standards and to achieve joint business and ESG objectives. For industry and ESG associations, the purpose is to demonstrate commitment to jointly developed standards and policy positions.

The outcomes of stakeholder engagements are integrated into the company's decision-making and operational strategies by incorporating customer views into strategy development and product design, integrating employee views into strategy development, policy creations, and decision-making, and ensuring investor requirements are met through proactive communication. Employee feedback is used for strategy development and policy adjustments. Customer feedback is used to support ESG objectives and assess potential impacts and risks. Investor feedback ensures fair pricing of shares and proactive communication on ESG topics. Regulatory feedback ensures compliance with ESG legislation. Supplier feedback ensures compliance with standards and joint business objectives. Industry feedback demonstrates commitment to standards and policy positions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As described in its charter, the Board of Directors’ Audit Committee holds overall responsibility for overseeing the management of ESG-related impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs), reporting into the Board for related decision-making. Impacts cover areas where GN has a material impact on people or the environment, risks cover areas where ESG issues pose a material financial risk to GN, and opportunities cover areas where ESG issues present a material financial opportunity to GN. ESG is a quarterly recurring agenda topic in the Audit Committee. To ensure oversight of governance issues, business conduct cases reported through GN’s whistleblower hotline, as well as any other governance-related topic that requires Board oversight, are also presented to the Audit Committee on a quarterly basis. As part of the review and approval of GN’s double materiality assessment (see pages 49-51), in the reporting year, the Audit Committee was informed about all identified material IROs as part of approving their materiality, as well as the approach to implementation of due diligence, and results and effectiveness of policies, actions, metrics, and targets that form the basis of the reporting scope of this report. Aside from overseeing the identification of material IROs as part of compliance with reporting requirements, the Board also oversees the implementation of managing material IROs where these have an impact on the company strategy or relate to matters of risk and compliance.

Our double materiality assessment identified 29 material IROs across seven topical standards. Our IROs consist of 21 impacts and 6 risks, as well as 2 additional IROs with both an impact and a risk attached. The IROs are spread across 19 ESG topics depicted in the infographic on the next page (see topical chapters for information on IROs per ESG topic). All IROs are covered by ESRS disclosure requirements, except for the positive impact related to helping people with hearing loss, which is entity specific. As this is our first year reporting based on IROs, there are no changes compared to previous reporting periods. Overall, like any other risk, our risks are integrated in our strategy and business model through enterprise risk management processes, whereas managing our impacts is anchored in compliance with relevant legislation, as well as integration of additional policies, actions, and targets of our strategy and our business model where managing the impact requires additional efforts.