To meet our Scope 1 and 2 target of 80% reduction in emissions by 2030, we focus on:

• Renewable energy: We plan to continue sourcing renewable energy for our HQ and key production sites. We expect to source renewable energy for additional sites in 2025, further reducing market-based Scope 2 emissions.
• Energy efficiency: We expect to save approximately 140 tCO2eq in location-based Scope 2 emissions per year from the implemented energy efficiency initiatives.
• Fleet electrification: Reducing the number of fossil fuel cars in our fleet will lead to an increasing annual reduction of our Scope 1 emissions, the majority of which come from car fuels.

To meet our Scope 3 target of 25% reduction in emissions by 2030, we prioritize:

• Product and packaging design: We have increased the use of lower carbon materials in new product development, particularly in the Enterprise division. From having used less than 1% recycled or renewable plastic in our products in 2021, we have increased the proportion of recycled or renewable plastics and synthetic fibers out of total weight of plastic and synthetic fibers to 11.4% across our product portfolio in 2024.
• Decarbonization of transport and logistics: Reducing air freight is a significant decarbonization lever for GN. In 2024, we reduced the share of air freight (by tonkm) from the global to regional distribution hubs in our Enterprise division from 94% in 2021 to 22%, which was the main driver for the absolute reduction of 50,313 tCO2eq in Scope 3 category 4 (14% of total Scope 3 emissions in 2021).
• Renewable energy in the supply chain: To reduce emissions from outsourced manufacturing we track our suppliers’ share of renewable energy consumption and will engage them to increase where necessary in support of our long-term targets.

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.