As a globally operating manufacturing company that produces and transports millions of products a year, climate change is naturally a material topic for GN. Driven by our climate targets, we are committed to playing our part in reducing emissions in line with the scientific consensus on the required pace of decarbonization, while ensuring business continuity in a world in which the effects of climate change are increasingly impacting all industries and regions. To meet this commitment, we have a climate transition plan in place, consisting of an overarching policy, science-based targets, climate-related incentives for our CEO and CFO (see pages 67-69) and several decarbonization initiatives. The Board of Directors has approved the policy, targets, and incentives.

We have identified three IROs, all impacts, related to climate change, reflecting that we are a globally operating manufacturing company which inherently leads to carbon emissions because of the use of fossil fuels across our value chain (see page 52). We have identified one actual negative impact related to energy use for our own operations and value chain respectively, as well as two actual negative impacts related to climate mitigation, for own operations and value chain respectively because of the carbon emissions resulting from this.

Our Environmental Policy covers our approach to climate change. It includes our commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in line with the scientific consensus on the urgency of addressing climate change and the degradation of nature, manifested in our science-based targets for 2030 and commitment to be net-zero no later than 2050.

For our Scope 1 and 2 emissions, where electricity consumption constitutes a major part of our footprint, we prioritize sourcing renewable energy through instruments that ensure local generation and newly or not yet commissioned projects (e.g., through a power purchase agreement). The policy also states that opportunities to improve energy efficiency, such as replacement of machinery and equipment, process optimization and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system setting adjustment are identified, evaluated and implemented on an ongoing basis.

As the vast majority of our emissions are in our value chain (Scope 3), the policy also includes our expectations of suppliers, also captured in our Supplier Code of Conduct, to provide accurate carbon data to enable us to take a data-driven approach to our decarbonization strategy.

The policy also sets out significant decarbonization levers and the key criteria we employ in prioritizing decarbonization initiatives: impact and GN’s degree of influence. Finally, the policy states that we do not consider carbon offsetting as an alternative to carbon reduction, and that we will only engage in carbon removal that is independently certified, and that we will not claim any carbon avoidance claims related to our products as part of meeting our climate targets. This policy is approved by our Board of Directors, and our Executive Management is accountable for implementation.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.