For video, audio and gaming products, based on the data inputs used, it was concluded that legal warranty period is the most appropriate data type for estimating products’ durability. We estimate that product durability for these products is equal to the warranty period at a minimum. In practice the products will often last longer than the minimum warranty period. The warranty period for these products differs, ranging from 1 to 5 years. Gaming and consumer products typically have 1-2 years warranty, video products typically have 2 years warranty, while selected Biz, BlueParrott and Engage headsets typically have 3 years warranty. Extended warranty services can increase warranty up to 5 years for selected products. For hearing aids, we design our products to minimum 5-year durability, which takes origin in the initial requirements for the minimum storage time for documentation in the Medical Device Directive. GN is therefore required to ensure safe and effective use of its products for at least 5 years, which is documented in our submissions to authorities as part of product approval.

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.