Our Environmental Policy also covers resource outflows, stating that we strive to minimize generation of waste from our business by including circularity principles, such as durability, repairability, recyclability and ease-of-disassembly, into the design of our products. The policy also states that in terms of management of products in-market or at end-of-life, we strive to recover or maintain value through services and partnerships that support reuse, refurbishment or recycling of products or components through enabling remanufacturing, refurbishment, repair, out-of-warranty takeback schemes and as-a-service leasing models. This policy is approved by our Board of Directors, and Executive Management is accountable for implementation. Our policy commitments also include ongoing work to ensure compliance with product recycling legislation, where we finance recycling infrastructure according to the EU WEEE directive in EU markets. In the U.S. states, where some of our products are covered by extended producer responsibility legislation, in 2024 we established partnerships to enable end-users to send their products in for recycling.

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.