In scoring impacts, we gave equal weight to the three factors constituting severity combined (scale, scope, and irremediable character), and likelihood, prioritizing negative impacts based on their relative severity and likelihood. 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.