We have not identified any material dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystems, although soil stability at our sites constitutes the most significant dependency. Regarding our transitional and physical risks, we have mapped out our exposure and have not found significant risks from biodiversity and ecosystems that are not already covered in our mitigation processes and biodiversity action plans. Additionally, we have not identified any systemic risks to our business model that are not addressed through our established practices or the implementation of measures to reach our biodiversity ambition.

Through our double materiality assessment (DMA), we have identified material biodiversity-related impacts and an opportunity in our business, both in our own operations and in our value chain. Identifying and assessing these impacts help us to understand how we can continue to strengthen resilience across our operations, which we also assess using the methodology of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD).

We have not identified any material dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystems, although soil stability at our sites constitutes the most significant dependency. Regarding our transitional and physical risks, we have mapped out our exposure and have not found significant risks from biodiversity and ecosystems that are not already covered in our mitigation processes and biodiversity action plans. Additionally, we have not identified any systemic risks to our business model that are not addressed through our established practices or the implementation of measures to reach our biodiversity ambition.

We have not identified any material dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystems, although soil stability at our sites constitutes the most significant dependency. Regarding our transitional and physical risks, we have mapped out our exposure and have not found significant risks from biodiversity and ecosystems that are not already covered in our mitigation processes and biodiversity action plans. Additionally, we have not identified any systemic risks to our business model that are not addressed through our established practices or the implementation of measures to reach our biodiversity ambition.

Interests of key stakeholders: Similar to the development of our biodiversity projects, we have also included key stakeholder concerns and interests into the scope of our biodiversity policy. For example, local communities, NGOs, and academia are included in the stakeholder engagement steps during the various phases of an asset’s life cycle.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy is fundamental to solving the biodiversity crisis, as climate change is a main driver of biodiversity loss. The space required for the renewable energy transition is significant, and, with a nature in crisis, it is vital that we make sure our energy projects benefit nature. In 2024, we continued taking action to deliver on our ambition to achieve a net-positive biodiversity impact from all new renewable energy projects from 2030.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy is fundamental to solving the biodiversity crisis, as climate change is a main driver of biodiversity loss. The space required for the renewable energy transition is significant, and, with a nature in crisis, it is vital that we make sure our energy projects benefit nature. In 2024, we continued taking action to deliver on our ambition to achieve a net-positive biodiversity impact from all new renewable energy projects from 2030.

Material IRO description:

1. Natural resources exploitation and land-use and freshwater-use change from mining. Negative impact (upstream value chain).
2. Ecotoxicity from mining. Negative impact (upstream value chain).
3. Land-use and sea-use change from coal and gas extraction. Negative impact (upstream value chain).

How do we manage the IRO?

1. We have completed a mapping to help us understand potential negative impacts on biodiversity that we may have in our value chain. We continue to explore ways to identify and mitigate impacts across our value chain, including our first attempt at mapping impacts from high impact commodities (HICs) in our upstream value chain.
2. We have completed a mapping to help us understand potential negative impacts on biodiversity that we may have in our value chain. We continue to explore ways to identify and mitigate impacts across our value chain, including our first attempt at mapping impacts from high impact commodities (HICs) in our upstream value chain.
3. We are working towards managing our biodiversity-related negative impacts in our value chain. In 2024, we closed our last coal-fired CHP plant, eliminating the impact from coal from 2025.

Transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy is fundamental to solving the biodiversity crisis, as climate change is a main driver of biodiversity loss. The space required for the renewable energy transition is significant, and, with a nature in crisis, it is vital that we make sure our energy projects benefit nature. In 2024, we continued taking action to deliver on our ambition to achieve a net-positive biodiversity impact from all new renewable energy projects from 2030.

Our business model is to develop, construct, operate, and own renewable assets, and we are committed to doing this in an environmentally and socially sustainable way. However, we recognise that expanding our operations also implies a greater pressure on natural ecosystems. Therefore, protecting and restoring these ecosystems must be part of the solution, and we remain fully committed to effectively manage our impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. Biodiversity management is an integral part of our business model and decision-making processes throughout the full life cycle of our projects. This ranges from early-stage site selection and planning, over project design, construction, operations, and eventually to decommissioning.