We developed our double materiality assessment (DMA) methodology and process steps based on the 'IG1: Materiality Assessment Implementation Guidance' published by EFRAG in May 2024. In addition, we developed scoring tools to operationalise the parameters and criteria set out and to document the process steps, including rationales and supporting documentation for our scoring assessments. We have considered all the sub-sub-topics listed in ESRS 1 when identifying our impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs). For impacts on people and the environment (inside-out), we considered both positive and negative impacts related to sustainability matters, which can be both actual and potential. In our financial assessment (outside-in), we assessed potential sustainability-related risks that could trigger a negative financial effect on our business and opportunities that could benefit our business positively. We considered activities within our own operations as well as from our business relationships and value chain. Our value chain assessment mainly focused on our first-tier suppliers, and beyond that, we relied on industry-wide value chain assessments, industry knowledge, and internal knowledge based on our engagement in various forums. We had particular focus on the upstream value chain focusing on sourcing of materials and exposure to certain geographies that might give rise to a heightened risk of adverse human and labour rights and of environmental impacts due to the nature of our industry.

We defined five process steps for conducting the DMA. In addition, there was a fundamental initial step of 'understanding the context' as suggested in the ESRS IG1. Our work with mapping our sustainability-related impacts builds on the approach we have used for over a decade for assessing the materiality of sustainability-related matters. Furthermore, our daily work with sustainability is supported by benchmark reports, studies, and internal projects, including regulatory landscape understanding, media monitoring, peer analysis, etc. The process includes: 1. Engagement of stakeholders: We identified subject-matter experts with extensive insight and deep knowledge into each ESRS standard and set-up DMA workshops with them. These experts included a variety of employees working with sustainability impacts and risks at corporate level and in the business as well as employees working with regulatory and public affairs. Onboarding sessions helped to get a common understanding of the new CSRD regulation and objectives of the DMA. 2. Scoping of IROs: As preparation for the workshops, we identified IROs relating to environmental, social, and governance matters. We consulted relevant internal information (e.g. previous materiality assessments, internal impact reports, internal risk memos, and stakeholder findings) to scope and pre-define relevant matters per ESRS sub-topic and sub-sub-topic. This gross list of IROs formed the starting point for verification and assessment at the workshops. 3. Assessment of IROs: At the workshops, the experts reviewed the predefined IROs and adjusted naming and classification of these, where relevant. Secondly, they assessed each IRO, and scoring rationales were documented, including relevant reference documents. Lastly, participants added additional IROs if they found that a relevant matter was not captured in the pre-defined list. The experts were introduced to the assessment criteria at the workshops to ensure a consistent approach and understanding of the scoring methodology. Where relevant, additional experts were identified and consulted following the initial workshops to capture insights for a specific matter or regional perspectives. 4. Validation of results and calibration: Results from the workshops were systematically captured and aggregated using a scoring tool in order to calculate the degree of materiality of each IRO. The tool was organised to clearly link the ESRS topics, sub-topics, and sub-sub-topics to each IRO identified and assessed in the workshops. The tool provided an overview of the scores which constituted the preliminary results. Workshop participants were consulted again for validation of the preliminary results. If any adjustments were needed, the relevant expert provided the rationale for adjustment in order to document any changes. As a next validation step, a calibration group calibrated the preliminary results before the final review and approval step. This group consisted of the head of Group Finance, the head of Global Sustainability, and leads from Investor Relations and Global Regulatory & Public Affairs. The group specifically focused on bringing their insights from external stakeholders, including investors, to bridge the results to our strategic sustainability priorities. 5. Final review and approval: In the final step, the results were reviewed and approved by relevant leaders. Any necessary adjustments were incorporated before their final sign-off. After their approval, the DMA process and results were presented to the Group Executive Team. Finally, the results were approved by the Board of Directors.

We have considered all the sub-sub-topics listed in ESRS 1 when identifying our impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs). For impacts on people and the environment (inside-out), we considered both positive and negative impacts related to sustainability matters, which can be both actual and potential. In our financial assessment (outside-in), we assessed potential sustainability-related risks that could trigger a negative financial effect on our business and opportunities that could benefit our business positively. We considered activities within our own operations as well as from our business relationships and value chain. Our value chain assessment mainly focused on our first-tier suppliers, and beyond that, we relied on industry-wide value chain assessments, industry knowledge, and internal knowledge based on our engagement in various forums. We had particular focus on the upstream value chain focusing on sourcing of materials and exposure to certain geographies that might give rise to a heightened risk of adverse human and labour rights and of environmental impacts due to the nature of our industry.

We have considered all the sub-sub-topics listed in ESRS 1 when identifying our impacts, risks, and opportunities (IROs). For impacts on people and the environment (inside-out), we considered both positive and negative impacts related to sustainability matters, which can be both actual and potential. In our financial assessment (outside-in), we assessed potential sustainability-related risks that could trigger a negative financial effect on our business and opportunities that could benefit our business positively. We considered activities within our own operations as well as from our business relationships and value chain. Our value chain assessment mainly focused on our first-tier suppliers, and beyond that, we relied on industry-wide value chain assessments, industry knowledge, and internal knowledge based on our engagement in various forums. We had particular focus on the upstream value chain focusing on sourcing of materials and exposure to certain geographies that might give rise to a heightened risk of adverse human and labour rights and of environmental impacts due to the nature of our industry.

1. Engagement of stakeholders: We identified subject-matter experts with extensive insight and deep knowledge into each ESRS standard and set-up DMA workshops with them. These experts included a variety of employees working with sustainability impacts and risks at corporate level and in the business as well as employees working with regulatory and public affairs. Onboarding sessions helped to get a common understanding of the new CSRD regulation and objectives of the DMA. 2. Scoping of IROs: As preparation for the workshops, we identified IROs relating to environmental, social, and governance matters. We consulted relevant internal information (e.g. previous materiality assessments, internal impact reports, internal risk memos, and stakeholder findings) to scope and pre-define relevant matters per ESRS sub-topic and sub-sub-topic. This gross list of IROs formed the starting point for verification and assessment at the workshops. 3. Assessment of IROs: At the workshops, the experts reviewed the predefined IROs and adjusted naming and classification of these, where relevant. Secondly, they assessed each IRO, and scoring rationales were documented, including relevant reference documents. Lastly, participants added additional IROs if they found that a relevant matter was not captured in the pre-defined list. The experts were introduced to the assessment criteria at the workshops to ensure a consistent approach and understanding of the scoring methodology. Where relevant, additional experts were identified and consulted following the initial workshops to capture insights for a specific matter or regional perspectives. 4. Validation of results and calibration: Results from the workshops were systematically captured and aggregated using a scoring tool in order to calculate the degree of materiality of each IRO. The tool was organised to clearly link the ESRS topics, sub-topics, and sub-sub-topics to each IRO identified and assessed in the workshops. The tool provided an overview of the scores which constituted the preliminary results. Workshop participants were consulted again for validation of the preliminary results. If any adjustments were needed, the relevant expert provided the rationale for adjustment in order to document any changes. As a next validation step, a calibration group calibrated the preliminary results before the final review and approval step. This group consisted of the head of Group Finance, the head of Global Sustainability, and leads from Investor Relations and Global Regulatory & Public Affairs. The group specifically focused on bringing their insights from external stakeholders, including investors, to bridge the results to our strategic sustainability priorities. 5. Final review and approval: In the final step, the results were reviewed and approved by relevant leaders. Any necessary adjustments were incorporated before their final sign-off. After their approval, the DMA process and results were presented to the Group Executive Team. Finally, the results were approved by the Board of Directors.

Impacts: As per ESRS 1 and the guidance from EFRAG, three parameters of 'scale', 'scope', and 'irremediable character' have been used in the scoring of the 'severity' of both actual and potential negative impacts: 1. When scoring 'scale', we assessed how great the impact is or could be on the environment or people. 2. When scoring 'scope', we assessed how widespread the impact is based on parameters, such as the percentage of sites, employees, or financial spend that the impact relates to. 3. When scoring 'irremediable character', we assessed how difficult it is to reverse the damage in terms of cost and time horizon. For actual negative impacts, these three dimensions were scored and weighted equally for 'severity'. For potential negative impacts, an additional parameter of 'likelihood' was scored. This 'likelihood' score was weighted 1:1 with the 'severity' score. However, for a human rights potential negative impact, 'severity' took precedence over 'likelihood' (3:1 weighting, respectively). This weighting was applied on all potential negative impacts in S1, S2, and S3 across all sub-topics. For actual positive impacts, 'scale' and 'scope' were scored and weighted equally for 'severity'. For potential positive impacts, 'likelihood' was also scored and weighted 1:1 with the 'severity' score, as it was for potential negative impacts.

When scoring sustainability risks and opportunities, we assessed the potential 'magnitude' of possible financial effects on, for example, revenue, CAPEX or OPEX, which constitutes one part of the score, and the 'likelihood of occurrence', which constitutes the other part. The possible financial effects of the individual risks and opportunities were assessed through sustainability-matter-specific scenarios, operationalised through stress tests. Mitigation measures put in place are reflected in either the magnitude or likelihood of the assessed scenarios. Some scenarios were assessed quantitatively. In cases where a quantitative assessment was not possible or insufficient, qualitative assessments were used to supplement or inform the magnitude of the risk or opportunity. This approach was necessary due to the complexity of defining exact values for potential sustainability scenarios. For risks and opportunities, we consolidated the score by assigning weights over the short-, medium-, and long-term horizons. The weights were evenly distributed or adjusted to emphasise either the short term or medium and long term.

When scoring sustainability risks and opportunities, we assessed the potential 'magnitude' of possible financial effects on, for example, revenue, CAPEX or OPEX, which constitutes one part of the score, and the 'likelihood of occurrence', which constitutes the other part. The possible financial effects of the individual risks and opportunities were assessed through sustainability-matter-specific scenarios, operationalised through stress tests. Mitigation measures put in place are reflected in either the magnitude or likelihood of the assessed scenarios. Some scenarios were assessed quantitatively. In cases where a quantitative assessment was not possible or insufficient, qualitative assessments were used to supplement or inform the magnitude of the risk or opportunity. This approach was necessary due to the complexity of defining exact values for potential sustainability scenarios. For risks and opportunities, we consolidated the score by assigning weights over the short-, medium-, and long-term horizons. The weights were evenly distributed or adjusted to emphasise either the short term or medium and long term.

When scoring sustainability risks and opportunities, we assessed the potential 'magnitude' of possible financial effects on, for example, revenue, CAPEX or OPEX, which constitutes one part of the score, and the 'likelihood of occurrence', which constitutes the other part. The possible financial effects of the individual risks and opportunities were assessed through sustainability-matter-specific scenarios, operationalised through stress tests. Mitigation measures put in place are reflected in either the magnitude or likelihood of the assessed scenarios. Some scenarios were assessed quantitatively. In cases where a quantitative assessment was not possible or insufficient, qualitative assessments were used to supplement or inform the magnitude of the risk or opportunity. This approach was necessary due to the complexity of defining exact values for potential sustainability scenarios. For risks and opportunities, we consolidated the score by assigning weights over the short-, medium-, and long-term horizons. The weights were evenly distributed or adjusted to emphasise either the short term or medium and long term.

When scoring sustainability risks and opportunities, we assessed the potential 'magnitude' of possible financial effects on, for example, revenue, CAPEX or OPEX, which constitutes one part of the score, and the 'likelihood of occurrence', which constitutes the other part. The possible financial effects of the individual risks and opportunities were assessed through sustainability-matter-specific scenarios, operationalised through stress tests. Mitigation measures put in place are reflected in either the magnitude or likelihood of the assessed scenarios. Some scenarios were assessed quantitatively. In cases where a quantitative assessment was not possible or insufficient, qualitative assessments were used to supplement or inform the magnitude of the risk or opportunity. This approach was necessary due to the complexity of defining exact values for potential sustainability scenarios. For risks and opportunities, we consolidated the score by assigning weights over the short-, medium-, and long-term horizons. The weights were evenly distributed or adjusted to emphasise either the short term or medium and long term.