The tables to the right and on the following pages list all of the ESRS disclosure requirements in ESRS 2 and the seven topical ESRS standards which are material to Ørsted, and which have guided the preparation of our sustainability statements. They can be used to navigate to information relating to a specific ESRS disclosure requirement (e.g. BP-1) or to our ‘entity specific data points’. They also show where to find information relating to specific disclosure requirements that lie outside of the sustainability statements and is ‘incorporated by reference’.

The tables to the right and on the following pages list all of the ESRS disclosure requirements in ESRS 2 and the seven topical ESRS standards which are material to Ørsted, and which have guided the preparation of our sustainability statements. They can be used to navigate to information relating to a specific ESRS disclosure requirement (e.g. BP-1) or to our ‘entity specific data points’. They also show where to find information relating to specific disclosure requirements that lie outside of the sustainability statements and is ‘incorporated by reference’.

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.