Our approach to managing our negative impacts on affected communities and our processes for identifying what is needed and appropriate to respond to these impacts help us to avoid, mitigate, and remedy negative impacts while creating lasting positive impacts for these communities.

To effectively remediate material negative impacts, including those that may affect Indigenous rights or disrupt local livelihoods within our value chain or operations, we engage directly with impacted communities, listen to their concerns, and provide appropriate remedies to support their well-being and resilience. We continuously work to strengthen our processes for providing or contributing to appropriate remediation to affected communities where we have identified that we have caused or contributed to a negative impact.

We have identified three key material financial risks in our operations that arise from our interactions with and dependencies on affected communities. First, local community resistance to renewable energy projects – if not proactively addressed – may lead to delays in project timelines, increased costs from operational disruptions, potential legal costs from community lawsuits, and political or reputational risks. This risk is especially significant for communities in industrialised or rural areas that depend on the same natural resources, such as land or water, or infrastructure that our operations may impact. For instance, for wind or solar projects, disputes over reduced access to land or sea space or environmental concerns, including biodiversity impacts, can hinder progress. Second, increasing requirements for local content and social impact in tender processes present a risk, as meeting these expectations requires significant engagement and resources to ensure local communities benefit from our projects. Third, securing the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous communities presents a risk, particularly in regions like the US and Australia, where Indigenous Peoples maintain strong cultural and ownership ties to their lands. Failure to ensure consent through an adequate FPIC process – due to insufficient engagement by authorities, business partners, or previous stakeholders – can result in project delays, added costs, and strained relationships that may limit future opportunities in these areas.