We aim to go above the minimum regulatory requirements regarding engagement with affected communities, as we believe these engagements are essential for securing and sustaining the social license necessary for advancing renewable energy development. To ensure that our decisions reflect the perspectives of affected communities, we engage proactively with community stakeholders and local organisations and seek ongoing dialogue with them, ensuring their voices are heard and considered in our decision-making processes. This approach is being integrated across our business functions, markets, and asset projects. Engagement occurs at various frequencies and at various stages of a project. Our aim is to initiate early dialogue during the planning phase to gather the insights and concerns of the affected communities. This takes place through e.g. our community liaison officers and project staff employing different types of interaction, such as public meetings and consultations to facilitate open communication. When we employ community liaison officers in our projects, they often come from the communities we engage with, helping us gain a profound understanding of the local contexts. We continue this dialogue through the development, construction, and operation phases of our renewable energy assets.

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.