The document discusses transition risks but does not provide a detailed disclosure of risk factors associated with net revenue or anticipated financial effects related to margin erosion.

The document discusses transition risks but does not provide a detailed disclosure of anticipated financial effects in terms of margin erosion.

The document discusses climate risks but does not provide reconciliations to financial statements for assets and net revenue at material physical risk.

The document discusses climate risks but does not provide reconciliations to financial statements for assets, liabilities, and net revenue at material transition risk.

Progress against climate-related targets set out in the updated Better Places roadmap is factored in the calculation of URW's incentive schemes. For more detailed information, please refer to section 3.2.1.B.3 Integration of sustainability-related performance in incentive schemes.

Progress against climate-related targets set out in the updated Better Places roadmap is factored in the calculation of URW's incentive schemes. For more detailed information, please refer to section 3.2.1.B.3 Integration of sustainability-related performance in incentive schemes.

The method used for quantifying Group emissions is in line with the ISO 14064-1 standard, the GHG Protocol guidelines and the Bilan Carbone methodology of ADEME. The sources of emissions included in the Group’s total carbon footprint are broken down per Scope and influence level. Scope 1 includes direct emissions from stationary combustion: gas and fuel consumption in common areas, direct emissions from mobile combustion: fuel used for company vehicles, and direct fugitive emissions: leaks of refrigerant gas/fluid. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions linked to electricity consumption in common areas (linked to production only) and indirect emissions from cold or hot steam consumption (centralised cooling and heating provided by district heating and cooling networks). Scope 3 includes emissions from energy production not included in Scopes 1 and 2 (extraction, production and transport of fuel, electricity, hot and cold steam), upstream emissions and transport and distribution losses of energy consumed by common areas, purchased products and services, capital equipment, waste on-site management, employee commuting, business travel, investments, visitor and customer transport, and downstream leased assets. The GHG emissions figures are expressed according to the “market-based” method to highlight the efforts made in selecting the Group’s energy suppliers.

The risks related to the physical impacts of climate change are defined as climate physical risks and are classified into acute and chronic. Acute risks refer to hazards that are event-driven, such as cyclones, droughts or floods. Chronic risks refer to long-term shifts in climate patterns that may cause the continuous evolution of climate variables such as increase in average temperatures, sea level rise, water stress, etc. A screening of the climate-related hazards was performed to identify the ones that may affect the business, based on the type of activities, equipment and materials, and the geographical footprint of the portfolio. Risk engineers and industry experts were consulted to perform the screening. This analysis was done considering the climate-related hazards indicated by the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities and the CSRD. For the climate-related perils considered as material, experts identified the most representative climate indicators from its proprietary database (+130 indicators) which are sourced from open sources and paying models such as JBA, WRI and IAASA. Climate indicators were retrieved for each asset, based on their location. Up to 10 climate models for each indicator were used by expert scientists to evaluate the evolution of such values due to climate change, according to different scenarios. For the climate risk assessment and the development of adaptation strategies, the scenarios employed for URW’s climate risk assessment are: An intermediate GHG emissions scenario: SSP2-4.5, and A high GHG emissions scenario: SSP5-8.5. Considering the current commitments for GHG emissions reductions, the scenarios SSP1-2.6 and SSP1-1.9 are considered as not relevant to build adaptation strategies in the context of an effective ERM framework.

The assessments are conducted in alignment with the various regulations and sustainability frameworks such as the EU Taxonomy and the TCFD. For climate-related physical risks, the set of indicators studied, as well as the time horizons (baseline, 2030, 2050) and the scenarios (SSP2-4.5, SSP5-8.5) chosen as part of the study are aligned with the various regulatory requirements and recommendations (EU Taxonomy, CDP, TCFD and CSRD among others).

The assessments are conducted in alignment with the various regulations and sustainability frameworks such as the EU Taxonomy and the TCFD. For climate-related physical risks, the set of indicators studied, as well as the time horizons (baseline, 2030, 2050) and the scenarios (SSP2-4.5, SSP5-8.5) chosen as part of the study are aligned with the various regulatory requirements and recommendations (EU Taxonomy, CDP, TCFD and CSRD among others).