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).

The timeframes are considered, consistent with the expected lifetime of the activity and the indications of the EU Taxonomy and CSRD: Baseline: average 1981 and 2010 – To understand current exposure; 2030: average between 2021 and 2040 – This timeframe is commonly used for defining climate adaptation planning and budgets; 2050: average between 2035 and 2064 – This timeframe is commonly used for strategic decisions, such as changing the business model or the geographic presence and long-term investments, such as building a new site.

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.

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.

Transition risks and opportunities are those associated with the pace and extent at which an organisation manages and adapts to the internal and external pace of change to reduce GHG emissions and transition to renewable energy. As required by the TCFD, the following transition risks have been analysed for URW: Policy and legal risks, Technology risk, Market risk, Reputation risk. Transition opportunities evaluated include: Resource efficiency, Energy source.

Transition risks and opportunities are those associated with the pace and extent at which an organisation manages and adapts to the internal and external pace of change to reduce GHG emissions and transition to renewable energy. As required by the TCFD, the following transition risks have been analysed for URW: Policy and legal risks, Technology risk, Market risk, Reputation risk. Transition opportunities evaluated include: Resource efficiency, Energy source.