Annual Report 2024

de

Topics Filter

Results

This is a photograph of two individuals. They both seem to be engaged in a conversation or observing something together that isn't visible in the photo. Both people are dressed in sport outfits and are standing near what looks like a fence of a stadium.

Impact, Risk and Opportunity Management

IRO-1 – Description of the process to identify and assess material impacts, risks and opportunities

Our process and methodology for identifying material impacts, risks and opportunities (IROs) is based on the requirements of ESRS 1, section 3 and the application requirement of ESRS 1 AR 16. The provided list of sustainability matters from ESRS 1 AR16, alongside our existing material topics, formed the basis for developing a comprehensive long list of potentially material sustainability matters. This list also formed the basis for the IRO identification process. To determine if a sustainability matter is material or immaterial, the analysis was carried out from both an impact materiality perspective and a financial materiality perspective (double materiality). A sustainability matter is deemed material according to the double materiality concept if it is material from either or both perspectives. Other criteria have not been applied.

Impact materiality

Our impact materiality analysis followed the ESRS recommended process (please refer to ESRS 1, section 3.4). We identified, assessed and evaluated the impacts of all sustainability matters at the sub-topic level and, where applicable, sub-sub-topic level. To evaluate each impact, we first identified whether the impact was actual or potential, positive or negative, short, medium or long term, and at which value chain level the impact occurred. Based on this initial assessment, the materiality of actual negative impacts was evaluated based on the severity of the impact, while the materiality of potential negative impacts was evaluated based on the severity and likelihood of the impact. Severity was assessed using the following three parameters: scale, scope and irremediability. In the case of a potential negative human rights impact, the severity of the impact took precedence over its likelihood. For actual positive impacts, the materiality was based on the scale and scope of the impact, whereas for potential positive impacts, the materiality was based on the scale, scope and likelihood. Finally, we considered all aspects explained above and applied a scoring from 1, being marginal impact, to 5, being a significant impact on the respective matter.

Financial materiality

For financial materiality, we also followed the ESRS recommended process for assessing and evaluating the financial materiality of each identified risk and opportunity. We evaluated whether a sustainability matter causes or could cause a material risk or opportunity for adidas based on a combination of the likelihood of occurrence and the potential magnitude of the short-, medium- or long-term financial effects. This included material risks or opportunities affecting our net income and/or cash flows and/or our reputation, the health and safety of our employees, or legal and judicial consequences. We aligned the financial materiality methodology with our enterprise risk management (ERM) methodology to ensure consistency between our sustainability reporting and our risk management report.

Finally, we considered all aspects explained in this paragraph and applied a scoring from 1, being marginal, to 5, being significant from a financial materiality perspective. The materiality threshold for both impact and financial materiality was set at three, meaning every topic that has a score equal to three or higher is deemed material.

Process of our double materiality assessment

After creating a long list of sustainability matters mainly based on ESRS 1, AR16 as well as on some entity specific topics as a result of our prior materiality analyses and previous non-financial reporting, we identified generally relevant topics to potentially be reported on together with responsible internal content owners and expert teams. With them, we then proceeded to identify, assess, and prioritize potential and actual positive and negative impacts on people and the environment, as well as risks and opportunities that have or may have financial effects on our company.

Part of the process involved the mapping of affected stakeholders or users of information to identify and assess sustainability matters, integrating their perspectives and views. Although there was no direct involvement of external stakeholders, adidas teams acted as representatives of external stakeholder views and interests to ensure they were considered in the topic assessment. For example, affected communities and value chain workers were represented by the Social and Environmental Affairs team, the investor perspective by the Investor Relations team, the employee perspective by the Human Resources team, and the consumer perspective by the Brand team. Additionally, the Enterprise Risk Management team was involved in all discussions to ensure completeness and alignment in evaluating and assessing methodologies.

Through a series of workshops over a period of several months with internal stakeholders, including responsible experts and senior management, we identified, assessed and validated impacts, risks and opportunities. This process included the consideration of the connections of our impacts and dependencies with risks and opportunities that could arise from impacts and dependencies between sustainability matters. Further information on topical dependencies can be found in the respective topical standards as well as in the Risk and Opportunity Report. Generally, the success of our business model depends on our products, which are made of natural resources such as cotton, leather and rubber, as well as other materials such as recycled polyester. The availability and cost of these resources are critical to ensuring the supply of our products to consumers when they want it, where they want it and at a competitive price level. The manufacturing process for our products is very energy intensive and still requires a high level of manual work provided by the workers in our upstream value chain. Similarly, the success of our business activities depends on the creativity of our own employees, impactful collaborations with designers and celebrities, and our marketing and sponsoring activities, to ensure that we offer relevant products to our consumers. For the double materiality analysis, we considered all of these dependencies on natural, human and social resources to evaluate the IROs.

Relevant internal experts and content owners actively contributed to the process of the materiality assessment in the workshops, ensuring a thorough evaluation of the IROs related to our business and our value chain. Senior management and their expert teams are responsible for monitoring and managing our impacts, risks and opportunities from sustainability matters:

  • Environmental: Material environmental impacts occur mainly in the upstream value chain. We have established teams that work in close collaboration with our suppliers and manufacturers to manage material impacts, e.g., GHG emissions, water, biodiversity, waste, and use of chemicals.
  • Social: Material social impacts occur at every stage of the value chain and relate to the workers of manufacturing partners, our own employees, and our consumers. We have established teams and functions that manage highly material impacts, such as the Social and Environmental Affairs team in the legal function to manage human rights and working conditions in the supply chain, the HR function to manage impacts, risks and opportunities related to our own workforce, and the Marketing and Sales function to manage consumer interests.
  • Governance: Material governance-related impacts, such as compliance and corporate culture topics are managed by the legal function, i.e., the compliance team together with HR.

The senior management of these teams, as well as experts in specific material topics, were deeply involved in the materiality assessment and provided final judgment on the results based on their subject-matter expertise. The involved senior managers also have a direct link to other internal decision-making processes up to the Executive Board level. In general, our sustainability-related risks are assessed at the same level of priority as all other business-related risks.

The Internal Controls team was involved in the entire materiality assessment process. Furthermore, for the collection and disclosure of material quantitative metrics, the team members worked together with content and data owners to ensure that data quality requirements for the metrics were met. For more information on internal controls for sustainability reporting, please see the general risk management process and the GOV-5 section.

After several workshops, the final assessment of materiality was conducted in collaboration with expert teams based on the evaluation criteria and threshold described above. Throughout our entire double materiality assessment, we considered all of our business activities, business relationships or geographies. Material entity-specific sustainability matters were not identified.

Value chain

An in-depth definition of the adidas value chain served as the foundation for our double materiality assessment and identification of sustainability matters and IROs. Given our business model, which relies on outsourced manufacturing and production processes with independent partners, we have segmented the value chain into three distinct parts:

  • Upstream: all of our suppliers, e.g., product manufacturers
  • Own operations: our own offices, distribution centers (DCs), and retail stores
  • Downstream: our wholesale customers and end consumers

Data and assumptions

For the materiality assessment, adidas used existing internal environmental data (e.g., GHG emissions calculations, water usage data, biodiversity assessment, own workforce data, financial data) alongside regularly collected data on consumption, social compliance, suppliers and consumer insights. Additionally, we incorporated external data, focusing on the latest scientific studies, benchmarks, regulations, and other reporting standards such as GRI, SASB and the GHG Protocol.

Revision of materiality assessment

The materiality assessment process with the methodology described above was conducted for the first time in the reporting period. We plan to revise the assessment annually based on additional or new insights gathered in the respective year.

Topic-specific processes

In addition to our general approach and processes for identifying and assessing our IROs, we conducted the following topic-specific processes, including actions and steps of the double materiality assessment:

Topic-specific processes

Standard

 

Description

E1 Climate change

 

 

Process to identify and assess the impacts on GHG emissions [//ESRS E1-20a IRO-1]

 

To identify and assess climate-related IROs, we use our GHG emissions as reported in the annual reports of the past years for Scope 1, 2, and 3. Our own developed tool enables us to quantify, monitor, and be transparent about our carbon footprint along our entire value chain. With regard to Scope 3 emissions, we have put considerable effort into gathering more primary data from our suppliers over the last few years. This has allowed us to gain more precise insights into carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the impact of our decarbonization initiatives. This tool is our primary source to understand and report on our impact related to GHG emissions. Based on the calculated GHG emissions, we come to the conclusion that our impact on climate change is distributed unequally across the value chain, with the most significant impact generated in the upstream supply chain, particularly in raw materials production and processing. Our current assessment covers future potential sources of GHG emissions due to the nature of our business model.

[//ESRS E1-20b IRO-1]

 

For our climate scenario/risk analysis, we used a climate modeling tool with the ability to model different climate scenarios; we used three climate scenarios covering a low, intermediate and high emissions scenario1.On this basis, we assessed our exposure in each scenario and the related vulnerability to selected climate hazards – wind, flood, avalanche, landslide, temperature, wildfire, snowfall, earthquake, and soil liquefaction – using more specific climate indicators, e.g., wind gust speed, blizzards, or average wind speed. The tool allowed us to create a digital twin of our business model (focusing on operational footprint, key own assets, main sourced materials, strategic suppliers, and supply chain information, including certain distribution routes) to provide focused information on our vulnerability. As a result, an in-depth view of our exposure to physical risks at the asset level formed the basis for identifying and assessing the material climate-related physical risks in the three different time frames assessed (2030, 2040, 2050).

[//E1-20c IRO-1]

 

To identify and assess climate-related transition risks and opportunities along our value chain, such as heightened exposure to respective regulation and changes in consumer preferences, etc., the climate modeling tool uses the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) scenarios derived from the latest intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 report (2023) and the six scenarios explored in the third version of the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) to compute bespoke transition indicators. The analyzed scenarios include a low-emission scenario (RCP2.6-SSP126) consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The assessment applied the same timeframes as for the physical risks (2030, 2040, 2050). The scenario analysis informed the resilience analysis (which considered our business model, operating model, and own assets) and its results can be found in ESRS E1 SBM-3 Climate Change2.

E2 Pollution

 

 

[//E2-11a+b IRO-1]

 

We screened our business activities to identify and assess actual and potential pollution-related IROs, focusing on our upstream supply chain but also considering own operations as well as downstream activities. For this, we used existing data collected through our manufacturing partners, such as use of substances of concern and quality of wastewater discharge3.
With regard to pollution of water, adidas conducts a supply chain water risk mapping aiming to identify water risks in our sourcing locations on an annual basis. By using World Resources Institute (WRI) tools (Aqueduct), adidas aims to understand physical, reputational and regulatory water-related risks and assess exposure to water risk across multiple locations of our supply chain. The scope of this analysis was the global factory list shared publicly on our website. For all previously mentioned risks, a baseline and future scenarios were analyzed considering different time scales: 2030, 2050, and 2080.
The analysis shows that a relevant part of our supply chain currently operates in water-stressed areas and performs water-intense processes when manufacturing our products. This combination exposes us to risks when related to water withdrawal, as suppliers are very dependent on availability of water to operate. Affected communities are considered indirectly through our stakeholder outreach activities.
To clearly quantify pollution-related impacts through microplastics is an industry-wide challenge as the textile industry is lacking a holistic methodology on how to measure the release of microplastics and how to assess the impact generated by such release. Polyester – and to a vast majority recycled polyester – represents the largest share of material we use in our products.

E3 Water and marine resources

 

 

[//E3-8a+b IRO-1]

 

Same process, screening, methodologies, assumptions, tools and consultations as outlined in ESRS E2 Pollution.4

E4 Biodiversity and ecosystems

 

 

Description of processes to identify and assess material biodiversity and ecosystem-related IROs [//E4-17a IRO-1]

 

There have been three major analyses conducted in 2023/2024, where the results were used as the foundation to identify and assess the IROs related to biodiversity:
– The biodiversity dependencies and impacts analysis, conducted in 2023/2024 using ENCORE nature (specialized tool for biodiversity related assessments). The basis was the type of activities held in our value chain, using specific ISIC codes that represent such activities, especially considering the adidas use of natural and synthetic materials for its products.
– The biodiversity risk analysis was integrated in our climate risk assessment and was mainly related to the risk of sourcing key nature-derived materials like cotton, leather and rubber in the future and the impacts of climate change in the availability of these materials.
– The proximity biodiversity impact assessment considered the proximity of the locations of our strategic suppliers and our own operations against biodiversity sensitive areas by using the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) from Birdlife Alliance. All analyses showed that biodiversity dependencies, impacts and risks are more prevalent in the adidas upstream value chain5. Consequently, biodiversity-related impacts on own operations as well as on our downstream value chain were assessed as immaterial.

[//E4-17b IRO-1]

 

adidas assessed biodiversity dependencies in its upstream value chain (the only value chain level with material biodiversity IROs), focusing on leather, natural rubber, and timber. We reviewed ecosystem services, conducted literature reviews, and expert interviews. The assessment linked the apparel industry to ecosystem services, detailing how natural capital assets provide these services and are affected by environmental changes. Factsheets and summary tables highlighted key assets and drivers. Together with the Natural Capital Finance Alliance, we developed a framework for assessing the importance of natural capital assets and the impact of environmental changes.

[//E4-17c IRO-1]

 

Transition and physical risks and opportunities related to biodiversity and ecosystems have been identified and assessed, focusing on impacts and dependencies in the upstream value chain. The assessment criteria included regulatory compliance, cost implications, and environmental impacts6. Material risks identified include increased operational costs due to the need for traceability systems and sourcing-certified raw materials to comply with regulations like the EU Deforestation-free Regulation and the 2030 EU Biodiversity Plan. Non-compliance with these regulations could result in fines and restricted market access, particularly in the EU. Additionally, decreased biodiversity may compromise the availability and cost of nature-derived materials such as cotton, leather, and natural rubber, due to factors like reduced pollinators and ecosystem health issues. Water availability for production processes, such as dyeing and tanning, also poses significant risks.

[//E4-17d IRO-1]

 

adidas recognizes the importance of systemic risks related to biodiversity and ecosystems, but they have not been a primary focus of the current assessment process due to the lack of a widely recognized methodology and the significant cross-collaboration and time required. However, we are preparing to consider them in the future.
adidas plans to address this gap by gathering insights through the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) and other sources.
Currently, the focus is on immediate risks such as regulatory compliance, cost implications and environmental impacts in the upstream value chain. As our understanding of systemic risks evolves, we intend to integrate these considerations into our risk management framework.

[//E4-17e IRO-1]

 

Consultations with affected communities on sustainability assessments of shared biological resources and ecosystems have not been conducted directly or formally yet. Affected communities were considered indirectly in our materiality process. Our internal experts maintain regular contact with external stakeholders, and their views are indirectly incorporated into our decision-making and strategy development.

[//E4-19b IRO-1]

 

Sites in or near biodiversity-sensitive areas are disclosed in the topical standard E4. As potential impact on biodiversity was deemed low, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.

E5 Resource use and circular economy

 

 

Description of the processes to identify and assess material resource use and circular economy-related IROs [E5-11a, b IRO-1]

 

adidas has rigorously screened its assets and activities to identify actual and potential impacts, risks and opportunities across its operations and throughout the upstream and downstream value chain. The methodologies, assumptions, and tools used in the screening process of assets and activities are consistent with those applied for ESRS E4. The involvement of stakeholders regarding E5 was conducted in alignment with our general approach and double materiality assessment process7.

G1 Business conduct

 

 

Description of the processes to identify and assess material impacts, risks and opportunities [//G1-6 IRO-1]

 

The process for identifying material impacts, risks and opportunities related to business conduct matters followed the same process and criteria described in the ‘Process of our double materiality assessment’ section. However, as stated in the requirement, we specifically included the asked criteria for the ESRS G1 topic:
– Location: We assess impacts, risks and opportunities based on the geographic regions in which we operate, taking into account local regulations, market conditions, and socio-political factors.
– Activity: We evaluate the specific business activities involved, such as manufacturing, marketing, and distribution, to identify potential impacts, risks and opportunities unique to each function.
– Sector: We analyze industry-specific risks and opportunities, taking into account trends, the competitive landscape, and sector-specific regulations.
– Transaction structure: We consider the nature and structure of transactions, including partnerships and other business arrangements, to identify associated risks and opportunities.
Impact, risk and opportunity management is a company-wide activity that utilizes key insights from the members of the Executive Board as well as from global and local business units and functions8.

1

For further information, please refer to ESRS E1 Climate Change SBM-3.

2

For further information, please refer to ESRS E1 Climate Change SBM-3.

3

For further information, please refer to ESRS E2 Pollution E2-1.

4

For further information, please refer to ESRS E2 Pollution E2-1.

5

For further information, please refer to ESRS E4 Biodiversity and Ecosystems SBM-3.

6

For further information, please refer to ESRS E4 Biodiversity and Ecosystems E4-1.

7

For further information, please refer to ESRS 2 ‘Process of our double materiality assessment.'

8

For further information, please refer to the Risk and Opportunity Report.

IRO-2 – Disclosure Requirements in ESRS covered by the undertaking’s Sustainability Statement

Materiality assessment and disclosure explanation

To evaluate the materiality of an IRO, and therefore of a sustainability matter, we employed a scoring system that assesses both impact and financial materiality, as explained in detail in the section of IRO-1. If the IRO, including its sustainability matter, is deemed immaterial, it means that the impact and the financial materiality were assessed with a score of two or below and therefore did not meet the threshold of three to be material.

Afterwards, we have determined the material information to be disclosed based on the impacts, risks and opportunities that we had assessed to be material and on the guidance of ESRS 1, section 3.2. In general, we followed the ESRS Disclosure and Application Requirements including the Minimum Disclosure Requirements (MDRs) for policies, actions and resources, and metrics and targets for those sustainability matters that had yielded a score of three or higher for either impact or financial materiality as a result of our DMA.

For detailed information on all existing policies, actions, and targets, please refer to the corresponding topical standard. For sustainability matters where no targets are currently established, we still track the effectiveness of our policies and/or actions through comprehensive processes that evaluate progress. If there is a defined ambition level or base period this is stated in the respective topical standards. Furthermore, in case any actual impact required the provision of remedy for those harmed by these impacts, a reference is given to relevant actions in the corresponding topical standard. In instances where we made use of the exemptions outlined in ESRS 1 Appendix C: List of phased-in Disclosure Requirements, these are explicitly stated. Nevertheless, our commitment is to address all reporting requirements diligently and to provide the necessary context and information.

List of phased-in disclosure requirements

ESRS-Disclosure requirement

 

Information

ESRS 2 General Disclosures

SBM-3

 

ESRS 2 SBM-3 paragraph 48(e) (anticipated financial effects)

E1 Climate Change

E1-9

 

Anticipated financial effects from material physical and transition risks and potential climate-related opportunities

E2 Pollution

E2-6

 

Anticipated financial effects from material pollution-related risks and opportunities

E3 Water & marine resources

E3-5

 

Anticipated financial effects from material water and marine resources-related risks and opportunities

E4 Biodiversity & ecosystems

E4-6

 

Anticipated financial effects from material biodiversity and ecosystem-related risks and opportunities

E5 Resource use & circular economy

E5-6

 

Anticipated financial effects from material resource use and circular economy-related risks and opportunities

S1 Own workforce

S1-7

 

Characteristics of non-employee workers in the undertaking’s own workforce

S1-11

 

Social protection

S1-12

 

Percentage of employees with disabilities

S1-13

 

Training and skills development metrics

S1-15

 

Work-life balance

Datapoints from other EU legislation in accordance with ESRS 2 Appendix B

The following table provides an overview of all datapoints derived from other EU legislation listed in ESRS 2 Appendix B of this standard.

Disclosure requirement Data point Legislation Materiality/ Applicability/ Disclosure

ESRS 2, GOV-1

21 (d)

Board’s gender diversity

SFDR/BRR

Obligatory

21 (e)

Percentage of board members who are independent

BRR

Obligatory

ESRS 2, GOV-4

30

Statement on due diligence

SFDR

Obligatory

ESRS 2, SBM-1

40 (d) (i)

Involvement in activities related to fossil fuel activities

SFDR/P3/BRR

n.a.

40 (d) (ii)

Involvement in activities related to chemical production

SFDR/BRR

n.a.

40 (d) (iii)

Involvement in activities related to controversial weapons

SFDR/BRR

n.a.

40 (d) (iv)

Involvement in activities related to cultivation and production of tobacco

BRR

n.a.

ESRS E1-1

14

Transition plan to reach climate neutrality by 2050

EUCL

Material

16 (g)

Undertakings excluded from Paris-aligned benchmarks

P3/BRR

n.a.

ESRS E1-4

34

GHG emission reduction targets

SFDR/P3/BRR

Material

ESRS E1-5

38

Energy consumption from fossil sources disaggregated by sources (only high climate impact sectors)

SFDR

Material

37

Energy consumption and mix

SFDR

Material

40-43

Energy intensity associated with activities in high climate impact sectors

SFDR

Material

ESRS E1-6

44

Gross Scopes 1, 2, 3, and total GHG emissions

SFDR/P3/BRR

Material

53-55

Gross GHG emissions intensity

SFDR/P3/BRR

Material

ESRS E1-7

56

GHG removals and carbon credits

EUCL

Immaterial, but disclosed

ESRS E1-9

66

Exposure of the benchmark portfolio to climate-related physical risks

BRR

Phase-In; not disclosed

66 (a); 66 (c)

Disaggregation of monetary amounts by acute and chronic physical risk; location of significant assets at material physical risk

P3

Phase-In; not disclosed

67 (c)

Breakdown of the carrying value of its real estate assets by energy-efficiency classes

P3

Phase-In; not disclosed

69

Degree of exposure of the portfolio to climate-related opportunities

BRR

Phase-In; not disclosed

ESRS E2-4

28

Amount of each pollutant listed in annex II of the E-PRTR regulation emitted to air, water, and soil

SFDR

Immaterial

ESRS E3-1

9

Water and marine resources

SFDR

Material

13

Dedicated policy

SFDR

Immaterial

14

Sustainable oceans and seas

SFDR

Immaterial

ESRS E3-4

28 (c)

Total water recycled and reused

SFDR

Immaterial

29

Total water consumption in m3 per net revenue on own operations

SFDR

Immaterial

ESRS E4, SBM-3 (ESRS 2)

16 (a) (i)

Activities negatively affecting biodiversity-sensitive areas

SFDR

Material

16 (b)

Land degradation, desertification, or soil sealing

SFDR

Material

16 (c)

Threatened species

SFDR

Material

ESRS E4-2

24 (b)

Sustainable land/agriculture practices or policies

SFDR

Material

24 (c)

Sustainable oceans/seas practices or policies

SFDR

Material

24 (d)

Policies to address deforestation

SFDR

Material

ESRS E5-5

37 (d)

Non-recycled waste

SFDR

Immaterial

39

Hazardous waste and radioactive waste

SFDR

Immaterial

ESRS S1, SBM-3 (ESRS 2)

14 (f)

Risk of incidents of forced labor

SFDR

Immaterial

14 (g)

Risk of incidents of child labor

SFDR

Immaterial

ESRS S1-1

20

Human rights policy commitments

SFDR

Material

21

Due diligence policies on issues addressed by the fundamental International Labor Organisation Conventions 1 to 8

SFDR

Material

22

Processes and measures for preventing trafficking in human beings

SFDR

Immaterial, but disclosed

23

Workplace accident prevention policy or management system

SFDR

Material

ESRS S1-3

32 (c)

Grievance/complaints-handling mechanisms

SFDR

Material

ESRS S1-14

88 (b) and (c)

Number of fatalities and number and rate of work-related accidents

SFDR/BRR

Material

88 (e)

Number of days lost to injuries, accidents, fatalities, or illness

SFDR

Material

ESRS S1-16

97 (a)

Unadjusted gender pay gap

SFDR/BRR

Material

97 (b)

Excessive CEO pay ratio

SFDR

Material

ESRS S1-17

103 (a)

Incidents of discrimination

SFDR

Material

104 (a)

Non-respect of UNGPs on Business & Human Rights, ILO principles, or OECD guidelines

SFDR/BRR

Immaterial

ESRS S2, SBM-3 (ESRS 2)

11 (b)

Significant risk of child labor or forced labor in the value chain

SFDR

Material

ESRS S2-1

17

Human rights policy commitments

SFDR

Material

18

Policies related to value chain workers

SFDR

Material

19

Non-respect of UNGPs on Business & Human Rights, ILO principles, or OECD guidelines

SFDR/BRR

Material

19

Due diligence policies on issues addressed by the fundamental International Labor Organisation Conventions 1 to 8

BRR

Material

ESRS S2-4

36

Human rights issues and incidents connected to its upstream and downstream value chain

SFDR

Material

ESRS S3-1

16

Human rights policy commitments

SFDR

Material

17

Non-respect of UNGPs on Business & Human Rights, ILO principles, or OECD guidelines

SFDR/BRR

Material

ESRS S3-4

36

Human rights issues and incidents

SFDR

Material

ESRS S4-1

16

Policies related to consumers and end-users

SFDR

Material

17

Non-respect of UNGPs on Business and Human Rights and OECD guidelines

SFDR/BRR

Material

ESRS S4-4

35

Human rights issues and incidents

SFDR

Immaterial, but not disclosed

ESRS G1-1

10 (b)

United Nations Convention against Corruption

SFDR

Material

10 (d)

Protection of whistleblowers

SFDR

Material

ESRS G1-4

24 (a)

Fines for violation of anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws

SFDR/BRR

Material

24 (b)

Standards of anti-corruption and anti-bribery

SFDR

Material