CSL Limited

The report identifies two physical risks, two transition risks and one opportunity that could reasonably be expected by external stakeholders to affect CSL's prospects. It states that CSL has assessed them as not material and discloses them to provide transparent and useful information (p. 145).

Time horizons (p. 145): short term up to 2030, medium term 2030–35, long term 2035–50, each with a stated rationale (the science-based near-term targets; business strategy and operational planning; net-zero climate scenarios and where physical impacts are most pronounced).

Company index: 10(a)–(d), pp. 146–149.

Each risk table has a "Current and potential impacts and location in the business model and value chain" row.

• Physical risk 1, heat stress (p. 146): black-outs and brown-outs could interrupt operations and create quality issues for temperature-controlled products; extreme heat increases energy used for cool and cold storage. Financial impacts anticipated to be most pronounced across cool- and cold-store facilities in America and Europe.
• Physical risk 2, extreme weather (p. 147): damage to facilities, plasma donor centers, sites and third-party logistics suppliers disrupts supply of products; impacts anticipated to be more pronounced in Europe and America.
• Transition risk 1, carbon pricing (p. 148): higher costs of products and services procured; exposure expected to be concentrated across the plasma collection network and energy-intensive manufacturing, including plasma fractionation, and manufacturing facilities in Australia and North America over the short to medium term.
• Transition risk 2 and Opportunity 1 (p. 149): failure to meet customer expectations could reduce or block market access; meeting them could help secure wider market access. More pronounced in European markets in the short term.

Value chain scope (p. 145): 17 owned sites representing greater than 90% of total fixed asset value, excluding leases and impairments, plus value chain workshops on the upstream and downstream supply chain.

Company index: 13(a)–(b), p. 145 and pp. 2–3.

Responses are in the "Adaptation measures" row of each risk table (pp. 146–149).

• Heat stress (p. 146): backup energy generation at key assets, controlled energy load shedding, ability to prioritize cool and cold storage; anticipated asset upgrades to reduce reliance on backup generation.
• Extreme weather (p. 147): site emergency response plans, contingency and secondary suppliers, alternative supply routes assessed in business continuity planning; anticipated asset maintenance (roof leaks, flood protection such as bunds) and investment in alternative supply routes.
• Carbon pricing (p. 148): partners with top suppliers and assists them in setting science-aligned emissions targets; supplier due diligence to consider decarbonization commitments.
• Customer expectations (p. 149): sustainability strategy with Healthier Environment commitments; assessing the lifecycle of key products.
• Transition plan, under Metrics and Targets (p. 151): five abatement levers (new site design, electrification, energy efficiency, renewable energy, fuel switch). Some levers depend on factors beyond CSL's control, such as regulator review and approval of manufacturing processes (p. 152).
• Resources (p. 153): capital allocation assessed case by case; capital spending on key initiatives such as energy efficiency projects and electrification of end-of-life equipment is immaterial; renewable energy procurement costs below $1 million.

Company index: 14(a)–(c), pp. 145–149.

Each risk table has a "Financial effects" row (pp. 146–149). For all four, current effects are stated as no material impact on financial position, financial performance or cash flows for financial year 2026, and management concluded that no material adjustment to carrying amounts of assets and liabilities is expected within the next financial year.

Where effects could be quantified, the report says they are not, individually or in aggregate, financially material across any time horizon (p. 145).

Company index: 15(a)–(b), pp. 146–149; 16(a)–(d), pp. 150–151.

Scenarios (p. 150). Scenario analysis was conducted in the reporting period. Transition risks used the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) Net Zero 2050 scenario (1.5°C low emissions, high transition risk). Physical risks used a high emissions scenario anticipating 4°C global warming by 2100, developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 5–8.5. Transition risks were not assessed under the high emissions scenario, nor physical risks under the low emissions scenario, as they were determined unlikely to be material. The scenarios were selected to stress-test CSL's business: a worst case for physical risks, and consistent with the Paris Agreement aligned to a less than 2°C pathway for transition risks. Quantitative physical climate data covers 17 operational sites, with qualitative narrative for the wider value chain (p. 151).

Resilience (p. 150). Under the high emissions scenario, where quantifiable, financial effects of physical risks were found not to be material and CSL's strategy and business model are assessed to be resilient. Under the low emissions scenario, financial effects of transition risks were found not to be material. Areas of uncertainty and key assumptions are listed for each scenario. An overall assumption is that no strategic responses or controls beyond those deployed or planned by 2030 are considered.

Company index: 22(a), 22(b), pp. 150–151.