Climate resilience and scenario analysis

Index: 22(a)–(b) map to sections 15, 17.3, 17.1 and 17.2 (pp.132–135, 139–144).

Scenarios. Low-warming: 1.5° rapid transition (Scenario 1; AEMO 2024 ISP Green Energy Exports; NEM carbon budget 357 MtCO2e for 2026–2052; AGL coal stations close in FY30). High-warming: above 2° with build constraints (Scenario 4; AEMO 2024 ISP Progressive Change; ~2.6°; 1203 MtCO2e; AGL closures Dec 2033, June 2035), plus physical Scenario B (~2.7°, SSP-2-4.5). Transition modeling: FY25, with ACIL Allen; physical modeling: FY24, with Aon (pp.139, 142–144). Horizons: short FY26–FY30, medium FY31–FY35, long FY36–FY50. Scope: energy portfolio and energy retail business (p.142).

Assessment. Under both, the two strategic pillars would not fundamentally change; delivery would need a faster pace and scale (low-warming) or an adaptive approach (high-warming) (pp.132, 134). AGL considers its business able to remain resilient under the low-warming scenario, and its strategy resilient to the transition effects of the high-warming scenario, over the short, medium and long term, subject to supportive policy and regulatory settings, market conditions and, for low-warming, access to capital (pp.133, 135). Under low-warming, its development pipeline, flexible balance sheet and prudent capital management would support acceleration (p.133).

Limit. Physical modeling assesses exposure by asset location only, not asset type, vulnerability or mitigation, so hazard impact has not been assessed (p.144).

Scenario analysis is a structured process used to explore a range of plausible future events, helping to assess the resilience of our business model in the face of climate‑related risks and opportunities. There are limitations with scenario analysis, which relies on assumptions that may or may not eventuate. Scenarios are not indications of probable outcomes and may be impacted by additional factors to the assumptions disclosed. In 2025, AMP has undertaken a climate scenario analysis using two scenarios to provide insight into the potential impact of climate change on our business under different climate futures. These scenarios were selected in alignment with the requirements of AASB S2 and the Corporations Act 2001 to capture both transition risks, arising from the global shift to a low‑carbon economy, and physical risks, resulting from the direct impacts of climate change. The selection process was informed by peer benchmarking, industry research, and input from internal stakeholders across AMP.

Our current scenario modelling has been conducted primarily on a qualitative basis, supplemented by selective quantitative analysis where appropriate. The complexity of AMP's value chain presents challenges to undertaking a fulsome and meaningful quantitative approach, highlighting the need to further develop our modelling processes, data infrastructure and external support arrangements. Efforts are currently underway to strengthen these elements to enable AMP to progressively enhance our disclosures in future reporting periods.

Scenarios used

Scenario-to-risk mapping and time horizons

Climate resilience

AMP recognises the need to build resilience to climate‑related risks and continues to explore ways to embed adaptation and resilience within our strategy while continuing to identify opportunities that drive long‑term sustainability.

Climate scenario analysis helps AMP understand the possible impact of varying climate situations over short, medium and long‑term time horizons and inform consideration of appropriate future actions. As detailed in section 2.3, climate-related physical risks do not have any material revenue or profit impact on AMP over the time horizons considered. Additionally, in respect of transition risks, AMP's current policies and future planned actions are expected to mitigate any potential material impacts in future periods.

Significant areas of judgements and uncertainties considered

As part of the climate resilience assessment, AMP has used scenario analysis to evaluate key areas of uncertainty that could impact our ability to adapt and respond to the climate‑related risks and opportunities identified. The scenario analysis explored a range of plausible climate futures, including both transition and physical risk pathways. Through this process, AMP identified several significant areas of uncertainty that could influence our resilience and strategic response including areas where judgements have been applied:

• Policy and regulatory change: There is uncertainty around the timing, scope, and enforcement of climate‑related regulations, including evolving sustainability related disclosure requirements.
• Market dynamics and technology adoption: The pace of innovation and uptake of low‑emissions technologies, as well as shifts in consumer and investor expectations, could materially affect our product offerings and investment decisions.
• Physical climate impacts: There is variability in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, which may potentially disrupt operations, asset values, and customer outcomes.
• Economic and social transitions: Broader macroeconomic impacts, including inflationary pressures, labour market shifts, other structural economic changes, and social adaptation challenges could influence AMP's operating environment and strategic priorities.

Capacity to adapt AMP's strategy and business model

Our capacity to remain resilient to climate change depends on our ability to adapt our strategy and business model to emerging challenges and priorities including climate change. This capability enables us to respond should risks and opportunities change due to shifting global actions, regulatory developments, and stakeholder expectations. AMP's approach to climate resilience includes maintaining financial flexibility to support strategic pivots, assessing the potential to redeploy or repurpose assets where appropriate, and investing in business capability to develop climate‑related mitigation, adaptation, and opportunity areas.

Financial flexibility: Our approach to capital management provides us with the financial flexibility, as and when needed, to respond to unforeseen events including climate‑related developments. This includes the ability to reallocate funding across business units, adjust investment strategies, and support financially attractive opportunities aligned with a low‑carbon economy.

Redeploying, repurposing and upgrading existing assets: As a financial services organisation, AMP does not directly own and operate physical assets in industries, sectors or locations that are considered highly exposed to climate‑related physical or transition risks. Accordingly, we do not currently anticipate a need for extensive redeployment or repurposing of assets. However, we remain prepared to reassess such actions if required.

Investment in climate‑related mitigation, adaptation and opportunities: AMP continues to invest in building capability and climate‑related initiatives that support both mitigation and adaptation. We continue to evolve our approach to managing climate risk in our banking and wealth management businesses.

3.6 Climate scenario analysis

In 2025, Ampol undertook climate-related scenario analysis, separate to the strategy development process, to assist in identifying and assessing climate-related risks and opportunities and to test the resilience of its strategy and business model. The scenario analysis was both a qualitative and quantitative exercise, based upon the TCFD six-step approach, drawing from publicly available scenarios as well as relevant regional or country level data for Australia and New Zealand. All Ampol's operations in Australia and New Zealand were in scope for the scenario analysis.

This Sustainability Report includes output from two scenarios: a lower warming scenario limiting the increase of global average temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (required by the AASB S2 standard), and a higher warming scenario with an increase well exceeding 2°C above pre-industrial levels that best aligns with Ampol's House View.

Under the lower warming scenario, Australian and New Zealand passenger/light transport electrification accelerates rapidly, gasoline demand virtually eliminated by 2050 in Australia and declining ~90% in New Zealand from 2025 levels. Diesel demand sustained short term but declines rapidly post-2030, falling ~80% in NZ and ~95% in Australia by 2050 compared to 2025 (RD still expected in hard-to-abate sectors). Jet fuel demand decline is more moderate with SAF potentially reaching 70-80% of aviation market share by 2050.

3.8 Climate resilience

As part of the climate resilience assessment, Ampol has used scenario analysis to evaluate how climate scenarios may impact its business model and strategy and to identify key areas of uncertainty that could impact its ability to adapt and respond to climate-related risks and opportunities. These areas of uncertainty are an important input in understanding how climate scenarios may impact business model and strategy, enabling key signposts to be identified and monitored, and providing the ability to assess the pace and shape of the transition more promptly.

3.8.1 Lower warming scenario – 1.5°C rapid transition

Strong international consensus drives early moves from Australian and New Zealand governments to rapidly decarbonise transport and physical risks are moderate. Gasoline demand virtually eliminated by 2050 in Australia and declines ~90% in NZ; diesel demand sustained short term but declines rapidly post-2030 (~80% fall in NZ, ~95% fall in Australia by 2050); RD still expected to play a role (e.g. mining); jet fuel decline more moderated with SAF potentially 70-80% of aviation market share by 2050. This scenario presents both opportunities and risks: Ampol's infrastructure and capital management framework provide flexibility to adapt to changing demand, including through EV charging and lower carbon liquid fuels. Key areas of potential change to capital allocation include: increasing allocation to the "Evolve" pillar (EV charging, lower carbon liquid fuels); optimising retail segmentation (U-GO, EV charging hubs, premium convenience including QSR) while consolidating and recycling capital; consolidation/recycling of capital from surplus fuel infrastructure and land; and conversion of Lytton refinery to an import terminal and/or lower carbon liquid fuels manufacture. Ampol's network segmentation strategy supports accelerated EV charging deployment while optimising remaining footprint for U-GO conversions. Ampol's asset quality is well positioned to benefit from industry consolidation. Rapid decarbonisation increases pressure on Lytton refinery economics; given ~80% of Australia's liquid fuel demand is met through imports, Ampol has flexibility to reduce imports and place Lytton production domestically, or bring forward closure. The Trading and Shipping business would evolve to trade a wider range of commodities including lower carbon liquid fuels, feedstocks, electricity and carbon products.

3.8.2 Higher warming scenario – well above 2.0°C

Fragmented international action drives a slower, more uneven energy transition where transport emissions decline more gradually and physical risks are more pronounced. Ground fuels decline at a moderate pace due to electrification while aviation fuels continue to grow with potential modest SAF substitution. Ampol's traditional fuels value chain remains in place longer given lags to lower carbon alternative adoption. If this scenario eventuates, Ampol has capacity to: maintain capital allocation toward its core fuel value chain; increase capital for adaptation projects responding to changing weather exposure; moderate capital investment in EV charging and lower carbon liquid fuels; continue operating Lytton refinery, monitoring signposts for potential conversion; and preserve capital/strengthen balance sheet or distribute surplus cashflows as dividends. Network segmentation provides flexibility to respond to local market dynamics. Development of a lower carbon liquid fuels manufacturing industry is uncertain in this scenario, and Ampol's strategy can adapt to focus on imports leveraging Trading and Shipping capability. In a higher warming scenario with global temperature increase over 2.0°C, Ampol's assets may experience incremental exposure to physical climate hazards such as flooding, wind, fire and heat stress; these exposures are not expected to be material to Ampol's financial position or operating performance and are managed through existing operational, asset management and business continuity frameworks. Ampol relies on third-party infrastructure and utilities including roads, ports, electricity and telecommunications; disruptions from extreme weather are expected to be localised, temporary and manageable with no identified systemic risk. Lytton refinery has relatively higher exposure to physical hazards due to scale and role in crude processing, mitigated through operational controls including maintaining a minimum inventory of 10 days. Ampol has robust business resilience and continuity plans, asset maintenance programs and insurance arrangements in place, and geographic diversity of its network further limits potential for material disruption at a Group level.

Scenarios (pages 41–42). Three IEA scenarios from the World Energy Outlook 2025 are used for both physical and transition risks: Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE, 1.5°C, RCP 2.6), Stated Policies (STEPS, 2.5°C, RCP 4.5) and Current Policies (CPS, 3.0°C, RCP 8.5). The analysis was conducted in the second quarter of FY26 within the business planning cycle. No likelihood is assigned to any scenario, and the analysis is described as illustrative, not forecasts (pages 38, 41).

Resilience (page 54). Beach's business model and corporate strategy are assessed as resilient across the short, medium and long term. Free cash flow position (Table 4): positive in all three horizons under STEPS and CPS; under NZE, positive in the short term and Adjust / Adapt in the medium and long term. Under NZE the business model and strategy is likely to require some adjustment or adaption efforts to remain free cash flow positive in the medium and long term. The NZE test should be considered an unmitigated, extreme outcome, and useful quantitative information on combined financial effects is not possible because of uncertainty. As at 30 June 2026 Beach had $983 million of liquidity, made up of $213 million cash and $770 million undrawn debt. Underground gas storage, gas-powered generation and CCS are viable pathways to repurpose or deploy assets and infrastructure at the end of, or late in, asset life.

Scenarios (pp. 72–73). Lower-warming: 2025 Wood Mackenzie Net Zero scenario (WM Net Zero), 1.5°C. Higher-warming: SSP2-4.5, best estimate 2.7°C (range 2.1–3.5°C), defined in the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report. BHP's planning range, updated in FY2026, implies 2.2–2.5°C by 2100. SSP5-8.5 (about 4.4°C) was not selected for portfolio-level assessment; its physical risk results were used for supplementary purposes. Key inputs and assumptions are in Table 2.

Lower-warming result (pp. 73–74). A commodity and carbon price-only sensitivity for 2030 and 2050 found cash flows positive across all timeframes and enterprise NPV materially consistent with the BHP Base Case. A steelmaking coal price sensitivity gives an indicative illustrative impairment of about US$2.5 billion; BHP considers 1.5°C unlikely based on current indicators.

Higher-warming result (pp. 74–75). Asset-level (FY2022 to FY2026) and value chain (FY2023 and FY2024) physical risk studies, on 20-year horizons around CY2035, CY2055 and CY2075, generally found no material incremental impact under SSP2-4.5 or SSP5-8.5. The exception is inland rail flooding at WAIO under SSP5-8.5 if unmitigated.

Resilience (p. 75). BHP concludes its strategy, business model, portfolio and operations remain resilient, citing its balance sheet, net debt and gearing monitoring, and the Capital Allocation Framework. No additional investment or response was identified. Uncertainties and limitations are given for each scenario.

Assessment (pp. 188, 190). Four scenarios were developed in CY2024: Accelerated Leap (~1.5°C), Coordinated Climb (~2.0°C), Fragmented Lanes (~2.0°C) and Unchanged Paths (~4.0+°C by 2100). BlueScope concludes its current strategy is broadly resilient across all of the scenarios tested, with implications and responses set out for Port Kembla Steelworks, North Star and Glenbrook, and a resilient balance sheet providing flexibility (p. 190). Management considered developments since the analysis and concluded it remains an appropriate basis for the current period (p. 188). The scenarios are described as hypothetical constructs of possible futures, not definitive predictions or forecasts (p. 191).

Method (p. 191). Scenarios are based on IPCC and IEA published scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5 for physical risk; the IEA NZE pathway for transition). The time horizon is 2100, with the 2030s and 2040s for key transition drivers and 2030 and 2050 for physical risk. The physical assessment covered 71 sites; the transition assessment covered Australia, New Zealand and the United States, and midstream was not separately modeled. Assumptions cover climate policies, macroeconomic trends, regional variables, energy use and mix, and technology.

Resilience assessment (p. 53). The Group concludes its strategy and business model are expected to remain broadly resilient under both the low- and high-warming scenarios, based on the scope, assumptions and limitations of the assessment, and it anticipates no change to its business model. Areas of uncertainty: timing of climate legislation, including a carbon price and the refrigerant phase-out pathway; pace and cost of grid decarbonization; availability and cost of lower-emissions technologies; and suppliers' ability to transition. Funding and capital allocation processes are intended to provide flexibility. Carbon price sensitivity modeling under the low-warming scenario indicates impacts could be material, mostly in the upstream supply chain (p. 54). Responses: Tables 3 and 4 (pp. 54–55).

How the analysis was done (pp. 43–45). Scope: the Group's operations and, where relevant, parts of the value chain where CRROs are concentrated (p. 43). Three scenarios (temperature increase by 2100): 'Sustainability – Paris aligned' (SSP1-1.9, 1.5°C), 'Middle of the road' (SSP2-4.5, 2.7°C) and 'Fossil-fuelled development' (SSP5-8.5, 4.4°C). The first and third are the primary stress-test scenarios (used in FY24 and FY25, refined in FY26); the middle scenario was used for anticipated financial effects. Time horizons: 0–4 years (FY30), 4–10 years (FY36) and 10–24 years (2050). Climate data was modeled by ClimSystems using CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology projections (p. 44).

Scenarios (p.126; Appendix pp.373–375). Three long-term Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) scenarios are used over about 3, 10 and 30 years across all retail and non-retail portfolios including ASB: Net zero 2050 (~1.5°C, described as consistent with the goal of the Paris Agreement), Delayed transition (~1.7°C) and Current policies (~3°C). An acute scenario assumes two Category 4 cyclones over South-East Queensland in consecutive years; a 10-year drought scenario for agriculture is also described (p.375). Assumptions cover policy, technology, macroeconomic trends, unemployment, cash rate, GDP and house prices (pp.373–374). Scenarios were run in the 2025 reporting period; this year no material changes requiring updates were identified, to be reassessed annually.

Outcome (p.127): increase to the 5-year historical loss rate (0.4% over 2020–2024).

The cyclone scenario gives total credit losses of $1.5 billion over five years, mostly in the first two, not assessed as financially material (p.127). The strategy, business model and value chain are concluded to remain resilient under the scenarios and horizons assessed, with no material changes expected. Scenario analysis is not a forecast (p.381).

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.

An initial climate scenario analysis was performed in FY2026 at group level, covering all operating sites, with an external expert. Transition risks use NGFS (Network for Greening the Financial System) scenarios and physical risks use IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scenarios (pp. 83–84).

Modeling horizons (p. 81): physical baseline 1985, then 2030, 2050 and 2090; transition baseline 2025, then 2030, 2040 and 2050. Executive management considers the results when determining whether to revise or refine strategy or business planning, and the analysis will be reviewed annually (pp. 83–84). A summary table (p. 86) shows sensitivity rating levels by scenario and time horizon.

How the analysis was done (pp. 66–67). Scenario analysis was run on a standalone basis in FY25 across all Downer Group operations and reassessed in FY26, using NGFS Climate Scenarios and the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Selection considered data specific to Australia and New Zealand, alignment with the temperature pathways required by AASB S2 and relevance to operations; assumptions cover policy and carbon pricing, macroeconomics, regional factors, energy mix and technology.

Resilience assessment (p. 68). Downer concludes its strategy and business model are resilient and not expected to change materially across the scenarios. Capacity to adapt is described for the short term (operational controls, asset management, business continuity), medium term (capital investment, decarbonization initiatives) and long term (aligning services with customer demand). Stranded asset risk is considered limited, and operating cash generation, balance sheet capacity and access to financing are considered sufficient. Listed uncertainties include hazard projections, policy, technology, customer demand and the extent of effects on revenue, costs, asset values and capital expenditure.

Scenarios (p. 40). Low emissions: IPCC SSP1-1.9 and NGFS Net Zero 2050, used to assess a 1.5°C-aligned pathway. High emissions: IPCC SSP3-7.0, supplemented by SSP5-8.5 assumptions where required, and the NGFS 'Current Policies' scenario. Chosen to capture a plausible range of physical and transition outcomes. Time horizons: short term 2030, medium term 2040, long term 2050. As this is the first year, the analysis is primarily qualitative, supported by quantitative analysis where sufficient data is available. Assumptions on policies, macro-economic trends, national and regional variables, energy usage and mix, technology and physical weather events are set out in tables per scenario (pp. 40–41).

Resilience (pp. 42–43). Existing site-level controls, insurance, geographic diversity and the renewable electricity transition are described as absorbing or reducing exposure in both scenarios. A carbon tax under the low emissions scenario 'may result in a material financial effect' in the short and medium term, with timing, design and magnitude uncertain. Under the high emissions scenario physical risk becomes the dominant long-term exposure.

Uncertainty (p. 41). Physical climate risks; government policy and macroeconomic trends; energy price volatility and carbon pricing; insurance availability, affordability and terms.

Capacity to adapt (p. 43). Supported by the existing climate change strategy, governance processes and operational structure.

Assessment (p. 85). As at 30 June 2026, the resilience assessment indicates the strategy and business model have capacity to adapt under the scenarios assessed, and no fundamental change to strategy was identified. The scope is the Pilbara iron ore value chain. Scenarios are not forecasts and carry no probabilities. They include a 1.5°C scenario aligned with the latest international agreement and a higher warming scenario that "well exceeds" 2°C.

Transition (pp. 86 to 87). Externally sourced low-warming scenarios (1.5-1.8°C) and a high-warming base case (>2.5°C), driven by iron ore pricing and discount rates, over short (0-2 years), medium (3-10) and long (11-20) horizons. Iron ore price inputs were US$85-$96 (short), US$65-$85 (medium) and US$58-$111 (long), within historically experienced ranges. Target financial metrics were maintained, with capital management levers where deviations arose.

Physical (pp. 88 to 89). SSP1-1.9 (assessed qualitatively), SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5 and SSP3-7.0, for tropical cyclone, sea level rise and storm surge, extreme rainfall, extreme temperatures and bushfire, with medium and long term assessed for 2030 and 2050. Short- and medium-term impacts are expected to remain largely within current mine planning assumptions. In the long term under the high-emissions scenario, without mitigation and adaptation, average annual effective downtime could rise by about seven days, an indicative US$100-500 million per annum.

GPT's scenario analysis indicates resilience under both low-emissions fast transition pathway (RCP 2.6) and high-emissions physical risk pathway (RCP 8.5). In a low-emissions transition, our decarbonisation approach and current limited exposure to carbon-intensive tenants position us for policy and market shifts. Under a high-emissions pathway, our asset-level physical climate modelling projects minimal material risk exposure across the portfolio, supported by targeted adaptation measures.

Low-emissions (RCP 2.6 / SSP1-2.6)

Transitional impacts are the key challenges primarily: policy, market expectations and technology. Strategy remains resilient due to:

• Asset investment locations in and around major cities
• A current limited exposure to carbon-intensive tenants due to the nature of our portfolio and tenant mix, and
• Established decarbonisation approach supporting anticipated demand and including demand-flex and smart energy programs.

High-emissions (RCP 8.5 / SSP5-8.5)

Physical risks intensify. Modelling underpins climate vulnerability assessments and indicates:

• Less than 3.5% of portfolio value identified as moderate Value-At-Risk (VAR); no assets assessed as high VAR
• Insurability remains adequate, and
• Staged adaptation costs in line with developments and lifecycle upgrades.

Asset-level execution

Most of GPT's assets are concentrated in and near major Australian cities with relatively strong socio-economic capacity to adapt to climate change, reducing the risk of stranded or devalued assets. However, physical risk exposures can vary, for example, flooding is most material to GPT's assets in Brisbane and in Western Sydney, storms present an acute risk across all regions, and heat stress and extreme temperatures are the most widespread chronic risk.

Adaptation planning is tied to asset lifecycles, so costs are efficient and impacts managed:

• Acquisition due diligence screens climate risks.
• Development and major refurbishments are triggers for upgrades such as electrification, passive cooling and efficient low-emission equipment (compared to aged or older models) where feasible.

Resilience investments include solar arrays, flood barriers and cyclone-ready design. Broader impacts are also considered, including supply chain dependencies and community resilience to climate hazards.

By embedding risk assessment into due diligence and aligning adaptation measures with end of lifecycle upgrades, GPT helps to reduce vulnerabilities while managing costs efficiently. For example, GPT constructed a flood barrier system at Riverside Centre and One One One Eagle Street, Brisbane, which protected assets during the 2022 floods; and flood considerations are adopted in some targeted logistics asset designs.

Future acquisitions are expected to carry a similar risk profile to today's portfolio with asset-specific risks considered as part of future acquisitions, and the main uncertainties relate to the pace of technological change, shifts in market and regulatory expectations, and the severity of extreme weather events. To manage these unknowns, GPT revisits risk assessments on a scheduled basis, updates resource allocation and incorporates new science and data into planning.

Scenarios used

Low-emissions scenario: RCP 2.6 (aligned to SSP1-2.6): this presents an increased transition risk scenario.

High-emissions scenario: RCP 8.5 (aligned to SSP5–8.5): this presents an increased physical risk scenario with limited global mitigation.

Our climate risk assessment draws on climate modelling data, overlaid with policies across relevant government jurisdictions and property-sector technology developments. This analysis provides insight into potential financial implications for GPT, which can include insights into future operating costs, insurance premiums, tenant demand and capital expenditure needs.

GPT evaluates climate-related risks and opportunities across defined time horizons that align with the major redevelopment and refurbishment cycles of commercial buildings (which form the underlying assets in our portfolio). This process includes considering the Paris Agreement pathway to 2050. Time horizons: Short-term (0-10 years), Medium-term (10-20 years), Long-term (20+ years).

Scenarios (p. 62, Table 2). Scenario analysis was undertaken in FY26 using two scenarios. Orderly Transition: SSP1-2.6 (IPCC), Well Below 2ºC (NGFS), 1.3-2.4°C (Median 1.8°C) by 2100, broadly aligned with the Paris Agreement objective, with physical risks relatively low and transition risks higher. Disorderly Transition: SSP2-4.5 (IPCC), Delayed Transition (NGFS), 2.1-3.5°C (Median 2.8°C) by 2100, with emissions rising until around 2030, higher transition risks from 2030 and increased physical risks. A reason for selection is given for each.

Assessment (p. 69). "Based on this assessment and the known facts and circumstances as at the date of this report, the business is resilient and is expected to remain resilient under the scenarios considered".

Capacity to adjust (pp. 69–70). Orderly: the entity "believes it is well positioned to adapt", citing strong financial capacity, a geographically diverse footprint and existing resilience measures expected to be broadly sufficient. Disorderly: "a more challenging operating environment"; Australian operations would be a higher priority for incorporating climate considerations into asset management, given the larger property footprint; the current financial position provides "a degree of resilience", but sustained disruption "could place increasing pressure on financial performance, capital expenditure requirements and cash flows over the medium to long-term".

Iluka assessed its climate resilience by considering its climate-related risks and opportunities in a range of potential future scenarios. The scenarios were chosen based on the requirement under Australian law to use a low and high emissions scenario. Iluka considered the potential impact of climate-related risks and opportunities across its business, including operations at its mining and processing locations (including associated critical infrastructure such as roads, port facilities and transport logistics between its operating and mining sites) and on projects that are currently in execution (i.e. the Eneabba refinery and Balranald).

Scenario assumptions

The scenario analysis considers both climate-related transition and physical risks across four scenarios, applied to test resilience in the short-term (now to 2030), medium-term (2030 to 2040), and long-term (2040 to 2050).

Transition risk scenarios – Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS):

• NGFS Net Zero (high transition risk scenario, 1.5°C): Warming stabilises around 1.5°C, with a small overshoot, as coordinated global action achieves net zero emissions by 2050; governments implement immediate and smooth policy tightening, including carbon pricing and clean-energy standards; carbon prices increase sharply and early, reaching high levels by 2030; clean energy and low-carbon technologies scale rapidly; energy prices transition downward in the long-term, though short-term prices may rise temporarily; carbon removals expand to medium–high levels. Aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and with containing warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
• NGFS Current Policies (low transition risk scenario, 2.9°C): Warming climbs to around 3.0°C as no new policies are introduced beyond those already enacted; no additional climate action occurs; carbon prices remain low or stagnant; technology adoption is slow and market-driven; energy prices remain volatile and trend upward; carbon removals remain at low levels.

In addition to these scenarios, Iluka has also leveraged its internal shadow carbon price assumptions to model impacts to its safeguard compliance costs in the short- and medium-terms.

Physical risk scenarios – IPCC:

• SSP1-1.9 (low physical risk scenario, 1.4°C): Very low emissions, reaching net zero around 2050; strong and immediate global action limits warming to 1.5°C; projected best estimate in global surface temperature by 2081-2100 of 1.4°C (very likely range 1.0 to 1.8°C); little increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events.
• SSP5-8.5 (high physical risk scenario, 4.4°C): Very high emissions, continuing to increase and roughly doubling by 2050, assuming rapid economic growth driven by fossil fuels and minimal climate mitigation; projected best estimate of 4.4°C (very likely range 3.3 to 5.7°C); severe and compounding increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

Climate hazard factors considered included increase in annual mean temperature, increase in annual potential evapotranspiration, increase in maximum one-day rainfall for a 100-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) event, and annual severe, extreme or catastrophic fire danger days per year, with extreme temperature days per year >35°C and >40°C respectively. Analysis of potential divergence beyond 2050 and out to 2100 has not formed part of Iluka's analysis, as this is well beyond Iluka's current corporate plan.

Resilience assessment outcomes

There is significant uncertainty around how transition risks informed by the NGFS scenarios will manifest at a domestic level, particularly how assumptions may translate into domestic policy settings for carbon transition and energy mix, making it challenging to predict impacts on Iluka's assets and operations.

For increased energy costs, Iluka stress-tested the potential range of energy prices under both scenarios against corporate plan energy cost assumptions by overlaying a price index derived from the NGFS scenarios; the increase is more pronounced under the high transition risk scenario, while more gradual (but less predictable) under the low transition risk scenario.

For safeguard compliance costs, overlaying the current short- to medium-term strategy of purchasing ACCUs, the economics of the SR kilns at North Capel are comparatively worse in both short- and medium-term under the high transition risk scenario, negatively impacting operating costs, assuming costs cannot be passed to customers and alternative technology options do not become commercially available at scale.

For decarbonisation technology, under the NGFS Net Zero scenario with a higher carbon price, decarbonisation projects become relatively more financially attractive earlier compared to carbon intensive technologies than in the low transition risk scenario; however MACC analysis shows most technologies investigated remain marginal or commercially unviable, requiring scalability to become viable.

For rare earth oxides, demand outlook is driven by climate change policy and influence on global energy mix, geopolitics, and technology developments; the range of outcomes cannot be isolated to any one factor, but demand and associated revenue is likely to increase under both low and high transition risk scenarios; Iluka's rare earths business remains resilient and will be an important asset to support the global transition to sources of clean energy.

For renewable energy, both scenarios present increased opportunities, accelerated in the short-term under the high transition risk scenario and delayed to medium- to long-terms under the low transition risk scenario, driven by a combination of policy and commercial scalability.

For physical risks, it is important to frame the resilience assessment within the current expected operational life of Iluka's operations and projects. Under Iluka's current corporate plan, only Eneabba and Wimmera (in definitive feasibility phase) are expected to be operational in the long-term (2040 to 2050); Cataby and Jacinth-Ambrosia are expected to cease operations in the short- to medium-terms; Balranald, Narngulu and North Capel may cease operations in the medium-term. There is potential for climate-related physical risks to impact during the closure phase of an asset prior to relinquishment, and climate risk factors are reviewed as part of closure risk assessments. Iluka has not considered the potential impact of physical risks on the corporate offices given the expected immateriality of climate physical risks to the corporate office relative to Iluka's operations.

In a low physical risk scenario, the majority of Iluka's current operations are not expected to be materially impacted beyond what is currently being experienced. The outcomes indicate a potential increase in risk exposure in the long-term under the high physical risk scenario; however, given the limited financial impacts from these physical climate risk events to date, there is a high degree of measurement uncertainty associated with the long-term potential anticipated financial effects. Iluka will continue to reassess the Group's exposure to these events annually.

Water-related hazards (increased severity and frequency of extreme rainfall and storm events) show effects managed under existing measures/minor across short-medium-long term under the low physical risk scenario, moving to a potential increasing risk exposure in the long-term under the high physical risk scenario. Temperature-related hazards (increase in frequency of extreme temperature days) show effects managed under existing measures in the short-medium term under the low scenario, and a potential increasing risk exposure in the long-term under the high scenario.

Notwithstanding the uncertainties, the scenario analysis and associated risk assessment outcomes indicate that Iluka's mining and processing operations are well positioned to adapt to changing physical risks. This confidence is underpinned by a climate risk-driven approach embedded in key technical areas of the business. For example, in 2025, water management risk-related activities included ongoing review and maintenance of Iluka's ground and surface water management responses at its mining sites. Climate change assessments and climate variable factors have also been considered in the designs for the Eneabba refinery and are part of assessments that will occur for planned developments such as Wimmera. Iluka will continue to evolve its practices taking into account changing technical requirements and guided by internal and external technical experts.

Measurement uncertainty affecting resilience assessment

Forward-looking disclosures on transition risks rely on assumptions on: (i) safeguard facility compliance costs, subject to regulatory and policy settings uncertain beyond 2030; and (ii) assumptions about future energy mix, prices and demand subject to a high degree of inherent uncertainty. While scenario analysis has been undertaken by downscaling trends from global scenarios for carbon pricing and energy prices applied to Iluka's corporate plan assumptions, there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the interplay of these assumptions with domestic regulation and government energy transition plans; the scenarios considered do not represent forecast assumptions.

Physical risk assessments rely on external climate models and internal assumptions about asset vulnerability. Iluka engaged an external service provider to generate site specific climate hazard projections derived from multiple credible Australian climate information sources. These inputs involve significant levels of measurement uncertainty due to variability in climate projections and assumptions about adaptation measures. Resilience assessment for physical risks has been undertaken using historically observed climate-related physical risk events to assess anticipated financial effects in the future; however these effects have not been subject to further quantification beyond this. The assessment sought to identify potential areas of exposure from material climate-related hazards (e.g. critical infrastructure disruption from extreme weather events) and understand potential effects as understood by Iluka operations personnel and internal subject matter experts, to inform a consequence assessment against Iluka's risk criteria (minor to major).

Resilience assessment (p. 42). Three scenarios are used: Orderly – Net Zero 2050, Disorderly – Delayed Transition, and Hot House World – Current Policies. Resilience is rated High, Moderate or Low using a time-horizon weighted approach:

Supporting notes (pp. 42–43) cover existing financial resource availability and flexibility, asset redeployment or repurposing, and business model effectiveness; strategy and business model implications are given per scenario.

Uncertainties (p. 43). The type and timing of government intervention, future growth in natural perils costs, global economic impacts under the Hot House Scenario, the level of reinsurance cost increase, and consumer perception of the value of insurance.

Inputs (pp. 45–46). Scenarios were selected for a broad range of outcomes, legislative scenario requirements and alignment to global agreements. Primary source: Network for Greening Financial Sector (NGFS) Climate Scenarios Phase IV; warming by 2100 of 1.5°C, 1.8°C and 3.9°C respectively. For Hot House World the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) was increased from 4.5 to 7.0. Energy mix: AEMO Integrated System Plan 2024. Scope: consolidated entity. Horizons: 2026–2028, 2029–2035, 2036–2050. Undertaken in FY26.

Scenarios (pp. 58–59). The approach was informed by the National Climate Scenario Guidance 2026 issued by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW). Physical risk uses Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and transition risk uses Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) scenarios.

Assessment as at 30 June 2026 (pp. 60–68). Anticipated impacts use the middle-of-the-road scenarios, judged most aligned to current market dynamics, regulatory settings and the latest assessment from the United Nations Environment Programme. Resilience is assessed under the high warming scenario (SSP3-7.0) for CRROs 1, 2 and 4 and the low warming NGFS 2050 Net zero scenario for CRROs 3 and 5. Each CRRO has significant areas of uncertainty, implications for the business model and how the Group would adapt. For CRROs 1 to 3 the Group believes appropriate mitigations are in place to support the resilience of its business model.

Scenarios (p. 75). The Group updated its 3 climate scenarios in 2025 (initial analysis 2019–2022) using IPCC and IEA projections, selected in line with AASB S2 and the Corporations Act 2001 to capture transition and physical risks. Modeling is primarily qualitative, with quantitative analysis where appropriate. Impacts were assessed over the short, medium and long term.

Paris Pledges guided financial effects; Transformation and Polarisation were used to assess resilience (p. 76).

Resilience (pp. 78–84). Strategy and business model are likely to remain resilient for PR1 (Polarisation) and TR1, TR2 and TR3 (Transformation), and likely to reinforce resilience for TO1. For PR2 (Polarisation), the Weather Scenario Planning Tool and Delay Register Tracking data are said to improve resilience.

Uncertainty (pp. 76, 78). Scenarios are illustrative, not probabilities. SSP1-2.6 approximates a ≤1.5°C trajectory but is approximately a 1.8°C median outcome. Annual Expected Loss estimates are indicative, not precise forecasts.

How the analysis was done (pp. 65–66). Metcash undertook a climate scenario analysis in the current reporting period to determine its resilience to physical climate-related risks under two scenarios, covering its own operations and value chain. Scenarios were chosen to satisfy section 296D(2) of the Corporations Act 2001: the IPCC's SSP1-1.9 (1.5°C, aligned to the Paris Agreement, associated with transition risks) and SSP5-8.5 (3.3°C–5.7°C, associated with physical risks). A table gives assumptions for each scenario on climate-related policies, macroeconomic trends, national or regional level variables, energy usage and mix, and technology. Horizons are 0–5, 6–10 and 11–25 years. The analysis will be reviewed periodically, with a detailed analysis at least every five years.

Resilience assessment (pp. 66–67). The low emissions narrative covers carbon pricing, regulatory requirements and higher energy costs; the high emissions narrative covers more frequent and severe extreme weather, particularly in Queensland and Western Australia. Metcash assessed that climate-related risks and opportunities are not expected to have a material impact on its strategy and business model over the short, medium or long-term. Its capacity to respond is supported by funding for additional measures not expected to be material, predominantly leased sites, and inventory that can be redeployed across a diversified distribution network.

Three scenarios apply IPCC AR6 science and are aligned to SSP and NGFS scenarios (p. 76). Analysis was first completed across the portfolio in FY23 and refined in FY26 to add property-specific assumptions.

The p. 76 table gives the rationale for each scenario and key assumptions on climate policy, macroeconomic trends, national and regional variables, energy usage and mix, and technology. Each CRRO page (pp. 80–86) assesses resilience under the lower and higher warming scenarios, with the capacity to adjust or adapt.

Resilience (p. 79). Mirvac expects its strategy and business model to remain resilient under both the lower and higher warming scenarios. Capacity to adapt rests on its ability to design, construct, manage, upgrade and reposition the portfolio, including asset upgrades, portfolio reallocation and adaptive reuse. Uncertainties listed: timing and severity of physical impacts, model and data limits, policy, market responses and technology.

Assessment (pages 119–120). Using scenario analysis, the Group concluded its strategy and business model remain capable of operating in the short and medium term across the scenarios applied. The analysis primarily validated its existing approach; no material change to the business model is currently considered necessary. Its response includes a low-cost position, financial flexibility through disciplined capital management and operational decarbonization relevant to Safeguard Mechanism obligations. The long term horizon (beyond 2040) extends beyond the scheduled lives of the existing mines and was not intended to assess their continued operation. Significant uncertainties include climate policy and regulation (including the Safeguard Mechanism decline rate), thermal coal demand, carbon pricing and ACCU availability, technology, physical hazard modeling and international policy alignment (page 120).

Scenarios (pages 121–122). Low warming (1.5°C pathway; IPCC SSP1-1.9 transition data, SSP1-2.6 physical), higher warming (IPCC SSP3 with RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 physical data) and a base case (delayed, moderate 2.6–2.8°C transition, no physical risk inputs). The low and higher warming analysis was undertaken in the 2025 financial year; the base case was developed this period. Scope: Bengalla Mine, New Acland Mine and Queensland Bulk Handling. Assumptions are tabulated by scenario; the base case has an indicative near-term coal price floor of approximately US$100/t.

Scenarios and sources (pp. 74–75). Resilience was assessed on an expected path, stress-tested against lower and higher emissions pathways, with physical and transition scenarios assessed separately.

Scenario data came from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2025, AEMO Integrated System Plan 2024 and IEA Critical Minerals Outlook 2025. SSP1-1.9 was also considered and judged not to change the resilience assessment materially (note 7). Horizons: to 2030, 2031–2050 and 2051–2070. The transition table sets out assumptions on policies, macroeconomic trends, regional variables, energy mix and technology (p. 75). Site-level physical modeling focused on operational assets with sufficient asset and hazard information (p. 66).

Conclusion (pp. 74, 76–81). NEXTDC considers its strategy and business model resilient across the scenarios, though over the longer term increasing physical impacts, particularly water stress in certain locations, may present greater challenges. Each of the four risks is assessed as resilient. Capacity to respond is supported by pro forma liquidity of approximately $8.7 billion and modular designs that can be adapted, upgraded or retrofitted (p. 76). Stated uncertainty centers on the long-term nature of climate change (p. 67).

Overview Nickel Industries has assessed its climate resilience by considering the potential effects of climate-related transition and physical risks on its business model and strategy under a range of plausible climate scenarios. This assessment focuses on the Group's capacity to continue operating in the presence of climate-related risks, recognising the uncertainty inherent in longer-term climate outcomes.

The Group's resilience to climate change is dependent on its ability to maintain flexibility in its financial resources, allowing efficient allocation of capital towards emerging climate priorities. Any future development of climate-related targets will be determined by the Board as the Group's sustainability strategy matures, with consideration of the availability and flexibility of existing financing and financial resources, and the ability to redeploy, repurpose, upgrade, or decommission existing assets.

Under lower-temperature scenarios, Nickel Industries is exposed to elevated transition risk, including increased carbon costs, emissions-related regulation and changing market expectations for carbon-intensive products, placing pressure on operating costs, margins and demand. Under higher-temperature scenarios, the Group faces increased physical climate-related risks, including flooding, extreme weather events and changes in temperature and rainfall patterns, which may disrupt operations and supply chains and increase operational and safety-related pressures. Existing operational risk management processes provide a baseline level of resilience; however, likelihood and severity of impacts may increase under higher-temperature outcomes.

Implications for business model Under lower-temperature scenarios, the Group's carbon-intensive operating profile may expose it to increased costs and reduced competitiveness as carbon pricing, emissions-related regulation and customer expectations for lower-emissions products intensify, suggesting the Group may need to consider how reductions in carbon intensity could be achieved to support resilience and maintain market access. Under higher-temperature scenarios, increased exposure to physical climate-related risks may affect asset performance, operational continuity and supply-chain reliability, requiring consideration of physical risk exposures within the operating model. At the reporting date, these implications have not resulted in changes to the Group's strategy or business model; findings will be progressively considered alongside broader strategic planning and capital allocation decisions.

Uncertainty Nickel Industries' assessment of climate resilience is subject to significant uncertainty, reflecting the inherent limitations of climate scenario analysis and the long-term nature of the risks considered. For physical climate-related risks, the assessment draws on IPCC climate scenarios, involving uncertainty in future temperature outcomes, precipitation patterns, sea-level rise and frequency/severity of extreme weather events at regional and local scales. For transition climate-related risks, the assessment uses Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) scenarios, incorporating assumptions on the pace and effectiveness of global policy responses, carbon pricing trajectories, technology development and market behaviour. There is uncertainty in translating scenario outputs into business-specific impacts, and the assessment is based on a range of plausible outcomes rather than precise forecasts.

Scenario analysis inputs For physical climate-related risks, three IPCC Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) were applied:

• SSP1-1.9: best estimate long-term temperature (2081-2100) 1.4°C (very likely range 1.0 to 1.8°C); globally coordinated focus on sustainable development.
• SSP2-4.5: best estimate 2.7°C (range 2.1 to 3.5°C); middle of the road, moderate mitigation.
• SSP5-8.5: best estimate 4.4°C (range 3.3 to 5.7°C); fossil-fuelled development, very high emissions.

For transition climate-related risks, four NGFS scenarios were applied:

• Net Zero 2050: best estimate 1.4°C (range 1.3–1.8°C); rapid, globally coordinated decarbonisation to achieve net zero CO2 around 2050; assumes 2/3 of energy generation renewable, coal and oil phase out by 2030 in advanced economies, rapid electrification, total energy demand decreases by 8% by 2050.
• NDCs: best estimate 2.3°C (range 2.3–3.0°C); full implementation of current NDCs without further strengthening; linear transition from 2030 target towards net zero by 2050, uses SSP2 pathways.
• Current Policies: best estimate 3.0°C (range 2.7–3.6°C); assumes existing policies only, no new targets, slower tech deployment and persistence of fossil fuels.
• Fragmented World: best estimate 2.4°C (range 3.3–4.5+°C); minimal coordination and limited mitigation efforts, policy inconsistency, regionalism, aligned with SSP3 regional rivalry.

The analysis was undertaken using short-term (to 2030), medium-term (to 2040) and long-term (to 2050) time horizons, reflecting operational planning cycles, asset lifecycles and longer-term climate transition benchmarks. Nickel Industries considers the selected scenarios relevant because they are globally recognised, widely used frameworks reflecting differing combinations of policy ambition, market response and physical climate outcomes.

Scenarios (p.173). Low Emissions pathway: warming limited to 1.5°C, using IEA World Energy Outlook Net Zero Emissions, AEMO Green Energy Exports and IPCC SSP1–1.9. High Emissions pathway: warming of approximately 2.8°C to 4.6°C, using IEA World Energy Outlook Current Policies, AEMO Progressive Change, IPCC SSP3–7.0 and the Australian Government National Climate Risk Assessment. Physical risks are tested under higher warming, transition risks and opportunities under lower warming. The analysis was performed in FY26 for the Origin consolidated group (p.172).

Low Emissions (pp.174–175). The most adverse exposure is Australia Pacific LNG: an impairment of approximately $2,800 million of the equity accounted investment, with cash flows positive in the short term, distributions softening in the medium term and a negative cash flow tail in the long term. The Australia Pacific LNG analysis is primarily based on pricing assumption adjustments (p.174).

High Emissions (pp.175–176). Transition pressure on gas and LNG would be lower but physical hazard exposure would rise across all three horizons.

Conclusion and capacity to adapt (p.176). Origin considers its strategy and business model resilient across the scenarios and horizons. Levers: Eraring ceasing operation by 30 April 2029 with site repurposing (short term); retaining, upgrading or retiring the gas peaker fleet (medium term); investment-grade credit metrics. Uncertainties are listed per pathway (pp.175–176).

A climate-related scenario analysis was performed to understand and evaluate the potential impacts of physical risks and transition risks reasonably expected to impact the Group's prospects, using a range of possible scenarios. The analysis was performed on CY2025 actuals with anticipated impacts forecasted in the selected time horizons to evaluate the resilience of the Group's Business Model and Value Chain.

Scope and methodology

• The scenario analysis was conducted across the Group's consolidated operations and business units.
• Scenarios were based on publicly available data from authoritative sources and purchased data reflecting regional climate projections relevant to Pepper Money.
• The analysis considered extreme scenarios typically characterised as: high transition risk / low physical risk; and low transition risk / high physical risk, reflecting the inverse relationship between emissions reduction requirements and warming outcomes.

The scenario analysis was reviewed and approved by the Group's Board and Management ESG Committees during CY2025, focusing on scenario selection, assumptions inputs, and modelled outputs. Ongoing annual reviews will be conducted to update implications of climate-related uncertainties and integrate findings into the Group's strategic planning cycle.

Scenario selection

Application and financial stress testing

For transition risk, macro-economic indicators derived from NGFS scenarios were applied to stress the Group's financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. Key business drivers assessed include: Originations; Net interest income; Operating expense; Corporate interest expense. Observed changes in macro-economic indicators were compared against historical trends to estimate scenario outcomes over selected time horizons.

For physical risk, additional portfolio-level analysis was performed to model potential loan loss impacts under various physical risk scenarios, using separately acquired exposure data (based on Finity Consulting Pty Ltd's models for expected credit loss).

Integration into strategy

Outputs from this analysis inform decision-making and risk management guardrails, ensuring the Group remains resilient under a range of plausible climate futures. These findings are embedded into strategic planning and reviewed annually.

Scenario analysis outcomes

Scenario 1 (Net Zero 2050 / RCP 2.6)

A pathway that is contingent on global warming levels being below 1.5 degrees, climate policies are introduced early and become gradually more stringent, shifts in customer behaviour are noted due to the preference for sustainable products.

• Short Term: Physical risk exposure: low. Transition risk exposure: low to medium. Governments and regulatory bodies will continue to introduce more rigorous emissions standards. Demand for 'eco' friendly and 'low carbon' products grow. The projected impact from an increase in carbon pricing will place upward pressure on inflation and consequently cash rate targets. The Group may experience marginal disruption on new originations but is predicted to have very little impact on volume. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(0.1) million from physical risk and between $(0.9) million to $(1.4) million from transition risk.
• Medium Term: Physical risk exposure: low. Transition risk exposure: medium to high. As climate change intensifies, more frequent and severe physical events may transpire increasing impact to the group's lending assets in high risk areas. Demand for 'eco' friendly or 'low carbon' products will steadily increase. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(0.1) million from physical risk and between $(1.3) million to $(4.4) million from transition risk.
• Long Term: Physical risk exposure: low. Transition risk exposure: medium to high. Strong momentum in the transition towards low-carbon products and global climate mitigation efforts will slow the rate of climate change, somewhat stabilising physical risks. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(0.2) million from physical risk and $(1.9) million to $(8.4) million from transition risk. Whilst the result is the highest degree of impact in this scenario analysis the Group is well-positioned to manage the transition in the long term and will have strategies in place to mitigate and adapt.

Scenario 2 (NDC / RCP 4.5)

An intermediate and most probable baseline scenario forming the 'anticipated' case.

• Short Term: Physical risk exposure: low to medium. Transition risk exposure: low to medium. The Group will notice the initial signs of regulatory changes. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(0.1) million from physical risk and zero impact from transition risk.
• Medium Term: Physical risk exposure: medium. Transition risk exposure: medium. More concrete regulatory frameworks will be in place, requiring the group to implement compliance measures. There will be some pressure that increased carbon pricing will impose on higher inflation and cash rate target. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(0.5) million from physical risk and between $(1.0) million to $(2.0) million from transition risk.
• Long Term: Physical risk exposure: medium. Transition risk exposure: medium. There will be a broader transition towards a low carbon economy, requiring increased adaption measures by the Group, but this is not expected to significantly change the Business Model or disrupt the Value Chain activities. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(1.3) million from physical risk and between $(0.9) million to $(1.7) million from transition risk.

Scenario 3 (Current Policies / RCP 8.5)

High emissions in the absence of government policies to combat climate change.

• Short Term: Physical risk exposure: low to medium. Transition risk exposure: low. Governments remain divided on climate action leading to a lack of coordinated action on emissions reductions. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(0.1) million from physical risk and $(0.3) million from transition risk.
• Medium Term: Physical risk exposure: medium to high. Transition risk exposure: low. A lack of robust climate-related policies from governments will keep transition risks low. Physical climate change impacts intensify posing higher risk specifically to lending assets. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(0.3) million from physical risk and $(0.3) million from transition risk.
• Long Term: Physical risk exposure: high to very high. Transition risk exposure: low to medium. Governments focus on short term adaptation measures as opposed to decarbonisation, keeping transition risks relatively low. The Group becomes increasingly vulnerable to physical climate risks. Under this scenario the Group's profit before tax is expected to be reduced by up to $(1.8) million from physical risk and $(0.6) million from transition risk.

Significant areas of uncertainty

There are areas of uncertainty on the extent, pace and impact of climate change on Pepper Money's business operations. Scenario analysis has been conducted on a broad spectrum of scenarios to ensure a range of potential physical and transition impacts are considered. There is regulatory policy uncertainty on emissions reduction targets, both globally and domestically, which may result in ongoing changes to targets and regulation. Policy changes may involve changes to regulatory reporting demands on the financial services sector. Changes to consumer behaviour across mortgage lending and asset finance products are also highly uncertain. There is uncertainty on the frequency and locations of severe climate events that may impact Pepper Money's operations and business prospects.

Capacity to adjust or adapt strategy and Business Model

The Group's strategy and Business Model, including its mitigation and adaptation plans are currently based on the most probable scenario (Scenario 2). The ESG Working Group, MESG Co and BESG Co periodically evaluate the Group's strategy to incorporate climate-related considerations.

Resources and flexibility: The Group has invested in climate-related data acquisition to enhance risk quantification and portfolio assessment across its lending activities. In addition, the Group has committed resources to learning and development initiatives to build internal expertise for assessing and reporting on climate-related risks and opportunities. Resource allocation is subject to periodic review, and the Group retains flexibility to adjust budgets as required. As disclosed in Note 5 of the Group's financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2025, the Group has access to additional financing through committed credit facilities should its response to climate-related risks require further funding. The Group also maintains the ability to deploy excess corporate cash to meet such requirements.

Redeploying, repurposing, and upgrading assets: Over the short to medium term, the Group does not anticipate a material requirement to redeploy, repurpose, or upgrade its physical assets, as it primarily occupies leased office space within multi-tenant buildings and has limited influence over energy sources. The Group has assessed potential impacts on the value of lending assets and found no evidence of material deterioration in the short to medium term. Over the long term, the Group will continue to evaluate its lending portfolio and may adjust its exposure to assets that no longer align with its strategic objectives or climate resilience criteria.

Resilience assessment (p. 22). The Group assessed its resilience across three global emissions scenarios over the short (to 2030), medium (2030 to 2040) and long term (2040 to 2050). The assessment supports continued execution of the current strategy and does not indicate a need for fundamental change to the business model. Capacity to adapt rests on the mobility of the aircraft fleet, the Financial Framework (access to capital and flexibility in capital allocation), continued investment in fleet and operational improvements, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and carbon markets. Within the scenarios' assumptions and limitations, the Group is well-positioned to manage physical and transition risks. Uncertainties include temperature patterns, extreme weather, carbon pricing, interest rates and SAF cost and availability (pp. 22, 39).

How the analysis was done (pp. 38–39). Analyses were run in 2024 and the current period, with a refresh at least every five years. Transition risks were assessed for the Qantas Group, physical risks for the aviation segments. The scenarios use IPCC SSP1-2.6 (low emissions, Paris-aligned), SSP2-4.5 (moderate) and SSP5-8.5 (high), with inputs from the International Energy Agency, Bloomberg New Energy Finance 2050 Outlook and Air Transport Action Group Waypoint. By 2050: population 8.5, 9.1 and 8.6 billion; GDP: USD$291, $231 and $365 trillion. The fleet renewal opportunity has not been the subject of scenario analysis (p. 11).

QBE undertakes scenario analysis to further understanding of the impacts of climate risks and opportunities and the resilience of the Group's strategy to climate-related changes, developments and uncertainties.

Physical risks - scenario analysis (underwriting)

Scope of assessment: QBE has undertaken physical climate risk modelling of its property exposures across key perils and geographic regions where the Group has material catastrophe exposure. These comprise hurricanes and cyclones in the North Atlantic and Australia; convective storms in the United States and Australia; windstorms in Europe; floods in the United States, Australia and Europe; bushfires in Australia; and wildfires in the United States. The scope was determined through a risk-based assessment that prioritised the top peril-region exposures based on their contribution to the Group's AAL. Collectively, the modelled exposures account for over 90% of QBE's non-earthquake catastrophe AAL. The analysis projects gross AAL (before reinsurance) to provide a pre-mitigation view of potential losses.

Scenarios: Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) sourced from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) sourced from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6): SSP1-1.9 aligns with a pathway that limits warming to around 1.5°C; RCP4.5 reflects a stabilisation scenario with warming of approximately 2.5–3°C; RCP8.5 represents a high-emissions pathway with warming exceeding 4°C by 2100.

Time horizons: 2030, 2050 and 2090.

Key assumptions: The analysis assumes constant exposure over time to attribute changes in modelled losses specifically to climate change, meaning no adjustments are made for changes in population, mitigation measures, building standards or portfolio mix. Assumptions are primarily derived from IPCC AR5 and AR6, operationalised through catastrophe models and commissioned scientific research, incorporating assumptions about global climate policy ambition, macroeconomic trends, energy demand and mix, and pace of technological innovation, translated into regional hazard impacts using peril-specific assumptions from vendor catastrophe models and scientific literature. For example: in Australia, rainfall projections are based on the 2024 Australian Rainfall and Runoff Guidelines, while hailstorm frequency and severity is projected using QBE commissioned research from the University of New South Wales published in 2025; in Europe, windstorm and flood projections are derived from downscaled regional climate models including the EURO-CORDEX framework; in the United States, wildfire risk is modelled using relationships between Vapor Pressure Deficit and burned area, combined with regional vegetation dynamics and fuel availability.

Reporting period: The analysis was carried out in 2025 using current period in-force exposure data where available. The catastrophe models used incorporated vendor updates available to QBE at the time. In some cases, climate adjustments continue to rely on static studies published in prior years, particularly where updated vendor models are not yet available. QBE reviews its scenario analysis annually and updates inputs when material changes in exposure, model availability or scientific understanding occur.

Our resilience to climate-related physical risks

Scenario analysis indicates that projected increases in AAL across key perils through to 2050 remain within the bounds of normal portfolio variability when annualised at a total Group level. While some perils, such as flood and wildfire in Europe, Australia and the western United States, exhibit greater sensitivity to climate change, their impacts are geographically concentrated and less significant in aggregate. North American hurricane continues to be the most significant physical climate risk exposure for QBE. By 2090, modelled outcomes diverge more significantly. These projections are based on gross exposure and do not account for the mitigating effects of reinsurance or portfolio management actions.

The Group's underwriting strategy is considered resilient to expected changes in physical risk across short, medium and long-term time horizons, supported by a combination of measures that collectively support QBE's ability to adapt to evolving climate conditions and maintain underwriting and capital resilience over time.

Significant areas of uncertainty include the future availability and cost of reinsurance which may affect the Group's ability to transfer risk, and potential market reactions to repricing where affordability constraints could impact demand for insurance in higher-risk regions. To address these uncertainties, QBE continues to explore alternative capital solutions, including the recent launch of a catastrophe bond. QBE recognises that responding to uncertainties in insurance affordability involves engagement across both the public and private sectors to enhance the resilience of customers and communities.

Transition risks - scenario analysis (investment and underwriting)

QBE has applied a combination of quantitative modelling and qualitative assessment to evaluate the potential impacts of climate transition scenarios across its investment and underwriting portfolios.

Investment scope: External modelling platforms were leveraged to assess potential transition risk impacts for selected public asset classes, collectively representing over 80% of the carrying value of the Group's investments, including sovereign and semi-government bonds, corporate bonds, high yield debt, emerging market debt and developed market equities. A qualitative analysis was performed for QBE's infrastructure assets, using scenario pathways supplemented with sector-level research and insights from external investment managers.

Underwriting scope: A qualitative analysis was performed, focused on the Group's Marine, Energy & Aviation portfolio and leveraging the outcomes of sector-level transition impact projections, to assess directional impacts under a range of climate transition pathways.

Scenarios: The following Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) transition scenarios were applied: Net Zero 2050, where immediate and coordinated global policy action limits temperature rise to 1.5°C; Delayed Transition, reflecting postponed and fragmented mitigation efforts, resulting in temperature rise to 1.7°C; and Current Policies, a reference scenario based on existing policy settings, resulting in warming of 3°C (used as a baseline in the investment quantitative analysis). These represent a diverse range of plausible transition pathways, including one aligned with the latest international climate agreement.

Time horizons: Investment - 2050; Underwriting - 2030 and 2050.

Key assumptions: Investment - scenario assumptions including projected carbon prices, sector and regional emissions pathways, macroeconomic trends and energy system transitions are primarily sourced from NGFS Phase V. Company-specific data, including financial metrics, business segmentation and GHG emissions, are sourced from public disclosures and market data providers to the extent available; where incomplete, sector and country proxies and modelling assumptions are applied. The qualitative assessment for infrastructure assets is informed by sector exposures and qualitative information provided by external managers. Underwriting - the assessment leverages sector-level transition impact projections performed in 2022, which use scenario assumptions sourced from NGFS Phase II to quantify changes in sector profitability under each scenario. The analysis assumes a static portfolio composition, with no adjustments made for potential changes in business mix, customer transition readiness, or variability in company-level outcomes. Future enhancements are planned to enable more detailed analysis, including improvements in granularity and consistency of underwriting sectoral data and updating scenario inputs.

Reporting period: The analysis was carried out in 2025 and reflects the Group's current period investment exposures and current portfolio mix.

Our resilience to climate-related transition risks

QBE's investments and underwriting strategy are expected to be resilient to climate-related transition risks based on the outcomes of scenario analysis and the Group's current portfolio composition. In relation to investments, the assessment relies on issuer-reported and third-party data which may be subject to limitations relating to the timing and coverage of reported information.

Significant areas of uncertainty considered in the assessment of underwriting resilience include potential affordability constraints in higher-risk segments, and the pace and cost of technological change which increase uncertainty in claims costs. QBE's Transition Plan includes actions that will help mitigate these uncertainties, including strengthening underwriting and risk-engineering capabilities to respond to evolving technologies and loss patterns, phasing in analysis of emissions intensity across selected high-emitting portfolios and implementing an assessment of transition maturity for in-scope oil and gas, oil sands and Arctic drilling customers to inform appetite and engagement. These actions, together with ongoing monitoring through underwriting guidelines and risk assessment frameworks, are expected to support the continued resilience of the underwriting portfolio.

Climate resilience assessment

Our CAP is designed to address material climate-related risks and opportunities identified across a range of scenarios and time horizons. We have assessed the resilience of our portfolio under multiple transition scenarios aligned with 1.5°C, 2.1–2.3°C, and 2.5°C outcomes. Key elements of the plan include reducing operational emissions through renewable electricity deployment, transitioning mining operations away from diesel, and lowering process emissions in smelting and refining. These measures strengthen resilience under all scenarios considered and support delivery of our 2030 and 2050 emissions targets, while enabling a just and orderly transition.

Through disciplined capital allocation, operational decarbonisation, and portfolio flexibility, we are resilient to identified climate-related risks and well-positioned to capture opportunities arising from the global energy transition.

Financial resources and flexibility

Financial resources remain available to support our decarbonisation strategy. Our Group capital allocation framework guides investment decisions that support both growth and climate-related initiatives. We maintain flexibility to respond to emerging risks and opportunities, as demonstrated by our ability to fund major growth projects such as copper at Oyu Tolgoi, high-grade iron ore at Simandou, and lithium at Rincon. In addition, our recent acquisitions show the availability of funds to pursue inorganic growth opportunities aligned with our strategy.

Asset redeployment and portfolio flexibility

We regularly review our portfolio to ensure alignment with strategic priorities and climate objectives. This includes divesting assets that do not meet return criteria or strategic priorities, as evidenced by the currently ongoing strategic review of businesses from our former Minerals product group.

Areas of uncertainty

Our economic performance is stronger in Conviction than in Resilience, where there is higher GDP growth and a faster low-carbon transition. In Aspirational Leadership, higher carbon penalties and potential impacts on demand for mid- and lower-grade iron ore result in mixed performance for iron ore. The uncertainty reflects the highly unpredictable decarbonisation pathways of non-OECD countries beyond 2050.

How and when scenario analysis was carried out

We use scenario analysis to identify and assess material risks and opportunities, including those related to climate change, that may affect our Group in the medium and long term. All material Group operations are included in our analysis.

Transition risks and opportunities are assessed using short-term market analysis and our Group Conviction, Resilience and Aspirational Leadership scenarios for the medium and long term. These scenarios are macroeconomic in nature and reflect an integrated assessment of climate change, geopolitics, policy developments and broader economic conditions.

Physical climate risks are assessed separately using bottom-up, asset-level analysis aligned to discrete climate model-based emissions scenarios, including intermediate (RCP4.5/SSP2-4.5) and high-emissions (RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5) pathways.

We do not undertake climate modelling ourselves, but rather determine the approximate temperature outcomes by comparing the emissions pathways to 2100 in each of our scenarios with the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP) set out in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report. In 2024, we updated the scenario framework used to assess the resilience of our business under different transition-related scenarios. This year, the Conviction scenario was rerun to reflect updated assumptions and temperature outcomes, while the Resilience and Aspirational scenarios were not rerun as no material changes were made to their underlying assumptions or inputs.

The emissions pathways in Conviction and Resilience limit temperature rises to around 2.1–2.3°C (previously 2.1°C), and around 2.5°C by 2100 respectively, roughly aligning with the IPCC's intermediate emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5). The Aspirational Leadership scenario limits warming to 1.5°C (aligning with SSP1-1.9), consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

We review our scenario approach every year as part of our Group strategy engagement with the Board. For planning purposes, we define short term as up to 2 years, medium term as 2 to 10 years and long term as beyond 10 years.

Dependent on location and time horizon, our internally applied carbon prices range from $0/t CO2e to $250/t CO₂e.

There are no portfolio adjustments made to the Group's medium- to long-term plan under the various scenarios.

Santos has performed an analysis of our exposure, impacts and potential mitigating responses to both transition and physical climate-related risks and opportunities. We test our strategy and business model to determine our resilience to a range of potential climate future states. Santos evaluates the resilience of our portfolio with reference to both quantitative and qualitative factors.

Approach to scenario analysis

Climate scenarios are possible outcomes across the temperature, technological and behavioural spectrum. They are not forecasts, but potential future climate states, based on sets of assumptions around changes in global behaviour, including energy supply and demand. Different climate scenarios are used for transition and physical resilience testing.

Transition scenario analysis

Three scenarios used: IEA 2025 Net Zero by 2050 Scenario (IEA NZE 2025) - temperature rise limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius; S&P Global Commodity Insights Renaissance Scenario (S&P Renaissance 2025) - temperature rise limited to 1.9 degrees Celsius; IEA 2025 Stated Policies Scenario (IEA STEPS 2025) - temperature to rise 2.4 degrees Celsius. Santos’ portfolio has been tested to assess resilience through the energy transition, under both current policy settings and in accelerated transition scenarios, using after-tax cashflow from the long-term plans (LTP) as a measure of resilience, evaluated with reference to short (0-1 years), medium (1-5 years) and long-term (6-10 years) time horizons, consistent with internal budget and planning horizons. This analysis was undertaken in late 2025 and early 2026.

A carbon price is applied to Australian assets operating under the Australian Safeguard Mechanism and to assets where Santos has made a voluntary net-zero commitment. Commodity price assumptions derived from IEA STEPS, IEA NZE and S&P Renaissance scenarios.

Resilience conclusion: Our portfolio remains cashflow positive in the medium to long-term across the range of climate scenarios, including the IEA NZE scenario which is aligned to Paris Agreement climate goals. This demonstrates resilience of our strategy and business model. Cashflows include decarbonisation initiatives when incorporated into our long-term plans and include a carbon price to support our 2030, 2040 and 2050 emissions reduction targets. This approach is further supported by our ability to repurpose existing infrastructure and depleted reservoirs to develop CCS hubs adjacent to our operated assets. Cashflow remains positive across all relevant timeframes under IEA NZE, S&P Renaissance and IEA STEPS.

Physical risk scenario analysis

Santos conducted a climate scenario analysis on its operated and non-operated assets in 2023. Over 2024 and 2025 Santos assessed its resilience to physical climate-related risks. Santos engaged Deloitte to support identification of physical climate-related risks, using the latest climate models published by the IPCC and downscaled by NASA to a 25km resolution. Three climate scenarios used: SSP1-2.6 (1.8 degrees Celsius by 2100), SSP2-4.5 (2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100), and SSP5-8.5 (4.4 degrees Celsius by 2100). Scenario analysis was performed over three time frames comparing future climate trends in 2030, 2050 and 2070 to current conditions.

Physical resilience testing is performed by regional business units at least annually. Regional business units apply Santos’ Risk Matrix to determine inherent and residual financial risk ratings for physical climate hazards, considering potential financial impacts to revenue, operating costs and capital expenditure and controls/mitigations in place.

Capacity to adjust / adapt

Regional business units continue to monitor the potential impact of physical risks and determine whether there is any need for changes to operational controls or further adaptation action in the future. Physical climate-related risks are actively managed by regional business units through existing controls and adaption measures across the short to medium term, including weather monitoring, emergency response plans, trained personnel, factoring weather assumptions into production planning and budgets, regular inspection/maintenance, critical spares inventory, and supply chain continuity plans.

Significant areas of uncertainty / limitations

Santos’ scenario analysis necessarily relies on a number of assumptions, both internal (asset working interests, commercial arrangements, timing of investment decisions, project maturity, technology risk and market) and external (assumed changes to macroeconomic assumptions and conditions under each scenario and government policy). A change in any of these assumptions could impact the results of, and conclusions drawn from, scenario analysis. Santos notes that both the IEA and S&P Global acknowledge their scenarios represent potential pathways – not definitive pathways. Climate projections are based on assumptions about future greenhouse gas emissions and other policy choices, of which timing and impact are uncertain. Cascading and compounding climate risks were not assessed due to limited climate model data on their occurrence and associated uncertainty.

Scenario analysis was used to evaluate how climate-related risks and opportunities (CRROs) may affect the Group's strategy and business model. The analysis used a low and high emissions scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The impacts under each scenario were considered over short, medium and long-term time horizons.

The analysis considered the Group's capacity to adapt its strategy and operations and found that the strategy and business model is likely to remain resilient under both a low and a high emissions scenario, while recognising the limitations and uncertainties in scenario modelling.

Scenarios used

• Low emissions scenario – SSP1-1.9 "Taking the Green Road": assumes ambitious climate policies and rapid decarbonisation limiting warming to approximately 1.5°C by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels.
• High emissions scenario – SSP5-8.5 "Fossil-fuelled development": assumes a resource-intensive world that prioritises economic growth over sustainability, with warming expected to increase between approximately 3.3°C to 5.7°C by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels.

Climate-related transition risks and opportunities are more likely to have a greater impact under the "Taking the Green Road" scenario. Climate-related physical risks are more likely to have a greater impact under the "Fossil-fuelled development" scenario. A qualitative description of the impacts has been provided; quantitative information has not been provided due to the high level of measurement uncertainty.

Low-emissions scenario: capacity to adjust or adapt

• Policy and regulatory change: Short to medium term – improve operational efficiency through LED upgrades, enhance building analytics, continue waste diversion initiatives, explore reuse of construction materials. Medium to long term – install additional on-site solar panels where feasible, replace gas boilers with electric heat pumps, implement Sustainable Development and Design Principles subject to availability and feasibility. Long term – expand onsite recycling facilities.
• Stakeholder expectations: Medium to long term – adjust business partner mix as leases expire and identify new business partners to meet potential changes in customer preferences.
• Enhance engagement with customers and communities: Medium to long term – accelerate introduction of additional EV charging infrastructure to meet growing demand.
• Support business partners' transition to a low-carbon economy: Short to long term – purchase renewable energy certificates on behalf of business partners, revise store fitout frameworks, and continue to educate and engage partners.

High-emissions scenario: capacity to adjust or adapt

• Rainfall, hailstorms and flooding: Short to medium term – 19 assets with Climate Change Adaptation Plans (CCAPs) outlining current controls and future adaptation measures, informing destination risk profiles and long-term capital investment decisions; physical adaptations such as upgrading stormwater drainage, reinforcing/replacing roof structures, relocating critical equipment. Short to long term – operational priority actions and major capital works reviewed annually; business continuity plans in place; insurance programs reviewed annually.
• Bushfires: scenario assumptions include increased hot/fire days, poorer air quality, increased demand on destinations as places of refuge, more frequent/severe fire events, physical damage, and impacts on electricity transmission and construction-related supply chains (adaptation measures not separately itemised for this risk in the source).

Limitations and uncertainty in assessing climate resilience

Scenario analysis is subject to inherent limitations and uncertainties and is not intended to indicate likely outcomes. The scenarios are illustrative only, do not represent probabilities, and are based on assumptions and uncertainties. The analysis does not indicate whether any scenario will eventuate. Key areas of uncertainty include:

• Frequency and intensity of weather events and their impact on Westfield destinations: although climate models provide macro assumptions for physical weather changes by geographic region, they may not be directly attributable to the location of Westfield destinations.
• Regulations to achieve emission reductions: significant uncertainty about future regulations that may be introduced to reduce emissions in Australia and New Zealand.
• Stakeholder expectations: shaped by diverse and evolving factors, including financial capacity, physical climate impacts and broader societal and corporate trends, all of which are inherently uncertain.

Scenario analysis (pp. 177–179). Two scenarios, with an external climate risk consultancy, covering all operating geographies and business units.

Horizons: short-term (to 2030), medium-term (to 2040), long-term (to 2050). The lower warming scenario is aligned with the latest international agreement on climate change. Management determined the FY2025 analysis remains suitable for FY2026 (p. 167).

Resilience (pp. 180–181). No immediate need for material changes to strategy or business model was identified. Sonic says it has the capacity to adjust and adapt over the short, medium and long term, citing strengths including geographic diversification, financial strength and adaptive assets. Uncertainties named: climate science and modeling, transition progress, policy and regulation, data availability and quality, and technology and external factors.

Given the scale and uncertainty of climate change, the Group recognises that building resilience requires more than addressing current risks, it demands a forward-looking view of how different futures may unfold. Scenario analysis provides this perspective, allowing the Group to explore how climate-related risks and opportunities could influence its operations, strategy, and financial planning over the short, medium, and long term.

Significant Areas of Uncertainty

In evaluating the resilience of the Group's strategy and business model to climate-related risks and opportunities, several significant uncertainties must be acknowledged. A significant factor relates to the future severity and frequency of physical climate hazards in the Bowen Basin, such as floods, droughts, and extreme heat, and their potential to disrupt mining operations and associated infrastructure. Further complexity arises from data limitations that require assumptions, such as scaling outputs from RCP7.0 to approximate RCP8.5 where direct datasets are unavailable. Beyond physical risks, there is also inherent uncertainty in the pace and scope of policy and regulatory change, including emissions reduction targets, carbon pricing mechanisms, and mine rehabilitation requirements. Market dynamics further add to this uncertainty, particularly the long-term demand outlook for metallurgical coal as global steel production pathways evolve and low-emissions technologies are progressed. In addition, shifts in investor, customer, and stakeholder expectations around climate performance and emissions reduction continue and are difficult to quantify.

Scenario Analysis Approach

In 2025, the Group undertook climate-related scenario analysis to stress test its business strategy against a broad spectrum of plausible climate futures. The analysis was based on two pathways from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6): Scenario 1 (SSP1-2.6) and Scenario 2 (SSP5-8.5). These scenarios draw on two core building blocks of the IPCC framework: the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs).

The Corporations Act 2001 requires the use of a lower-warming scenario that pursues efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. SSP1-2.6 remains the appropriate lower-warming scenario as it represents realistic efforts to limit warming consistent with "well below 2°C" outcomes. Although the scenario's central estimate projects a global average temperature increase slightly above 1.5°C by 2100, its full probabilistic range includes outcomes approaching or falling below 1.5°C. Accordingly, the use of SSP1-2.6 supports Paris-aligned scenario analysis under AASB S2. Scenario analysis outputs noted no material difference using SSP1-2.6 aligned data compared to SSP1-1.9 data.

To strengthen robustness, the Group incorporated numerous additional datasets alongside the IPCC scenarios. Domestic insights were drawn from the AEMO's ISP, including the Step Change, Slower Change, and Accelerated Transition scenarios. At the global level, International Energy Agency scenarios, such as the Stated Policies and the Net Zero by 2050, were used, while macroeconomic and financial system perspectives were supplemented by the Network for Greening the Financial System climate pathways. To evaluate physical risks, the Group relied on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 & 5 climate models, aligned with the RCPs underpinning Scenarios 1 and 2.

For each scenario, the Group undertook both qualitative and quantitative assessments. The qualitative assessment considered how projected climate trends could affect the value chain, highlighting the potential emergence of new risks and opportunities. The quantitative assessment applied scenario data to estimate financial implications, including compliance costs, revenue impacts, and implications for strategic objectives. Each risk or opportunity was assigned a nominated time horizon, short, medium, or long.

Scenario analysis was applied to the Group's three key operations: IPC, SWC, and PTM. These sites were selected due to their scale, revenue contribution, and energy intensity, making them the most critical for testing resilience under varying climate outcomes.

Scenario analysis assumptions table (Scenario 1: Low Warming; Scenario 2: High Warming) covering climate-related policies, macroeconomic trends, national or regional-level variables, energy usage and mix, developments in technology, and reporting period, conducted in the 2025 reporting period.

Resilience Across Time Horizons

In the short term (0–2 years), the Group retains the financial resources and operational flexibility to meet immediate obligations under the Safeguard Mechanism. Strong cash flow generation and access to existing debt facilities provide the capacity to invest in near-term decarbonisation while absorbing compliance costs related to Safeguard Mechanism requirements.

In the medium term (3–5 years), resilience will be shaped by the ability to redeploy and repurpose assets. The Group is assessing the viability of dual-fuel haulage technologies and tracking the commercial readiness of battery-electric trucks. Additionally, investment in the SWC Gas-to-Electricity Project illustrates medium-term flexibility by improving on-site energy security and contributing to Scope 2 emissions reduction.

In the long term (5+ years), financial exposure is projected to intensify under both low and high-warming scenarios and the Group's capacity to respond will depend on its ability to upgrade and enhance efficiency of emissions-intensive assets while continuing to invest in low-carbon technologies. Methane capture, advanced drainage, and Scope 2 initiatives are expected to reduce emissions intensity and strengthen long-term resilience.

Across all horizons, integration of climate risk into the ERMF, supported by the internal carbon price, the Scenario Analysis and Financial Impacts register, and the climate risk register ensures these risks are fully embedded into capital allocation, resource planning, and growth decisions. Ultimately, scenario analysis confirms that although climate change introduces material risks to the Group's operations, these can be mitigated through the execution of the Group's strategic initiatives.

Also within Strategy 3.5: physical climate factors were examined alongside transition considerations to evaluate potential operational sensitivities. Findings from the assessment indicate that, while these factors, both individually and cumulatively, have the potential to cause short-lived operational disruptions, their anticipated impacts are managed within existing infrastructure, procedural frameworks, and adaptive controls. Although physical climate risks are not currently considered financially significant, the Group recognises that their significance may evolve as climatic conditions, regulatory settings, and operational footprints change.

Three scenarios were performed and refreshed as at 30 June 2025 (pp. 187–188):

RCP 4.5 is the primary scenario for short- and medium-term decision-making and for assessing current and anticipated effects; RCP 8.5 is used for post-acquisition physical risk assessments (p. 188). RCP 1.9 was assessed qualitatively against RCP 2.6, with no material difference in physical risk (p. 187). The analysis covers assets active, operational or in the development pipeline at 30 June 2025 (p. 198).

Resilience (p. 188). Resilience is supported by the ability to maintain financial flexibility and adapt strategy, portfolio settings and capital allocation. Under lower-warming pathways the existing strategy continues; under higher-warming pathways Stockland may adjust priorities, reassess portfolio exposures and strengthen risk management. Key uncertainties: pace of climate policy, technology, physical hazard modeling and third-party data.

Scenario analyses (pp. 33–35). Three analyses; the investment portfolio was not in scope in FY26.

Transition scenario #2 is described as consistent with the latest international agreement on climate change (p. 35).

Assessment (p. 36). Suncorp's strategy and business model are considered resilient to current and anticipated physical and transition risks over the short, medium and long term. Projected natural hazard cost increases are manageable through risk-based pricing, capital management and reinsurance; over the longer term, resilience is increasingly influenced by external factors such as affordability pressures and government intervention. Adaptive capacity: financial flexibility, operational capability and underwriting discipline. The assessment assumes existing risk management frameworks and controls operate as intended.

Index (p. 215): Climate resilience, p. 199; Scenario analysis methodology and assumptions, p. 205.

Assessment (p. 199). Based on its risk assessment, scenario analysis and assessment of financial impacts, Telstra considers it has an appropriate level of resilience to physical and transition impacts over the short, medium and long term. The most material physical impacts arise from electricity grid disruption rather than damage to network assets. Uncertainties noted: measurement uncertainty in climate data, no assessment of increasing temperature, an assumption of no material change in assets, and acute events whose number and location cannot be predicted.

Scenarios (p. 206). Physical: <2°C (RCP 2.6), 2–3°C (RCP 4.5) and >4°C (RCP 8.5), for 2030 and 2050, using Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 temperature data downscaled by CSIRO. Transition: a 1.5°C scenario (RCP 1.9) to 2030; key sources include the Australian Energy Market Operator Integrated System Plan 2024 'Step Change' and the Network for Greening the Financial System Net Zero 2050 Scenario. Assumptions include the 82% renewable electricity target by 2030 and expansion of the Safeguard Mechanism to capture Telstra. The transition assessment was last updated in FY24 and the physical assessment in FY26.

Scope (p. 207). Australian operations in detail; Digicel Pacific, Telstra International (80% of locations) and the global supply chain by desktop assessment under RCP 8.5.

The Group has assessed the resilience of its strategy and business model to climate change, taking into consideration identified climate-related risks and opportunities under different climate scenarios. Climate resilience is defined as the capacity to adjust, adapt and respond to climate-related changes, developments or uncertainties. Climate resilience encompasses both strategic resilience and operational resilience to climate-related changes, developments and uncertainties, including climate-related physical and transition outcomes.

The Group's quantitative scenario analysis indicates both positive and negative impacts under Fast Action and Hotter World. In assessing resilience, the Group assessed climate scenarios using existing 2025-2029 strategy and forecasting models, informed by internal and external market insights. The Group determined that detailed quantitative forecasting data beyond 2029 was not sufficiently accurate to reliably inform its resilience position. As a result, the Group's quantitative scenario analysis has been limited to 2026–2029. Beyond 2029, the Group has considered anticipated qualitative impacts associated with transition and physical components within its scenarios, and climate-related risks and opportunities, including potential implications to its corporate strategy.

Based on the Group's assessment, the service offerings most affected by identified climate-related risks and opportunities over 2026-2030 are: transitioning in step with climate policies and market expectations (Transition Risk); and supporting energy transition build-out, operations and maintenance (Opportunity).

In 2025, energy and renewables services contributed $387.4 million or 6% of the Group's revenue as compared to the contribution from fossil fuel-related services of $321.5 million or 5%. Under the Base Case, in the short to medium term, Oxford Economics Australia anticipates the addressable market for energy and renewables services will grow to $18.22 billion by 2029, and for fossil fuels, resources and industrial-related services to $12.19 billion. Under the Fast Action scenario, the Group anticipates that the growth of its energy and renewables services will outweigh the potential revenue reduction in fossil-fuel-related services, providing an overall positive net financial impact. Under the Hotter World scenario, the Group anticipates a delay in transition to renewables, which would result in stable performance of fossil-fuel-related services, and tempered growth in energy and renewable services due to long-term demand for transmission and distribution.

The Group has determined its exposure to potential climate-related physical impacts (disruption risk and supply chain disruption) to be not material, as the Group has sought to minimise its exposure to physical risks through contractual provisions, such as the performance of disaster recovery work under negotiated contract variations and entitlement to time and cost relief during force majeure extreme weather events. The Group anticipates the residual impact will be offset through disaster recovery work across Australia and New Zealand. Additionally, the Group maintains limited physical exposure to assets as only 2% of its total assets are assessed to be vulnerable to physical climate risks.

Overall, the Group anticipates its business will remain resilient to climate-related risks and opportunities over 2026–2029, given its industry diversification and its provision of proactive and reactive climate-related services. In addition, the Group's business model and strategy are considered adaptable across assessed scenarios, supported by balance sheet strength and $400 million of undrawn facilities as at 31 December 2025.

The Group's resilience assessment was performed based on underlying assumptions of each climate scenario. While the outcomes of the assessment reflect current understanding it is acknowledged that there could be unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause outcomes to differ.

Scenarios used

The Group has identified three plausible scenarios, Fast Action, Base Case and Hotter World, relevant to its circumstances. The Group has adopted the IPCC intermediate SSP 2-4.5 3°C scenario and temperature-aligned Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) 'Current Policies' scenario as its Base Case, while considering the very low SSP 1-1.9 1.5°C (Fast Action) and very high SSP 5-8.5 >4°C (Hotter World) extreme scenarios. The Group has assumed the Base Case scenario reflects the most likely short to medium-term climate scenario.

Scenario narratives and assumptions, and relevance to the Group, are detailed for each of Fast Action (1.5°C), Base Case (3°C) and Hotter World (>4°C) futures, covering assumptions on emissions policies, EV adoption, renewable investment, extreme weather frequency/severity, and their relevance to the Group's opportunities and risk exposure across short, medium and long term.

Business resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities

Climate scenario analysis plays an important role in identifying and assessing our material climate risks and opportunities, as well as the resilience of our business model and strategy. Our scenario analysis assesses the broader business operations, with a particular focus on our refinery operations in Geelong, Victoria.

Our scenario analysis incorporates scenarios based on the projections of various external data sources. Transitional risks and opportunities were assessed relying on the scenarios of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and data from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to provide Australian specific information for the gas and electricity sectors. Physical climate risks were assessed based on scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change (2021). These sources informed our scenarios, representing a range of potential global outlooks and energy transition pathways.

We initially conducted a climate risk and opportunity scenario assessment in 2024, evaluating results across three timeframes: short term (2030), medium term (2040) and long term (2050). During 2025 we reviewed this modelling and resilience assessment to ensure it remained relevant and aligned with the latest insights on climate-related impacts across the Group's operations, business model, and strategy.

Scenarios used

• Transition climate scenarios (IEA & AEMO): Low Warming Scenario – ambitious scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels, consistent with Australia's Climate Change Act (2022). High Warming Scenario – scenarios most aligned with current global progress in emissions reduction, assuming no changes to current policy settings, associated with a projected temperature increase of more than 2.5ºC.
• Physical climate scenarios (IPCC): Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 1-2.6 – a low emissions scenario likely to keep global warming below 2ºC relative to pre-industrial levels, aligned to Paris Agreement commitments, which would substantially reduce the projected increases in extreme weather events. SSP5-8.5 – a high emissions scenario, assuming no additional climate policy, under which emissions almost double by 2050, with changes in the climate system intensifying, including increasing heat extremes, severe drought, extreme rainfall, flooding and fire weather.

Our scenario analysis was undertaken across three time frames (short term = beyond 2025 up to 2030; medium term = beyond 2030 up to 2040; long term = beyond 2040 up to 2050), noting the rate of change across different fuel types is a major consideration, with passenger vehicles (gasoline demand) expected to transition at a different pace than transport vehicles utilising diesel and jet fuels.

Under all pathways, we continue to see that the Group has a role in both: (1) Security of supply – ensuring fuel and energy supply remains safe, reliable and efficient, and secure as the energy transition progresses; and (2) Energy transition – developing, commercialising and delivering low carbon liquid fuels and alternatives to support customers through the energy transition.

Short term resilience

Our analysis indicates that the Group's operations demonstrate resilience under both scenarios. Increased demand for LCLFs offsets the risk of declining demand for hydrocarbon fuel products under both low and high warming scenarios, as LCLF functions as a transition fuel rather than creating new demand or additional sales growth. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) is not expected to have a material impact on the Group's position under either scenario, as the expected age profile of the Australian passenger fleet limits its influence on short-term demand for hydrocarbon fuel products. Across both scenarios, the Group is expected to be exposed to some cost of compliance in relation to government climate policy, though the cost of this compliance is highly uncertain given the variability and interdependency of measurement inputs, such as emissions forecasts, future application of unknown policy, and forecast ACCU prices, making the ultimate impact too uncertain to quantify.

The Geelong Refinery is currently required to comply with the SGM and is the Group's largest source of GHG emissions (accounting for 98% of the Group's Scope 1 emissions in 2025). For scenario analysis purposes, we projected the future emissions profile at the refinery based on assumed feedstock volume and quality over a five year period, and considered variables including the potential impact of direct abatement investment, the future application of TEBA and a range of forecast ACCU prices.

Under the low warming scenario, we assumed maximum direct abatement reduction of emissions at the refinery, considering a range of potential ACCU prices and TEBA eligibility outcomes. Based on these hypothetical assumptions, the associated short-term compliance costs to the Group under the low warming scenario are estimated to range from $57.4 million to $105.2 million cumulatively to 2030.

Under the high warming scenario, we assumed no further direct abatement is achieved at the refinery. Applying the same range of potential ACCU prices and TEBA eligibility outcomes, the associated short-term compliance costs under the high warming scenario are estimated to range from $63.1 million to $112.8 million cumulatively to 2030.

Medium and long term resilience

Our analysis suggests that the Group's operations demonstrate medium-term resilience under both scenarios. However, this exposure is expected to increase over time, driven by anticipated regulatory expansion, technological developments and changes in consumer preferences. Over the medium and long term horizons, impacts under both low and high warming scenarios did not result in any immediate re-rating of existing risk ratings established through our broader risk management processes.

The assessment of climate-related risks and opportunities over these timeframes is inherently complex due to the unpredictable nature and uncertainty of market trends and policy developments. Furthermore, the long-term scenario analysis contemplates a future in which our business in its current form (including the Geelong Refinery) may no longer be viable. The medium to long-term impacts under either scenario cannot, therefore, be quantified with any degree of certainty at this stage.

We will continue assessing climate-related risks and opportunities to inform our business strategy and long-term planning, particularly as key decisions, such as the Fuel Security Services Payment (FSSP) negotiations, are finalised. Our strategy focuses on building a flexible foundation to support adaptation to changes in decarbonisation and climate policy, regulatory frameworks, and demand for traditional fuels.

Capacity to adjust

In relation to capital allocation, our current approach to managing climate-related risks is largely focused on purchasing ACCUs to meet regulatory obligations under the SGM. The upcoming SGM review in 2026 and 2027 will also shape our future decarbonisation strategies once finalised. While climate change poses potential risks to existing operations and infrastructure, we are well positioned to adapt our infrastructure and operations to capture emerging opportunities. We have been investing in opportunities to repurpose our existing infrastructure for LCLFs, co-processing and electrification solutions, positioning the business to respond to customer demand as it emerges. Our strategy, planning, and capital allocation approach is designed to enhance our business resilience and long-term performance. Maintaining our strategic flexibility is critical to navigating a range of possible future scenarios.

Scenarios (pp. 60–61). The 2026 analysis uses Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pathways applied through the Network for Greening the Financial System: SSP1-2.6 (Net Zero 2050, +1.3°C to +2.4°C very likely range by 2100), SSP2-4.5 (Delayed Transition, +2.1°C to +3.5°C) and SSP5-8.5 (Current Policies, +3.3°C to +5.7°C), over three time horizons. SSP5-8.5 replaced SSP3-7.0 in 2026 because it better captures extreme physical hazard outcomes. The Group considers SSP1-2.6 referable to the 1.5°C temperature goal in section 3(a)(i) of the Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth) and Delayed Transition the most plausible short- to medium-term pathway.

Resilience (p. 74). The diversified portfolio and value chain is expected to remain resilient across the three scenarios and over all horizons. Under Current Policies, long-term physical risk rises materially; beyond 2030, abrupt policy responses and escalating physical effects may require accelerated adaptation investment and potential changes to asset configuration, supply chain and product mix.

Uncertainty and capacity (p. 74). Uncertainties, which increase materially beyond 2030, include local acute hazards, policy responses, carbon pricing and CCS viability. Financial flexibility comes from an investment-grade credit rating, diversified earnings and balance sheet capacity; retail formats have short refurbishment cycles and WesCEF's long-lived assets are addressed through staged abatement investment.

Scenarios (pages 78–81). Lower warming (1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, transition risk): demand trajectories informed by a published International Energy Agency scenario (Net Zero Emissions); forecasts to 2050 by Commodity Insights. The scenario assumes seaborne metallurgical and thermal coal demand declines 90% by 2050, with floors of US$72/t (real) for metallurgical coal and US$46/t (real) for thermal coal. A $40/t carbon price applies to mines under the Safeguard Mechanism, 2026 to 2050. Higher warming (well exceeding 2°C, physical risk): IPCC SSP2-4.5, approximately 2.7°C by 2100, assessed for bushfire, inundation and water scarcity at twelve sites, rail corridors and ports, for 2026, 2035, 2050 and life of mine, with no future adaptation assumed.

Results (pages 80, 83). Under the 1.5°C scenario the operating mine portfolio remains resilient until the late 2030s but is not resilient from the late 2030s through to 2050 due to a structurally lower coal price environment, assuming no change to strategy or mitigation measures. Development projects would not be financially feasible. Physical risks are not considered material to the operating mine portfolio and supply chain in the short, medium and long term.

Responses (page 83). Options include optimizing the mine portfolio, changing mine plans or curtailing production, reducing capital expenditure, renegotiating take-or-pay charges and terminating projects below a requisite 15-25% post-tax IRR.

Resilience (p. 216). WiseTech concludes its strategy and business model remain resilient with no major adjustments or adaptations required or planned over the short, medium and long term, and says it retains significant strategic flexibility and capacity to adapt should future conditions require it.

Analysis (pp. 216–217). Scenario analysis was conducted in the year ended 30 June 2026. An external advisor developed specifications and obtained scenario information from international research and policy groups. Physical analysis covered the complete facility list and critical assets, principally data centers, including upstream critical assets, but not specific downstream geographies. Transition analysis covered the entire value chain. Opportunities were assessed qualitatively because quantitative modeling could not be achieved without undue cost or effort (p. 216).

The Net Zero 2050 scenario is described as aligned with the latest international agreement on climate change (Paris Agreement) (p. 217). Time horizons are 2030, 2040 and 2050 (p. 218). Uncertainty arises from the limits of climate modeling, emissions pathways, climate policy, carbon pricing, technology and customer demand (p. 209).

Woodside uses climate-related scenario analysis to inform its assumptions about future energy demand and pricing as well as its engineering design parameters. Scenario analyses are not forecasts, but they can provide a view of different potential futures.

As required by the AASB S2, Woodside has assessed the resilience of its strategy and business model to two different sets of climate scenarios: energy market scenarios that are associated with different global temperature outcomes, including 1.5°C outcome scenarios which test resilience to rapid decarbonisation in the near term; and physical impact scenarios, including those which consider temperature outcomes of more than 2.5°C of warming, to test resilience to the impacts of climate change in the medium term. For the specific purposes of the resilience testing section of this report, the analysis was concluded in January 2026.

Rapid decarbonisation in the near term

The approach to resilience testing in this report has been developed to meet the requirements of AASB S2. It is one part of informing Woodside about CRROs, not a complete method, and results do not represent Woodside's best estimate of how energy markets may develop.

Woodside utilised pricing assumptions derived from three scenarios in the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2025 (Current Policies Scenario - CPS, pointing towards ~3°C in 2100; Stated Policies Scenario - STEPS, pointing towards 2.5°C in 2100; NZE by 2050 Scenario, where peak warming exceeds 1.5°C for several decades, returning below 1.5°C by 2100), and one scenario from S&P Global (Net Zero 2050 Scenario, limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100).

Woodside does not see evidence of policy, market or technology developments progressing in ways that are consistent with the two 1.5°C aligned scenarios used in this analysis. Neither the IEA NZE nor S&P Global's 1.5°C scenario are expected by Woodside to arise in the foreseeable future, because of their current and foreseeable lack of adoption by policy makers, misalignment with national energy security and decarbonisation pathways, and their requirements for deep declines in demand, counter to the strong demand Woodside has experienced for its LNG from Asian and European customers over the past two years.

The pricing data from these scenarios was used to calculate a hypothetical Woodside average annual adjusted free cash flow (FCF) for its portfolio of producing assets and sanctioned projects in five-year increments from 2026 to 2040. Results indicated Woodside's FCF is modelled as positive when using CPS and STEPS data through to 2040. If the 1.5°C scenarios were to eventuate, management action would be required to maintain positive cashflow from the 2031–2035 period (for NZE) and from the 2036–2040 period for S&P 1.5.

Physical impacts of climate change

In 2025, Woodside conducted a physical climate risk scenario analysis, incorporating assessment of 99 locations along Woodside's value chain in 16 countries, including both operated and non-operated assets, both existing or planned, and both offshore and onshore. The analysis also included assessment of 14 downstream locations, such as loading and discharge ports, and five locations of upstream suppliers.

The analysis was conducted using Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP) from the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report: RCP 2.6/SSP1-2.6 (1.8°C, P5-95 range 1.3–2.4°C); RCP 4.5/SSP2-4.5 (2.7°C, P5-95 range 2.1–3.5°C); RCP 8.5/SSP5-8.5 (4.4°C, P5-95 range 3.3–5.7°C). Time horizons: Short (2026); Medium (2027–2036); Long (2037 and later). Climate indicators: heat stress, temperature extremes, severe weather, flooding, drought, and metocean conditions.

Woodside has also considered SSP1-1.9 as a 1.5°C pathway; however, limited availability of downscaled data for SSP1-1.9 constrains assessment, so Woodside has adopted SSP1-2.6 as its lower-warming scenario.

Results: The analysis identified a high exposure of Woodside's workers to heat stress, with exposure increasing over the time horizons under all scenarios, given key operations occur in remote, high-temperature regions. The Léopold Sédar Senghor FPSO in Senegal was particularly identified as already exposed to high temperatures. The analysis also identified existing high exposure to severe metocean conditions including cyclones, hurricanes and other storms, relevant for workers, assets, and downstream ports and shipping routes; however, exposure to this hazard is not increasing materially over the short-, medium- or long-term time horizons for any of the scenarios assessed. More than one third of loading and third-party discharge ports currently have higher exposure to the risk of cyclones, hurricanes and revolving storms, with a concentration in Japan, and exposure identified in the US and Taiwan. Heavy rainfall and flooding risks are also projected to intensify at discharge ports in Indonesia, China, and Japan.

Existing mitigation controls include extreme heat management guidelines, production planning, and design standards intended to withstand extreme weather events that occur in the range of one in 1,000 years to one in 10,000, with design sensitivities performed for selected assets against SSP5-8.5, a 4°C scenario.

Assessment of resilience

Woodside's business and corporate strategy has been assessed by Woodside as resilient in the short-, medium- and long-term to the identified material climate-related risks and opportunities. For the year ended 31 December 2025, there were no material quantifiable financial impacts to the financial performance, position and cash flow arising from these climate-related risks and opportunities. In addition, Woodside did not identify any material adjustments and there were no requirements to adjust resourcing. The cost of responding to these material climate-related risks and opportunities are inherently built into our current business processes and systems, resourcing and work plans and budgets.

Assessment. Scenario modeling indicates a low financial impact from physical events on direct assets and major transport routes, while transition risks present more material financial risks (p. 51). Physical risk effects are assessed as low to moderate (p. 58). Scenario analysis tests the resilience of the business model and supply chain across temperature pathways (p. 56). Adaptive capacity: resilience programs informed by climate modeling, capital to upgrade physical defenses at vulnerable sites, and flexible financial resources and funding (pp. 66, 74). Uncertainty: scenarios are not forecasts (p. 52); the operations assessment excludes sea level rise, drought and heatwaves and does not consider tipping points or compounding risks (p. 61).

Scenario analysis (pp. 52, 57, 60, 79). Carried out in F26 with two scenarios: Net Zero (1.5°C, SSP1-1.9), consistent with the global temperature goal in the Paris Agreement, and Climate Distress (>3°C, SSP3-7.0), used to assess resilience against physical impacts. Reference years are 2030 (short term), 2040 (medium) and 2050 (long). Scope: Australian Food, New Zealand Food and BIG W (about 90% of consolidated revenue), about 1,500 locations, five major transport routes and 10 food commodities. Assumptions: identical population growth, and constant disposable income, market share and product mix, across both scenarios; assumed carbon costs; policy, energy and technology narratives (pp. 60, 63, 79).

How the analysis was done (pp. 48–49). Scenario analysis was performed in FY2026 as a standalone assessment, applied across the business model and value chain over the defined time horizons and focused on the most strategically and financially significant parts of the portfolio.

Each scenario sets out pace of transition, physical impacts, energy mix, technology and sector outputs.

Resilience (p. 50). Worley says its diversified portfolio underpins resilience: under 1.5°C declining oil and gas revenues are offset by growth in hydrogen, power and energy transition materials; under >3°C oil and gas revenue remains a strong contributor. Capacity to adapt rests on diversification, flexible delivery models, resource reallocation, an annual strategy process, capital discipline, redeployable skills and targeted investment in climate solutions.

Caveats (pp. 48, 58). The outcomes were not formally integrated into strategy development in FY2026, although the report says strategy is informed by climate-related issues. Scenario outputs are directional and are not commitments.

With the introduction of AASB S2, the P4 Report now provides a high-level summary of this work. The detailed climate-related disclosures are presented separately in the Sustainability Report.

During the year, we enhanced our understanding of CRROs in line with AASB S2. This included progressing our phased Climate Scenario Analysis program, supported by external experts, to help assess the potential impacts of both physical and transition-related risks across a range of hypothetical future scenarios.

Our Climate Scenario Analysis aligns with the latest international agreement on climate change, covering both 1.5°C and 2°C warming scenarios directly required by AASB S2 and reflecting the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.

The Climate Scenario Analysis was undertaken during the 2023–2024 period. Further detail on this work, including the underlying methodology, assumptions and the full set of CRROs, is provided in the Sustainability Report.

Over the past 12 months, we have focused on shifting from planning to execution - strengthening our governance, improving data quality, and advancing the practical initiatives that support long-term resilience and value creation... we completed detailed data mapping across our operations, improved internal processes, and expanded the scope of climate-related modelling to include drought, bushfire, extreme rainfall and cyclone assessments for applicable sites. These insights will inform ongoing mitigation and adaptation planning to address identified climate-related physical and transitional risks.