Evidence Explorer

Vattenfall has a 2040 net-zero target covering Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions included within its SBTi-validated target boundary. The 2030 strategic target table states that the 18.2 MtCO₂e target covers Scope 1, 2 and 3 as covered by Vattenfall’s 2040 net-zero targets validated by SBTi.

Vattenfall has a clear 2030 absolute emissions target of 18.2 MtCO₂e, covering Scope 1, 2 and 3. The 2025 outcome was 23.2 MtCO₂e, down from 24.6 MtCO₂e in 2024, mainly due to more fossil-free electricity sales in the Netherlands.

Vattenfall discloses Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Scope 3 is broken down into categories including purchased goods and services, fuel- and energy-related activities, electricity sales, use of sold products / sold fossil fuels, and other Scope 3 categories. In 2025, Scope 3 emissions were 19.8 MtCO₂e, with sold fossil fuels at 11.0 MtCO₂e and the rest of Scope 3 at 4.3 MtCO₂e.

Vattenfall’s 2026–2030 net investment plan totals SEK 165bn, with SEK 92bn / 56% allocated to growth investments. Around SEK 59bn is allocated to development and construction of new wind farms, including Nordlicht I & II in Germany and Zeevonk in the Netherlands. The plan also identifies total Wind net capex of SEK 62bn.

Vattenfall reported 33.0 gCO₂e/kWh CO₂e emissions intensity in 2025, compared with 50.0 gCO₂e/kWh in 2024 in the strategic target table. The broader sold-electricity intensity including relevant value-chain emissions was 48.3 gCO₂e/kWh.

Vattenfall reduced total Scope 1–3 emissions by 56% since 2017, from 52.9 MtCO₂e to 23.2 MtCO₂e in 2025. The CEO message also states that Vattenfall has reduced greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations by 73% since 2017.

Vattenfall provides quantitative EU Taxonomy disclosure. In 2025, taxonomy-aligned capex was SEK 26,417m / 85%, taxonomy-aligned turnover was SEK 83,066m / 35%, and taxonomy-aligned opex was SEK 6,294m / 82%. Wind power alone accounted for SEK 7,961m taxonomy-aligned capex, equal to 26% of the taxonomy capex KPI.

Vattenfall reports water withdrawals, discharges, consumption and water-risk assessment. In 2025, total water withdrawals were approximately 7.97bn m³, total water discharges were approximately 7.97bn m³, and total water consumption was approximately 1.12m m³. Assets are assessed annually using the WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas. This is supporting environmental-management evidence rather than a core OSW metric.

Vattenfall discloses strong OSW asset-level evidence. Nordlicht I is a 980 MW offshore wind project expected to be operational in 2028, with estimated CO₂ reduction of 1,067 kt and total investment of EUR 2,724m. Nordlicht II is 630 MW, expected in 2029, with estimated CO₂ reduction of 686 kt and total investment of EUR 1,877m. The Green Bond table also lists Hollandse Kust Zuid 1–4: 1,509 MW / 50.5% interest, Kriegers Flak: 604 MW, and Vesterhav projects: 344 MW. Official Vattenfall Green Bond materials also confirm Nordlicht’s 980 MW + 630 MW capacity, expected ~6 TWh annual production, and 2028/2029 operational timeline.

Hollandse Kust Zuid provides Vattenfall’s strongest OSW marine-ecology evidence. The project includes nature-inclusive design with water replenishment holes in 139 turbine foundations, rock reefs at nine seabed locations, bird and bat monitoring cameras, thermal-camera bird-collision trials, and underwater video monitoring. This gives Vattenfall project-level evidence on marine habitat support, bird/bat monitoring and fish/fauna observation.

Vattenfall provides biodiversity actions and assessments, including biodiversity hotspot assessment for the supply chain and biodiversity-related supplier assessments using GIST Impact. However, the report does not present a clear quantified Group-wide “nature-positive by X year” target. This should therefore be recorded as strong biodiversity management evidence, but no formal Group-wide nature-positive target found.

Vattenfall has strong wind-specific circularity evidence. It targets 100% circular outflow for turbine composite materials by 2030, covering blades, nose cones and nacelle covers. It also applies an immediate landfill ban for blade composite materials and has a 100% circular outflow commitment for permanent magnets from 2030.

Vattenfall has strong low-carbon materials evidence. It commits to 10% near-zero steel and 10% near-zero concrete in annual procurement by 2030. Through SteelZero, Business Area Wind targets 50% low-emission steel by 2030 and 100% by 2040. For Nordlicht I, Vattenfall reports that 56 of 112 turbines will use scrap-based low-emission steel, with around 66% emissions reduction for that steel. The report also references the world’s first dam gate made with 120 tonnes of fossil-free steel, expected to reduce the climate footprint by around 100 tonnes.

Vattenfall reports robust supplier governance. In 2025, it had 22,882 goods and services counterparties, conducted 8,864 screenings, and carried out 36 sustainability site audits. Screening applies to suppliers above EUR 10,000 estimated spend, while suppliers in high-risk categories or countries with contracts above EUR 100,000 are subject to sustainability audits. This is Group-level supplier evidence rather than OSW-only supplier mapping.

Vattenfall has SBTi validation and broad external ESG validation. The report is prepared under ESRS, and the statutory sustainability statement is assured by auditors. Vattenfall’s ESG ratings include CDP A, EcoVadis Platinum / top 1% in the energy sector, ISS ESG B– Prime, MSCI AAA, Sustainalytics Medium Risk, and World Benchmarking Alliance ACT Core B. Vattenfall’s official ESG ratings page also confirms CDP A and EcoVadis Platinum among its current ESG assessment

Iberdrola has a Net Zero emissions ambition by 2040, covering Scopes 1, 2 and 3. The report states that the trajectory is certified as consistent with the Paris Agreement by the Science Based Targets initiative / SBTi.

Iberdrola’s medium-term climate targets include reducing electricity generation emissions intensity to 32 g CO₂/kWh by 2028, achieving Scope 1 CO₂e neutrality by 2030, and reaching less than 10 g CO₂/kWh electricity generation emissions intensity by 2030.

The report covers Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3. Total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions in 2025 were 33.3 MtCO₂e using the location-based method. The report also notes that most Scope 3 categories use primary data, while Category 1 purchased goods and services and Category 7 employee commuting are estimated.

Iberdrola’s transition plan is based on electrification, networks, renewable energy and storage. Externally, Iberdrola states that at the end of Q1 2026 it had 2,516 MW installed offshore capacity, with plans to increase offshore wind capacity by 3.5 GW between 2025 and 2028, supported by €8bn gross investment worldwide over the period.

Iberdrola reports direct emissions intensity of 39 g CO₂/kWh in 2025, down from 250 g/kWh in 2010, representing an 84% reduction. Since 2020, emissions intensity has fallen by 60%.

In 2025, Iberdrola’s total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions stood at 33.3 MtCO₂e using the location-based method. The report states that by the end of 2025 the Group had achieved an emissions reduction of more than 54% compared with the comparable 2020 base year, equal to more than 22 million tonnes of cumulative absolute emissions reduction.

Iberdrola provides quantitative EU Taxonomy disclosure. For 2025, taxonomy-aligned CapEx reached 92.9% of total CapEx. The taxonomy table shows turnover: €44,075.6m total, 64.7% eligible, 60.7% aligned; CapEx: €18,702.5m total, 93.8% eligible, 92.9% aligned; and OpEx: €1,911.5m total, 90.4% eligible, 88.7% aligned.

Iberdrola reports water withdrawal and water-stress exposure. Total water withdrawal in 2025 was 1,274,971 ML, of which 794,159 ML was in water-stress areas. The report states that 96% of water withdrawn is returned to the environment, and withdrawals for generation are regulated by government permits setting maximum consumption volumes.

The sustainability report gives limited asset-level OSW capacity detail, but external Iberdrola project pages fill the gap. Baltic Eagle is a 476 MW offshore wind farm in Germany, located 30 km northeast of Rügen, commissioned in October 2024, and designed to supply renewable energy to 475,000 households. Wikinger is a 350 MW operating offshore wind farm in the German Baltic Sea, commissioned at the end of 2017, with 70 turbines, €1.4bn investment, and renewable energy for 350,000 homes. Iberdrola’s offshore wind page also states installed offshore capacity of 2,516 MW at end-Q1 2026.

The report provides OSW-relevant marine ecology evidence. For Baltic Eagle, Iberdrola implemented acoustic mitigation measures during construction to protect sensitive marine mammals such as the harbour porpoise, including double bubble curtains and acoustic dampers. It also reports wildlife monitoring plans at photovoltaic and offshore wind farms.

This is stronger than the sustainability-report-only version. Iberdrola’s external biodiversity page states a clear goal to have a net positive impact on biodiversity by 2030. The Biodiversity Plan applies to the entire Iberdrola Group and is based on identifying, quantifying and monitoring impacts across the life cycle of facilities. It also states that by 2025, 100% of priority installations should have assessed and revised biodiversity action plans, and by 2030, 100% of installations should have revised biodiversity action plans.

The report identifies wind blade recycling as a circular economy issue and references EnergyLOOP. External sources strengthen this significantly: Iberdrola España and FCC opened EnergyLOOP, the first wind turbine blade recycling plant on the Iberian Peninsula, in Cortes, Navarra. The plant is designed to process up to 10,000 tonnes/year, required around €10m investment, and aims to recover glass fibres and resins from blades for reuse in sectors such as energy, aerospace, automotive, textiles, chemicals and construction.

The report mentions low-environmental-impact materials and low-emission steel in the context of internal carbon pricing and decarbonisation decision-making. However, Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials. This should remain partially disclosed / limited for Iberdrola unless another project-specific procurement source is added.

Iberdrola provides strong supplier governance evidence. In 2025, €12,777m was allocated to suppliers assessed under its sustainability model, close to 97% of total awarded supplier value. €12,430m was awarded to sustainable suppliers, over 94% of total awarded value. The report also states that 42 audits were conducted on key suppliers, and major suppliers of general goods, equipment and fuel are assessed under environmental and sustainability criteria.

The report is prepared under CSRD / ESRS and includes EU Taxonomy disclosure under Article 8. KPMG Auditores performed a limited assurance review of the consolidated non-financial information statement and sustainability reporting. The assurance report states that nothing came to attention indicating that the report was not prepared in accordance with ESRS, CSRD-related sustainability reporting requirements and EU Taxonomy Article 8 disclosure requirements.

JERA has a JERA Zero CO₂ Emissions 2050 commitment. The report states that JERA aims to achieve net-zero CO₂ emissions from domestic and overseas operations by 2050, using a “smart transition” approach combining renewable energy and zero-CO₂-emission thermal power.

JERA has interim domestic decarbonisation targets for FY2030 and FY2035. By FY2030, JERA aims to decommission all inefficient coal power plants, conduct ammonia substitution demonstrations at high-efficiency coal plants, promote renewable energy centred on offshore wind, and reduce thermal power carbon emission intensity by 20% based on Japan’s FY2030 long-term energy supply-demand outlook. By FY2035, JERA aims to reduce domestic business CO₂ emissions by at least 60% compared with FY2013.

JERA discloses Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions in its pre-financial data. FY2024 Scope 2 emissions were 177 thousand tCO₂ under both location-based and market-based methods, while Scope 3 emissions were 32,390 thousand tCO₂. Scope 3 is broken down by category, including Category 1 purchased goods and services: 160 thousand tCO₂, Category 2 capital goods: 888 thousand tCO₂, Category 3 fuel- and energy-related activities: 20,376 thousand tCO₂, and Category 11 use of sold products: 10,625 thousand tCO₂.

JERA’s 2035 growth strategy sets a target of 20 GW renewable energy development output by FY2035, with renewable energy identified as one of the three strategic pillars alongside LNG and hydrogen/ammonia. The report also shows current renewable energy development capacity of approximately 4.6 GW as of June 30, 2025. For OSW specifically, JERA Nex bp is described as a strategic offshore wind platform with approximately 13 GW net potential generating capacity, and JERA and bp have agreed to invest up to US$5.8bn by the end of 2030.

JERA reports FY2024 domestic CO₂ emissions intensity of 0.520 kg-CO₂/kWh. The report also shows FY2024 total CO₂ emissions of 150.49 million tCO₂, with domestic power generation accounting for 125.86 million tCO₂ and overseas power generation for 24.18 million tCO₂.

JERA uses FY2013 as the baseline for its domestic decarbonisation pathway. The report shows domestic business CO₂ emissions of approximately 180 million tCO₂ in FY2013 and 126 million tCO₂ in FY2024, with a commitment to reduce domestic business CO₂ emissions by at least 60% by FY2035 and reach net-zero CO₂ emissions by 2050.

No clear EU Taxonomy disclosure is provided in the JERA Integrated Report. This is understandable because JERA is a Japan-based energy company rather than an EU-headquartered issuer. Instead, the report references frameworks such as TCFD, TNFD, GRI Standards, Japan’s Environmental Reporting Guidelines 2018, and the International Integrated Reporting Framework.

JERA reports environmental management in terms of reducing CO₂ emissions, preventing air and water pollution, biodiversity conservation and compliance with environmental laws and regulations in each country and region. The TNFD-related analysis also identifies water as a key natural-capital dependency and impact across coal procurement, LNG procurement, thermal power, solar, wind and biomass power generation.

JERA Nex bp’s offshore wind portfolio includes operating assets and development projects with approximately 13 GW net potential generating capacity. External JERA Nex bp information states that this includes around ~1 GW of operational offshore wind projects, 7.5 GW of development projects, and 4.5 GW of secured leases. The report also identifies JERA’s past and current OSW activity: participation in Taiwan’s first commercial-scale offshore wind projects Formosa 1 and 2, completion of Japan’s first large-scale offshore wind project Ishikari Bay New Port, and selection as operator for multiple Japanese offshore wind projects including Oga, Katagami and Akita City. JERA’s official project page also states that Formosa 2 consists of 47 fixed-bottom offshore wind turbines off Taiwan’s north-western coast.

The report does not provide detailed OSW asset-level marine ecology mitigation comparable to Vattenfall’s Hollandse Kust Zuid or Iberdrola’s Baltic Eagle examples. However, JERA reports nature-related risk assessment using the TNFD LEAP approach, including identification of priority locations through IBAT and other tools, and analysis of dependencies/impacts for wind power generation, including land use, underwater areas, water consumption, pollution, solid waste and disturbance.

JERA participates in Japan’s 30by30 Alliance for Biodiversity, which aims to conserve more than 30% of land and sea areas by 2030 and support a path toward a nature-positive future. The report states that JERA applies the mitigation hierarchy, avoidance, minimisation and restoration, when constructing and replacing power plants. It also reports that Kurihama Forest at Yokosuka Power Station, a 10.5-hectare green space, was certified as an OECM in FY2024, and that a 2024 survey identified 32 plant species and 235 animal species at the site.

The report gives limited wind-specific circularity evidence. It identifies recycling and resource recovery as part of JERA’s natural capital and recognises solid waste as a nature-related impact across relevant business activities, but it does not disclose a quantified wind-blade, turbine-component, or OSW end-of-life circularity target.

The report provides strong evidence on low-carbon fuels, especially hydrogen, ammonia and CCS/CCUS, but limited evidence on low-carbon construction materials such as steel, concrete, cables or foundations for OSW. JERA completed the world’s first demonstration test substituting 20% ammonia at a large-scale commercial coal-fired power generator and is preparing for commercial operation; it also started commercial use of electricity generated by 100% hydrogen-fuelled zero-CO₂-emission thermal power for Toho Studios. For OSW embodied carbon, no quantified low-carbon steel/concrete commitment was found in the report.

JERA reports responsible procurement and supplier-related governance mainly through compliance and human rights due diligence. The report states that JERA is committed to responsible procurement considering CSR and ESG factors, including quality assurance, procurement cost management, legal compliance, safety assurance and business continuity planning. It also states that JERA is establishing a human-rights due diligence framework based on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, and Japan’s guidelines on responsible supply chains. In FY2024, JERA conducted a company-wide employee survey covering areas such as the supply chain and human rights.

JERA’s Integrated Report references GRI Standards, TCFD and TNFD recommendations, and the report notes that FY2024 environmental data marked with a star has been externally assured. It also provides links to an Independent Assurance Report on Environmental Data. Externally, JERA states that it has been responding to the CDP climate change questionnaire since 2022, but Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials.

Equinor maintains an ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The 2025 Energy Transition Plan sets out short- and medium-term actions supporting this long-term ambition, although Equinor notes that delivery depends on policy support, market conditions, technology development and demand for low-carbon products.

Equinor’s key interim target is a 50% net reduction in operated Scope 1+2 emissions by 2030, compared with 2015. This includes a 45% gross absolute emissions reduction, with high-quality carbon credits used for residual emissions. It also has a 2030 upstream CO₂ intensity ambition of 6 kg CO₂/boe for operated Scope 1 emissions.

Equinor discloses Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. In 2025, own operations under financial control reported Scope 1+2 emissions of 7.9 million tonnes CO₂e. Scope 3 is broken down by category, including purchased goods and services: 2.6 MtCO₂e, capital goods: 0.5 MtCO₂e, transportation and distribution: 3.8 MtCO₂e, processing of sold products: 13.7 MtCO₂e, use of sold products: 257.8 MtCO₂e, end-of-life treatment of sold products: 6.4 MtCO₂e, and investments: 2.8 MtCO₂e.

Equinor has renewable and low-carbon ambitions within its Energy Transition Plan. It revised its Net Carbon Intensity ambition to a 5–15% reduction by 2030 and 15–30% by 2035 versus 2019, while maintaining its 2050 net-zero ambition. For OSW, Equinor says it provides renewable power equivalent to more than one million European homes and is developing major offshore wind projects in Europe and the US. Equinor’s official offshore wind page states that it is building material offshore wind clusters in the UK, US North East and Baltic Sea.

Equinor reports a 2030 upstream CO₂ intensity ambition of 6 kg CO₂/boe for operated Scope 1 emissions. The report also states that Equinor has industry-leading methane performance and an ambition to keep operated methane emissions near zero or below 0.02% of marketed gas.

Equinor measures operated Scope 1+2 emissions progress against a 2015 baseline and aims for a 50% net reduction by 2030, equivalent to a 45% gross absolute reduction. In 2025, own operations under financial control reported 7.9 MtCO₂e Scope 1+2 emissions.

Equinor provides quantitative EU Taxonomy disclosure. For 2025, total turnover was USD 105,242m, with 0.1% taxonomy-eligible and no material aligned turnover reported. Total CapEx was USD 14,440m, with 17.2% taxonomy-eligible and USD 2,118m / 14.7% taxonomy-aligned. Total OpEx was USD 1,916m, with 0.6% taxonomy-eligible and no material aligned OpEx reported. The increase in aligned CapEx was mainly driven by continued development of Empire Wind, contributing USD 2,118m to taxonomy-aligned activities in 2025.

Equinor reports water and pollution as part of its environmental ESRS disclosures, with material impacts including planned emissions to air and water and major accidental pollution. The uploaded extract does not provide a simple consolidated water-withdrawal table in the same visible way as Vattenfall or Iberdrola, but Equinor’s reporting scope covers environmental metrics under ESRS, including pollution to water and estimates for partner-operated assets where direct data is limited.

Equinor has strong asset-level offshore wind evidence. Official external sources show Dogger Bank will have 3.6 GW capacity across 277 offshore turbines and power around six million British homes when complete. Empire Wind 1 has a contracted capacity of 810 MW, is wholly owned and operated by Equinor, and is located 15–30 miles southeast of Long Island. Bałtyk 2 and Bałtyk 3 are two Polish offshore wind projects developed by Equinor and Polenergia, with a combined capacity of 1,440 MW, 720 MW each, and 100 fixed-bottom turbines. Equinor also operates / participates in Sheringham Shoal, Dudgeon, Hywind Scotland, Hywind Tampen and Arkona. Its official offshore wind page states Arkona is a 385 MW German offshore wind farm with 60 turbines, supplying around 400,000 households annually.

Equinor provides OSW-relevant biodiversity evidence through its material sites assessment. The report identifies Sheringham Shoal, Dudgeon and Empire Wind as material biodiversity sites. Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon are associated with seabird collision risk and are adjacent to sensitive protected areas, while Empire Wind is linked to underwater noise that may affect marine mammals and intersects with the migration route of the endangered North Atlantic right whale.

Equinor has a formal Biodiversity Position aiming for a net positive impact in areas of high biodiversity value, supporting global ambitions to reverse nature loss. This includes a net-positive approach, voluntary exclusion zones, research participation, industry partnerships and investments in nature-based solutions.

Equinor reports circular economy and resource-use metrics at Group level, but does not disclose a wind-specific blade / turbine end-of-life target comparable to Vattenfall’s 100% circular outflow target. In 2025, Equinor reported 177,826 tonnes of steel and 210,002 tonnes of chemicals under financial control, with 55,028 tonnes of reused or recycled steel and 50,239 tonnes of reused or recycled chemicals. This corresponds to 31% reused/recycled steel and 24% reused/recycled chemicals.

Equinor discloses material inflows and recycled-material use, including 31% reused/recycled steel and 24% reused/recycled chemicals in 2025. However, Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials. This should be treated as partially disclosed / limited for OSW embodied-carbon benchmarking.

Equinor has strong supplier governance evidence. Its supply-chain management requirements state that suppliers must comply with standards on health, safety, ethics and social responsibility, and that key suppliers are managed using risk-based models. In 2025, Equinor conducted 292 SSU qualification audits of suppliers, identified 205 suppliers with significant social gaps, and reported that 39% were qualified after closing gaps while 61% had yet to complete improvement plans. It also conducted 9 third-party human rights supplier assessments, involving 483 worker interviews across 5 countries.

Equinor’s sustainability statement is prepared in accordance with the Norwegian Accounting Act, ESRS, and EU Taxonomy Article 8 requirements. The report states that certain metrics are externally verified where relevant, in addition to the assurance provider for the sustainability statement. The uploaded report does not clearly show a broad named ESG-ratings list equivalent to Vattenfall’s CDP / EcoVadis / MSCI / Sustainalytics table, so external validation should mainly be captured through ESRS / EU Taxonomy reporting and assurance, rather than ratings breadth.

EnBW has extended its climate targets to include formal net-zero targets. It aims to achieve net zero for Scope 1 and Scope 2 by 2040, corresponding to at least 95% emissions reduction, and net zero for Scope 3 by 2050 at the latest, corresponding to at least 90% reduction. Residual emissions are expected to be offset through greenhouse gas removals.

EnBW has detailed interim targets. For Scope 1 and 2, it expects reductions of 70–75% by 2030, 83% by 2035, and 95% by 2040. For Scope 3, it expects reductions of 45–55% by 2030, 67% by 2035, and 90% by 2050. The report also notes that the 2035 Scope 1 and 2 target has been validated by SBTi.

EnBW covers Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 in its climate pathway. The report states that Scope 1 and 2 net-zero targets cover 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions, while Scope 3 targets include emissions from the use of sold products and associated upstream value chains. The report also separately tracks generation intensity, electricity sales intensity and Scope 3 fuel/use-related emissions.

EnBW is planning gross investment of up to €50bn between 2024 and 2030 to transform the energy system, including grids, wind farms, solar parks, hydrogen-ready gas power plants and customer solutions. In 2025, installed renewable energy output reached 7.4 GW, and renewables accounted for 65.6% of generation capacity.

EnBW’s 2025 CO₂ intensity was 353 g/kWh, compared with 272 g/kWh in 2024. The report explains that the 2025 KPI includes 25,665 GWh of controllable generation volumes and 8,992 thousand tonnes of CO₂ emissions from controllable electricity generation.

EnBW’s pathway is benchmarked against a 2018 base year. The report states that Scope 1 and 2 emissions are expected to fall by 95% by 2040, with interim targets of 70–75% by 2030 and 83% by 2035. For Scope 3, the pathway targets 45–55% reduction by 2030, 67% by 2035, and 90% by 2050.

EnBW provides strong quantitative EU Taxonomy disclosure. In 2025, taxonomy-aligned adjusted EBITDA was €3,602.4m / 71%, taxonomy-aligned capex was €6,739.7m / 89%, taxonomy-aligned expanded capex was €7,196.1m / 89.6%, and taxonomy-aligned revenue was €8,173.3m / 23.8%. EnBW no longer reports opex from 2025 because it considers it non-material.

EnBW reports water use mainly in conventional generation, hydropower and water supply. The report states that fossil-fuel-fired electricity and heating plants withdraw river water mainly for cooling and process water, then discharge it back after use. EnBW identifies heated cooling-water discharge as the material water-related sustainability matter. It also has a Group-wide Water Management Policy, covering water-stress analysis, monitoring, audits, wastewater management, water risk management and supply-chain water management.

EnBW’s most important current OSW asset is EnBW He Dreiht, around 90 km off Borkum. The report states that it has 960 MW offshore capacity, 64 turbines, uses 15 MW Vestas turbines, is being built without state funding, and is expected to supply around 1.1 million households from summer 2026. The first electricity flowed into the grid at the end of November 2025, and by January 2026 32 of 64 turbines had been installed. External EnBW project information also confirms that He Dreiht will have 64 turbines and 960 MW capacity, and will double EnBW’s offshore portfolio of 976 MW once fully operational.

The report has biodiversity and ecosystem disclosures, but it does not provide the same level of OSW-specific marine ecology evidence as Vattenfall’s Hollandse Kust Zuid or Iberdrola’s Baltic Eagle. For He Dreiht, the strongest disclosed evidence is project-level OSW construction and renewable generation impact rather than detailed quantified marine mammal, bird, fish or seabed monitoring. This should therefore be treated as partially disclosed / limited for OSW-specific marine ecology.

EnBW discloses biodiversity and ecosystem management under ESRS E4 and integrates environmental considerations into its Sustainability Agenda. However, Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials. The report appears stronger on climate transition, taxonomy and renewable expansion than on a formal nature-positive target.

EnBW reports resource use and circular economy under ESRS E5, but Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials. This should be treated as limited / not clearly disclosed for OSW-specific circularity.

EnBW includes carbon emissions as a relevant award criterion in procurement tenders. The report states that suppliers can be contractually required to formulate and document clear carbon reduction targets covering both direct and indirect emissions. However, Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials.

EnBW has strong supplier governance evidence. Central procurement uses a standardized supplier prequalification process, requiring suppliers to self-assess environmental management, occupational safety, human rights, anti-corruption, data protection and quality management. By the end of 2025, 95% of suppliers by procurement volume had acknowledged the Supplier Code of Conduct. Suppliers refusing the SCoC without comparable internal guidelines are blocked in the procurement system. EnBW also conducted international on-site audits for strategically important supply components such as transformers, modules, inverters and batteries, and enhanced LkSG risk analysis using sector/country risk and market-recognized data sources.

EnBW’s report uses ESRS and EU Taxonomy reporting. The consolidated financial statements and combined management report were audited with reasonable assurance, while the non-financial declaration / sustainability statement was audited with limited assurance by BDO, except for referenced content and EU Taxonomy disclosures. EnBW also reports strong external validation: CDP Climate A / Leadership, Moody’s Net Zero Assessment NZ-2, and SBTi validation for its 2035 Scope 1+2 target. EnBW’s official ESG ratings page confirms CDP Climate A, CDP Water B, and ISS ESG B / Prime Status.

CIP does not appear to disclose a formal corporate net-zero year comparable to Vattenfall, Iberdrola, EnBW or Equinor. However, CIP’s ESG reporting page discloses operational climate targets: Scope 1 target: remain at 0% GHG emissions, Scope 2 target: 100% renewable electricity by 2025, and Scope 3 target: reduce Scope 3 GHG emissions per FTE by 45%. This is useful, but it is not the same as a Group-wide net-zero target.

CIP does not disclose a conventional 2030 / 2035 absolute corporate emissions-reduction target. The strongest interim decarbonisation evidence is the Scope 3 emissions-per-FTE reduction target of 45% and the portfolio impact evidence. In 2025, CIP reports that operational projects delivered 13 GWh of clean energy, could power 3.5 million homes, and helped avoid 7.5 million tonnes of GHG emissions.

CIP does disclose own-operational Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. In 2025, reported emissions were Scope 1: 22 tCO₂e, Scope 2 market-based: 95 tCO₂e, Scope 3 market-based: 13,525 tCO₂e, and total market-based emissions: 13,642 tCO₂e. Scope 3 is broken down into categories such as purchased goods and services / capital goods, fuel- and energy-related activities, waste in operations, business travel and employee commuting.

CIP is fundamentally an energy-transition infrastructure investor. The report states that CIP has raised over €37bn across 15 funds, has 50 active projects, and around 150 GW development capacity. It invests across solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, BESS, Power-to-X, advanced bioenergy, transmission, geothermal, waste-to-energy and carbon capture. COP also states externally that it has more than 50 GW of offshore wind projects in its global development portfolio, which is highly relevant for the OSW benchmark.

CIP does not report utility-style generation intensity such as gCO₂e/kWh, because it is an infrastructure fund manager rather than an integrated power utility. Instead, it reports own-operational emissions intensity per employee. In 2025, total market-based emissions were 22.7 tCO₂e/FTE, while Scope 3 market-based emissions were 22.5 tCO₂e/FTE.

CIP reports a 2022 baseline. Total market-based emissions increased from 7,034 tCO₂e in 2022 to 13,642 tCO₂e in 2025, largely reflecting platform growth, purchased goods/services, capital goods and travel. This is not an absolute reduction story; the more relevant metric is its intention to reduce Scope 3 emissions per FTE by 45%, alongside portfolio-level avoided emissions.

CIP does not provide a single consolidated EU Taxonomy-aligned capex / turnover / opex table like Vattenfall, Iberdrola or EnBW. However, external SFDR disclosures show that CI V reported 16% of investments aligned with the EU Taxonomy during the reference period, while also stating that the fund had no commitment to make taxonomy-aligned investments. The CIP ESG report itself is stronger on SFDR classification, with several funds classified as Article 8 or Article 9.

Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials. This is understandable because CIP is not a utility operator with a single generation fleet. The strongest water-relevant evidence is project-level: Tønder Biogas reduces nutrient pollution risks and supports circular nutrient use through digestate, but this is not equivalent to a formal water management KPI. For this metric, CIP should be recorded as limited / not clearly disclosed, unless using project-level environmental management narratives.

CIP / COP is strong here. The report identifies Fengmiao I in Taiwan as a 495 MW offshore wind project expected to generate more than 2,380,000 MWh annually, with FID in March 2025, offshore construction expected to begin in Q1 2026, and target completion in Q4 2027. External sources confirm the 495 MW Fengmiao I financial close and state that Vestas will supply 33 × 15 MW turbines. CIP’s other official project pages show Vineyard Wind 1: 800 MW, with 20-year PPAs, and COP states that it has 50+ GW offshore wind development portfolio.

The strongest OSW-specific biodiversity / marine evidence is from Fengmiao I. The project trained local fishermen to become marine mammal observers (MMOs) and guard vessel service providers, linking local fisheries engagement with marine mammal monitoring and construction-phase marine safety. This is useful asset-level evidence, although it is less technically detailed than Vattenfall’s Hollandse Kust Zuid or Iberdrola’s Baltic Eagle examples.

Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials. However, the report identifies nature and resource stewardship as one of CIP’s six ESG focus areas, and the Tønder Biogas case is framed as a biodiversity-positive energy solution. Tønder Biogas processes up to 930,000 tonnes of agricultural and industrial organic waste per year, produces 450 GWh of biomethane, and returns more than 800,000 tonnes of digestate annually to local farmers. This is strong project-level nature/circularity evidence, but not a formal Group-wide nature-positive target.

Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials. CIP does participate in industry bodies that work on wind sustainability, circularity and responsible sourcing, including WindEurope and GWEC’s Wind Sustainability Initiative. This is supportive external-validation evidence, but not a quantified wind circularity target.

Not clearly disclosed in the reviewed materials. The closest evidence is lifecycle-emissions reporting at investment level and CIP’s participation in wind supply-chain sustainability initiatives. This should remain limited / partially disclosed for OSW embodied-carbon benchmarking.

CIP has a strong responsible-investment process. ESG is integrated across investment selection, targeted due diligence, development, construction and operations. The ESG team works with investment teams to identify risks and opportunities, apply fund-specific ESG standards and guide implementation across portfolios. CIP’s strategic ESG focus areas include supply chain accountability and responsible business conduct.

CIP is strong on external validation. It is a UN PRI signatory, reported a 98/100 Direct Infrastructure module score in 2025, and achieved GRESB Management Score 28/30 for CI IV, CI V and CI GMF I in the latest reporting period. CIP is also a UN Global Compact signatory, GIIN member, WindEurope board member, GWEC Wind Sustainability Initiative participant and founding industry member of the Global Offshore Wind Alliance. The 2025 ESG report also includes independent limited assurance over selected disclosures.

Ørsted has a science-based target to reach net zero by 2040. The report frames this as aligned with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement and supported by SBTi-validated climate targets. Ørsted also states that it will continue reducing upstream and downstream emissions to deliver on its net-zero by 2040 target.

Ørsted has clear interim targets. It reports a 2030 target to reduce Scope 3 emissions from gas sales by around 67%, using 2018 as the base year, and a 2040 target to reduce those gas-sales emissions by around 90%. The company also reports strategic ambition figures showing Scope 1–3 GHG intensity falling from 322 gCO₂e/kWh in 2018 to 69 gCO₂e/kWh in 2025, with a 2040 target of <2.9 gCO₂e/kWh.

Ørsted discloses Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3. In 2025, Scope 1–2 GHG intensity was 4 gCO₂e/kWh, while Scope 1–3 intensity excluding Category 11 “use of sold products” was 69 gCO₂e/kWh. Scope 3 Category 11 emissions were 8.8 million tonnes CO₂e, up from 7.4 million tonnes in 2024, mainly due to higher gas sales linked to the ramp-up of the Tyra gas field and the sale of coal from storage after coal-based generation was shut down.

Ørsted is now explicitly focused on offshore wind in Europe and selected APAC markets. In 2025, it had 29.6 GW renewable capacity, consisting of 18.5 GW installed, 8.9 GW under construction / FID’ed, and 2.2 GW awarded. It also reports 10.2 GW installed offshore wind capacity and expects this to grow to more than 18 GW by the end of 2027 through its current 8.1 GW offshore wind construction programme.

Ørsted’s current emissions intensity is very low compared with most integrated utilities. In 2025, its Scope 1–2 GHG intensity was 4 gCO₂e/kWh. Including Scope 3, but excluding Category 11 use of sold products, its GHG intensity was 69 gCO₂e/kWh. The decrease was mainly due to the shutdown of coal-fired CHP plants in 2024.

Ørsted reports that it has reduced Scope 1–2 emissions intensity by more than 98% since 2006, describing 2025 as the year it became the first energy company to complete a green transformation of its own energy production. The company also reports that its renewable share of generation reached 99% in 2025, meeting its target for the year.

Ørsted provides EU Taxonomy disclosure and identifies five taxonomy-eligible activities: solar PV electricity generation, wind power electricity generation, electricity storage, bioenergy CHP, and high-efficiency CHP from fossil gaseous fuels. It states that solar, wind and storage activities fulfil substantial contribution criteria for climate change mitigation. Ørsted also states that all projects are taxonomy-aligned under its strategic ambitions, although the report text seen here is stronger on eligible/aligned activity logic than on a simple one-line capex / turnover / opex percentage summary.

Ørsted does not present water as a core OSW performance metric, but it does disclose water and marine-resource compliance through EU Taxonomy DNSH logic. For offshore wind, it states that environmental impact assessments are legally required for all projects and that construction of offshore wind should not hamper good environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. It specifically references mitigation of offshore noise / energy impacts and states that it has a water policy and internal processes for legal compliance on water.

Ørsted provides very strong OSW asset-level evidence. Its 2025–2027 offshore construction programme totals 8.1 GW and includes Borkum Riffgrund 3: 913 MW, Hornsea 3: 2,852 MW plus 300 MW storage, Greater Changhua 2b and 4: 920 MW, Sunrise Wind: 924 MW, Revolution Wind: 704 MW, and Baltica 2: 1,498 MW. The report also notes that Sunrise Wind was about 45% complete, with 44 of 84 turbine foundations installed, while Revolution Wind was about 87% complete. External Ørsted sources further confirm Hornsea 3 at around 2.9 GW, enough to power more than 3.3 million UK homes, and identify it as expected to become the world’s largest single offshore wind farm.

Ørsted has strong OSW-relevant biodiversity and marine ecology evidence. The report highlights ReCoral by Ørsted™ at Greater Changhua in Taiwan, where corals were deployed at 30 metres depth in 2025 after three years of laboratory cultivation. It also reports biodiversity mapping at Anholt Offshore Wind Farm, including 12 3D-printed reefs installed in 2022, now covered with algae and used by species such as sea bass, sea squirts, crabs and starfish. In addition, Ørsted’s OSONIC low-noise monopile installation technology reduced installation noise by 99% in a Gode Wind 3 trial and moved into commercial phase in 2025.

Ørsted has a clear nature-positive target: it aims to deliver net-positive biodiversity impact from all new renewable energy projects commissioned from 2030 onwards. Its Biodiversity Policy applies to all owned and operated offshore and onshore sites and outlines how Ørsted approaches this net-positive biodiversity ambition. The company also identifies biodiversity as one of its three strategic sustainability priorities, alongside decarbonisation and community impact.

Ørsted reports that it has not yet set formal targets for resource use and circularity. However, it has a strong wind-specific landfill commitment: since 2023, Ørsted has committed to ensuring that no wind turbine blades or solar panels from its assets end up in landfill. In 2025, five blades were taken down and either sent for proper treatment or put into temporary storage until treatment. The company also tracks technical materials used in construction of new assets above 100 MW, including offshore wind turbines, foundations, substations, and array/export cables.

Ørsted’s embodied-carbon evidence is stronger than simple qualitative disclosure but not as directly quantified as Vattenfall’s low-emission steel case. The report identifies the second wave of its transition plan as supply-chain decarbonisation, focusing on hard-to-abate areas such as steel, aluminium, cement, concrete, maritime transport, heavy transport and component manufacturing. Ørsted engages suppliers through science-based targets, renewable electricity coverage and CDP reporting. Externally, Ørsted has also published work on low-emission steel and positions supplier decarbonisation as central to its 2040 net-zero target.

Ørsted has strong supplier governance and due diligence evidence. Its procurement process screens relevant offshore supplier categories through pre-qualification against its Code of Conduct and QHSE requirements. In 2025, Ørsted implemented code-of-conduct due diligence in procurement pre-qualification and piloted an AI-enabled adverse-media screening system for supplier screening before contract signing. It conducted 311 risk screenings, of which 39 required extended screenings. It also participates in IRMA and the International Responsible Business Conduct Agreement for the Renewable Energy Sector, and it piloted anonymous worker surveys to strengthen value-chain worker engagement.

Ørsted’s sustainability statements are prepared under CSRD and ESRS. External validation is strong: SBTi approved Ørsted’s strengthened pathway to its science-based 2040 net-zero target in 2025. External Ørsted materials also show strong ESG ratings, including MSCI AAA, Sustainalytics 24.5 / medium risk, ISS ESG B+ Prime, and EcoVadis Gold / top 5%. Ørsted also states externally that it received the highest possible CDP score for the seventh consecutive year, although its 2025 Green Finance Impact Report notes that the 2025 CDP scores were delayed pending CDP’s assessment.

RWE has an SBTi-validated net-zero target by 2040, covering Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions across the value chain. The report states that RWE’s near-term and long-term GHG reduction targets were validated by SBTi in December 2024 and are aligned with the 1.5°C pathway. RWE plans to use carbon credits only for remaining residual emissions required to reach net zero in 2040.

By 2030, RWE aims to reduce Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions from power generation by 71.1% per MWh versus the 2022 baseline. It also aims to reduce Scope 1 and 3 emissions from all electricity sales by 71.1% per MWh, and reduce remaining absolute Scope 3 emissions by 42% by 2030.

RWE discloses Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions. In 2025, Scope 1 emissions were 51.89 MtCO₂e, while Scope 2 emissions were 0.22 MtCO₂e. Scope 3 emissions were 19.5 MtCO₂e, down 10.6% year-on-year, mainly due to lower Category 11 “Use of sold products” emissions and reduced gas sales to industrial and commercial customers.

RWE’s strategy is centred on renewables, storage, flexible generation and hydrogen, while phasing out coal by 2030. The report states that RWE aims to bring 95% of capital expenditure in line with the EU Taxonomy by 2030 and continues expanding renewables. Its Offshore Wind segment is a dedicated reporting segment overseen by RWE Offshore Wind. Externally, RWE lists major offshore wind construction projects including Sofia 1.4 GW, Thor 1.1 GW, Nordseecluster 1.6 GW, and OranjeWind 795 MW.

RWE reported Scope 1+2 carbon intensity of 0.43 tCO₂e/MWh in 2025, down from 0.46 tCO₂e/MWh in 2024, representing a 6.9% decline. RWE’s CO₂ emissions from power stations fell from 52.6 Mt in 2024 to 50.8 Mt in 2025, and specific power-station emissions fell from 0.447 t/MWh to 0.415 t/MWh.

RWE’s total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions declined by 5.1% year-on-year in 2025. Scope 1 emissions fell by 2.5%, mainly due to closure of further lignite-fired capacity, while Scope 3 emissions fell by 10.6%. Against its 2022 baseline, RWE reports Scope 3 emissions of 19.5 MtCO₂e in 2025 versus a 22.2 MtCO₂e baseline, equivalent to a 12.1% cumulative reduction.

RWE provides strong quantitative EU Taxonomy disclosure. In 2025, taxonomy-aligned CapEx was €11.115bn, representing 94% of total CapEx, and taxonomy-aligned revenue was €5.036bn, representing 29% of total revenue. Total CapEx was €11.887bn, and total revenue was €17.628bn. RWE does not report taxonomy-eligible or aligned OpEx shares because it considers OpEx immaterial from a capital-market perspective.

RWE reports detailed water KPIs in the supplementary sustainability report. In 2025, total water withdrawal was 4,325 million m³, total water discharge was 4,238 million m³, and total water consumption was 87 million m³. Specific water consumption was 0.71 m³/MWh, down from 0.81 m³/MWh in 2024 and 1.21 m³/MWh in 2023. RWE also aims to reduce specific water consumption by 40% by 2030 versus the 2022 baseline and reports CDP Water Security B.

RWE has strong asset-level offshore wind evidence. Major projects include Sofia 1.4 GW in the UK, located on Dogger Bank and designed as one of RWE’s largest current offshore wind projects; Thor 1.1 GW in Denmark; Nordseecluster 1.6 GW in Germany; and OranjeWind 795 MW in the Netherlands with TotalEnergies. Official RWE project information also states that Nordseecluster will be built in phases and is expected to generate enough electricity for around 1.6 million homes.

RWE has strong Group-level biodiversity management and some OSW-relevant evidence. The Annual Report states that RWE identifies biodiversity impacts using SBTN guidance, the TNFD LEAP approach, IBAT and WWF Biodiversity Risk Filter. It also applies environmental impact assessments and mitigation hierarchy measures for new assets, including offshore wind farms. However, the uploaded report does not provide as much project-specific marine ecology detail as Vattenfall’s Hollandse Kust Zuid or Iberdrola’s Baltic Eagle examples.

RWE has a clear biodiversity ambition: from 2030 onwards, all new assets should make a net-positive contribution to biodiversity. The report states that RWE’s net-positive approach focuses on improving habitats, increasing species population size, boosting biodiversity and reducing extinction risks.

RWE has strong wind-specific circularity evidence. It aims to transition towards a fully circular business model by 2050 and has set circular economy as a key strategic priority. For wind assets, it is testing blade reuse and recycling options, participates in the BladeReUse project, and has used Siemens Gamesa recyclable blades. RWE installed recyclable blades at Kaskasi, installed recyclable blades on more than half of Sofia’s 100 turbines, and plans to use 40 sets of recyclable rotor blades at Thor. The report also states that 75% of offshore wind farm overhaul component orders used refurbished components in 2025.

RWE has strong OSW-relevant low-carbon materials evidence. The report states that RWE is analysing more environmentally friendly steel, concrete, low-carbon polysilicon and glass. At the Thor offshore wind farm, RWE is using Siemens Gamesa GreenerTowers for 36 wind turbines, with tower steel that emits on average 63% less CO₂ than conventional steel. RWE is also using material-reduced onshore foundations that can cut concrete volumes by up to 20% and reduce reinforcing steel weight by up to 11%. Official Thor project information also confirms that 36 of 72 turbines will use lower-carbon steel towers and that 40 turbines will use recyclable rotor blades.

RWE has robust supplier governance and human-rights due diligence evidence. Suppliers are expected to follow the RWE Code of Conduct and undergo risk assessments. In 2025, RWE continued systematic human-rights risk analysis across the Group and supply chain. Potential suppliers undergo ESG screening covering environmental protection, human rights, health and safety, labour rights and responsible supply-chain practices. RWE’s target is 100% adoption of contracts with suppliers including Code of Conduct and human-rights clauses, and this target was reached in 2025. The ESG assessment target for business partners involved in fuel procurement also reached 100%.

RWE’s Group Sustainability Statement is prepared in full accordance with ESRS / CSRD, and financial-market-relevant ESG KPIs are subject to limited assurance under ISAE 3000 revised. The report also states that governance includes Supervisory Board oversight, ESG-linked Executive Board remuneration, a sustainability internal control system and a human-rights due diligence system. Externally, RWE reports ratings including MSCI AAA, Sustainalytics 24.2, Moody’s ESG Solutions 62/100, and EcoVadis information on its official ratings page

SSE aims to reach net zero across Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions by 2040 at the latest, subject to security of supply requirements, and net zero across remaining Scope 3 emissions by 2050 at the latest. These targets sit within SSE’s Net Zero Transition Plan and are supported by near-term targets verified by the Science Based Targets initiative / SBTi.

SSE has several near-term science-based targets. It aims to reduce Scope 1 carbon intensity by 80% by 2030, from a 2017/18 baseline of 307 gCO₂e/kWh to 61 gCO₂e/kWh. It also targets a 72.5% reduction in absolute Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by 2030 from the 2017/18 base year, and a 50% reduction in absolute GHG emissions from use of products sold by 2034.

SSE discloses Scope 1, Scope 2 and selected Scope 3 emissions. In 2024/25, total reported emissions were 10.2 MtCO₂e, consisting of 51% Scope 1, 5% Scope 2 and 44% Scope 3. Reported Scope 3 emissions were 4.54 MtCO₂e, including gas sold / Category 11, joint venture investments / Category 15, raw fuels purchased / Category 3, contractor vessels / Category 4, business travel / Category 6 and network losses / Category 9. SSE also separately estimated Scope 3 Category 1 and 2 emissions from purchased goods and services / capital goods at approximately 2.30 MtCO₂e, but these are not yet included in the assured total reported emissions inventory.

SSE’s 2030 Goal is to build a renewable energy portfolio generating at least 50 TWh of renewable electricity per year by 2030, although the report states this target is currently behind target and is unlikely to be met under current market and policy conditions. In 2024/25, SSE reported 13.3 TWh of renewable output and 4,982 MW of renewable generation capacity. SSE is also working through SSEN Transmission to enable connection of at least 20 GW of renewable generation capacity within its licence area; progress in 2024/25 was 10.9 GW.

SSE’s 2024/25 Scope 1 GHG intensity of electricity generated was 218 gCO₂e/kWh, compared with 205 gCO₂e/kWh in 2023/24. This represents a 29% reduction against the 2017/18 baseline of 307 gCO₂e/kWh, but a 6% year-on-year increase, mainly due to higher thermal generation output and constrained renewable capacity on the grid.

SSE’s reported total GHG emissions were 10.2 MtCO₂e in 2024/25, up 10% from 9.27 MtCO₂e in 2023/24, but down 32% from the 2017/18 baseline of 15.1 MtCO₂e. Scope 1 and 2 absolute emissions were 5.70 MtCO₂e, representing a 48% reduction from the 2017/18 base year; SSE states it is two-thirds of the way to its 72.5% reduction by 2030 target.

SSE does not provide an EU Taxonomy-aligned capex / turnover / opex table in the Sustainability Report. The report states that SSE is not currently required to disclose under CSRD and that its double materiality assessment has not been undertaken as part of meeting CSRD requirements. It also notes that SSE may be subject to CSRD in future due to European activity, but preparations were affected by the EU Omnibus Simplification Package. For this metric, SSE should be recorded as regulatory disclosure present, but no quantitative EU Taxonomy alignment found in the uploaded report.

SSE reports water and environmental management indicators. In 2024/25, total water abstracted was 22,795 million m³, total water returned was 22,793 million m³, and total water consumed was 2.37 million m³. The report states that the vast majority of water abstracted relates to hydro operations and passes through turbines with minimal environmental impact. SSE’s total water abstracted excluding hydro operations fell by 9%, and water consumed decreased by 3%. It also reports ISO 14001-certified environmental management systems across all SSE businesses and more than 3,000 employees completing Environmental Awareness training.

SSE has strong OSW asset-level evidence. The report identifies Dogger Bank B and C, each 1.2 GW, with SSE share 40%, and notes that once fully operational Dogger Bank will become the world’s largest offshore wind farm. It also references flagship offshore projects including Beatrice and Seagreen, with Seagreen becoming operational in 2023. External official sources strengthen this: Dogger Bank is being developed in three 1.2 GW phases and, when complete, will power up to 6 million UK homes; Seagreen can power more than 1.7 million homes and displace over 2 million tonnes of CO₂ annually; Berwick Bank has potential capacity of up to 4.1 GW and could power more than 6 million homes.

SSE’s report provides stronger Group-level nature evidence than asset-level OSW marine ecology detail. It commits large onshore capital projects in the UK and Ireland to biodiversity-related targets, and its Environment Strategy covers land, air, freshwater and marine ecosystems. The report also states that SSE Renewables is a founding partner of Sustainability Joint Industry Partnership / SusJIP, which aims to develop the first standardised approach for calculating lifecycle emissions of offshore wind farms. For project-specific offshore marine ecology, external sources should be used cautiously; I found stronger evidence on offshore lifecycle emissions and nature-positive strategy than on specific marine mammal / seabed / bird mitigation measures comparable to Vattenfall’s Hollandse Kust Zuid.

SSE has clear nature-related targets for onshore large capital projects in the UK and Ireland. Projects consented from April 2023 must deliver no net loss in biodiversity; projects consented from April 2024 must deliver biodiversity net gain; and projects consented from April 2025 must deliver no net loss of native woodland. In 2024/25, 53 of 53 relevant projects had designed in no net loss, and 47 of 53 had designed in biodiversity net gain. However, this is stronger for onshore large capital projects than for offshore wind-specific marine biodiversity.

SSE reports circularity and waste management as an opportunity for enhanced impact. In 2024/25, 99% of waste by tonnage was diverted from landfill and 71% was recycled or re-used. SSE’s Environment Strategy includes responsible consumption and production and circular economy principles. However, the uploaded report does not disclose a quantified wind-blade or offshore wind component end-of-life target comparable to Vattenfall’s 100% circular outflow target. Externally, SSE Renewables states that it is working with contractors and its supply chain to drive circularity across the lifecycle of renewable generation and storage assets, from manufacturing through use phase and end-of-life, but this remains more strategic than a quantified turbine-component target.

SSE provides useful embodied-carbon evidence. The report estimates Scope 3 Category 1 and 2 purchased goods and services / capital goods emissions at 2.30 MtCO₂e, with the largest sources identified as electrical equipment, machinery and steel structures: 1.07 MtCO₂e, civil construction activities: 0.42 MtCO₂e, and construction and installation vessels: 0.41 MtCO₂e. SSE Renewables also worked with Mott MacDonald to study lower-carbon onshore wind turbine foundations, examining lower-impact concrete mixes, composite reinforcing bars and foundation design philosophy. Externally, SSE Renewables states that through SusJIP, it supports a decarbonisation pathway for offshore wind focused on standardising supplier emissions data and increasing uptake of low-carbon technologies.

SSE’s supplier climate engagement is strong. It met its previous target to engage suppliers representing 50% of spend to help them set science-based targets by 2024, and has reset the target to engage 90% of suppliers by spend by 2030. In 2024/25, 51% of suppliers by spend were engaged. SSE also reports Group-level sustainable procurement frameworks, human rights and modern slavery disclosures, and supplier expectations, although the report does not provide a simple count of supplier audits comparable to Vattenfall or Iberdrola.

SSE has SBTi-verified near-term climate targets and broad external ESG validation. In 2024/25, it reported MSCI AAA, Sustainalytics ESG Risk Rating 21.8, CDP Climate A-, CDP Water B-, FTSE4Good inclusion, and top-20% performance in a relevant electric utilities benchmark. SSE also links executive remuneration to ESG ratings and 2030 Goals: 10% of AIP is linked to average percentile performance across two external ESG ratings, and 30% of PSP is linked to sustainability / strategic measures

Masdar states that it is committed to achieving net-zero emissions, but the report also says it is still finalising its sustainability strategy to include specific target dates and KPIs. Therefore, this is a clear net-zero commitment, but not yet a fully quantified, dated corporate net-zero target comparable to SBTi-validated utility targets.

The report does not disclose a conventional 2030 / 2035 corporate emissions-reduction target for Masdar’s own operations. The strongest interim climate ambition is instead its growth target: 100 GW renewable energy capacity by 2030. Masdar expanded capacity from 20 GW in 2022 to 51 GW in 2024, and the report links this directly to the 100 GW target.

Masdar reports Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions using both equity share and financial control approaches under the GHG Protocol. Under financial control, 2024 emissions were Scope 1: 118,018 tCO₂e, Scope 2: 13,017 tCO₂e, and Scope 3: 167,327 tCO₂e. Under equity share, 2024 emissions were Scope 1: 304,658 tCO₂e, Scope 2: 13,528 tCO₂e, and Scope 3: 189,904 tCO₂e. The report states that Scope 3 accounted for around 56% of total emissions under the financial-control methodology, driven by the supply chain.

Masdar is a global clean-energy developer, owner and operator. Its portfolio expanded by 62% in 2024, reaching 51 GW across more than 40 countries, bringing it more than halfway toward its 100 GW by 2030 target. The report also states that Masdar added 19.5 GW of renewable production capacity in 2024 across operating, under-construction and secured projects.

Masdar does not disclose a usable emissions-intensity metric such as gCO₂e/kWh. The GRI index states that GHG emissions intensity is “information unavailable / incomplete” because Masdar has not yet defined the numerator. This should be recorded as not clearly disclosed for benchmark purposes.

Masdar discloses absolute Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions for 2022–2024. However, emissions increased materially in 2024, especially Scope 1 and Scope 3, due to construction activity and supply-chain activity. Under financial control, total Scope 1–3 emissions increased from 94,884 tCO₂e in 2023 to 298,362 tCO₂e in 2024. This is not an operational decarbonisation progress story; it reflects rapid portfolio growth and construction activity.

Masdar does not provide an EU Taxonomy-aligned capex / turnover / opex table. However, its Green Finance Framework is designed to align with the technical screening criteria for substantial contribution to climate change mitigation under the EU Taxonomy Delegated Acts. Masdar’s 2024 green bond proceeds were allocated to eligible green projects, including solar, wind, offshore wind and energy storage, but this is green finance alignment, not a full EU Taxonomy KPI disclosure.

Masdar reports environmental compliance and resource-management processes, but does not provide a consolidated water withdrawal / discharge / consumption table comparable to Vattenfall, RWE or SSE. The report states that Masdar conducts Environmental & Social Impact Assessments for projects, follows Good International Industry Practice, and reported zero fines, including non-monetary fines, for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

Masdar has strong asset-level offshore wind evidence. The report identifies London Array 630 MW, which powers around half a million homes; Hywind Scotland 30 MW, the world’s first floating offshore wind farm, supplying around 22,000 homes; and Baltic Eagle 476 MW, with 50 turbines, supplying around 475,000 homes and avoiding around 800,000 tCO₂e annually. External Masdar sources further confirm Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm at 402 MW, with 67 Siemens 6 MW turbines, powering around 410,000 homes and displacing 893,000 tCO₂ per year. London Array is also confirmed by Masdar as 630 MW, with 175 turbines, displacing 925,000 tCO₂ per year and powering more than half a million homes.

Masdar’s strongest project-level biodiversity evidence in the report is not offshore wind but the Zarafshan Wind Project in Uzbekistan, where Masdar deployed IdentiFlight AI to detect birds and trigger turbine stoppages to avoid raptor collisions. In 2024, the system triggered more than 300,000 turbine stoppages to avoid collisions. For offshore wind specifically, the report provides asset capacity and avoided-emissions data, but does not disclose detailed marine mammal, seabed, fisheries or underwater-noise mitigation comparable to Vattenfall’s Hollandse Kust Zuid or Iberdrola’s Baltic Eagle disclosure.

Masdar states that it aims to create a net-positive impact on biodiversity by managing and monitoring its environmental footprint. Its projects are designed to avoid and reduce biodiversity impacts, rehabilitate affected species and landscapes, and minimise or offset residual impacts. The report also states that Masdar is developing a dedicated biodiversity strategy and policy with project-specific KPIs.

Masdar does not disclose a quantified wind-turbine blade, composite material, nacelle, magnet or offshore wind end-of-life circularity target. The report does include resource-use and waste-management commitments through its HSSE policy and highlights waste-to-energy activity, including the Sharjah Waste-to-Energy facility, but this is not equivalent to a wind-asset circularity target.

Masdar has relevant low-carbon materials evidence through green hydrogen and steel. The report highlights the Masdar and EMSTEEL green steel pilot project in Abu Dhabi, described as the first initiative of its kind in the Middle East and North Africa. The pilot uses green hydrogen to produce green steel, has begun producing green steel, and notes that green hydrogen can reduce CO₂ emissions in steelmaking by up to 95%. The 2024 highlights also state expected annual GHG avoidance of 3,000 tCO₂e from the Masdar and EMSTEEL pilot.

Masdar has developing but increasingly structured supply-chain sustainability evidence. The report states that Masdar aims for all direct suppliers to participate in ESG training and report on ESG activities and supply-chain policies. Supplier expectations are embedded in the Business Partner Code of Conduct and final contracts, including requirements on safe working conditions, reasonable working hours, fair wages, no modern slavery, no human trafficking and no child labour. In 2024, Masdar engaged 778 suppliers, of which 52 were appointed from local communities, and 19% of suppliers were ICV certified.

Masdar has strong sustainable-finance and rating evidence. In 2024, Sustainable Fitch assigned Masdar an ESG Entity Rating of 2 and an entity score of 71/100. Fitch also upgraded Masdar’s Long-Term Foreign- and Local-Currency Issuer Default Ratings from A+ to AA-. Masdar issued a USD 1bn green bond in July 2024 with a 4.6x oversubscribed orderbook, and its total green bond issuance reached USD 1.75bn by December 2024.

Ocean Winds’ corporate vision refers to “innovating toward a carbon-neutral world.” However, its 2024 Non-Financial Information Statement explicitly states that the company does not currently have formal greenhouse-gas emissions-reduction targets and is still assessing the adoption of medium- and long-term targets. No dated Ocean Winds-level net-zero target, defined Scope 1, 3 boundary, 1.5°C-aligned pathway or Ocean Winds-specific SBTi validation was identified. The climate targets of Ocean Winds’ shareholders, EDPR and ENGIE, are not treated as Ocean Winds targets unless they are formally adopted by the joint venture.

Ocean Winds does not disclose a quantified corporate emissions-reduction target for 2030 or 2035 supported by a baseline, percentage reduction or absolute emissions ceiling. The 2024 NFIS states that medium- and long-term emissions targets are still being assessed but provides no interim milestone. Offshore-wind capacity growth and project-level avoided-emissions estimates represent renewable-energy growth and climate-impact indicators rather than a corporate decarbonisation target for Ocean Winds’ own emissions.

Ocean Winds reports only a partial operational-office greenhouse-gas footprint. Scope 2 emissions were 44.69 tCO₂e in 2024, compared with 22.56 tCO₂e in 2023 and 17.57 tCO₂e in 2022. Scope 1 is not reported for the included offices because the NFIS states that only electricity was consumed at those locations; this should not be interpreted as a verified Group-wide Scope 1 value of zero. No Scope 3 inventory or category-level breakdown is disclosed. The 2024 footprint covers offices in Spain, Portugal and South Korea, whereas earlier years primarily covered Spain, meaning that the series is neither complete nor fully comparable at Group level.

Ocean Winds has a clearly quantified offshore-wind growth profile. Its current official portfolio information reports 1.5 GW in operation, 2.3 GW under construction and 17.6 GW under development, representing approximately 21 GW of gross offshore-wind capacity. The current 3.8 GW operating-and-under-construction portfolio falls within the 3, 4 GW objective stated in the 2024 NFIS for 2025, while the development portfolio exceeds the stated objective of 15, 17 GW in advanced development. Because the current portfolio page reflects the 2026 position, it demonstrates that the portfolio has reached the target range but does not, by itself, prove that the target was achieved by 31 December 2025. The portfolio is entirely offshore wind and includes both fixed-bottom and floating projects across Europe, the Americas and Asia-Pacific.

Ocean Winds does not disclose a comparable current generation or lifecycle emissions-intensity KPI, such as gCO₂e/kWh. Official project sources provide avoided-emissions estimates, including approximately 33,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually for WindFloat Atlantic and more than 700,000 tonnes annually for SeaMade. However, avoided emissions measure estimated emissions displaced by renewable generation and are not equivalent to Ocean Winds’ own operational, generation or lifecycle carbon intensity. They therefore cannot be used to score this metric.

Ocean Winds does not disclose a consistent corporate greenhouse-gas baseline or an absolute Scope 1, 2 or Scope 1, 3 emissions-reduction trajectory. Reported Scope 2 emissions increased from 17.57 tCO₂e in 2022 to 44.69 tCO₂e in 2024, but the reporting boundary expanded from mainly Spain to Spain, Portugal and South Korea. The reported series therefore cannot be used as a like-for-like measure of emissions performance. Growth in renewable-electricity generation and project-level avoided emissions demonstrates climate contribution but does not evidence a reduction in Ocean Winds’ own absolute corporate emissions.

The 2024 NFIS refers to the European Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities as part of the sustainable-finance and regulatory context. It explains the concepts of substantial contribution, do no significant harm and minimum social safeguards. However, Ocean Winds does not disclose company-level Article 8 eligibility or alignment percentages for turnover, CapEx or OpEx. Project-level evidence, such as the European Investment Bank’s €600 million financing of the 390 MW BC-Wind project under InvestEU and REPowerEU, supports the regulatory and sustainable-finance credentials of individual projects but is not a substitute for corporate EU Taxonomy KPI disclosure. Under the current rubric, this constitutes a reference to the Taxonomy without company-level metrics and therefore receives 1 point rather than 0.

Ocean Winds reports 0.94 ML of water consumption in 2024 for offices and facilities in Spain and Portugal. This figure does not represent the company’s complete global project water footprint. The NFIS reports no monetary or non-monetary environmental fines or sanctions. Moray West recorded construction-phase piling-noise exceedances, which were reported to the relevant regulator; following review, the Marine Directorate concluded that no further action was required. Ocean Winds also applies environmental-impact assessments, monitoring programmes and project-specific mitigation requirements, although the quantitative water and compliance data do not cover the entire global portfolio.

Ocean Winds provides strong evidence for multiple operating offshore-wind assets, including capacity, operating status, ownership and project-level sustainability initiatives. Moray East has 950 MW of installed capacity, with 900 MW of contracted output, and has been generating electricity since April 2022; Ocean Winds holds a 40% interest and continues as operator. SeaMade is a 487 MW joint venture operating since 2020. WindFloat Atlantic is a 25 MW floating offshore-wind project operating since 2020, with Ocean Winds acting as majority owner, developer and operator. Moray West is an 882 MW project that reached full power in April 2025; Ignitis holds 5%, confirming Ocean Winds’ 95% ownership. Yeu-Noirmoutier, a 488 MW joint venture, entered full operation on 29 April 2026, while the 30 MW EFGL project generated first power on 4 May 2026. Named sustainability initiatives include WindFloat Atlantic’s biodiversity-monitoring programme, Moray West’s low-noise UXO-clearance approach, Yeu-Noirmoutier’s DELTAMAR cable-protection pilot and EFGL’s Biohuts.

Ocean Winds provides strong and comprehensive project-level marine-ecology evidence. The WindFloat Atlantic monitoring programme uses a multi-year control, impact methodology covering plankton, fish, octopus, nektobenthic invertebrates, platform colonisation, marine mammals, seabirds, bats, water quality and underwater noise. The 2026 study found no evidence of broad disruption to ecosystem functioning, while fish and octopus abundance and biomass were higher within the fishing-exclusion area and the floating structures produced a local reef effect. The study also transparently disclosed potential risks, including the presence of non-native species and species-specific findings relating to harbour porpoises and seabird collision exposure. Additional project measures include 32 Biohuts installed at EFGL, real-time acoustic and visual marine-mammal monitoring, construction-noise limits in France, bird and bat detection, Moray West’s low-order UXO deflagration technique and project-specific fisheries-coexistence measures.

Ocean Winds applies an avoid, minimise, restore, offset mitigation hierarchy, participates in biodiversity research and is listed as a signatory to the UN Global Compact Sustainable Ocean Principles. Project-level evidence includes EFGL’s nature-inclusive design, WindFloat Atlantic’s observed reef and refuge effects, the Connexstere biodiversity-structures research project and collaborations with scientific and environmental organisations. However, no time-bound Group-wide nature-positive, biodiversity-net-gain or no-net-loss target supported by measurable corporate KPIs was identified. Ocean Winds therefore demonstrates a biodiversity ambition and management framework, but not a formal corporate nature-positive target.

Ocean Winds discloses a general circular-economy approach and states that environmental restoration is prioritised when projects are dismantled or repowered. Offshore-specific examples include LincBioMer, which develops biodegradable fishing equipment intended to reduce marine plastic pollution and ghost fishing, and DELTAMAR, which tests the reuse of Basic Oxygen Furnace steelmaking slag as an alternative to concrete or quarried rock for subsea cable protection. These are relevant circular-material initiatives. However, Ocean Winds does not disclose a turbine-blade or composite-material recycling target, a landfill-ban policy, permanent-magnet recovery commitments, quantitative decommissioning KPIs or asset-level end-of-life performance data. The NFIS also acknowledges that total renewable and non-renewable material inputs are not yet comprehensively tracked.

Ocean Winds provides a relevant offshore-wind project example through the DELTAMAR initiative at Yeu-Noirmoutier. The project tests Basic Oxygen Furnace slag, a steelmaking by-product, as a potentially lower-carbon alternative to concrete or quarried rock for subsea cable protection. Ocean Winds reports that two years of chemical, sediment and biological monitoring found no harmful ecosystem impact. Its French project disclosures also refer to eco-designed cable-protection solutions intended to reduce reliance on more carbon-intensive materials. However, the company does not quantify the embodied-carbon reduction achieved, disclose a Group-level procurement share, establish low-carbon steel or green-concrete targets, or publish project-level embodied-carbon KPIs. A score of 3 is consistent with the current rubric, which permits this level where embodied carbon is addressed through one or two project examples but lacks quantified procurement commitments.

Ocean Winds has a documented supplier-governance framework. Its Supplier Code of Conduct applies to suppliers and subcontractors and covers ethics, human rights, environmental sustainability, health and safety, anti-corruption and whistleblowing. Procurement processes include an HSEQ questionnaire and due diligence covering sector, reputational risk, human rights, sanctions and pending litigation. Potential suppliers receive an A-to-D risk rating that influences the level of additional due diligence required. Contracts exceeding €10 million, or involving suppliers identified as higher risk, are reviewed by a cross-functional legal, commercial and technical committee whose members were not involved in the contracting process. Ocean Winds also developed a supplier-performance assessment framework for implementation from 2025. Project-level evidence includes 95% European Tier 1 suppliers and more than 50% French sourcing at Yeu-Noirmoutier, approximately 85% French-based direct suppliers and more than 99% European suppliers at EFGL, a Polish Tier 1 offshore-substation supplier for BC-Wind and UK manufacturing commitments at Moray West. However, Group-wide screening coverage, audit numbers, non-conformities and corrective-action outcomes are not disclosed.

Ocean Winds’ 2024 NFIS received independent limited assurance from Deloitte under the applicable Spanish non-financial reporting framework. Deloitte issued a qualified conclusion because certain quantitatively significant countries and indicators were outside the reporting or assurance scope. Ocean Winds also holds ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 certifications issued following external Bureau Veritas audits and is a signatory to the UN Global Compact Sustainable Ocean Principles. No publicly verifiable Ocean Winds-specific SBTi-validated target or top-tier CDP, MSCI, Sustainalytics or EcoVadis rating was identified in the reviewed sources; this does not rule out the existence of private or unpublished assessments. Under the current rubric, independent assurance without an additional strong publicly verifiable external rating supports a score of 3. Final score Pillar Score Future Commitments 11.0 / 30 Environmental Action 25.2 / 45 Governance & Accountability 13.0 / 25 Total 49.2 / 100, Limited

EDF has established a formal Group-wide objective to achieve Net Zero Emissions by 2050. The target covers all business activities, geographical regions and greenhouse-gas emission scopes. EDF intends to reduce its direct and indirect emissions by at least 90% relative to the applicable target baselines and neutralise only the remaining residual emissions through high-integrity carbon sinks. Moody’s assessed EDF’s emissions trajectory as compatible with a 1.5°C warming pathway. However, EDF does not currently have an SBTi-validated net-zero target. Its SBTi-validated near-term target remains listed as “Targets set” and classified as “well-below 2°C”, while its former SBTi net-zero commitment is recorded as removed because the commitment expired before validation. This does not mean EDF abandoned its corporate net-zero target; it means the SBTi commitment did not progress to a validated SBTi net-zero target within the required period. The comprehensive Scope 1, 3 boundary and external 1.5°C assessment support a strong score, but the 2050 target year and absence of current SBTi net-zero validation prevent the highest score.

EDF discloses quantified short- and medium-term absolute emissions targets with defined baselines and annual progress reporting. For Scope 1, EDF targets: a 65% reduction by 2027; a 70% reduction by 2030; an 80% reduction by 2035; all relative to the 2017 baseline of 51.3 MtCO₂e. In 2025, Scope 1 emissions were 15.0 MtCO₂e, representing a 71% reduction from 2017. For Scope 3, EDF targets: a 30% reduction by 2027; a 35% reduction by 2030; a 45% reduction by 2035; relative to the 2019 baseline of 119.4 MtCO₂e. Scope 3 emissions reached 68.0 MtCO₂e in 2025, or 43% below the 2019 baseline. EDF’s older near-term target remains SBTi-validated at a well-below 2°C level. However, the reviewed evidence does not show that EDF’s newer and strengthened interim targets have been revalidated by SBTi as aligned with a 1.5°C pathway. Moody’s separate assessment supports the ambition of the trajectory, but it is not equivalent to SBTi validation. Therefore, the metric remains at 4/5.

EDF reports a comprehensive greenhouse-gas inventory covering Scope 1, location-based and market-based Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions. In 2025, EDF reported: Scope 1 emissions of 15.0 MtCO₂e; location-based Scope 2 emissions of 0.35 MtCO₂e; market-based Scope 2 emissions of 0.33 MtCO₂e; Scope 3 emissions of 68.0 MtCO₂e. Scope 3 reporting includes nuclear-fuel purchases, purchased goods and services, capital goods, upstream fuel and energy emissions, purchased electricity for resale, gas sold to customers, minority investments and other relevant categories. The carbon-footprint boundary includes EDF’s principal controlled entities. For Scope 3, EDF also includes its attributable share of emissions from certain non-operated minority investments. The company discloses its emissions factors, data sources, organisational scope and calculation approach, providing a high level of transparency and completeness.

EDF has set a quantified target to commission up to 6 GW of gross renewable capacity per year on average between 2024 and 2035. The company commissioned approximately 3.0 GW in 2025 and reported a gross wind and solar development pipeline of approximately 95.5 GW. At the end of 2025, EDF power solutions had approximately 1.0 GW of gross operating offshore-wind capacity in France, equivalent to 1,005 MW across: Saint-Nazaire: 480 MW; Fécamp: 500 MW; Provence Grand Large: 25 MW. EDF also had Calvados under construction and several projects in development, including Dunkirk, Centre Manche and Méditerranée Grand Large. The combination of a dated and quantified renewable-capacity objective, a substantial project pipeline and multiple identifiable offshore-wind projects meets the highest scoring threshold.

EDF reported a carbon intensity of 26.5 gCO₂/kWh for electricity and heat generation in 2025, compared with: 30 gCO₂/kWh in 2024; 37 gCO₂/kWh in 2023. EDF’s targets are: 30 gCO₂/kWh by 2030; 22 gCO₂/kWh by 2035; approximately zero by 2050. The indicator is calculated using Scope 1 CO₂ emissions from EDF’s electricity and heat generation facilities divided by the associated generation output. EDF notes that the 2025 result was partly supported by favourable market and demand conditions that reduced the use of fossil-fuel generation. Consequently, maintaining intensity below 30 gCO₂/kWh cannot be guaranteed under every short-term operating scenario. Nevertheless, the reported level is substantially below the methodology’s strongest-performance threshold and is supported by a clear multi-year trend.

EDF demonstrates substantial absolute emissions reductions against disclosed reference years. Scope 1 emissions declined from: 51.3 MtCO₂e in 2017 to 15.0 MtCO₂e in 2025, representing a 71% reduction. Scope 3 emissions declined from: 119.4 MtCO₂e in 2019 to 68.0 MtCO₂e in 2025, representing a 43% reduction. In the latest annual comparison, total Scope 1, 3 emissions declined from approximately 90.7 MtCO₂e in 2024 to 83.4 MtCO₂e in 2025, an approximately 8% reduction. Scope 1 fell by 11%, Scope 2 by around half and Scope 3 by 7%. The reductions materially exceed the methodology’s 30% progress threshold and are disclosed against consistent baseline years.

EDF publishes quantitative EU Taxonomy indicators for turnover, capital expenditure and operating expenditure. For 2025, EDF reported: KPI Eligible Aligned Aligned amount Turnover 56% 52% €57.742 billion CapEx 65% 63% €15.781 billion OpEx 70% 66% €7.439 billion The detailed regulatory tables support the 66% OpEx alignment figure. Although a separate narrative passage in the report reportedly refers to 67%, the regulatory table and the calculation based on the disclosed numerator and denominator support 66% as the more reliable value. EDF also discloses alignment by economic activity, environmental objective, enabling activity and transitional activity. PwC and KPMG performed limited-assurance procedures over the Article 8 disclosures and reported no material errors, omissions or inconsistencies.

EDF reports detailed water-consumption, withdrawal and water-stress indicators. In 2025: total freshwater withdrawals were approximately 13 billion m³; approximately 97% of withdrawn water was returned to the natural environment; freshwater consumption for cooling thermal and nuclear generation facilities was 447 million m³; 36 million m³, or approximately 8% of consumption, occurred in high or very high water-stress areas. EDF assessed 399 thermal, nuclear and industrial sites using the World Resources Institute Aqueduct methodology and identified 76 sites in areas of high or very high water stress. The company maintains a water-intensity threshold of 0.90 L/kWh and reported a 2025 result of 0.87 L/kWh. It has also committed to reducing freshwater withdrawals for industrial uses by 10% by 2030 relative to 2023. The disclosure demonstrates strong water-risk governance and quantitative management. However, a consolidated Group-wide environmental-incident count and an explicit “zero material environmental non-compliance” performance indicator were not identified. This limits the metric to 4/5.

EDF provides extensive asset-level information for operating, construction-stage and development-stage offshore-wind projects. Key operating projects include: Saint-Nazaire: 480 MW, fully operational since 2022; Fécamp: 500 MW, fully operational since 2024; Provence Grand Large: 25 MW floating offshore-wind project, fully commissioned in 2025; Dongtai IV and V: 500 MW combined in China, with EDF holding 37.5% through the relevant joint venture. Projects under construction or development include: Calvados: approximately 448 MW; Dunkirk; Centre Manche; Méditerranée Grand Large. EDF reports project capacity, development status, commissioning information and, for selected assets, ownership structures and project-specific sustainability measures. This provides sufficient depth and breadth for the maximum score.

EDF provides substantial evidence of project-level and programme-level marine biodiversity management. At Saint-Nazaire, EDF reports: environmental monitoring conducted with local associations and specialist organisations; post-construction observations of rapid biological colonisation of foundations; the formation of new habitats around infrastructure; the use or development of lower-noise drilling techniques intended to reduce impacts on marine mammals; long-term monitoring of seabirds and other sensitive species. EDF’s wider offshore-wind environmental assessments address marine mammals, birdlife, fishery resources, water quality and oceanographic conditions. These studies involve associations, fisheries representatives, scientific organisations and local stakeholders. EDF also participates in the Marine Sentinel Areas programme, which uses environmental DNA to monitor 13 coastal areas. Sampling is conducted periodically and the related biodiversity database is updated annually. The combination of baseline assessment, construction mitigation, operational monitoring, scientific partnerships and evidence of observed ecological outcomes meets the highest threshold.

EDF has measurable biodiversity commitments under initiatives including act4nature International and the French “Entreprises engagées pour la nature” programme. The Group has committed to restoring or preserving more than 30 natural areas with local partners between 2020 and 2030. By the end of 2025, 13 sites had been included. EDF’s biodiversity framework covers: ecological management plans; restoration and preservation of natural habitats; biodiversity requirements for new energy projects; partnerships with scientific and conservation organisations; research and monitoring programmes; value-chain considerations; employee training and awareness. EDF also refers to contributing to a nature-positive future. However, it has not established a single Group-wide nature-positive or no-net-loss target supported by a comprehensive outcome-based KPI applying consistently across all activities and the full value chain. The evidence therefore supports 4/5 rather than 5/5.

EDF has made a wind-specific commitment to reuse, recycle or recover wind-turbine blades from wind farms controlled by EDF power solutions at the end of their operating life. The company also intends to progressively integrate more easily recyclable blades into future projects. At the Calvados offshore-wind project, recyclable Siemens Gamesa blades are planned for 10 of the project’s 64 turbines. The blade technology is intended to allow the component materials to be separated and reused after decommissioning. EDF also reports broader circular-economy policies covering waste prevention, reuse, recycling, material recovery, steel, cement, minerals and nuclear materials. However, the reviewed sources do not establish: a Group-wide prohibition on sending wind-turbine blades to landfill; a quantified target for permanent-magnet recovery; a consolidated percentage target for wind-component recovery; Group-wide asset-level reporting on actual recovered material volumes. The company therefore demonstrates strong policies and project evidence, but not the full quantitative framework required for 5/5.

EDF participates in the European MAREWIND programme, which develops and tests more sustainable materials and technologies for offshore-wind infrastructure. Relevant areas include: ultra-high-performance low-CO₂ concrete for offshore foundations; self-healing anti-corrosion coatings; non-toxic anti-fouling materials; improved blade recyclability; materials intended to extend asset life and reduce maintenance requirements. EDF R&D contributed to the development and testing of new concrete formulations, while EDF facilities in Teesside were used for testing under marine conditions. This demonstrates active consideration of embodied carbon, durability and lifecycle impacts. However, EDF does not disclose: a quantified procurement target for low-carbon steel or concrete; minimum shares of near-zero-emission materials; supplier-specific procurement volumes; project-level embodied-carbon baselines and reductions; independently verified avoided embodied emissions. The evidence therefore supports an intermediate score of 3/5.

EDF operates a formal Duty of Vigilance and responsible-procurement framework covering human rights, health and safety, environmental risks, business ethics and supplier conduct. The procurement network works with approximately 130,000 active suppliers over a two-year period. In 2025, the specifically defined reporting scope recorded: 5,083 supplier assessments containing a CSR component; 681 dedicated CSR assessments; 67 CSR audits. These figures relate to the EDF entities named in the relevant reporting table and should not be interpreted as evidence that all approximately 130,000 active suppliers were assessed during the year. Assessments may be conducted during supplier qualification or contract performance. Higher-risk suppliers may be subject to additional integrity reviews, documentary assessment, on-site audits, corrective-action requirements and, where necessary, contract suspension or termination. The system is comprehensive, but EDF does not consistently disclose: the percentage of offshore-wind Tier-1 suppliers screened; the number and severity of supplier non-conformities; corrective-action closure rates; the percentage of high-risk suppliers audited; consolidated OSW-specific supplier outcomes. This supports a score of 4/5.

EDF’s 2025 Sustainability Statement and EU Taxonomy disclosures were subject to independent limited assurance by PwC and KPMG. The statutory auditors concluded that they had not identified material errors, omissions or inconsistencies concerning: EDF’s double-materiality process; the sustainability information reported under the ESRS; the information disclosed under Article 8 of the EU Taxonomy Regulation. The assurance is limited assurance rather than reasonable assurance. It assesses the compliance and reliability of the reported information and does not validate the quality, ambition or effectiveness of EDF’s sustainability strategy, transition plan, targets or action plans. EDF’s reported external ESG results include: CDP Climate A, 2025; EcoVadis 78/100 and top 5%, 2025; MSCI AA, 2025; Sustainalytics ESG Risk Rating of 18.5 and top 8%, reported as a 2026 result; Moody’s NZ-2 assessment, February 2024. The combination of independent statutory assurance, climate-trajectory assessment and several high external ESG ratings supports the maximum score, while the different dates and purposes of each assessment must be clearly distinguished.