From our 15 sustainability matters, the following nine were identified by stakeholders as the most material*:

• Embodied carbon (ESRS E1 – scope 3)
• Accelerating the energy transition (ESRS E1 – scope 2)
• Circular design (ESRS E5 – Resource use and circular economy)
• Innovation
• Health & Safety (ESRS S1 – own workforce)
• Own carbon emissions (ESRS E1 – scope 1-3)
• Waste (ESRS E5 – Resource use and circular economy)
• Water use (ESRS E2 – Water)
• Ethical business practices (ESRS G1 – Business Conduct)

* average of rounded score of 4 or higher

Compared with last year’s materiality assessment, there is increased attention by our customers for embodied carbon and circular design which might be linked with the EU taxonomy and scope 3 reporting.

The financial sector mainly focuses on the own impact of companies (carbon emissions, waste,..) and ethical business practices.

As conclusion of this assessment, we adapted our sustainability strategy and initiatives in order to focus our efforts on these nine topics.

We will have to report on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in 2026. We started preparing for this upcoming reporting obligation and included parts of the required disclosures already in this report. In the coming months, we will make sure to be “CSRD-ready” by 2026.

Given the industry we’re in, we further investigate the potential reporting obligation on “S2 – Workers in Value Chain” and “E4 – Biodiversity”. On biodiversity we have already started gathering first information.

We created a long list of 33 sustainability matters, which we compiled by analysing the CSRD guidelines, material topics used by ESG rating agencies and other companies in our sector. Our Sustainability Committee narrowed that list down to 15 sustainability matters that were most relevant to our business, and we grouped them into 4 categories.

To rate the importance of these topics, we conducted an anonymous, quantitative survey with 100 affected and informed stakeholders as well as additional qualitative interviews.

In order to contact a wide-variety of stakeholders, we mapped our value chain of activities, products and services. Next we identified the stakeholders affected by these activities and/ or interested in our sustainability approach.

For the impact materiality we engaged with customers, suppliers, the public sector, trade-unions, industry associations as well with key internal stakeholders (Board of Directors, Sustainability Committee). We focused on stakeholders that are informed and knowledgeable. Additionally, we conducted intensive desk research which is the base for the scoring of the silent stakeholder “nature”.

We asked them to “rate the (potential) impact (positive & negative) of Cordeel Group of these sustainability matters on people and planet.”

With financial institutions and auditors we engaged for the financial materiality and received additional insights from our CFO. These financial experts were asked to”rate the possible financial impact of this sustainability matter”.

For each sustainability matter, we highlighted linked risk & opportunities in the survey for more context.

All participants rated the matters with the following scores: 1= non-existing, 2= low, 3= moderate, 4= high, 5= very high.

Based on the scores of all participants and weighted on the number of participants per stakeholder category, we calculated an average.

To give more relevance to the average, we double-weighted the feedback from customers, Board of Directors as well as the silent stakeholder nature.

The resulting materiality matrix was validated by our Board of Directors.

We tried to follow the CSRD guidelines for double materiality analysis as closely as possible. We will continue to have yearly updates on this analysis.