13 Annexes
13.1 ESRS Content Index
Section titled “13.1 ESRS Content Index”Table 33 lists the disclosure requirements applied in preparing this sustainability statement and where the corresponding information is located, in line with ESRS 2 IRO-2, para. 37(d)) . Disclosure requirements related to sustainability matters assessed as not material are shown with the basis for that conclusion, so that a reader can distinguish between information that is absent because it is not material and information that is absent because a phasing-in provision has been used. No information in this statement is incorporated by reference from other documents; where external documents such as verification statements or policies are cited, they support the disclosure but do not replace it.
Disclosure requirement | Title | Location in this statement / basis for omission |
|---|---|---|
ESRS 2 BP-1 | Basis for preparation of the sustainability statement | |
ESRS 2 BP-2 | Specific information if the undertaking uses phasing-in options | |
ESRS 2 GOV-1 | The role of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies | |
ESRS 2 GOV-2 | Integration of sustainability-related performance in incentive schemes | 3.4.1 — no sustainability-linked incentive scheme is in place |
ESRS 2 GOV-3 | Statement on due diligence | 3.4.2 (Table 6) |
ESRS 2 GOV-4 | Risk management and internal controls over sustainability reporting | |
ESRS 2 SBM-1 | Strategy, business model and value chain | |
ESRS 2 SBM-2 | Interests and views of stakeholders | |
ESRS 2 SBM-3 | Interaction of material impacts, risks and opportunities with strategy and business model, and financial effects | |
ESRS 2 IRO-1 | Description of the process to identify and assess material impacts, risks and opportunities | |
ESRS 2 IRO-2 | Material impacts, risks and opportunities and disclosure requirements included in the sustainability statement | |
ESRS 2 GDR-P | Policies | |
ESRS 2 GDR-A | Actions and resources | |
ESRS 2 GDR-M | Metrics | |
ESRS 2 GDR-T | Targets | |
ESRS E1-1 | Transition plan for climate change mitigation | |
ESRS E1-2 | Identification of climate-related risks and scenario analysis | |
ESRS E1-3 | Resilience in relation to climate change | |
ESRS E1-4 | Policies related to climate change mitigation and adaptation | |
ESRS E1-5 | Actions and resources in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation | |
ESRS E1-6 | Targets related to climate change | |
ESRS E1-7 | Energy consumption and mix | |
ESRS E1-8 | Gross Scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions | |
ESRS E1-9 | GHG removals and GHG mitigation projects financed through carbon credits | No GHG removals are claimed. No carbon credits were used in 2025; residual Scope 1 was not offset (5.5.1) |
ESRS E1-10 | Internal carbon pricing | 5.3.2 (carbon shadow price in capital-expenditure decisions) |
ESRS E1-11 | Anticipated financial effects from material physical and transition risks and potential climate-related opportunities | |
ESRS E2-1 | Policies related to pollution | |
ESRS E2-2 | Actions and resources related to pollution | |
ESRS E2-3 | Targets related to pollution | |
ESRS E2-4 | Pollution of air, water and soil | |
ESRS E2-5 | Substances of concern and substances of very high concern | |
ESRS E3-1 | Policies related to water | |
ESRS E3-2 | Actions and resources related to water | |
ESRS E3-3 | Targets related to water | |
ESRS E3-4 | Water metrics | 11.3. The material matter is upstream water discharge. Entity-specific tier-n metrics are not reported, applying ESRS 1 Chapter 7.4 |
ESRS E4-1 | Biodiversity and ecosystems transition plan | |
ESRS E4-2 | Policies related to biodiversity and ecosystems | |
ESRS E4-3 | Actions and resources related to biodiversity and ecosystems | |
ESRS E4-4 | Targets related to biodiversity and ecosystems | |
ESRS E4-5 | Metrics related to biodiversity and ecosystems change | |
ESRS E5-1 | Policies related to resource use and circular economy | |
ESRS E5-2 | Actions and resources related to resource use and circular economy | |
ESRS E5-3 | Targets related to resource use and circular economy | |
ESRS E5-4 | Resource inflows | Not material. The material sub-topic is resource outflows related to products and services |
ESRS E5-5 | Resource outflows | |
ESRS S1-1 | Policies related to own workforce | |
ESRS S1-2 | Engagement with own workforce and workers’ representatives, channels to raise concerns, and approaches to remedy | |
ESRS S1-3 | Actions and resources related to own workforce | |
ESRS S1-4 | Targets related to own workforce | |
ESRS S1-5 | Characteristics of the undertaking’s employees | |
ESRS S1-6 | Characteristics of non-employees in the undertaking’s own workforce | |
ESRS S1-7 | Collective bargaining coverage and social dialogue | |
ESRS S1-8 | Gender diversity in top management | 9.3. Diversity is not a material S1 sub-topic; this is a voluntary HorizonNOW disclosure |
ESRS S1-9 | Adequate wages | |
ESRS S1-10 | Social protection | Not material. Also within the phase-in in ESRS 1 paragraph 127(f); see 13.2 |
ESRS S1-11 | Persons with disabilities | Not material. Also within the phase-in in ESRS 1 paragraph 127(f); see 13.2 |
ESRS S1-12 | Training and skills development metrics | |
ESRS S1-13 | Health and safety metrics | |
ESRS S1-14 | Work-life balance metrics | Not material. Also within the phase-in in ESRS 1 paragraph 127(f); see 13.2 |
ESRS S1-15 | Remuneration metrics | Not material |
ESRS S1-16 | Incidents of discrimination and other human rights incidents | Not material for the own workforce |
ESRS S2-1 | Policies related to workers in the value chain | |
ESRS S2-2 | Engagement with workers in the value chain, channels to raise concerns, and approaches to remedy | |
ESRS S2-3 | Actions and resources related to workers in the value chain | |
ESRS S2-4 | Targets related to workers in the value chain | |
ESRS S3-1 | Policies related to affected communities | |
ESRS S3-2 | Engagement with affected communities, channels to raise concerns, and approaches to remedy | |
ESRS S3-3 | Actions and resources related to affected communities | |
ESRS S3-4 | Targets related to affected communities | |
ESRS S4-1 to S4-4 | Consumers and end-users | Not material. Product safety is supplementary information in Chapter 8 (Product safety). Omission is on materiality, not on the phase-in in ESRS 1 paragraph 127(a) |
ESRS G1-1 to G1-6 | Business conduct |
Table 33: ESRS content index
13.2 Phasing-In Provisions and Supplementary Information Provided
Section titled “13.2 Phasing-In Provisions and Supplementary Information Provided”ESRS 1 provides transitional relief for undertakings in their first years of reporting. Because this statement is prepared voluntarily, we have applied these provisions selectively: relief has been used only where the underlying data or methodology is not yet sufficiently mature to support a faithful disclosure, and not where information is available.
The table below sets out which provisions have been used. In each case, the corresponding impacts, risks and opportunities are still described, as required by ESRS 2 paragraphs 7 to 10 . It needs to be noted once again, that this report is voluntarily following the ESRS standards.
Phasing-in provision | ESRS 1 reference | Used | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
Value-chain information where not all necessary information is available | Paragraph 123 | No | Limits on upstream value-chain data are explained under ESRS 1 Chapter 7.4 in Chapter 11, not under this transitional provision. |
All disclosure requirements of ESRS E4, ESRS S2, ESRS S3 and ESRS S4 | Paragraph 127(a) | No | ESRS E4, S2 and S3 are reported because they are material. ESRS S4 is omitted because it is not material. |
All information on anticipated financial effects under ESRS 2 paragraph 27 and ESRS E1-11, except ESRS E1-11 paragraphs 39(a), 39(b), 40(a) and 40(b) | Paragraph 127(b) | No | Qualitative and illustrative information is provided in 5.6, so the relief that permits omitting all such information is not used. |
Quantitative information on anticipated financial effects under ESRS 2 paragraph 27 and ESRS E1-11, except ESRS E1-11 paragraphs 39(a), 39(b), 40(a) and 40(b) | Paragraph 127(c) | Yes | Quantified effects are not disclosed. The estimation uncertainty is too high for the amounts to be useful, which is also the condition in ESRS 2 paragraph 28(b). This relief does not cover the carrying amounts and percentages in ESRS E1-11 paragraphs 39(a), 39(b), 40(a) and 40(b). Those datapoints are not in 5.6. |
Quantitative information on substances of concern under ESRS E2-5 | Paragraph 127(d) | Not applicable |
Table 34: Phasing-in provisions and their application in this statement
13.3 Policies, Whitepapers and Process Documents
Section titled “13.3 Policies, Whitepapers and Process Documents”Table 35 lists the documents that govern how we act on the matters covered in this report, the HorizonNOW focus area they serve, and the disclosure requirement they support. Publicly available documents are linked; internal process documents are named so that a reader can see that the commitment is operationalized and made available on request.
Document | Availability | HorizonNOW area | ESRS reference | Referenced in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sustainability Policy (Version 3.0, released 5 May 2026) | Public (link) | All three focus areas | ESRS 2 GDR-P, GOV-1 | |
Human Rights Policy and Human Rights Guiding Principles (Version 3.0) | Public (link) | Responsible sourcing | ESRS 2 GDR-P; S1-1, S2-1, S3-1 | |
Business Partner Code of Conduct (Version 1.01) | Public (link) | Responsible sourcing | ESRS S2-1, S3-1 | |
Siegwerk Sustainability Checklist | Part of Business Partner Code of Conduct | Responsible sourcing | ESRS S2-1, S2-3 | |
Code of Ethical Business Conduct (2025) | Public (link) | Cross-cutting | Supplementary (ESRS G1 not material) | |
Whistleblowing User Guide (Integrity Line), available in ten languages | Public (link) | Responsible sourcing; own workforce | ESRS S1-2, S2-2, S3-2 | |
Health, safety and environment management framework and global HSE audit procedure | Internal | Own operations | ESRS S1-1, S1-13; E2-1 | |
Sustainable procurement operating procedure (SustainUP process documentation) | Internal | Responsible sourcing | ESRS 2 GDR-A; S2-3, S3-3 | |
GHG inventory report | Available upon request | Climate | ESRS E1-8 | |
Partial product carbon footprint whitepaper | Public (link) | Climate; product transparency | Supplementary | |
Partial product environmental footprint | Public (link) | Product transparency | Supplementary | |
DMA methodology documentation, including scoring scales and cut-off criteria | Internal; summarized in 14.5 | Cross-cutting | ESRS 2 IRO-1 | |
Circular Economy Rulebook | Internal | Circular Economy | ESRS E5 |
Table 35: Overview of policies, whitepapers and process documents
13.4 Double Materiality Assessment: Methodological Details
Section titled “13.4 Double Materiality Assessment: Methodological Details”This annex sets out the scoring scales, probability weights, calculation formulas and cut-off criteria applied in the double materiality assessment described in Section 4.1. It is the reference for the statements made there about how impacts, risks and opportunities were scored.
13.4.1 Impact Materiality
Section titled “13.4.1 Impact Materiality”Impact materiality was assessed on the basis of severity and likelihood, in line with ESRS 1.
Severity
Section titled “Severity”Severity was evaluated across three dimensions: scale, scope, and remediability (or, for negative impacts, irremediable character). Each dimension was scored on an ordinal scale from 0 to 5, where higher values indicate a more severe impact.
Score | Scale of impact | Scope of impact | Remediability / irremediable character |
|---|---|---|---|
5 | Absolute: profound, fundamental harm to people (for example fatalities) or to the environment | Global or total: affects people across multiple regions, or the environment globally | Irreversible: the impact cannot be undone |
4 | High: significant medium-term or moderate long-term harm | Widespread: affects an entire region or multiple regions | Very difficult or long-term: remediation takes more than five years or costs more than 10% of operating EBITDA |
3 | Medium: significant short-term or moderate medium-term harm | Medium: affects a limited number of regions | Difficult or mid-term: remediation takes three to five years or costs 3–10% of operating EBITDA |
2 | Low: moderate short-term harm or minimal medium-term harm | Concentrated: localized impact | Remediable with effort: remediation takes one to two years or costs 2–3% of operating EBITDA |
1 | Minimal: minor, short-term harm | Limited: sub-local or very limited impact | Relatively easy or short-term: remediation takes less than one year or costs around 1% of operating EBITDA |
0 | None: no impact | None: no impact | None |
Table 36: Severity dimensions and scoring scales for impact materiality
Likelihood
Section titled “Likelihood”Likelihood was assessed on a 0 to 5 scale and translated into probability weights for potential impacts. Actual impacts were assessed on severity alone.
Likelihood score | Description | Probability weight |
|---|---|---|
5 | Guaranteed | 100% (1.0) |
4 | Very likely — occurs frequently | 80% (0.8) |
3 | Likely — recurrent but not frequent | 60% (0.6) |
2 | Possible — uncommon | 40% (0.4) |
1 | Unlikely — almost never | 20% (0.2) |
0 | Never | 0% (0.0) |
Table 37: Likelihood scale and corresponding probability weights.
Calculation of materiality scores
Section titled “Calculation of materiality scores”As outlined in Chapter 4.1.4, there are three ways for an impact to become material: general impact materiality, human rights impact materiality and business-characteristic impacts.
General impact materiality
Section titled “General impact materiality”Different formulas were applied to positive and to negative impacts, reflecting that remediability is a property of harm and therefore does not apply to positive impacts.
For positive impacts:
Impact score = ((Scale + Scope) / 2) × Likelihood
For negative impacts:
Severity = Scale + Scope + Remediability
Impact score = (Severity / 3) × Likelihood
Human rights impact materiality
For potential negative human rights impacts, the human rights override applies — one of the three routes to impact materiality used in our assessment, alongside the overall impact-score threshold and the retention of inherent impacts under ESRS 1 paragraph 43(c). In accordance with ESRS 1 and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, severity takes precedence over likelihood, and such impacts were not discounted on the basis of a low probability of occurrence. In line with the UN Guiding Principles and the single-dimension rule, human rights severity is determined by the most critical of the three severity dimensions — scale, scope and remediability (or irremediable character) - rather than by their average, so that a single severe dimension cannot be diluted by two moderate ones.
Severity = max(Scale, Scope, Remediability)
Impact score = Severity
Likelihood is not applied.
Business-characteristic impacts
Under ESRS 1 paragraph 43(c), the materiality assessment also considers whether information an impact and its management through policies and actions remains decision-useful to users, irrespective of how effectively the impact is already controlled or how tightly the topic is regulated. On that basis, residual scores after existing prevention and mitigation measures were not used alone to exclude impacts that are characteristic of Siegwerk’s business model and value chain.
13.4.2 Financial Materiality (Risk and Opportunity)
Section titled “13.4.2 Financial Materiality (Risk and Opportunity)”Financial materiality was assessed on the magnitude of the potential financial effect and its likelihood.
Magnitude
Section titled “Magnitude”Magnitude was scored on a 1 to 5 scale anchored to potential effects on operating EBITDA.
Score | Magnitude | Financial effect on operating EBITDA |
|---|---|---|
5 | Severe | More than 20% |
4 | Major | 10–20% |
3 | Moderate | 5–10% |
2 | Minor | 2.5–5% |
1 | Low | Less than 2.5% |
Table 38: Magnitude anchors for financial materiality
Qualitative descriptors for reputational, legal, regulatory and operational effects — for example recovery time, regulatory action or operational downtime — were used to support consistent scoring where a monetary anchor was not directly available.
Non-financial effects of this kind were included because ESRS 1 treats a sustainability matter as financially material when it triggers, or could reasonably be expected to trigger, material financial effects on development, financial position, performance, cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital — including where the first-order effect is reputational, legal, regulatory or operational rather than a change already visible in operating EBITDA.
Probability
Section titled “Probability”Probability was assessed on the same 0 to 5 scale used for impact likelihood in Chapter 13.4.1 and translated into the same probability weights. The resulting weight is the factor applied to financial magnitude in the risk and opportunity score. A score of 0 means the effect is not expected to occur within the time horizon under assessment; a score of 5 means occurrence is treated as certain.
Probability score | Description | Probability weight |
|---|---|---|
5 | Guaranteed | 100% (1.0) |
4 | Very likely — occurs frequently | 80% (0.8) |
3 | Likely — recurrent but not frequent | 60% (0.6) |
2 | Possible — uncommon | 40% (0.4) |
1 | Unlikely — almost never | 20% (0.2) |
0 | Never | 0% (0.0) |
Table 39: Probability scale and corresponding probability weights for financial materiality
Calculation of materiality score
Section titled “Calculation of materiality score”Financial materiality is calculated as follows:
Risk / opportunity score = Financial magnitude × Probability
The assessment considered effects that could influence our development, performance, cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital over the short, medium or long term, using the time horizons defined in ESRS 1.
13.4.3 Cut-off Criteria and Their Rationale
Section titled “13.4.3 Cut-off Criteria and Their Rationale”Explicit numerical cut-offs were applied so that the determination of materiality could be reproduced and audited rather than argued case by case.
- impact materiality: an impact is material where the calculated impact score reaches 3 or higher;
- human rights override: for impacts on human rights, an impact is material where any single severity dimension reaches 5, or where the average of the severity dimensions reaches 3 or higher, irrespective of the likelihood score; and
- financial materiality: a risk or opportunity is material where the calculated score reaches 3 or higher.
A sub-topic was classified as material where at least one associated impact, risk or opportunity met or exceeded the applicable threshold from either perspective. In addition, impacts were treated as material irrespective of the numerical threshold where an individual severity dimension reached the highest level, in order to avoid under-reporting a severe impact that a composite score would average away.
The threshold of 3 was chosen for three reasons. First, on a 0 to 5 ordinal scale, 3 is the point at which a score stops describing a marginal or localized effect and begins to describe a significant one: at severity level 3 the underlying descriptors are “significant short-term or moderate medium-term harm” affecting a limited number of regions, and at magnitude level 3 the effect reaches 5 to 10% of operating EBITDA, which is the range in which a matter would enter management discussion on its financial merits alone. Second, the threshold is applied consistently to both perspectives, so that a matter cannot be captured on one axis and lost on the other for reasons of calibration rather than substance. Third, the threshold is deliberately not the only route to materiality: the human rights override and the single-dimension rule described above both admit matters that the composite score would otherwise exclude, which is what allowed the upstream water, biodiversity and affected-communities topics reported in Chapter 11 to enter the report despite their low assessed likelihood. A higher threshold would have excluded precisely those topics where our leverage is weakest and the severity potential highest, and a lower threshold would have produced a set of material topics too broad to manage or to report on with the depth ESRS requires.
13.4.4 Gross and Net Perspective
Section titled “13.4.4 Gross and Net Perspective”For actual negative impacts, severity was assessed on the basis of how the impact materialized during the reporting year, without taking into account remediation carried out in the same period (ESRS 1 paragraph 43(a)).
For potential negative impacts, only prevention and mitigation measures already in place were considered, and only where they could reasonably be expected to reduce severity or likelihood; planned or future actions were excluded (ESRS 1 paragraph 43(b)).
Inherent impacts — those linked to the business model and value chain regardless of how effectively they are managed — were also considered in determining materiality (ESRS 1 paragraph 43(c)).
Measures taken to prevent, mitigate or remediate negative impacts were not recorded as positive impacts. Positive impacts were assessed separately on the beneficial effects of our activities, products and services, without offsetting them against negative impacts (ESRS 1 paragraph 44).
13.4.5 Stakeholder Engagement: Formats and Frequencies
Section titled “13.4.5 Stakeholder Engagement: Formats and Frequencies”We engage with the stakeholder groups set out below on an ongoing basis. The list is non-exhaustive and reflects the diversity of stakeholders relevant to our business model and value chain. In line with ESRS 1 we distinguish between affected stakeholders — those whose interests are or may be affected by our activities — and users of sustainability statements. The last column states how the engagement fed into the double materiality assessment, which is what makes the engagement decision-useful rather than merely descriptive.
Stakeholder group | Type | Formats of engagement | Frequency | Contribution to the DMA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Employees | Affected stakeholders | Different format with cross-functional representatives and senior management; Global Sustainability as central hub across environmental, social, upstream, downstream and regional focus areas; internal communication and awareness formats | Ongoing | Employee input informed the identification and scoring of impacts, risks and opportunities, particularly for own operations |
Suppliers | Affected stakeholders | Supplier dialogues, SustainUP kick-off and topic webinars, joint improvement projects, sustainability assessments and audits, structured supplier management processes | Ongoing | Informed the identification and assessment of upstream environmental and human rights impacts and risks, and the realism of the Scope 3 reduction pathway |
Customers | Affected stakeholders | Customer audits, business review meetings, ESG knowledge exchange through the Sustainability Office together with key account managers and regional sales teams | Ongoing | Informed downstream impacts, risks and opportunities, in particular on products, circular economy and product responsibility |
Workers in the value chain | Affected stakeholders | Grievance mechanism accessible to internal and external stakeholders in multiple languages; human rights impact assessment with on-site worker interviews; supplier engagement program; risk-based audits and assessments | Ongoing; human rights impact assessment as a dedicated project | Informed the identification and severity assessment of social impacts and risks upstream, in particular child labor and forced labor |
Local communities and neighborhoods | Affected stakeholders | Long-term partnerships, including the cooperation with SOS Children’s Villages International, and locally rooted initiatives supported by employees | Several times per year | Provided qualitative insight into potential impacts on affected communities and informed the social topics in the DMA |
Nature | Silent stakeholder | Interests represented through the application of environmental standards, regulatory compliance and science-based frameworks, including ISO environmental standards, ESRS and SBTi | Continuous, through the applied frameworks | Ensured that climate change, pollution, water, biodiversity and circular economy were considered systematically rather than only where a human stakeholder raised them |
Investors and lenders | Users of sustainability statements | As a privately owned company, engagement focuses on lenders and is structured around an ESG-linked loan with performance against defined KPIs reviewed annually by an independent third party; the owner family is informed through one-to-one updates with the Head of Global Sustainability and through CEO presentations at supervisory board meetings | Ongoing; KPI review annually (until 2025) | Informed the assessment of financially material sustainability risks and opportunities |
Policy makers and industry associations | Users of sustainability statements | Active membership in industry associations, including EUPIA, VCI and NAPIM, and contribution to the development of industry standards | Ongoing | Informed the identification of regulatory-driven risks and opportunities and supported strategic decision-making |
Non-governmental organizations | Users of sustainability statements | Collaborative projects with a sustainability focus, such as the partnership with Project STOP in Indonesia on waste management systems and plastic pollution | Ongoing | Provided insight into environmental and social impacts in downstream contexts, considered qualitatively in the DMA |
Table 40: Stakeholder groups and engagement
Governance bodies, including the Global Executive Committee, are informed of stakeholder perspectives that are material to strategy and reporting; the mechanism is described in Section 3.3.1.
13.5 Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
Section titled “13.5 Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations”The following terms and abbreviations are used in this report.
Term | Definition |
|---|---|
Affected stakeholders | Stakeholders whose interests are or may be affected by our activities and value chain, positively or negatively. Distinguished in ESRS 1 from users of sustainability statements. |
Base year | The reference year against which a target and the progress toward it are measured. |
Biogenic carbon | Carbon contained in biomass-derived materials. Under the applicable standards, biogenic carbon is accounted for separately from fossil carbon, which is why an increase in biogenic content does not automatically reduce reported fossil greenhouse gas emissions. |
CBAM | Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. EU mechanism placing a carbon price on selected imported goods. |
CCF | Corporate carbon footprint. The greenhouse gas inventory of the organization, covering Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. |
CDP | Formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project. A global environmental disclosure system used by investors and customers. |
CIRKIT | Siegwerk’s portfolio of functional barrier and other coatings designed to support circular packaging solutions. |
CSDDD | Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. EU directive on human rights and environmental due diligence in value chains. |
CSRD | Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. EU directive requiring sustainability reporting in accordance with the ESRS. |
Double materiality | The principle that a sustainability matter is material if it is material from an impact perspective, from a financial perspective, or both. |
DMA | Double materiality assessment. The process through which material impacts, risks and opportunities are identified and assessed. |
EBITDA | Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Used in this report as the anchor for the magnitude scale in financial materiality. |
ecoinvent | Life-cycle inventory database used as a secondary data source for raw material emission factors where supplier-specific data are unavailable. |
EcoVadis | External platform used to assess supplier sustainability performance across environment, labor and human rights, ethics and sustainable procurement. |
ENCORE | Exploring Natural Capital Opportunities, Risks and Exposure. Tool used to map dependencies and impacts on nature. |
ESRS | European Sustainability Reporting Standards. The reporting standards applied in this statement. |
EUPIA | European Printing Ink Association. |
Financial materiality | The outside-in perspective: whether a sustainability matter generates risks or opportunities that affect or could affect our development, performance, position, cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital. |
Formula 2030 | Siegwerk’s corporate strategy, into which the sustainability agenda HorizonNOW 2030 is integrated. |
GHG | Greenhouse gas. |
GHG Protocol | The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and its cope 2 and Scope 3 guidance, applied for the greenhouse gas inventory. |
Gross and net perspective | Whether an impact is assessed before or after taking existing mitigation into account. ESRS 1 requires actual impacts to be assessed as they materialized and potential impacts to be assessed considering only measures already in place. |
HorizonNOW 2025 / HorizonNOW 2030 | Siegwerk’s sustainability programs. HorizonNOW 2025 established governance, processes and data foundations; HorizonNOW 2030 scales implementation across three focus areas and eight goals. |
HRIA | Human rights impact assessment. An in-depth, site-level assessment of actual and potential human rights impacts, conducted with affected rights-holders. |
HSE | Health, safety and environment. |
Human rights override | The application of the ESRS 1 and UN Guiding Principles rule that severity takes precedence over likelihood for potential human rights impacts, so that a severe impact is material even where its probability is assessed as low. |
Impact materiality | The inside-out perspective: whether our activities and value chain have or may have material actual or potential, positive or negative impacts on people or the environment. |
Integrity Line | Siegwerk’s reporting channel for general misconduct and for human rights or environmental violations in the supply chain, accessible externally and available in multiple languages. |
IRO | Impact, risk or opportunity. The unit of assessment in the double materiality assessment. |
ISO 14064 / ISO 14067 | Standards for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas inventories at organization level (14064) and of product carbon footprints (14067). |
LkSG | Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz. The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act. |
Low migration | Ink and coating systems formulated to limit the transfer of substances into packaged goods. |
NAPIM | National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers (United States). |
NC | Nitrocellulose. A binder in certain ink systems whose use is being reduced because of its effect on recyclability. |
OECD Guidelines | OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. |
P-PCF | Partial product carbon footprint. A cradle-to-gate product carbon footprint covering the stages within our control and data reach. |
PPWR | Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. EU regulation setting requirements for packaging design, recyclability and waste. |
Proportionality | The ESRS principle allowing the depth of a disclosure to be adjusted to the significance of the matter and the availability of information, without omitting the matter. |
PU | Polyurethane. A binder chemistry used in ink systems, with a different carbon profile from nitrocellulose-based systems. |
RE100 certificates | Renewable electricity attribute certificates meeting the RE100 technical criteria, used to substantiate renewable electricity claims where on-site generation or a power purchase agreement is not available. |
SASB | Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. Standards used as a supplementary input in identifying sector-typical impacts. |
SBTi | Science Based Targets initiative. The body that validates corporate greenhouse gas reduction targets against climate science. |
SBTN | Science Based Targets Network. Source of sectoral materiality tools used in identifying nature-related impacts. |
Scope 1, 2 and 3 | Direct emissions from owned or controlled sources (Scope 1), indirect emissions from purchased energy (Scope 2), and all other indirect emissions in the value chain (Scope 3). |
Severity | For impacts, the combination of scale, scope and remediability or irremediable character. |
SustainUP | Siegwerk’s supplier sustainability program, covering expectations, risk and opportunity assessment, supplier support and monitoring. |
Supplementary information | Information disclosed voluntarily beyond the ESRS disclosure requirements, identified as such under ESRS 1 Chapter 8.2. |
SVHC | Substances of very high concern, as defined under the EU REACH Regulation. |
Tier-n | Suppliers beyond the first tier, with whom no direct contractual relationship exists. |
TÜV SÜD | The independent body that verified the corporate carbon footprint and validated the partial product carbon footprint methodology (Chapter 13.3). |
UNGC | United Nations Global Compact. |
UNGP | United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. |
Users of sustainability statements | The primary users of this report — in particular shareholders, banks and other creditors — together with other users who rely on publicly available sustainability information. |
VCI | Verband der Chemischen Industrie. The German Chemical Industry Association. |
VOC | Volatile organic compound. |
Table 41: Glossary of terms and abbreviations