KMD Brands announces Release of Climate-Related Disclosure

KMD BRANDS LIMITED W kmdbrands.com


KMD BRANDS LIMITED
NZX / ASX

29 November 2024

KMD Brands announces Release of Climate-Related Disclosure
KMD Brands Limited (NZX/ASX: KMD, KMD Brands) has today published its first Climate-Related Disclosure
(CRD) prepared in accordance with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CS).
The CRD covers the 12-months ended 31 July 2024 and should be read in conjunction with KMD Brands’ FY24
Annual Integrated Report, released on 25 September 2024.
A copy of KMD Brands’ FY24 CRD is attached and is also available on our investor website at
www.kmdbrands.com/reports.

ENDS

For further information, please contact:
Carla Webb, KMD Brands
E: enquiries@kmdbrands.com

---

Climate Related Disclosures
2024

Contents
123456
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Chair and CEO message ......2
1.2 About KMD Brands .................3
1.3 Compliance statement ..........4
1.4 Statement of limitations .......4
GOVERNANCE
2.1 Board oversight .........................5
2.2 Role of the
management team ..................6
STRATEGY
3.1 Our business model
and strategy ...............................7
3.2 Current climate-related
impacts ..........................................8
3.3 Climate scenario analysis ....8
3.4 Climate-related risks
and opportunities ..................10
3.5 Transition planning ...............14
RISK MANAGEMENT
4.1 Climate risk identification
and assessment ......................15
4.2 Management of
climate risks ..............................15
METRICS AND TARGETS
5.1 Our GHG
emissions inventory .............16
5.2 Our targets
and performance ...................17
5.3 Other metrics ...........................19
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Additional
GHG emissions sources .............20
Appendix 2: Glossary ...................23
Appendix 3: Toitū emissions
inventory reports ............................23
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20241
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

1.1 Chair and CEO message
On behalf of the board of directors, we present the first
Climate-Related Disclosure (CRD) statement prepared
in accordance with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate
Standards (NZ CS 1, 2, and 3) for KMD Brands Limited
(KMD Brands or the Group).
KMD Brands is a global outdoor, lifestyle, and sports company, proudly
certified as a B Corporation (B Corp). B Corps are businesses that meet high
standards of positive social and environmental performance, accountability,
and transparency. In the years prior to the release of this CRD statement, we’ve
tracked, reported on and set targets to reduce our emissions footprint as part
of our wider environmental, social and governance (ESG) commitments.
Our first CRD statement is the next step in this journey, as we continue to
enhance our understanding of the potential risks and opportunities that climate
change presents to our business, and our strategies for adaptation and response.
Though we are proud of the progress we have made towards our emissions
reduction targets to date, we do not underestimate the work ahead. We are intent
on improving our data quality, access and accuracy; and also providing access
across our supply chain for the necessary shift towards renewable energy sources.
Decoupling emissions and economic growth is a significant challenge, and
there are many factors which are outside of our direct control. It is essential that
we continue to collaborate, share knowledge and experience with our teams,
customers, suppliers and other businesses, to collectively work to address
the systemic challenges within our industry and across various sectors.
The preparation that went into this first CRD statement has been comprehensive
and complex, with contributions from all our brands and global regions, as
well as insights from expert external advisors, and internal specialists. This
collaborative effort has expanded our knowledge and is an important step
towards enhancing KMD Brands’ strategy and ongoing resilience.
Overall, we are pleased with the CRD statement we are now able to present,
but recognise that there is significant work ahead as well as new challenges
we may not yet be aware of.

1. INTRODUCTION
David Kirk
Chairman
Michael Daly
Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20242
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
1. INTRODUCTION
6. APPENDICES

1.2 About KMD Brands
The Group consists of three iconic brands: Kathmandu,
Rip Curl, and Oboz. KMD Brands operates in multiple
geographic regions across the globe, from its corporate
office functions, extensive retail footprint, sourcing
and manufacturing of product and wholesale customer
distribution, as well as online presence.
Key to the purpose and vision of KMD Brands, is a love
of the outdoors. Each of our three iconic brands creates
high-quality products that are designed for purpose,
driven by innovation, best for people and planet, and made
specifically with the outdoors in mind. Be it surfing, hiking
or spending time in the open air, our goal is to promote
and enrich activities that bring our customers the joy of an
experience outdoors.
As a B Corp, we are committed to embedding responsible
business practices across all our brands, protecting the
value of our business for long-term success while seeking to
recognise the impact of our business on all stakeholders.
Kathmandu’s journey began in Aotearoa New Zealand more than 30 years
ago. We’re on a mission to improve the wellbeing of the world by getting
more people outdoors – because nature has a positive transformative
effect on us all. The outdoors makes us happier, more open, free and fun.
Our vision at Kathmandu is to be the world’s most loved outdoor brand.
Born in the legendary Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, just outside our
front door, the mountains near Bozeman beckon us. This 10-million-
acre laboratory is where we test our designs and draw inspiration
for new ideas. It’s where we immerse ourselves in nature’s wonders.
It even inspired our name “Oboz” (Outside + Bozeman = Oboz).
Founded in 1969 in Bells Beach, Australia, Rip Curl is the ultimate surfing
company. For more than 50 years, we have led the surfing market and
become synonymous with surf culture. ‘The Search’ – the relentless pursuit
of the perfect wave – lives in the spirit of everything we do. Our vision
is to be regarded as the ultimate surfing company in all that we do.
PURPOSE
INSPIRING PEOPLE TO EXPLORE
AND LOVE THE OUTDOORS.
TO BE THE LEADING FAMILY OF
GLOBAL OUTDOOR BRANDS –
DESIGNED FOR PURPOSE, DRIVEN
BY INNOVATION, BEST FOR PEOPLE
AND PLANET.
VISION
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20243
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
1. INTRODUCTION
6. APPENDICES

This reflects KMD’s current understanding as at 19
November 2024.
This report contains forward-looking statements and
opinions, including climate-related scenarios, targets,
assumptions, estimates, judgments, climate projections,
forecasts, statements of KMD Brands’ future strategy,
operating environment, that may not evolve as anticipated.
Such statements are inherently uncertain and subject
to limitations, particularly as inputs, available data and
information are subject to change. We base those
statements and opinions on reasonable information
we know at the date of publication. We do not:
• represent those statements and opinions will not change
or will remain correct after publishing this report, or
• promise to revise or update those statements and
opinions if events or circumstances change or
unanticipated events happen after publishing this report.
The risks and opportunities described in this report, and our
strategies to achieve our targets, may not eventuate or may
be more or less significant than anticipated. There are many
factors that could cause KMD’s actual results, performance
or achievement of climate-related metrics (including
targets) to differ materially from that described, including
economic and technological viability, climatic, government,
consumer, and market factors outside of KMD’s control.
We give no representation, guarantee, warranty or
assurance about the future business performance of KMD
Brands, or that the outcomes expressed or implied in any
forward-looking statement made in this document will
eventuate. While we have sought to provide a reasonable
basis for any forward-looking statements, we caution
reliance on representations that are necessarily subject
to material uncertainty, assumptions and data challenges,
particularly given the longer-term horizons required for
CRD disclosures, and that are necessarily less reliable than
other statements KMD may make in its annual reporting.
This disclaimer should be read along with the methodologies,
assumptions and uncertainties and limitations on pages
20 to 22.
Nothing in this statement should be interpreted as capital
growth, earnings or any other legal, financial, tax or other
advice or guidance. We disclaim to the fullest extent
permitted by law any loss suffered by reliance on this
disclosure. We expect that forward-looking statements
made in this document will be updated, amended and
restated in future iterations of our disclosures as the quality
and reliability of data, assumptions and methodology
continues to evolve. For detailed information on our financial
performance, please refer to our Annual Integrated Report,
available at https://www.kmdbrands.com/reports.
This disclosure sets out our present understanding of KMD’s climate-related
risks and opportunities, our strategy to respond to these risks and opportunities
and our expectations of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change in
relation to the Group, and our approach to scenario analysis.
David Kirk
Chairman
1.4 Statement of limitations1.3 Compliance statement
In preparing this statement, KMD Brands has elected to
use the following first-time adoption provisions in NZ CS2:
• Adoption provision 1: Current financial impacts
• Adoption provision 2: Anticipated financial impacts
• Adoption provision 3: Transition planning
• Adoption provision 4: Scope 3 GHG emissions
• Adoption provision 6: Comparatives for metrics
• Adoption provision 7: Analysis of trends
This statement is for the FY24 reporting period (1 August
2023 to 31 July 2024) (FY24). These disclosures follow
the NZ CS recommendations and are structured around
four key areas: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management,
Metrics and Targets. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions and metrics disclosed in this statement
should be read with the methodologies, assumptions
and uncertainties set out in Appendix 1 (Table 8).
KMD Brands Limited is a New Zealand registered company
listed on the NZX (primary listing) and ASX (foreign
exempt listing). This CRD statement includes disclosures
for KMD Brands and each of its subsidiaries, but excludes
certain specific geographic regions of immaterial size as
further described in section 3.3.2. References to KMD
should be taken to include the Group, as appropriate.
This is KMD Brands’ first Climate-Related Disclosure (CRD) statement as
a climate-reporting entity under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013,
prepared in compliance with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards
(NZ CS 1, 2 and 3).
Michael Daly
Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer
This disclosure was approved on behalf of KMD Brands Limited on 19 November 2024.
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20244
1. INTRODUCTION
6. APPENDICES

2.1 Board oversight
The Board approves and adopts the appropriate policies
and procedures to enable directors, management and
employees to fulfil their functions effectively and responsibly.
The Board meets regularly, at least eight times each year.
During FY24, the Board was informed about matters relating
to governance of climate-related risks and opportunities,
including consideration of NZ CS requirements, at the Board
meetings held in August 2023 and June 2024. The Board also
considered climate-related risks and opportunities during
its review and approval of the proposed scenario analysis
process, scope and boundaries in November 2023 and review
of the outputs of the climate risk assessment in June 2024.
The Board is supported in this function by the Audit and Risk
Committee (ARC), which meets at least five times per year,
and assists the Board in discharging its responsibility for
strategic risk oversight. KMD Brands has a Risk Management
Policy (available on our investor website at kmdbrands.com)
which is reviewed annually. The purpose of the Risk
Management Policy is to ensure that appropriate systems
and methods are designed and implemented to identify,
and to the extent that is reasonably practicable, minimise
and control our material risks in line with our organisational
risk appetite. The ARC reviews reports on assessment of
key material enterprise risks from management, which are
provided at least twice per year. The ARC is also responsible
for oversight of compliance with Climate-Related Disclosure
regulations relevant to KMD Brands. We have yet to fully
integrate our identified climate risks and opportunities into
our broader enterprise risk management (ERM) processes.
During FY24, the KMD Brands Board has been broadening
its understanding of climate-related matters through
learning sessions and discussions, drawing on the
wealth of knowledge available both internally within
KMD Brands and from external industry specialists.
2. GOVERNANCE
The Board of KMD Brands is responsible for the overall corporate governance
and oversight of risk for the Group, including our response to the risks and
opportunities presented by climate related issues.
In addition, one KMD Brands Director is a member of
Chapter Zero, a global network of directors committed to
taking action on climate change. The KMD Brands Board
Charter mandates that directors keep up-to-date with
trends and changes impacting KMD Brands’ business.
It also encourages them to participate in professional
development courses to maintain their knowledge on
relevant issues. For more information on the Board’s skills
and competencies, refer to the KMD Brands Corporate
Governance Statement. This document includes a director
skills matrix, which is reviewed and updated annually, and
which includes specific skill categories for ‘Sustainability
for communities, climate and product circularity’ as well
as ‘Risk management, including non-financial risk’.
One of the four KMD Brand strategic pillars, supporting its
growth as a global business and family of outdoor brands, is
its focus on ‘Best for People and Planet’. This strategic focus
is underpinned by KMD Brands’ commitment as a B Corp
which embeds consideration of impacts on all stakeholders
and the environment within the governance processes of
KMD Brands. As part of this strategic focus area, KMD Brands
has undertaken Group-wide ESG materiality assessments
and, informed by these assessments, has developed a KMD
Brands ESG strategy that covers the entire Group (the Group
ESG Strategy). These materiality assessments include
consideration of material issues to KMD Brands’ business
such as the impacts of climate change and biodiversity
loss. As part of implementing this strategy, governance
over climate change-related issues is centrally coordinated.
The Board was involved in the development process which
led to the formation of the Group ESG Strategy, and its
foundation in the ‘Best for People and Planet’ strategic
pillar. The Board also approved the Strategy’s final focus
areas, metrics and targets which include metrics relevant
for managing climate-related risks and opportunities. These
metrics are reported on to the Board at least twice a year.
Related performance metrics linked to our four Group
strategic pillars, including climate-related risks and
opportunities, are also incorporated into remuneration
policies as described in more detail at paragraph 5.3.3
of this document.
1. INTRODUCTION
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20245
2. GOVERNANCE
6. APPENDICES

2.2 Role of the management team
The Chief Legal and ESG Officer, in conjunction with the
Chief Financial Officer, are responsible for overseeing and
embedding KMD’s risk management framework within the
business, which includes climate-related risk assessment,
and both of these officers report directly to the Group CEO.
The KMD Brands’ group executive leadership team (E LT),
which includes the Brand CEOs, are responsible for
assessment and monitoring of all risks, including climate-
related risks and opportunities. The wider management
team participate in regular risk assessments, at least twice
per year, using the risk management framework and to
assess the current level of exposure to, and impact of risks
to KMD Brands and to consider whether appropriate risk
mitigation strategies and controls are in place. Reporting
on material risks during each reporting period is provided
twice per year to the ELT and ultimately the Board.
The Group CEO has ultimate oversight over our Group
ESG strategy, with regular reporting to the Board on
strategic performance. The Chief Legal and ESG Officer
is responsible for oversight of the KMD Brands ESG team,
who collectively implement the Group ESG Strategy which
includes climate reporting, supply chain engagement, and
our emissions reduction strategy, driving accountability and
reporting on progress internally and externally. The ESG
team interacts with stakeholders across the business to raise
awareness of climate-related issues, provide education on
key policies and initiatives connected to both sustainability
and social initiatives, and partner with the business on
programmes relating to climate risks and opportunities.
Brand CEOs are ultimately responsible for driving activities
within the business units comprising their brands. We have
a detailed ESG strategic plan for each Brand with specific
actions, targets and accountabilities which ladders up to
the Group ESG strategic plan. We also plan for, and are
assessed through, a substantial verification process on a
three-yearly cycle to maintain B Corp certification across the
Group. Our next group certification process is due to take
place at the end of calendar year 2025. This process drives
continual improvement as we look for new ways to embed
responsible business practices, process improvements, and
management of climate-related risks and opportunities,
across the entire Group in order to maintain certification.
Updates are provided twice a year to the Board on the
progress against key metrics tied to the Group ESG Strategy,
which include climate-related risks and opportunities. Further
information on organisational structure and engagement
with the governance body is provided in Figure 1 opposite.
The Board delegates responsibility for strategy implementation and management
of the ERM framework, which includes assessment and monitoring of, and strategy
relating to, climate-related risks and opportunities, to the KMD Brands’ Group
Chief Executive Officer (Group CEO) and Managing Director. The Group CEO is
supported by an executive leadership team to deliver on these responsibilities.
Figure 1: Governance structure
GROUP CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER (CEO)
Overall responsibility for
implementation of strategy and
management of the enterprise
risk framework.
Provides reports directly to the
Board on material issues at each
Board meeting.
AUDIT AND
RISK COMMITTEE (ARC)
Responsible for reviewing and
monitoring risk management
polices and systems, and the
framework for material risk
identification and assessment,
including climate-related risks, and
oversight of climate disclosure
reporting. Receives reporting on a
six-monthly basis following ELT
material risk assessments.
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM
(ELT)
Delivery of strategy and
responsible for regular assessment
and monitoring of risk including
control and mitigation strategies.
Contribute to, and consider,
material risk reports on a six-
monthly basis. Provides individual
updates directly to the Board at
least twice per year on key areas of
responsibility.
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
(CFO)
In conjunction with the CLESGO,
responsible for embedding risk
management framework, climate
risk assessment processes and
external reporting. Provides
reports directly to the Board
on material issues at each
Board meeting.
CHIEF LEGAL AND ESG OFFICER
(CLESGO)
In conjunction with the CFO,
responsible for embedding risk
management framework, climate
risk assessment processes and
external reporting. Oversight of the
Group ESG team. Provides twice
yearly reporting on ESG strategy
performance to the Board.
KMD BRANDS BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Responsible for overall corporate governance and oversight of risk, including
climate-related risk and opportunities, key policies and overall strategy.
Receives a report back from the ARC following each ARC meeting.
1. INTRODUCTION
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20246
2. GOVERNANCE
6. APPENDICES

AFRICA &
MIDDLE EASTTOTAL
Licensed stores32
Materials sourcingSouth Africa
Factories 0
3. STRATEGY
Global footprint
ELEVATING DIGITAL
Enhance our digital capabilities to improve customer
experiences and engagement.
OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
Optimise efficiency and effectiveness in operations.
BEST FOR PEOPLE AND PLANET
Embrace responsible and sustainable business practices to
deliver positive social, environmental and financial impact.
Global Office Locations
NORTH AMERICATOTAL
Owned stores30
Licensed stores24
Wholesale doors+3,800
Materials sourcingUSA, Mexico
Factories1
SOUTH AMERICATOTAL
Owned stores7
Licensed stores109
Wholesale doors+600
Materials sourcingBrazil
Factories9
FRANCE
BRAZIL
USA
CANADA
Bozeman
Vancouver
San Clemente
São Paulo
Hossegor
AUSTRALASIATOTAL
Owned stores270
Licensed stores21
Wholesale doors+900
Materials sourcing
Australia,
New Zealand
Factories 5
ASIATOTAL
Licensed and JV stores83
Wholesale doors+600
Materials sourcing
Vietnam, China, Thailand,
Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, South
Korea, Bangladesh, India, Nepal
Factories 130
EUROPETOTAL
Owned stores27
Licensed stores10
Wholesale doors+2,000
Materials sourcingItaly, France
Factories 4
NEW ZEALAND
AUSTRALIA
INDONESIA
THAILAND
JAPAN
Chiang Mai
Fujisawa
Bangkok
Bali
Torquay
Christchurch
Melbourne
3.1 Our business model and strategy
KMD Brands’ corporate strategy is focused on four key pillars:Our Group functions
Our shared Group support functions provide centres of excellence, implement common platforms and leverage scale across our brands.
FINANCEESGSYSTEMSLEGALCOMMERCIALPEOPLE
KMD Brands’ global operations are supported by shared services across the
Group. This structure centralises knowledge and expertise in specific business
areas including Commercial Operations (supply chain management, property),
Finance, People, Legal, ESG and IT Systems.
These Group functions work collaboratively with the three brands - Kathmandu,
Rip Curl, and Oboz - to ensure alignment with our strategic pillars and
drive operational efficiencies. These shared functions leverage synergies
across the brands, promoting productivity, and ensuring a consistent
approach to achieving our vision and purpose. They also play a crucial
role in supporting our commitment to positive social and environmental
performance, accountability, and transparency as a certified B Corp.
BUILDING GLOBAL BRANDS
Strengthen and expand our global brand presence.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20247
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

3.2 Current climate-related impacts
The devastating wildfires in Maui in August 2023 led to
the total loss of our Rip Curl Lahaina store. Our Rip Curl
store in Port Douglas was impacted by Cyclone Jasper
in December 2023 causing damage to store fit out and
inventory. In January 2024, Cyclone Kirrily disrupted
trade at our Cairns, Palm Cove and Townsville stores by
forcing closure. In May 2024, the floods in Brazil had a
significant impact on our Rip Curl wholesale customers,
whom we supported through extended payment terms
as well as by providing broader support for response
teams through the donation of wetsuits and equipment.
The impacts of warmer winter periods on the sales of
our insulation and seasonal products, such as skiwear,
has been noticeable in recent key winter trading periods.
In 2023, Australia experienced its warmest winter on
record, contributing to challenging trading conditions
driven also by increased cost of living pressures.
We are also starting to see emerging transition risks from
new regulations, particularly implemented by the EU,
aimed at addressing climate change through reducing
the impact of the textile and apparel industry. Increasing
requirements around disclosure of product information,
and product end-of-life-stage requirements, is adding
additional cost and complexity for our businesses.
3.3 Climate scenario analysis
3.3.1 Process
During FY24 we completed a KMD Brands entity-level
scenario analysis and risk assessment of our climate-related
risks and opportunities, assisted by Deloitte.
The aim of conducting a risk assessment based on scenario
analysis is not to predict the most likely outcomes of climate
change, but instead, is part of a process for systematically
exploring the effects of a range of plausible and challenging
future events under conditions of uncertainty, to build
a better understanding of the potential impacts on
our strategy. The scenarios are intended to provide an
opportunity for us to develop our internal capacity to better
understand and prepare for the uncertain future impacts
of climate change. Under each scenario, we identified
the climate-related risks and opportunities for KMD and
their impacts which can then be considered in relation
to the resilience of our business model and strategy.
The scenario analysis process involved a series of learning
sessions and workshops with KMD Brands subject-matter
experts across multiple regions (including Australasia,
Southeast Asia, Europe and the Americas). The objectives
of the workshops were to:
• establish the scope, boundary and value chain exclusions
of the climate risk and opportunities assessment;
• determine the global warming scenarios and
the strategic time horizons against which to
test exposure to climate hazards; and
• identify and rate the physical and transition climate
risks and opportunities that are currently impacting,
and which are anticipated to impact, KMD Brands.
KMD Brands appointed a Steering Committee (Steer
Co) of senior leaders to provide oversight and make
decisions throughout the process. The Board approved
the scenario analysis process and reviewed the
final assessment report produced by Deloitte.
In determining the relevant key catalysts that could
influence the level of impact that climate change may
have on KMD Brands, the Steer Co considered the driving
forces identified in KPMG’s "The Futures of Retail" report
(Retail Sector Scenario Analysis). This report, which
KMD Brands participated in forming during FY23, sets out
integrated climate change scenarios for New Zealand's
retail sector. While many of the driving forces identified
in the Retail Sector Scenario Analysis were adopted,
a number were adjusted to reflect the drivers most
relevant to KMD Brands. The scenario analysis process
completed during FY24 was a standalone exercise.
3.3.2 Scope and boundary
When determining the scope and boundary of scenario
analysis and climate risk assessment, the Steer Co
considered factors including the licensing component of
Rip Curl operations, future consumer demand, changes
in travel demand, reliance on primary commodities,
fluctuations in foreign exchange rates that could impact
cash flow and revenue, geographical location of suppliers
and manufacturers, physical location of stores (both
owned and operated, and of wholesale partners) with
the following scope and boundaries determined:
• Regions – South America, Africa and the Middle East
were deemed to be out of scope due to the limited
size and materiality of the business in those regions.
• Brands – all three Brands, Rip Curl, Kathmandu and Oboz,
were in scope.
• Value chain inclusions – four-tiers upstream were
included and one-tier downstream (refer to Figure 2).
With its global footprint, KMD Brands has experienced various impacts from
physical climate hazards on its business activities during FY24. Climate hazards
exist independent of, but can be exacerbated by, the effects of climate change.
Figure 2: Value chain inclusions
• Take-back, repair,
resale and recycling
programs
• Consumer
preferences
and behaviour
(including impacts
on consumer
leisure travel)
• Retail and wholesale
network
• Freight, Distribution
Centres and third-
party logistics
• Different channels
to market:
e-commerce, retail,
wholesale, licensing
• Final stage
manufacturing
• Transporting of
products to port
• Raw material
production
• Raw material
sourcing
• Synthetic /
natural fibres
• Transporting
materials from
farm to processing
factories
DOWNSTREAM
KMD RETAIL
& WHOLESALE
OPERATIONSUPSTREAM
• Raw material
processing and
fabric mills
• Transporting
of raw material
from processing
factories to final
manufacturing
factories
TIER 1
TIER 2 & 3
TIER 4
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20248
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

We aligned with the time horizons adopted in the
Retail Sector Scenario Analysis. These time horizons
are consistent with the tenure of our profile of retail
store leases, the useful life of key IT systems, and the
usual cycle of the KMD Brands purchase cycle.
The time horizons selected were:
• Short-term is defined as Present day to 2030
• Medium-term is defined as 2031 to 2040
• Long-term is defined as 2041 to 2050.
3.3.3 Scenarios and pathways adopted
We chose the three NGFS scenarios detailed in Table 1 to
explore the physical and transition-related impacts over
each time horizon. Given KMD Brands’ global reach, we
took the high-level scenario architecture and learnings, and
scenario outputs, from the Retail Sector Scenario Analysis
and expanded on the relevant parts to encompass the global
footprint of our operations, with more focus on our specific
business model (encompassing both retail and wholesale
channels) and by making additional or differentiated
assumptions where needed. We selected these scenarios
as being most relevant and appropriate to assess the
resilience of our business model and strategy as they are
easily comparable to other retailers, which encouraged us
to select pathways aligned with the Retail Sector Scenario
Analysis where it made sense to do so, but tailored in places
representative of the global, rather than New Zealand specific,
focus of our business, and utilising more up to date data.
1

We adopted the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP)
provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC AR6) to assess KMD Brands’
evolving risk profile. The global data sets that informed
the KMD Brands scenario analysis included the IPCC AR6
dataset and the Network for Greening the Financial System
(NGFS) GCAM global data set. The SSPs build upon the
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) from the
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5).
1. The global warming scenarios selected by KMD Brands differ from those chosen
in the Retail Sector Scenario Analysis. This is because at the time of conducting
the scenario analysis, there was no available downscaled data for the SSP3 —
7.0 scenario which would impact the ability to use this scenario for the physical
risk assessment process. For the physical risk rating exercise, it was agreed to
use the SSP 2, RCP 4.5 degree scenario to allow for a better comparison to
provide a clearer low, middle and high ground for emissions pathways.
2. Temperature estimate range 1.6°C by 2060, 1.4°C by 2100: IPCC AR6 report
– Summary for Policymakers (ipcc.ch)
3. Carbon removal includes sequestration from forestry and nature
based solutions.
We used the RCP scenarios (that are aligned to the SSP
scenarios) from IPCC AR5 for climate metrics that have
not yet been developed within the IPCC AR6 models.
These scenarios provide a snapshot of the evolving risk
profile over time in relation to increasing increments of
global warming. These scenarios represent three plausible
futures under which the emissions concentration in the
Earth’s atmosphere, the corresponding global earth
surface temperatures and resulting climate hazard
impacts are linked to political, social and economic
conditions. We then examined the impact of each
potential future across key driving forces material to
KMD Brands including access to materials, changing
consumer attitudes and societal expectations, logistics
and access to markets, macro-economic conditions
and the physical impacts of climate hazards.
3.3.4 Climate scenario narratives
The climate scenarios we adopted can be summarised as
follows, although it is emphasised that these are subject to
uncertainty and material change as better data becomes
available and climate modelling further develops:
Scenario 1: Orderly
An orderly scenario assumes early, decisive decarbonisation
investment by 2030, backed by a bipartisan climate
change response both domestically and internationally.
Stable carbon markets and policies provide clear
investor signals, enabling global emissions to halve by
2030, achieving net zero by 2050. Consumer demand
drives decarbonised products and a focus on product
circularity in the textile industry. Investors hold businesses
accountable for progress towards emissions targets.
Financial regulation restricts capital allocation to high
emission practices, triggering investment into low carbon
and climate resilient manufacturing technologies and
practices. Consumers demand low carbon transport
solutions, impacting the viability of high emitting
freight modes and pressuring the ecommerce delivery
market to adopt more efficient transport modes.
Under this scenario, medium and long-term physical
risks are low; short to medium-term transition risk is
high. Weather events intensify, but impacts are gradual
and retail locations are not specifically targeted. Shifts in
weather patterns minimally affect demand for specialised
product types (insulated clothing, rainwear, waterproofing).
Insurance costs rise with increasing weather events.
Table 1: Pathway overview and key assumptions
ORDERLY DISORDERLY HOT HOUSE WORLD
NGFSNet Zero 2050 (1.5°C)
2
Delayed Transition (1.7°C)Current Policies (3°C+)
IPCCSSP 1-1.9, 1.4°CSSP 1-2.6, 1.8°CSSP 5-8.5, 4.4°C
NIWARCP 1.9RCP 2.6, 4.5RCP 8.5
Policy ambition1 . 4°C1.6°C3°C+
Policy reaction to climate change Immediate and smooth Delayed Current policies only
Regional policy variationMedium variationHigh variationLow variation
Carbon removal
3
Medium-high useMedium useLow use
Technology changeFast changeSlow then fast changeSlow change
Short-term
Present day to 2030
Physical impacts: Low
Transition impacts: Medium
Physical impacts: Low
Transition impacts: Low
Physical impacts: Low
Transition impacts: Low
Medium-term
2031 to 2040
Physical impacts: Low
Transition impacts: High
Physical impacts: Medium
Transition impacts: High
Physical impacts: High
Transition impacts: Low
Long-term
2041 to 2050
Physical impacts: Low
Transition impacts: Low
Physical impacts: Medium
Transition impacts: Low
Physical impacts: High
Transition impacts: Low
Scenario 2: Disorderly
A disorderly scenario assumes delayed decarbonisation
investment until 2035 due to divided governmental
response to climate change. Political volatility and
economic instability reduce investor confidence in the
short-term, resulting in low decarbonisation technology
investment. A sudden shift in domestic and international
governments’ response to climate change, catalysed in
part by advances in technology, occurs post-2035 driving
rapid decarbonisation investment, causing a demand
spike and price increase. There is a slight overshoot of
the Paris target, but long-term physical risk is limited.
Global leadership indecision and weak policy frameworks
create political division over climate action, disrupting
global markets and hampering efforts to supply from
certain geographies. Delayed carbon border adjustment
mechanisms, global inflation and increasing product prices
soften ESG requirements in the textile industry, leading
to a fragmented approach. Slow adoption of emission-
reducing technologies increases cotton and synthetic
product prices, impacting supply. Decarbonisation of
goods transport is slow, resulting in higher carbon taxes
and a longer transition to a decarbonised economy.
Insurance costs rise with frequent extreme weather events.
Geopolitical influences result in changes to import tariffs
and duties disrupting traditional trade lanes. Limited access
to alternative materials due to volatile pricing lowers low
carbon product production. Frequent, intense weather
events necessitate retail store relocations. Shifts in weather
patterns and global tourism, and a drive towards leisure
activities, promote a focus on specialised clothing and
apparel that meets increasingly demanding conditions.
Scenario 3: Hot House World
Under a Hot House World scenario, economic growth
remains fossil fuel-dependent, with limited decarbonisation
investment leading to an overshoot of the Paris 2050
net carbon neutral target. Transition risk is minimal,
but physical climate-related risks increase steadily.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20249
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

Unchanged policies since the 2020s result in missed
emissions reduction targets and extreme physical risk
impacts. Frequent extreme weather events cause resource
scarcity, making the textile market vulnerable to price
volatility. Dismantled carbon border adjustment mechanisms
allow free goods flow, with powerful economies securing
scarce resources needed for manufacturing. Limited
regulation results in capital flowing without environmental,
social, governance, or emissions reduction oversight.
Resource scarcity raises consumer prices, shifting focus
from environmental performance to price and availability.
Manufacturers lack incentive for low carbon technology
investment, continuing use of cheap fossil fuel derivatives.
High prices, poor quality, environmental degradation,
and water scarcity trigger public backlash against the
3.4 Climate-related risks and opportunities
We set out the material risks and opportunities to KMD
Brands in Tables 2, 3 and 4 on the following pages. We
have assessed these risks as having the potential to
materially impact our business, including our operations,
strategy, and financial planning if the risks are not
managed appropriately. The climate related opportunities,
if accessed through future changes to our business, are
believed to have the potential to improve our financial
performance, and also reduce our impact on the planet.
Our climate-related risks and opportunities were assessed
at an asset level, including our physical resources and
products. The climate-related risks and opportunities
identified in our scenario analysis process are not yet
fully integrated into our internal capital deployment and
funding decision-making processes. Some of the climate-
related risks and opportunities identified already form
part of our broader ESG strategy and targets. We have
included further detail in section 5.3.2 (Table 7) on the
capital deployed towards solar investment, low-emission
Using the scenarios, we then identified the climate-related risks and
opportunities to KMD Brands and assessed each over the short, medium
and long-term time horizons.
retail sector. Climate change impacts trigger migration
making skilled machinists costly to find and retain,
causing delays, higher costs and product scarcity.
Reliance on imported materials increases supply chain
disruption risk, due to increasing weather related shipping
delays. Volatile cotton and synthetic product prices
impact supply. Insurance companies retreat as operating
risks increase. Resource scarcity and supply volatility
undermine profitability. Extreme weather events and
sea level rise makes it impractical to have retail stores
in historically significant business zones necessitating
retail store relocation. Strained global tourism, and
challenging pathways to leisure activities due to climate
hazards, undermine demand for specialised products.
lighting upgrades, and our circular business model
programmes during FY24. We have also embedded financial
accountability for addressing climate-related risks through
our sustainability linked loan commitments, which sits
across the entirety of our syndicated debt funding facility.
The application of materiality is grounded in our risk
assessment processes, and incorporates both a qualitative
and quantitative analysis, utilising the risk scoring
methodologies which we set out in the Risk Management
section later in this document.
The Steer Co was closely consulted throughout the climate
risk assessment process to qualify the risks and opportunities
identified, and to assess and sense-check the results of
the assessments. The Board approved the scope and
boundaries of both the scenario analysis and the climate
risk assessment at the outset and was provided updates
at key milestones throughout the process, including a final
assessment report produced by Deloitte for its review.
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202410
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

Physical risks
KMD Brands’ climate-risk assessment shows that the company is most vulnerable to physical climate risks like extreme weather, wildfires, heatwaves, and floods. These impacts will likely be experienced across the entire value chain, from grower to end-consumer.
However, the overall risk exposure is low over the time horizons considered in our assessment, based on current, available data. Under our time horizons to 2050, the impacts under all three scenarios are not widely differentiated, with physical risks in the short and
medium-term ranked as low or minor exposure, rising to moderate, moderate/high exposure under the Hot House World scenario by 2050. The difference in the scale and severity of the impacts between the three scenarios is expected to be more diverse in the
period 2050 to 2100 which is not covered by this analysis.
Table 2: Physical risks
RISK SCORE AND SCENARIO
CategoryDescriptionAnticipated impactsTime horizonOrderlyDisorderlyHot HouseGeography most impacted
Extreme weather eventsIncrease in intensity of average
wind speed and number of windy
days. Increase in intensity and
frequency of cyclone events.
• Closure of factories, warehouses and stores impacting
production timelines, distribution and sale of product.
• Damage to inventory and raw materials resulting
in write offs and loss of revenue.
• Grid blackouts and communications network
outages negatively impacting productivity.
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Asia
WildfireIncrease in wildfire events due to
increasing temperatures, lower
rainfall and drought conditions.
• Inventory loss, store fit out damage, loss of revenue.
• Disruption of transport networks causing
delay in movement of product.
• Delays in wholesale customer payments causing an increase
accounts receivable and an increase in bad debts.
• Impacts on air quality on employee health and
consumer activities post wild-fire event.
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Australasia, America
and South East Asia
Increased temperaturesIncreasing annual average
temperatures resulting in
significantly more hot days per
annum causing extended dry
periods.
• Negative impacts on raw material production and growing
conditions reducing quality of, and accessibility to, key
commodities increasing price and procurement cost. This
may impact product margin and reduce revenue.
• Impacts on working conditions for our own, and contracted supplier,
employees, reducing productivity and delaying product timelines.
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
South East Asia
Pluvial and fluvial floodingIncreasing frequency and intensity
of pluvial flooding due to increasing
extreme, rare rainfall events.
• Damage to warehouse and store inventory causing loss of revenue.
• Impacts on manufacturing suppliers in areas where
flooding is occurring with greater frequency impacting
lead times and capacity for product delivery.
• Transport and shipping delays resulting in loss of revenue.
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
South East Asia, Australasia
Changes in rainfall patternsChanges in seasonal distribution of
rainfall resulting in wetter winters
and drier summers. Increase in
extreme rainfall events. Decline in
overall number of rain days.
• Impact on the purchase patterns of consumers resulting
in reduced sales in, and over stocking of, rainwear
and insulation categories causing increased working
capital and lower gross margin to clear product.
• Impact on materials supply due to crop damage resulting
in increased pricing and reduction in product supply.
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Australasia, South East Asia,
Europe and Americas
Risk rating:

Very low

Minor

Moderate

High

Extreme Time horizons: Short Present day to 2030 Medium 2031 to 2040 Long 2041 to 2050
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202411
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

Transition risks
Transition risks are the potential challenges that emerge as we shift towards a more sustainable, low-emission global economy. These risks are influenced by a variety of sociopolitical factors, including evolving climate policies, changing investor and consumer
attitudes, and the introduction of innovative technologies, all of which are expected features of a future society dedicated to reducing its carbon footprint. Under the “Orderly” or “Delayed Transition” scenarios, these transition risks are anticipated to have the most
significant impact because these scenarios involve the implementation of global policies designed to mitigate the effects of climate change. Conversely, in a “Hot House” scenario, substantial policy changes are not expected to take place, therefore transition risks
are less likely to be experienced. Transition risks were considered across the time horizons extending out to 2050 and rated based on urgency of required action considering anticipated timing of impact.
Table 3: Transition risks
RISK SCORE AND SCENARIO
CategoryDescriptionAnticipated impactsOrderlyDisorderlyHot HouseGeography most impacted
MarketConsumer preference • Failure to meet customer expectations and requirements regarding sustainability
practices resulting in diminished brand loyalty and market share loss.
Global
ReputationInvestor sentiment• Failure to meet defined sustainability targets and investor expectations
which may result in a reduced share price and availability of finance.
Global
Policy and legalEmerging regulation and
government policy, trade barriers.
• Impacts on production processes and materials required to meet highest standards
of global compliance, resulting in margin and market competitiveness reduction.
• Outward migration of labour to countries with more favourable policies impacting
production capacity resulting in increased production costs and delays.
• Government and trade restrictions on geographic location of potential suppliers
implemented through carbon, import taxes and border tariffs reducing supplier
availability, increasing production costs and reducing profit margins.
Global
Technology Capital investment required for
transition technology
• Cost of transitioning to greener technology including fuels for transport, renewable
energy sources and electrification of manufacturing processes may become increasingly
expensive and scarce, increasing the cost of production and reducing margin.
Asia
Risk rating: Time to impact

20-30years

15-20 years

10-15 years

5-10 years

2-5 years
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202412
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

Opportunities
Opportunities refer to the potential benefits and positive outcomes that could be realised by KMD Brands as we adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. By identifying and capitalising on these opportunities, we can mitigate climate-related risks and
drive sustainable growth for our business. Each opportunity would require investment and a change in strategic focus, which are important considerations in our strategic planning. Transition opportunities were considered across the time horizons extending out
to 2050 and rated based on urgency of required action considering anticipated timing of opportunity impact.
Table 4: Opportunities
PHYSICAL
RISK SCORE AND SCENARIO
CategoryDescriptionAnticipated impactsTime horizonOrderlyDisorderlyHot HouseGeography most impacted
Growth in online salesIncreasing frequency of extreme
weather events leading to impaired
access to physical retail stores
resulting in growth in online sales.
• Opportunity to incrementally grow revenue through increased
online sales where consumers are restricted from visiting
physical storefronts due to extreme weather events.
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Global
Increased product demandMore pronounced weather
patterns and more extreme
seasonality of conditions.
• Greater consumer demand for products used for specific
weather conditions resulting in increased sales in key
product categories and support for increased margin.
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Global
Opportunity rating:

Possible

Moderate

Strong

Significant Time horizons: Short Present day to 2030 Medium 2031 to 2040 Long 2041 to 2050
TRANSITION
RISK SCORE AND SCENARIO
CategoryDescriptionAnticipated impactsOrderlyDisorderlyHot HouseGeography most impacted
MarketPotential for benefit and growth
prospects from adaptation to
climate-related impacts and
reduced competition with more
complex barriers to entry.
• Ability to build a strong customer value proposition and expand market
presence through demonstration of sustainable business practices resulting
in increased sales, greater customer loyalty and market share growth.
• Improved ability to attract and retain top employee talent through
demonstration of commitment to sustainable business practices.
• Increased access to, and more competitive cost of, sustainable
finance providing stability to debt funding portfolio.
Global
TechnologyEarly adoption of renewable
energy sources.
• •Early investment in solar energy across key operating sites may reduce energy
costs in the longer term, improving operating profit and reducing emissions.
Global
Opportunity rating: Time to impact

20-30 years

10-20 years

5-10 years

2-5 years
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202413
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

3.5 Transition planning
Our exposure to transition risks under an Orderly and Disorderly scenario are higher,
meaning that we need to closely monitor these risks areas to adapt and respond.
These considerations will form part of our transition planning. A transition plan
considers how to adapt our business strategy to be more resilient to climate change
risks and opportunities as the world transitions to one that has a lower reliance on
carbon. While we have elected to use Adoption Provision 3: transition planning (NZ
CS 2) in preparing this disclosure, during FY24, we have held internal workshops
to discuss key considerations and concepts that will support the development
of our detailed transition plan for publication in a future reporting period.
Our transition plan will prioritise agility and adaptability, enabling us to swiftly
respond to evolving consumer preferences and navigate the largely uncertain
future. It is important to remember that climate scenarios are not forecasts; the
future remains unknown. Our focus will remain on staying attuned to consumer
needs and market trends, ensuring we remain adaptive and responsive.
As noted earlier, KMD Brands’ overall risk exposure
to physical climate-related risks is considered as
relatively low over the time horizons considered in our
assessment, based on data currently available.
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202414
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

4. RISK MANAGEMENT
Overall risk identification and assessment at KMD Brands is completed
according to the Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Framework
approved by the Board of Directors, which outlines the process for the
identification, classification, review and control of business risks.
The framework incorporates a set of risk appetite
statements, approved by the Board, which establish
the Group’s appetite for risk in each of the key areas of
our business strategy. The risk framework sets out the
guiding principles, roles and responsibilities of the risk
assessment process and reporting requirements. The
Board recognises that some element of risk is inherently
necessary in order to achieve the strategic aims for the
Group’s businesses and to deliver value to shareholders.
Where possible, our climate risk assessment process was
aligned to the KMD Brands enterprise Risk Management
Framework. We have yet to integrate the climate risks
identified through the scenario analysis and risk assessment
process into our broader enterprise risk assessment
processes and underlying risk register. We will continue to
progress our capability in relation to how we record, report,
monitor and manage these risks over the coming years.
During FY24, through a series of workshops involving KMD
Brands subject matter experts (SMEs), we established
a detailed list of climate risks based on identified key
drivers. KMD Brands SMEs discussed and explored the
potential risks to KMD Brands from key climate hazards,
by risk area. SMEs were asked to identify the asset,
service or person (staff/customer) impacted by each
risk and provide a risk statement, which described the
consequence of the risk on the relevant risk receptor.
SMEs were then asked to rate each identified risk statement
over the three time horizons (identified at page 11 for physical
risk and page 12 for transition risk) in relation to each of
the three warming-scenarios selected using the scoring
methodology set out below.
4.

For the physical risk rating exercise, SSP 2, RCP 4.5 degree scenario was used to
allow for better comparison to provide a clear low, middle and high ground for
emissions pathways.
4.1.1 Assessment of Physical Risks
The Physical Risks score was calculated on the basis of
the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, with the
latter two scores giving an overall vulnerability score. A
score was determined for each risk under each of the three
scenarios, informed by our internal risk consequence table
and guided by climate hazard data provided for RCP2.6,
RCP 4.5
4
and RCP 8.5 at the future time horizons. Each
of these elements was rated on a scale of 1 to 5 / Very
low - Extreme. The resulting climate risk score was then
used to prioritise the physical risks. Figure 3 sets out the
approach to calculating the physical climate risk score.
4.1.2 Assessment of Transition Risks
The assumption of the orderly transition is that the
global objective of achieving emissions reductions in
line with limiting global warming to no more 1.5°C has
been achieved by taking early action to decarbonise.
Transition risks were identified against the backdrop of a
NGFS Orderly Transition / IPCC AR6 SSP1-1.9 pathway. The
rationale for testing against the Orderly scenario is that
transition risks are assumed to be highest under this scenario,
in terms of regulatory and policy frameworks, consumer
preferences and expectations, and access to capital.
We assessed transition risks using a time-to-impact
urgency criteria, based on the UK’s third climate risk
assessment and New Zealand’s National Climate
Change Risk Assessment methods. We then applied a
qualitative impact weighting to gauge materiality, using
KMD Brands’ risk consequence table and materiality
thresholds. These thresholds consider factors like financial
impact on EBIT, compliance with legal and regulatory
standards, and effects on health, safety, and wellbeing.
The Transition Risk rating was then derived from a combined
scoring of the urgency criteria with an impact rating of
1 to 5 / Very Low to Extreme to give an overall score.
4.2 Management of climate risks
The outputs of the climate risk assessment workshops conducted by KMD Brands
were analysed by the Steer Co to determine the most significant risks by Climate
Hazard, Risk Type, Risk Area, and Risk Receptor.
This analysis allows us to prioritise the climate risks that
require close monitoring and treatment over time. Using
KMD Brands’ risk methodology, we distinguished between
risks that are within our tolerance and require monitoring,
and those that exceed our tolerance and require treatment.
Both climate and non-climate risks were prioritised
in a consistent way under our existing enterprise risk
framework and ranked based on residual risk. Climate
risks can exacerbate other non-climate risks on our
risk register. For instance, our supply chain operations,
retail store management, and product development
could be impacted by climate-related risks.
Our approach to treatment and monitoring will align with our
strategic priorities. The treatment for climate risks may involve
avoidance or mitigation if the aim is to reduce the likelihood,
or we may treat a risk through adaptation if the aim is to
reduce the impact by building resilience to withstand the risk.
The scenario analysis and the climate risk assessment
completed during FY24 was a standalone exercise. We plan
to revisit the climate risk assessment on at least an annual
basis. We have further work to do to determine how best
to integrate the key climate risks within our underlying
risk register given the different time horizons involved in
assessing, monitoring and addressing climate-related risks.
4.1 Climate risk identification and assessment
Method for rating chronic risks that increase in frequency and intensity over the long-term.
+
SensitivitySensitivity
Adaptive
capacity
Adaptive
capacity
x=
ExposureExposure
Risk
score
Risk
score
VulnerabilityVulnerability
Figure 3: Assessment of physical climate risk
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202415
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
6. APPENDICES

5. METRICS AND TARGETS
5.1 Our GHG emissions inventory
Kathmandu has been measuring and building on the
reporting of its GHG emissions for over a decade.
Kathmandu first completed certification under the
Toitū carbonreduce programme in 2017, with the Group
completing this certification on an annual basis since
2021. From 2022, we have measured and reported our
GHG emissions at a Group level following the acquisition
and integration of the Rip Curl and Oboz brands.
5.1.1 Emissions categories
We measure and monitor our total GHG emissions across
Scope 1, 2 and 3 against a 2019 base year. Our Scope 1
emissions include direct emissions from owned and operated
sources such as fleet vehicles and gas heating. Scope 2
emissions include indirect emissions from the energy we
purchase from electricity grids around the world. We disclose
Scope 2 emissions calculated using both the location-based
and market-based methods in our emissions reporting.
Like other businesses, the substantial majority of our GHG
emissions resides in the Scope 3 categories, representing our
supply chain and the raw material processing, manufacture
and transportation of our products. For FY24, we are relying
on Adoption Provision 4: Scope 3 GHG emissions (NZ CS 2)
and have disclosed data relating to our Scope 3 emissions
profile at an aggregate level, rather than by Scope 3 category.
5.1.2 Accounting and verification
We measure and report our GHG emissions in tonnes of
carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO
2
e), the standard unit of
measurement to compare and account for various GHGs
based on their global warming potential (GWP).
5

We calculate, report and seek third-party verification of our
emissions inventory, annually in line with the KMD Brands
financial year (1 August – 31 July) using the operational
control consolidation approach, accounting for the direct
and indirect GHG emissions of the business activities for
which we have operational control. Refer to page 100 of
our FY24 Annual Integrated Report for more information.
Toitū Envirocare verify and certify, and have provided
an independent audit opinion over, our GHG inventory
in accordance with ISO 14064-3:2019 standards and
Toitū Envirocare’s Programme Technical Requirements
respectively through our annual certification under the
Toitū Envirocare’s carbonreduce programme. Our FY24
assurance was not conducted in alignment with the
NZ SAE 1 standard, which was not mandatory for the
reporting period. For FY25, we intend that assurance
of our emissions inventory will be completed by our
external auditor, KPMG. Refer to Appendix 3 for the Toitū
carbonreduce programme audit opinions for FY24.
5.1.3 Reporting boundary
Our GHG inventory is prepared in accordance with ISO
14064-1:2018 standards and our reporting boundary
includes all direct emissions from activities within the
operational boundaries of KMD Brands, including all
owned and operated subsidiaries, offices, stores and
operated distribution centres and the indirect emissions
associated with our organisation’s activities.
Our reporting boundary includes all relevant emissions
sources categorised by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s
guidance for Corporate and Corporate Value Chain
(Scope 2 and 3) Accounting and Reporting.
We measure and report emissions data in our Scope 3
reporting boundary across each of the following GHG
Protocol Scope 3 categories:
• Category 1: Purchased goods and services
• Category 2: Capital goods
• Category 3: Fuel and energy related activities
• Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution
• Category 5: Waste generated in operations
• Category 6: Business travel
• Category 7: Employee commuting
• Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution
• Category 11: Use of sold products
• Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products
• Category 14: Franchises
• Category 15: Investments
5.

Toitū carbon program Organisation Technical Requirements Version 3.1
October 2021
We exclude the following GHG Protocol Scope 3 Categories
from our GHG inventory as these activities are not relevant to
our organisation’s activities:
• Category 8: Upstream leased assets
• Category 10: Processing of sold products
• Category 13: Downstream leased assets
(Scope 3 Reporting Boundary).
For our approved Scope 3 Science Based Target outlined
at paragraph 5.2.2, categories 2, 6, 7, 9 and 14 are excluded
(Scope 3 SBTi Target Boundary).
See Table 8 in Appendix 1 for a description of key
methodologies, assumptions, emissions factors and
exclusions applied when calculating our GHG emissions.
5.1.4 Methods and uncertainty
Our GHG inventory is calculated using Toitū Envirocare’s
emissions calculation and reporting software platform
‘emanage’. Emissions factors and GWP rates are sourced
by Toitū Envirocare from a range of public and proprietary
sources including but not limited to:
• ‘Measuring emissions: A guide for organisations.’
Ministry for the Environment
• UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
• Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors
• UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
• Climate Transparency Report 2022
Emissions factors from these sources are selected when
calculating our GHG inventory, prioritising relevance and
endorsed data sets where available. When using emissions
factors, we assume the selected factors are representative of
the activity we are measuring based on available information.
We apply these factors to relevant activity data, such as litres
of fuel consumed, or kWh of electricity consumed. Activity
data for Scope 1 is sourced from fuel card and internal
financial reports, and activity data for Scope 2, from electricity
meters and bills. Where primary data is not available,
estimates are used based on similar activities in our own
operations or industry average figures. Refer to Table 8 in
Appendix 1 for a full description of emission factors and GWP
rates, key assumptions, methodology and levels of certainty
in the calculations of our GHG emissions.
When calculating Scope 3 emissions there is an inherent level
of uncertainty that can be a result of incomplete or estimated
activity data, and the limitations of some emissions factors.
Our emissions are calculated using actual or estimated
data that best represent the direct and indirect activities of
our operations and value chain, such as electricity or fuel
consumed. This activity data is then multiplied by emissions
factors that best represent the emissions impact of the
relevant activity in tCO
2
e. When using emissions factors,
we assume the selected factors are representative of
activity we are measuring based on available information.
As science continuously evolves, access to data improves
and best practice methodologies emerge, there are
limitations when selecting and applying emissions factors
that could result in significant differences in our reporting.
Best efforts are made to select the most representative
emissions factors, prioritising primary data sources, endorsed
data sets such as government produced reports and
industry average databases wherever these are available.
To accurately track progress towards our GHG reduction
targets over time, we will sometimes need to adjust our base
year emissions inventory to account for significant changes
to our business, methodological changes, the discovery of
significant errors, and general improvements in reporting and
data. Our recalculation policy is a 5% increase or decrease
in total emissions due to changes and improvements in
reporting practices. We may also choose to recalculate our
baseline for changes less than 5%, particularly if structural
changes to the business occur. During the reporting period,
our base year data for Scope 2 and Scope 3 Category
3 has been revalidated and restated due to updated
emissions factors and the discovery of missing data.
See Table 8 in Appendix 1 for a description of key
methodologies, assumptions, emissions factors and
exclusions applied when calculating our GHG emissions.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202416
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

5.2 Our targets and performance
5.2.1 Scope 1 and 2 emissions
In April 2023, we received formal validation from Science
Based Targets initiative (SBTi) confirming that our carbon
reduction targets met SBTi’s internationally recognised
criteria. By 2030, KMD Brands commits to reduce absolute
Scope 1 and 2 emissions by at least 47% from our FY19 base
year. This target has been validated under the SBTi Criteria
V5.0 for near-term targets. The SBTi classifies targets against
the long-term temperature pathways of well-below 2°C
and 1.5°C. The SBTi’s Target Validation Team classified our
Scope 1 and 2 target ambition as being in line with a 1.5°C
trajectory. Carbon offsets are not relied upon and do not
contribute towards meeting this emissions reduction target.
TARGET
FY24 PERFORMANCE
Reduced absolute Scope 1 and 2
emissions by a minimum of
47%
by 31 July 2030, from a FY19 base year
30%
decrease in Scope 1 and 2 emissions
compared to FY19 base year and
2% decrease compared to FY23
In FY24, KMD Brands’ total Scope 1 and 2 emissions
(location based) were 8,859 tonnes of carbon
representing a 30% decrease from our 2019 base year
on an absolute basis. Our combined Scope 1 and 2
emissions reduced by 2% in FY24 below our prior year.
Reported Scope 1 emissions decreased in FY24 compared
to FY23 primarily due to more accurate reporting of
emissions for Rip Curl Brazil. Scope 1 emissions have
reduced by 21% compared to our 2019 base year. This
change is substantially due to reduced travel since 2020’s
COVID-19 restrictions, more fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles
in the fleet and improved access to primary data.
Scope 2 emissions increased slightly by 1% in FY24 over
FY23 primarily due to growth in our store network and
better-quality data from our energy monitoring system.
However, this increase was moderated by our ongoing
programme of solar installations at strategic locations.
While overall, our Scope 2 emissions (location based
method) represent a 30% decrease from our base year,
this is in large part due to the ‘greening’ of electricity
grids across Australia. Continued progress in reducing our
Scope 2 emissions relies heavily on the Australian energy
grid’s ongoing shift towards renewable energy sources.
Additionally, we must balance our investments in solar
installations with our profitability, which may influence the
speed at which we work towards our reduction targets.
Our FY24 gross direct Scope 1 & 2 emissions are set out in
Table 5 on page 18 below.
5.2.2 Scope 3 emissions
We measured our full value chain emissions sources as
defined by the categories in the GHG Protocol’s Corporate
Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard,
to set our Scope 3 science-based target, which was
approved by SBTi in 2023. KMD Brands commits to reduce
absolute Scope 3 emissions by a minimum of 28% by 31
July 2030 from a FY19 base year
6
(Scope 3 SBTi Target).
The SBTi’s Target Validation Team classified our Scope
3 target ambition as being in line with a well-below 2°C
trajectory. Carbon offsets are not relied upon and do not
contribute towards meeting this emissions reduction target.
6. As set out at section 5.1.3 above, our Scope 3 SBTi Target Boundary includes
the following GHG Protocol categories: 1 (purchased goods and services),
3 (fuel and energy related activities), 4 (upstream transportation and
distribution), 5 (waste generated in operations), 11 (use of sold products),
12 (end of life treatment of sold products), and 15 (investments).
Our Scope 3 SBTi Target includes the following GHG
Protocol categories: 1 (purchased goods and services), 3 (fuel
and energy related activities), 4 (upstream transportation
and distribution), 5 (waste generated in operations), 11
(use of sold products), 12 (end of life treatment of sold
products), and 15 (investments). Our Scope 3 SBTi
Target includes the substantial indirect emissions in our
supply chain where we have less control. Our Scope 3
SBTi Target Boundary represents over 80% of our total
Scope 3 emissions reporting boundary in FY19, aligned
with SBTi’s criteria for Scope 3 targets. This selection of
emissions sources was included in our Scope 3 target due
to its materiality and our ability to influence reductions.
The most significant category of our Scope 3 emissions
(Category 1: Purchased goods and services) incorporates
third-party emissions from the production of goods in
our supply chain, including the raw material processing
and manufacture of the products that carry our branding.
The access to, and quality of, data contributing to our
emissions calculations in this category in particular is a
difficult area to measure and track. We expect we will need
to make further adjustments to our reported emissions
profile particularly in this Category as our access to higher
quality data improves and new methodologies develop.
Our Scope 3 SBTi Target contains a number of risks,
assumptions and dependencies that may impact our ability
to reach the Target. In particular, in relation to our Scope 3
Category 1 data, this is calculated using a “spend-based”
method, utilising data from the cost of purchasing goods
and services, multiplied by an emissions factor based on
industry averages. However, the activity data and emissions
factor used may not be an accurate representation of the
actual emissions footprint of individual product composition.
Our focus is on improving our access to quality and better
representative data and emission factors to enable us
to increase the accuracy of our reporting over time.
Achieving our Scope 3 SBTi Targets is challenging due to
our complex global supply chain. While we can influence
many aspects of our Scope 3 footprint, we do not have
direct control over many of its constituent elements.
Progressing towards our Scope 3 SBTi Target requires
collaboration with our suppliers across our entire supply
chain as we are significantly dependant on, and have a
focus on supporting, our suppliers to transition away from
the use of coal and to adopt renewable energy sources
in the manufacturing process. It is also dependent on the
availability of, and access to, affordable renewable energy
sources in the key sourcing countries in our supply chain.
Table 8 in Appendix 1 sets out a full description of key
assumptions and levels of certainty in the calculations of
our GHG emissions.
For FY24, we are relying on Adoption Provision 4: Scope
3 GHG emissions (NZ CS 2) and have disclosed data at
an aggregate level of our Scope 3 emissions profile and
performance for FY24 to our Scope 3 SBTi Target.
During the reporting period, we have seen reductions in
the Scope 3 indirect emissions of our value chain, such
as those relating to freight, business travel and upstream
manufacturing and materials sourcing when compared
with FY23 and our base year of FY19. These reductions
are primarily due to reductions in freight related emissions,
supported by a focus on packing efficiencies, prioritising
sea freight over air, inventory optimisation, and a sustained
reduction in business travel since FY19. However, our
emissions reduction from upstream manufacturing in
FY24 was primarily attributable to reduced inventory
order volume amidst the current trading environment.
We anticipate that these emissions may increase again
in the short-term as trading conditions improve.
We are focussed on improving our access to Scope 3
data for significant emissions sources, such as Category 1:
Purchased Goods & Services. In June 2024, we launched
a pilot with Carbonfact, an AI-assisted product life cycle
assessment (LCA) platform specifically built for apparel
and footwear. An LCA is a methodology used to evaluate
the environmental impacts associated with all stages of
a product’s life cycle, including raw material extraction,
production, use and ultimately disposal. This four-month
trial will provide deeper insights into the lifecycle impacts of
our products and production processes, identifying those
with the highest contribution to our Scope 3 emissions.
During FY24, using the Higg Facility Environmental
Module, we collected and benchmarked verified impact
data from 65 factories in our supply chain. Each factory’s
score was compared against similar factories in their own
countries, identifying key areas where they can improve
their impact. We are now exploring how we can collaborate
further with our factory partners, providing them with
more detailed insights on their performance and how their
initiatives contribute to our emission reduction targets.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202417
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

5.2.3 Emissions inventory
The table below summarises our operational GHG emissions data for the reporting period 1 August 2023 to 31 July 2024 with comparisons to our prior year and base year data from FY19.
Table 5: KMD Brands GHG emissions inventory
CategoryFY19 Base year emissions (tCO
2
e)
7
FY23 emissions (tCO
2
e)
8
FY24 emissions (tCO
2
e)
9
% change from base year% change FY24 vs FY23
Scope 1653830518-21%-38%
Scope 2
Scope 2 (location based)11,9348,2528 , 3 41-30%+1%
Scope 2 (market method)10,47410,60110,231-2%-3%
SUBTOTAL: Scope 1 and 2 (location based)12,5879,0828,859-30%-2%
Scope 3: Reporting Boundary
10
210,473205,187172,591-18%-16%
Scope 3: SBTi Target Boundary
11
192,895188,993155,304-19%-18%
Emissions intensity ratio
(tCO
2
e / $million of Revenue)
12
Not reported194185N/A-5%
7. Our FY19 base year is partially verified including GHG Protocol Scopes 1, 2 & 3 Categories 3, 4 & 5. The base year is estimated from a Scope 3 screening and inventories for Kathmandu, Rip Curl and Oboz from FY19, FY20 & FY21 respectively. During FY24, base year data for Scope 2 and Scope 3 Category 3 has been revalidated and restated
due to updated emissions factors and the discovery of missing data.
8. The FY23 emissions data reported in our FY23 Annual Integrated Report were pre-verified estimates and are now updated with final, verified numbers aligned with our annual greenhouse gas inventory verification statements from Toitū.
9. The FY24 emissions data is final, verified and certified numbers aligned with our annual greenhouse gas inventory verification statement from Toitū.
10. Refer to paragraph 5.1.3 for information on our reporting boundary.
11. Our Scope 3 SBTi Target Boundary includes the following GHG Protocol categories: 1 (purchased goods and services), 3 (fuel and energy related activities), 4 (upstream transportation and distribution), 5 (waste generated in operations), 11 (use of sold products), 12 (end of life treatment of sold products), and 15 (investments).
12. GHG emission intensity has been calculated using Scope 1, Scope 2 (location based) and total measured Scope 3 emissions. Our FY23 emissions intensity ratio has been restated post verification.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202418
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

5.3 Other metrics
5.3.1 Potential vulnerability to physical and
transition risks and alignment to opportunities
We have chosen to report on potential exposure to
physical and transition risks as the relevant metric
for assessment of vulnerability, as this represents
the best available data and analysis for the current
reporting period. We have conducted an initial high level
Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis which
considers the impacts by key geographic region of two
climate hazards, being hot days and precipitation, on
key retail store, warehouse and owned manufacturing
locations from our asset registers (Asset Locations).
Table 6 shows the percentage of KMD Brands’ business
assets that could be potentially exposed to the physical
climate risks arising from these climate hazards under
the Hot House World scenario at the long-term time
horizon considered in our climate risk assessment. Of
these Asset Locations, only our wetsuit factory in Thailand
is an owned asset; the rest of the Asset Locations
are leased. This analysis relates to potential exposure
of assets to these climate hazards rather than their
vulnerability, which is mitigated by the ability to adapt
our leasing portfolio to more climate-resilient locations
with the average lease term being less than five years.
Table 6: % of assets potentially exposed to increasing
number of hot days and precipitation-related risks
under Hot House World scenario at 2050
13
Climate hazardRip CurlKathmandu
% of assets potentially
exposed to an increasing
number of hot days
14

32%1%
% of assets potentially exposed
to precipitation-related risks
15

60%67%
13. SSP3-7.0 scenario at 2050.
14. Assets and operations located in areas potentially presenting high temperature-
related risks, based on the average number of days per annum over a twenty
year period (2040 to 2060) in exceedance of 30°C.
15. Assets and operations potentially exposed to precipitation-related risks (fluvial
and pluvial flooding) based on the number of days per annum in exceedance of
average regional precipitation over a twenty-year period (2040-2060).
This is our first analysis and we will continue to build on this
in future reporting periods including more climate hazard
categories as data becomes available and to consider further
the vulnerability of these assets in addition to exposure.
We consider our exposure to the transition risks identified
through our climate risk assessment process to be immaterial
at this stage. We have assessed the highest rated transition
risks identified, being changes in consumer preference
and investor sentiment due to failure to meet expectations
in relation to sustainability practices and goals, against
the internal risk consequence table contained in our Risk
Management Framework. We are not currently seeing
impacts from these transition risks and our assessment is
that none of our business activities are presently vulnerable
to these risks. We consider that these risks are being
actively managed and mitigated through initiatives such
as the responsible material targets each of our brands are
working towards, and commitments such as our group B Corp
certification and our sustainability linked debt finance facility.
Further, we consider that all (100%) of our brands are
aligned with the key transition opportunity identified to build
a strong customer value proposition and expand market
presence through demonstration of sustainable business
practices. For each of our brands, this is an area of focus,
and part of the underlying business strategy and priorities.
We are also actively taking steps to align our operations
with the opportunity identified for early investment in
solar energy across key operating sites. In FY24, we added
solar systems at four retail store locations, bringing the
total of our operating sites with solar systems in place to
21. This includes our head office and distribution centre in
Torquay, our distribution centre in Melbourne, our wetsuit
manufacturing facility in Thailand and our head office in
Bozeman, Montana. With solar installed at 15 of our retail
stores in Australia, this constitutes 5% of our operated
store network with onsite solar systems in place.
As we progress on our journey towards climate change
maturity, our comprehension of how our climate change
risks could have a significant effect on our business will
continue to evolve. This will enable us to further refine our
mitigation strategies and provide more precise reporting on
the degree of vulnerability or alignment in future disclosures.
5.3.2 Capital deployment
During FY24, we have deployed capital expenditure or investment towards the following climate-related risks
and opportunities:
Table 7: Capital expenditure or investment deployed towards climate-related risks and opportunities during the
reporting period
DescriptionAmount (NZD)Initiative
Installation, maintenance and
repair of solar energy systems
$98,553 (investment)New installations, maintenance
of existing systems
Investment in circular business models $291,327 (expenditure)Kathmandu REDU, Upparel and ImpacTex
recycling programmes, Rip Curl Wetsuit recycling
Lighting upgrades $205,770 (investment)Installation of energy-efficient, LED
lighting across retail store network
We do not currently use an internal price on carbon.
5.3.3 Remuneration
All employees have ESG responsibilities included in their job
descriptions and have an ESG-related objective as part of
annual goal setting and performance evaluation processes.
Executives and certain senior management roles are eligible
to participate in a Short-term incentive (STI) scheme that
delivers rewards by way of cash payment. The amount of
any STI paid in a year, after first achieving a minimum Group
Earnings Before Interest and Tax threshold, is linked to
the individual's overall performance assessment, including
achievement against their annual goals or key performance
indicators (KPIs). STI outcomes for the executive team are
aligned with the Group’s strategic objectives, with each
member of the executive team, including the Group CEO,
having individual KPIs linked to our four Group strategic
pillars. These KPIs are specific to each executive’s role and
responsibilities, and these include KPIs linked to climate-
related risks and opportunities, under our Best for People
and Planet strategic pillar. The potential STI incentive
for executive management ranges between 30% and
60% of an individual’s fixed annual remuneration, with a
potential of up to 90% for the Group CEO. Any STI award
is allocated in proportion to the KPIs achieved during the
financial year, with only part of any STI award representing
KPIs linked to climate-related risks and opportunities.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202419
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

6. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: GHG emissions sources
Table 8: GHG emissions sources, methods, assumptions, exclusions and uncertainty
Please refer to Appendix 2 (Glossary) for the definitions of emissions factor sources.
GHG protocol scope & categoryActivity measuredEmissions factor sourceMethodology, key assumptions, exclusions and uncertainty (qualitative)
Scope 1
Direct emissions sources
Direct emissions from fleet operated vehicles.MfE (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
USEPA (2023)
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting, supplier invoices and fleet management portal.
Average-data method: the unit of fuel consumed multiplied by relevant fuel emission factor (petrol, diesel,
LPG and natural gas).
Excludes sites for which stationary combustion is not yet verified.
High certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 2 (location-based method)
Purchased electricity
Indirect emissions from purchased electricity
for operated sites.
MfE (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
USEPA (2023)
AIB (2024)
TMOE
CT (2022)
IEA (2023)
Activity data is sourced from supplier invoices and our third-party energy monitoring system.
Average-data method: kWh electricity consumed multiplied by local electricity emissions factor.
Assumes utility provider reporting is accurate.
High certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 2 (market-based method)
Purchased electricity
Indirect emissions from purchased electricity
for operated sites.
MfE (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
USEPA (2023)
AIB (2024)
TMOE
CT (2022)
IEA (2023)
Activity data is sourced from supplier invoices and our third-party energy monitoring system.
Average-data method: kWh electricity consumed multiplied by market or residual-mix factor.
Market and residual-mix factors are unavailable in some territories where we operate; assumes the location-
based method is a representative proxy.
High certainty in activity data. Medium certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 1.
Purchased goods and services
Indirect emissions from the upstream cradle-
to-gate processes for the production and
delivery of purchased goods and services to
our organisation.
UK ESNZActivity data is sourced from internal financial reporting.
Spend-based screening method: $NZD spent on purchased goods and services multiplied by relevant DEFRA
emissions factor for GL code.
Assumes all upstream raw materials, processing, assembly and transportation between manufacturing stages
(cradle-to-gate) is in scope of selected emissions factor.
Assumes emissions from the manufacturing of all purchased inventory are equivalent to apparel manufacturing.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 2.
Capital goods
Indirect emissions from the upstream cradle-to-
gate processes for the production and delivery
of capital goods to our organisation.
UK ESNZActivity data is sourced from internal financial reporting.
Spend-based screening method: $NZD spent on capital goods multiplied by relevant DEFRA emissions factor
for GL code.
Assumes all upstream raw materials, processing, assembly and transportation between manufacturing stages
(cradle-to-gate) is in scope of selected emissions factor.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202420
6. APPENDICES

GHG protocol scope & categoryActivity measuredEmissions factor sourceMethodology, key assumptions, exclusions and uncertainty (qualitative)
Scope 3 Category 3.
Fuel and energy related activities
Indirect emissions from the transmission and
distribution losses that occur in electricity grids
that we purchase electricity from.
MfE (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
USEPA (2023)
CT (2022)
AIB (2024)
CT (2022)
Activity data is sourced from supplier invoices and our third-party energy monitoring system.
Average-data method: kWh electricity consumed multiplied by relevant electricity emissions factor for
transmission and distribution losses in the applicable territory.
Assumes utility provider reporting is accurate.
Excludes the indirect lifecycle emissions associated with the extraction, production and transport of the fuels
used by the company and generation of electricity purchased by the company.
High certainty in activity data. Medium certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 4.
Upstream transportation
and distribution
Indirect emissions from the transportation and
distribution of our purchased inventory from
the port of origin to the point of receipt, such as
a distribution centre or store.
Indirect emissions from the
transportation and distribution of goods
to customers for online purchases.
MfE (2024)
BEIS (2023)
DCCEEW (2024)
Activity data is sourced from internal supply-chain reporting, supplier provided impact reporting and
estimates of average distances travelled between port of origin and receipt.
Average-data method: tonnes per estimated kilometre travelled multiplied by emission factor for relevant
mode (air, sea or road).
Assumes the cradle-to-gate transportation of materials and components during manufacturing, prior to us
taking ownership of finished goods, is accounted for in Scope 3 Category 1 and 2.
Assumes New Zealand MfE factors are representative of global freight providers.
Medium certainty in activity data. Low certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 5.
Waste generated in operations
Indirect emissions from waste generated at
operated sites.
MfE (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
USEPA (2023)
BEIS (2023)
Activity data is sourced from supplier provided waste management reporting.
Average-data method: mass disposed by waste stream (landfill, and recycling including: mixed plastics, paper,
cardboard, soft plastics, glass, aluminium, neoprene).
Assumes primary data from waste management providers is accurate and can be used as a representative
proxy for operational waste where primary data is unavailable.
Assumes mixed plastic recycling is a suitable emissions factor for neoprene recycling.
Assumes New Zealand MfE factors are representative of global landfills and recycling processes.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 6.
Business Travel
Indirect emissions from business related air and
road travel.
MfE (2024)
BEIS (2023)
DCCEEW (2024)
USEPA (2023)
Activity data is sourced from corporate travel agency and internal financial reporting.
Average-data method: distance travelled by class (economy, premium economy, business or first class) or
mode (taxi, rental vehicle, Uber or Uber Green) multiplied by relevant emissions factor.
Assumes reporting from corporate travel agency is accurate.
Assumes New Zealand MfE factors are representative of global airlines and road vehicles.
Medium certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 7.
Employee commuting
Indirect emissions from employee commuting
to their place of work.
MfE (2024)Activity data is sourced from an estimate average commute derived from Statistics New Zealand and
applied to the number of full-time employees globally, plus an estimate representing the number of
part-time employees globally.
Average-data screening method: estimated distance travelled and emissions factor for a medium sized
petrol vehicle.
Assumes Auckland statistics are representative of global locations and four weeks annual leave is taken.
Excludes casual employees and time worked from home.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202421
6. APPENDICES

GHG protocol scope & categoryActivity measuredEmissions factor sourceMethodology, key assumptions, exclusions and uncertainty (qualitative)
Scope 3 Category 9.
Downstream transportation
& distribution
Indirect emissions from purchased electricity
for third-party operated sites owned and
operated by our wholesale customers.
MfE (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting, supplier invoices and our third-party energy
monitoring system.
Average-data method: 5% of the average annual kWh consumption at Rip Curl operated stores multiplied by
local electricity emissions factor.
Assumes the impact of wholesale customers operating a retail store is similar to the impact of our retail
operations. This impact is allocated at 5%, based off utilisation rates in our own operations and the estimated
space occupied by the goods of other brands that these retailers stock.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 11.
Use of sold products
Indirect emissions from customer use of sold
products that directly consume electricity or
contain fuel.
MfE (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting.
Average-data method: estimated lifetime consumption of electricity of sold electrical products multiplied by
local electricity emissions factor.
Average-data method: combustion of cooking fuel from sold gas products multiplied by relevant fuel emission
factor (Propane, Butane and Isobutane).
For electrical products, we assume customers follow user instructions and use sold products in the country of
purchase for approximately two years.
Indirect use phase emissions such as the laundering and care of sold products, are excluded.
For gas products we assume customers combust the entire contents of the product.
Low certainty in activity data. Medium certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 12.
End-of-life treatment of
sold products
Indirect emissions of end-of-life treatment of
sold products.
BEIS (2023)Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting.
Average-data method: average mass of sold products in reporting year multiplied by emissions factor for
textiles in landfill.
Assumes all product is destined for landfill eventually and has an equal impact to textiles in landfill.
Medium certainty in activity data. Low certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 14.
Franchises
Indirect Scope 2 emissions from purchased
electricity for third-party operated sites owned
and operated by licensees under the Rip Curl
name.
MfE (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting, supplier invoices and our third-party energy
monitoring system.
Average-data method: average annual kWh consumed at operated Rip Curl stores multiplied by local
electricity emissions factor.
Assumes utility provider reporting is accurate and licensed stores have a similar impact to our operated stores.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 15.
Investments
Indirect emissions from our joint-venture Rip
Curl Thailand.
BEIS (2023)
DCCEEW (2024)
Turner et al. (2015)
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting.
Average-data screening method: $m revenue from Rip Curl Thailand multiplied by emissions intensity
(tco
2
e/$m) of Rip Curl Australia operations / 50% ownership.
Assumes Rip Curl Thailand has a similar emissions intensity to sites operated by Rip Curl in Australia.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202422
6. APPENDICES

Appendix 2: Glossary
Te r mDefinition
AIB (2024)European Residual Mixes. Association of Issuing Bodies. Brussels, Belgium.
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)
ARC Audit and Risk Committee of the Board
Asset Locations Retail store, warehouse and owned manufacturing locations from KMD Brands asset registers
B Corp B Corporation or Benefit Corporation
BEIS (2023) Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Government greenhouse gas conversion
factors for company reporting. London, United Kingdom. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
CRD Climate-related disclosure
CT (2022)Climate Transparency Report 2022. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
DCCEEW (2024)Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Greenhouse
Accounts Factors. Canberra, Australia. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
DEFRA UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
E LT Executive Leadership Team
ERM Enterprise Risk Management framework
ESG Environmental, Social and Governance
GHG Greenhouse gas emissions
GLGeneral Ledger code, the identifier to categorise financial transactions
GWPGlobal warming potential rate
IEA (2023)International Energy Agency. IEA Emission factors. Paris, France. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
KMD Brands or the Group KMD Brands Limited and its subsidiaries
MfE (2024)New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. MfE Guidance for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting.
Wellington, New Zealand. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
NGFS Network for Greening the Financial System
NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
NZ CS Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards 1, 2 and 3
NZ SAE 1 New Zealand Standard on Assurance Engagements 1 – Assurance Engagements over Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Disclosures
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway for Emissions
Retail Sector Scenario Analysis “Integrated Climate Change Scenarios for New Zealand’s Retail Sector” published by
KPMG August 2023
SBTi Science Based Target initiative
Scope 3 SBTi Target KMD Brands approved Scope 3 SBTi target
SME KMD Brands subject matter experts
SSP Shared socio-economic pathway
STI Short term incentive plan
tCO
2
e Tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent
TMOEThailand Ministry of Energy. Energy Statistics, CO2 Statistic. Emissions Dashboard. Energy Policy and
Planning Office, Ministry of Energy, Royal Thai Government. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
Turner et al. (2015)Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling. 2015, Pages 186-197. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
UK ESNZUK and England’s carbon footprint to 2021 - GOV.UK. Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs. Conversion factors KvCO2 per £ spent, by SIC Code 2021. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
USEPA (2023)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Washington, DC, USA. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
Appendix 3: Toitū emissions inventory reports
To the intended users
Organisation subject to audit:
Toitū Carbon Programme:
Audit Criteria:
Responsible Party: KMD Brands Limited
Intended users: Financial community and Management
Registered address:
223 Tuam Street, Christchurch, 8011, New Zealand
Inventory period:
1/08/2023- 31/07/2024
Inventory report:
Responsible Party's Responsibilities
Verifiers' & Validators’ Responsibilities
INDEPENDENT AUDIT OPINION
Toitū carbonreduce programme certification
KMD Brands Limited
Toitū carbonreduce organisation certification
ISO 14064-1:2018
ISO 14064-3:2019
Toitū Programme Technical Requirements 3.1
Audit & Certification Technical requirements 3.0
Certification Mark Guide v 3.0
IMR_2324_KMD Brands Limited_CR_Org.pdf
Wehavereviewedthegreenhouse gasemissions inventoryreport(“theinventoryreport”)for theabovenamed
Responsible Party for the stated inventory period.
The Management of the Responsible Party is responsible for the preparation of the GHG statement in accordance
with ISO 14064-1:2018 and the requirements of the stated Toitū carbon programme. This responsibility includes the
design, implementation and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation of a GHG statement that is
free from material misstatement.
Our responsibility as verifiers is to express a verification opinion to the agreed level of assurance on the GHG
statement, based on the evidence we have obtained and in accordance with the audit criteria. We conducted our
verification engagement as agreed in the pre-engagement letter, which define the scope, objectives, criteria and level
of assurance of the verification.
Our responsibility as validators is to express an opinion on the forecast based on our validation. We conduct our
validation in accordance with the ISO specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas
statements, i.e. ISO 14064-3. This International Standard requires that we plan and perform the validation to reach a
conclusion as to whether the forecast in the GHG statement is based on reasonable assumptions.
The International Standard ISO 14064-3:2019 requires that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and
perform the validation and verification to obtain the agreed level of assurance that the GHG emissions, removals and
storage in the GHG statement are free from material misstatement.
Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit carried out in accordance
with the ISO 14064-3:2019 Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists.The procedures
performed on a limited level of assurance vary in nature and timing from, and are less in extent compared to
reasonable assurance, which is a high level of assurance. Misstatements are differences or omissions of amounts or
disclosures, and can arise from fraud or error. Misstatements are considered material if, individually or in the
aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the decisions of readers, taken on the basis of the
information we audited.
GHG quantification is subject to inherent uncertainty because of incomplete scientific knowledge used to determine
emissions factors and the values needed to combine emissions of different gases.
Audit Opinion v3.0©Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited 2021Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202423
6. APPENDICES

Basis of verification opinion
Verification
Verification strategy
Basis for modified verification opinion
Verification level of assurance
ISO CATEGORY
LOCATION BASED tCO
2
e
MARKET BASED tCOe
LEVEL OF ASSURANCE
Category 1 66.3466.34
Reasonable
Category 2 4,740.486,107.44
Reasonable
Category 3 (mandatory)
6,286.456,286.46Limited
Category 3 (additional)
1,187.081,187.08
Limited
Category 4 (mandatory)
675.23675.23Limited
Category 4 (additional)
65,883.8065,883.80Limited
Category 5
1,534.571,534.57Limited
TOTAL INVENTORY80,373.9781,740.93
Category4 emissionsourcesforpurchased goods&servicesand capital goods areheavily assumptions based,
using dollar spend data and anindustryaveragetoestimateemissions.Anychangeinassumptionscould
significantly impact the measurement of these emissions.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
We have undertaken a verification engagement relating to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report (the
‘Inventory Report’)/Emissions Inventory and Management Report of the organisation listed at the top of this
statement and described in the emissions inventory report for the period stated above.
The Inventory Report provides information about the greenhouse gas emissions of the organisation for the defined
measurement period and is based on historical information. This information is stated in accordance with the
requirements of International Standard ISO 14064-1 Greenhouse gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the
organisation level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals (‘ISO 14064-1:2018’)
and the requirements of the stated Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited (trading as Toitū Envirocare) programme.
Our verification strategy used a combined data and controls testing approach. Evidence-gathering procedures
included but were not limited to:
—activities to inspect the completeness of the inventory;
—examination of electricity reports to confirm accuracy of source data into calculations;
—recalculation of emissions;
—detailed retracing of spend-based purchased goods and services emissions;
—detailed retracing of downstream transportation and distribution emissions.
The data examined during the verification were historical in nature.
The following qualifications have been raised in relation to the verification opinion:
Audit Opinion v3.0©Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited 2021Page 2
Validation
Validation strategy
Validation level of assurance
ISO CATEGORY
LOCATION BASED tCO
2
e
LEVEL OF ASSURANCE
Category 51,810.97
Limited
Responsible party's greenhouse gas assertion (certification claim)
Toitūcarbonreduce organisation certified:KMDBrandsLimited,includingKathmanduPTY Limited,andKathmandu
(UK) Limited,New Zealand, Australia,and ObozFootwear LLC;butexcludingonline sales freight andUKretail
stores,contractedDistributionCentres, factories,andthebusiness unitRipCurl. Toitūcarbonreducecertifiedmeans
measuring emissionstoISO 14064-1:2018andToitūrequirements; managingand reducing againstToitū
requirements.
We have examined the forecast of GHG emissions, removals and storage related to downstream product use for
product produced during the measurement period in the Organisation's GHG statement, which comprise the
following:
— product use;
— product disposal.
Our validation assessed the:
— recognition;
— GHG boundary;
— activity estimates;
— calculation methodologies and measurements;
— data management;
— conservativeness;
— calculation outcomes;
— future estimates;
— uncertainty;
— sensitivity of the forecast to the assumptions.
The data examined during the validation were projected in nature.
Audit Opinion v3.0©Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited 2021Page 3
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202424
6. APPENDICES

Verification and Validation Conclusion
Other information
VERIFIED BYAUTHORISED BY
Name:Rhea SelwanBilly Ziemann
Position: Verifier, Toitū EnvirocareCertifier, Toitū Envirocare
Signature:
Date verification audit: 9-10 September 2024
Date opinion expressed: 14 October 202422 October 2024
EMISSIONS - REASONABLE ASSURANCE
Wehave obtainedalltheinformationandexplanationswehaverequired.Inouropinion,theemissions,removals
and storage defined in the inventory report, in all material respects:
• comply with ISO 14064-1:2018 and the requirements of the stated Toitū Envirocare Toitū carbon programme; and
• provide a true and fair view of the emissions inventory of the Responsible Party for the stated inventory period.
EMISSIONS - LIMITED ASSURANCE
Based ontheprocedureswehaveperformedandtheevidencewehaveobtained,nothing hascometoour attention
that causes us to believe that the emissions, removals and storage defined in the inventory report:
• do notcomplywith ISO 14064-1:2018andtherequirementsofthe statedToitū EnvirocareToitūcarbon
programme; and
• do not providea trueandfairviewoftheemissions inventoryoftheResponsiblePartyfor the statedinventory
period.
VALIDATION EMISSIONS - LIMITED ASSURANCE
Based on ourexaminationofthevalidationevidence,nothingcomestoour attentionwhichcauses ustobelieve that
reportedassumptionsdo not providea reasonable basisforforecastemissions.Further,inourconclusion,the
forecastisproperlyprepared onthebasis oftheassumptionsandin accordancewithToituprogramme requirements.
Actual results arelikelytobe differentfromtheforecastsinceanticipated eventsfrequentlydo notoccurasexpected
and the variation may be material.
The responsiblepartyisresponsiblefor theprovision ofOtherInformationtomeet Programmerequirements.The
OtherInformation mayincludeemissions managementand reduction plan and purchase of carboncredits,but does
not include the information we verified, and our auditor’s opinion thereon.
Ouropinion ontheinformationweverifieddoes not coverthe OtherInformationandwedo notexpress anyformof
audit opinion or assurance conclusionthereon.Ourresponsibilityistoread andreviewthe OtherInformationand
considerit intermsoftheprogramme requirements.Indoingso, weconsiderwhetherthe OtherInformationis
materially inconsistent with the information we verified or our knowledge obtained during the verification.
Audit Opinion v3.0©Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited 2021Page 4
TO THE INTENDED USERS
Organisation subject to audit:
Toitū Carbon Programme:
Audit Criteria:
Responsible Party: Rip Curl Group Pty Limited
Intended users: Stakeholders, Potential investors, and Executives
Registered address:
101 Surf Coast Highway, Torquay, 3228, Australia
Inventory period:
1/08/2023 - 31/07/2024
Inventory report:
RESPONSIBLE PARTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
VERIFIERS' RESPONSIBILITIES
INDEPENDENT AUDIT OPINION
Toitū carbonreduce programme certification
Rip Curl Group Pty Limited
Toitū carbonreduce organisation certification
ISO 14064-1:2018
ISO 14064-3:2019
Toitū Programme Technical Requirements 3.1
Audit & Certification Technical requirements 3.0
Certification Mark Guide v 3.0
IMR_2324_Rip Curl Group Pty Limited_CR_Org.pdf
Wehavereviewedthegreenhousegasemissionsinventory report (“the inventory report”)fortheabovenamedResponsible
Party for the stated inventory period.
TheManagementoftheResponsiblePartyisresponsibleforthe preparationoftheGHGstatementinaccordancewithISO
14064-1:2018andthe requirementsofthe statedToitū carbonprogramme.Thisresponsibilityincludesthedesign,
implementationand maintenanceofinternal controlsrelevantto the preparationofa GHGstatement thatisfree from
material misstatement.
Our responsibility as verifiers is to express a verification opinion to the agreed level of assurance on the GHG statement, based
on the evidence we have obtained and in accordance with the audit criteria. We conducted our verification engagement as
agreed in the audit letter, which define the scope, objectives, criteria and level of assurance of the verification.
The International Standard ISO 14064-3:2019 requires that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the
verification to obtain the agreed level of assurance that the GHG emissions, removals and storage in the GHG statement are
free from material misstatement.
Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit carried out in accordance with the ISO
14064-3:2019 Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The procedures performed on a limited
level of assurance vary in nature and timing from, and are less in extent compared to reasonable assurance, which is a high
level of assurance. Misstatements are differences or omissions of amounts or disclosures, and can arise from fraud or error.
Misstatements are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the
decisions of readers, taken on the basis of the information we audited.
GHG quantification is subject to inherent uncertainty because of incomplete scientific knowledge used to determine emissions
factors and the values needed to combine emissions of different gases.
Audit Opinion v3.0©Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited 2021Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202425
6. APPENDICES

BASIS OF VERIFICATION OPINION
VERIFICATION
VERIFICATION STRATEGY
QUALIFICATIONS TO VERIFICATION OPINION
VERIFICATION LEVEL OF ASSURANCE
ISO Category
Location based tCO
2
e
Market Based tCO₂e
Level of Assurance
Category 1 451.90451.90
Reasonable
Category 2 3,600.164,123.91
Reasonable
Category 3 (mandatory)5,745.355,745.35
Limited
Category 3 (additional)936.79936.79
Limited
Category 4 (mandatory)1,116.311,116.31
Limited
Category 4 (additional)76,847.4076,847.40
Limited
Category 5 10,567.4210,567.42
Limited
Total inventory
99,265.3399,789.08
Our responsibility is to express an assurance opinion on the GHG statement based on the evidence we have obtained. We
conducted our assurance engagement as agreed in the Contract which defines the scope, objectives, criteria and level of
assurance of the verification.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.
We have undertaken a verification engagement relating to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report (the ‘Inventory
Report’)/Emissions Inventory and Management Report of the organisation listed at the top of this statement and described in
the emissions inventory report for the period stated above.
The Inventory Report provides information about the greenhouse gas emissions of the organisation for the defined
measurement period and is based on historical information. This information is stated in accordance with the requirements of
International Standard ISO 14064-1 Greenhouse gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organisation level for
quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals (‘ISO 14064-1:2018’) and the requirements of the
stated Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited (trading as Toitū Envirocare) programme.
Our verification strategy used a combined data and controls testing approach. Evidence-gathering procedures included but
were not limited to:
—activities to inspect the completeness of the inventory;
—interviews of site personnel to confirm operational behaviour and standard operating procedures;
—sampling of RCA and RCU electricity records to confirm accuracy of source data into calculations;
—recalculation of RCU freight emissions;
—reconciliation of purchased good and service and capital good emissions back to group P&L report;
—detailed tracing back to the calculation of staff commuting and franchises.
The data examined during the verification were historical in nature.
The following qualifications have been raised in relation to the verification opinion:
Category4 emissionsourcesforpurchasedgoods&servicesandcapitalgoodsareheavilyassumptionsbased,usingdollar
spenddataandanindustryaverageemissionfactor to estimateemissions. Any changesto theassumptionscould significantly
impact the measurement of these emissions.
Audit Opinion v3.0©Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited 2021Page 2
RESPONSIBLE PARTY’S GREENHOUSE GAS ASSERTION (CERTIFICATION CLAIM)
VERIFICATION CONCLUSION
OTHER INFORMATION
Authorised by:
Name:Ying ZhaoName: Billy Ziemann
Position: Verifier, Toitū EnvirocarePosition:Certifier, Toitū Envirocare
Signature: Signature:
Date verification audit: 9-12 October 2024
Date opinion expressed: 8 October 2024Date: 22 October 2024
EMISSIONS - REASONABLE ASSURANCE
We have obtained all the information and explanations we have required. In our opinion, the emissions, removals and storage
defined in the inventory report, in all material respects:
• comply with ISO 14064-1:2018 and the requirements of the stated Toitū Envirocare Toitū carbon programme; and
• provide a true and fair view of the emissions inventory of the Responsible Party for the stated inventory period.
EMISSIONS - LIMITED ASSURANCE
Based on the procedures we have performed and the evidence we have obtained, nothing has come to our attention that
causes us to believe that the emissions, removals and storage defined in the inventory report:
• do not comply with ISO 14064-1:2018 and the requirements of the stated Toitū Envirocare Toitū carbon programme; and
• do not provide a true and fair view of the emissions inventory of the Responsible Party for the stated inventory period.
Toitū carbonreduceorganisationcertified:RipCurl Group Pty Limited (operationalactivitiesofitsRipCurl Australiabusinessas
wellasincludingallotherbusinessunitsoverseas(Brazil,Canada,Europe, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan,NewZealand, andthe
USA). Toitū carbonreducecertifiedmeansmeasuringemissionstoISO14064-1:2018andToitūrequirements;andmanaging
and reducing against Toitū requirements.
Verified by:
The responsible party is responsible for the provision of Other Information to meet Programme requirements. The Other
Information may include emissions management and reduction plan and purchase of carbon credits, but does not include the
information we verified, and our auditor’s opinion thereon.
Our opinion on the information we verified does not cover the Other Information and we do not express any form of audit
opinion or assurance conclusion thereon. Our responsibility is to read and review the Other Information and consider it in
terms of the programme requirements. In doing so, we consider whether the Other Information is materially inconsistent with
the information we verified or our knowledge obtained during the verification.
Audit Opinion v3.0©Enviro-Mark Solutions Limited 2021Page 3
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202426
6. APPENDICES