Kingfish 2025 Climate Statement

ANNUAL REPORT
2024
31 MARCH
CLIMATE STATEMENT
JULY
2025
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

01 | Introduction
Climate Statement
23Climate Statement
Contents
Introduction
01 Introduction
3
02 Governance6
03 Strategy
14
04 Risk management34
05 Metrics and Targets
38
06 Appendices
54
07 Glossary74
About Kingfish
Kingfish Limited (‘Kingfish’) is a listed investment company (LIC)
that invests in New Zealand companies. The Kingfish portfolio is
managed by Fisher Funds Management Limited (‘Fisher Funds’ or
‘the manager’). Kingfish listed on the NZX on 31 March 2004.
This climate statement
Kingfish is a climate-reporting entity (CRE) under the Financial
Markets Conduct Act 2013.
This is Kingfish’s second climate statement and is for the period 1
April 2024 to 31 March 2025.
This statement complies with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate
Standards issued by the External Reporting Board (XRB). It is set out
in the following sections: Governance, Strategy, Risk management
and Metrics and Targets, including Kingfish portfolio information.
This statement accompanies Kingfish’s Annual Report for the same
period that contains more information about Kingfish, which can be
found on the Kingfish website.
Adoption provisions
Kingfish has taken the extended adoption provisions as detailed
in Amendments to Adoption of Aotearoa New Zealand Climate
Standards 2024 (mandatory from 1 January 2024, NZ CS 2):
•Scope 3 GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions for an additional year
(and related extensions to the adoption provisions relating to
comparatives for scope 3 GHG emissions and analysis of trends)
•Anticipated financial impacts for an additional year.
See Appendix 2.
This climate statement has been prepared
in line with the disclosure requirements as
set out in New Zealand’s mandatory climate-
related reporting requirements.
This Climate Statement is signed on behalf of the Kingfish Limited Board by:
R. A. Coupe
Chair
Dated:
C.A. Campbell
Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee
Dated:
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679
21/07/202521/07/2025

01 | Introduction
5Climate Statement
Photo: Matt Logan
Reasonable care
This climate statement is not financial advice and is
unaudited. Readers are advised to seek financial advice
before acting or relying on any information in this
climate statement.
This statement contains climate-related disclosures
that reflect forward-looking analysis, including climate-
related risks and opportunities and scenario analysis
relevant to Kingfish. While reasonable care has been
taken in their preparation, these disclosures should
not be considered a forecast of climate, investment,
performance, financial or other outcomes. The
identified climate-related risks and opportunities and
scenarios may not eventuate and if they do, the actual
impacts may differ materially from what is described.
In addition, there are limitations to the data and data
modelling methodology used in this statement. All due
care has been taken in the collection and modelling
of data used, however, no warranties are made that
the data, or reports generated using the data, are
complete and error-free. The climate impact data used
in this climate statement was provided by Institutional
Shareholder Services (Australia) Pty Limited (‘ISS
ESG’) as at 31 March 2025. ISS ESG gathers emissions
data from publicly available sources (public filings)
or creates modelled data using its proprietary sector
classifications and financial information. ISS ESG
methodology, calculations and models do not always
align with the Partnership for Carbon Accounting
Financials (PCAF) standard. Data was not publicly
available for all securities held and ISS ESG modelling
has been applied in those cases. The underlying
emissions calculation used by ISS ESG was not made
available for independent assurance due to intellectual
property constraints. ISS ESG updates its datasets
regularly and retrospectively and as such, results
in reports generated from ISS ESG data may vary
depending on the date a report is run. Where this
creates a material difference in reporting, such data
may need to be restated in future climate statements.
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

02 | Governance
7Climate Statement
Photo: Tracey Robins
Governance
This section details the responsibilities
that Kingfish and Fisher Funds
(as manager) have in the governance
and management of climate-related
risks and opportunities.
Kingfish governance and management of climate-related
risks and opportunities .....................................................................8
Kingfish Board ..................................................................................11
Governance process ........................................................................12
Fisher Funds ESG Committee ..........................................................13
Incentives and remuneration ...........................................................13
02
Governance
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

9Climate Statement
Photo: Sabrina Qi
02 | Governance
Kingfish governance and
management of climate-related
risks and opportunities
Kingfish’s Board is responsible for establishing and
implementing Kingfish’s corporate governance
framework. It is committed to fulfilling this role
according to best practice, having appropriate
regard to applicable laws and the NZX Corporate
Governance Code and the Financial Markets
Authority’s Corporate governance in New
Zealand — Principles and guidelines and more
recently, the joint Reserve Bank of New Zealand/
Financial Markets Authority – Governance
Thematic Review (2023). The Board oversees the
management of Kingfish. The day-to-day portfolio
and administrative management responsibilities
of Kingfish are delegated to Fisher Funds. This
includes the management of climate-related risks
and opportunities and the preparation of climate-
related financial disclosures.

Kingfish’s Board recognises the importance of good corporate
governance and is committed to ensuring that Kingfish meets
best practice governance principles to the extent that they are
appropriate for Kingfish’s operations.
Corporate governance comprises the principles, practices
and processes that determine how a company is directed and
controlled. Good corporate governance supports investor
confidence. It is also critical to promoting and facilitating fair,
efficient and transparent financial markets. Good corporate
governance allows directors to focus on growth, value creation and
long-term sustainability.
Principles for good corporate governance include having:
•high standards of ethical behaviour throughout an organisation
•transparent, fair and reasonable remuneration for directors
•a board with a balance of skills, knowledge, experience,
independence and perspectives
•a board that respects the rights of stakeholders.
Figure 1 on the following page shows how the
Kingfish Board and Kingfish Audit and Risk
Committee (ARC) oversee the preparation of its
climate statements by Fisher Funds. The Kingfish
ARC focuses on audit and risk management and
specifically addresses responsibilities to do with
financial reporting and regulatory compliance,
including overseeing compliance with climate-
related disclosure regulation.
The Kingfish Board oversees the climate-related
risks and opportunities within the Kingfish
investment portfolio.
Investors should also read the full Kingfish
corporate governance statement within the
2025 Annual Report.
Photo: Claire Horwood
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
10
Photo: Maria Karini
02 | Governance
Kingfish Board
Figure 1: Simplified governance structure for management
of climate-related risks and opportunities.
Kingfish Board
Final sign off of the climate statement.
Kingfish ARC
Oversees Fisher Funds preparation of
climate-related disclosures.
Fisher Funds - The Manager
Under the Management & Administration
agreement between Kingfish and Fisher
Funds, the Manager is responsible for
management of all potential risks and
opportunities that could impact Kingfish. This
includes identifying, assessing, measuring
and managing climate-related risks and
opportunities for the Kingfish portfolio,
including scenario analysis, transition
planning, establishing metrics and targets
and measuring the portfolio’s GHG emissions,
as well as delivering this climate statement.
The Kingfish Board assesses the extent to which it has directors
with the appropriate skills and competencies to provide oversight
of climate-related risks and opportunities. The Board-appointed
Remuneration and Nominations Committee considered each
director’s skillset based on the director’s self-assessments and
maintains a director’s skills, competency and experience matrix.
Directors are expected to take individual accountability to maintain
relevant competencies as part of their director’s duties. These steps
enable the Kingfish Board to maintain skills and competencies for
oversight of the portfolio’s climate-related risks and opportunities.
Details about the directors, including their experience and
background, are available on the Kingfish website.
The Kingfish Board and its committees meet at least 11 times
a year and may schedule extra meetings as needed to fulfil its
responsibilities, which includes climate-related risks and
opportunities. Climate was considered in two board meetings, one
ARC meeting and two investment committee meetings.
The Kingfish ARC provides climate-related disclosure reporting to
the Kingfish Board. The Kingfish Board is responsible for approving
the overall climate-related strategy and adoption of recommended
metrics and targets.
For additional information on the Kingfish Board and ARC charters,
refer to the Kingfish website.
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
1213Climate Statement
02 | Governance
decisions.
3. The IMT presents any relevant approach,
analysis or targets to be included in relevant
climate statements for consideration by
the Fisher Funds Environmental, Social and
Governance (ESG) Committee. For more
information about the ESG Committee, refer to
the section: Fisher Funds ESG Committee.
4. The annual climate statement is developed
by the IMT and then endorsed by the
ESG Committee before being provided to
independent auditors (where applicable).
5. Fisher Funds then utilises two of its Board
subcommittees to assist its Board’s oversight of
climate-related risks and opportunities. These
are the Investment Strategy Committee and the
Audit and Risk Committee.
6. Metrics and targets for Kingfish are received by
the Investment Strategy Committee, reviewed
and then submitted to the Fisher Funds Board
for recommendation to the Kingfish ARC and
Board. This takes place annually.
7. The annual climate statement for Kingfish is
received by the Fisher Funds ARC (with any
applicable independent assurance or audit
report) and then submitted to the Fisher Funds
Board for recommendation to the Kingfish ARC
and Board. This takes place annually.
8. Once the Kingfish Board approves the
climate statement, it is disclosed.
Oversight of climate-related risks, transition risks
and opportunities, scenario analysis and strategies
is undertaken by the Kingfish ARC and Kingfish
Investment Committee.
The Kingfish ARC and Kingfish Investment
Committee is informed about climate-related
risks and opportunities by regular reports from
Fisher Funds.
Fisher Funds reports to the Kingfish Board or its
subcommittees on these matters as the manager
of Kingfish. This means that the returns Kingfish
shareholders receive are dependent on the
investment decisions of Fisher Funds, as well
as the performance of the investments. These
decisions include decisions on climate-related
risks and opportunities. In making these decisions
Fisher Funds follows a governance process that is
overseen by the Fisher Funds Board. The metrics,
targets and climate statement for Kingfish are only
recommended to the Kingfish ARC for its approval,
once Fisher Funds has completed
this process. This enables the Kingfish Board to
discharge its due diligence obligations when
relying on the climate-related materials it receives
from the Manager. A summary of the process is set
out below.
1. Climate-related roles and responsibilities
are assigned to Fisher Funds’ Investment
Management Team (IMT) by its Chief
Investment Officer.
2. Through scenario analysis, the IMT completes
an assessment of climate-related risks and
opportunities and, where material, these risks
and opportunities are factored into investment


The Fisher Funds ESG Committee is a Management-appointed
committee. Members include the Fisher Funds Chief Executive
Officer, General Counsel, Chief Investment Officer, Chief Investment
Strategist and the General Manager, Responsible Investments
(RI). The ESG Committee meets bi-monthly or a minimum of five
times a year.
The ESG Committee
Charter was last updated in February 2024.
Incentives and remuneration
Fisher Funds provides all necessary resources and staff for Kingfish
(other than the Board and its committees). Kingfish does not employ
any staff.
Fisher Funds did not incorporate specific climate-related
performance metrics into its remuneration policies during the
period. As a result, no Management remuneration was linked to
climate-related risks and opportunities in the period.
Governance process Fisher Funds ESG Committee
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

15Climate Statement
03 | Strategy
Strategy
This section details how climate change
may impact Kingfish in the future. It also
sets out Fisher Funds’ Investment Strategy
and Climate Risk Assessment Framework.
Photo: Claire Horwood
03
Strategy
Kingfish investment objectives and philosophy .............................16
Fisher Funds’ investment strategy ..................................................16
Fisher Funds’ engagement approach ..............................................17
Strategy — Transition .......................................................................18
Climate risk assessment framework ................................................19
High level summary ....................................................................19
Climate risk assessment framework ..........................................20
Quantitative identification ..........................................................21
Qualitative identification ............................................................22
Further analysis ...........................................................................23
Evaluation ....................................................................................23
Climate-related risks and impacts ...................................................24
Anticipated potential climate-related risks and impacts ................25
Physical risks .....................................................................................26
Transition risks ..................................................................................28
Opportunities ...................................................................................30
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

1617
03 | Strategy
Fisher Funds’
investment strategy
Fisher Funds’
Engagement approach
Kingfish investment
objectives and philosophy
Kingfish’s key investment objectives are to:
•achieve a high real rate of return, comprising
both income and capital growth, within risk
parameters acceptable to the directors
•provide access to a diversified portfolio of New
Zealand quality growth stocks through a single
tax efficient investment vehicle.
To achieve these objectives, Kingfish follows
an investment approach based on three broad
principles:
•invest as a medium- to long-term investor
exiting only because of a fundamental change
in the original investment case
•invest in companies that have a proven track
record of growing profitability
•construct a diversified portfolio of investments
based on the STEEPP investment criteria
- find more information on STEEPP on the
Kingfish website.
Fisher Funds has a formal responsible investment
policy and framework and has an approach to
climate risk assessments that the Kingfish Board
has adopted. This is detailed in the following
section: Fisher Funds’ investment strategy.
As the manager of the Kingfish portfolio Fisher
Funds is committed to integrating climate-
related considerations into its overall strategy.
Fisher Funds’ approach is outlined in the
following sections.
Fisher Funds’ investment strategy
Fisher Funds’ active investment strategy is
known for its research and fundamentals-based
approach to investing. This bottom-up approach
allows Fisher Funds to be highly selective when
evaluating securities to be included in investment
portfolios.
Fisher Funds’ investment strategy (also referred to
as ‘investment approach’) identifies high-quality
and growing entities to invest in, in New Zealand
and across the globe. The IMT seeks businesses
that have competitive advantages, long runways
for growth and talented management teams
that are aligned with long-term shareholders’
expectations. When such opportunities are found,
the aim is to take relatively meaningful positions
and hold those positions for the long term. This
approach can also support Fisher Funds in its
transition planning.
Although Fisher Funds is a long-term investor,
investments are closely monitored. This includes
looking at both the potential risks and returns of
every investment. Climate risk to the portfolio,
including the financial impact of transitioning to a
lower carbon economy, is one of the many factors
considered when making investment decisions.
As such, no priority is given to climate-related risk
above any other risk. Holdings may be adjusted
to reflect any updated assessment of future risks
and returns.
Responsible Investing is a core part of Fisher
Funds’ investment strategy and philosophy.
Alongside financial fundamentals, environmental,
social and governance (ESG) factors are
considered, together with how these factors may
impact an entity’s long-term performance. This
combined with Fisher Funds’ active stewardship
approach, including engagement, forms a key part
of its overall responsible investment framework.
More information about Fisher Funds’ approach
to Responsible Investment can be found on
its website.
Fisher Funds’ fundamentals-based approach to
investing requires multiple levels of transparency to
enable robust assessment of investment risks and
opportunities. Fisher Funds values transparency
for trust and alignment between investors and
entities that it invests in. Fisher Funds believes
strong governance supports outcomes. As part
of Fisher Funds’ stewardship approach and as an
active manager, Fisher Funds votes in line with its
Proxy Voting Policy on ESG issues. Fisher Funds’
Stewardship Report can be viewed here.
Engagements can cover a wide range of ESG
factors, including climate, director elections,
remuneration, supply chain, and health and safety.
Engagement occurs directly through IMT.
Engagement is an effective tool to achieve better
outcomes. It may also enable Fisher Funds to
drive meaningful change, either directly and/or in
collaboration with other investors.
Engagements performed by the IMT can
be proactive or reactive depending on the
circumstances. Engagements that are undertaken
take time (sometimes months or years) depending
upon the issue. When discussions stall, escalation
occurs when necessary, in several ways, with
Senior Management or Board members voting on
resolutions or, in extreme circumstances, divesting
from a holding. Divestment decisions regarding
controversies rest with the ESG Committee.
In last year’s climate statements Fisher Funds
committed to engaging with the upper quartile of
entities in the highest emitting sectors that did not
have any science based targets (SBTs). Engaging in
this way assists Fisher Funds in managing climate
risks and supports the transition to a lower carbon
future. This also supports Fisher Funds’ transition
planning process.
During the last 12 months the RI and IMT Team has
engaged directly with entities on climate-related
disclosure.
Please refer to the Metrics and Targets sections
for more metrics for the current reporting period,
which includes SBTs.
Photo: Matt Logan
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
1819Climate Statement
03 | Strategy
Strategy — TransitionClimate risk
assessment framework
Fisher Funds’ integration of climate
considerations
As noted in the Fisher Funds Investment Strategy
section, through the fundamentals-based
investment process, climate-related risks and
opportunities are considered. The Climate Risk
Assessment Framework (CRAF) is a standalone
assessment framework developed by Fisher Funds
(see Figure 2) along with the current transition
plan. This assessment process, the transition
plan and their application to the investment
strategy, may change over time in response to
emerging climate-related and transition risks and
opportunities.
Transition Plan
The following activity in relation to transition
planning was undertaken in the reporting period:
•A comprehensive climate-related and
transition risk and opportunity assessment was
conducted across all Fisher Funds’ managed
investments, analysing trends year on year
where appropriate.
•Internal capability to assess climate-related
and transition risks, as well as opportunities
was reviewed and improved. This included
introducing automated processes into
the qualitative stage of the Climate Risk
Assessment Framework, making the approach
more scalable, consistent and efficient and
improving the quality of insights.
•The RI Team monitored and reviewed the
relevant metrics, looked at trends, discussed
findings with the Portfolio Managers and
provided insights to use as part of engagement
with entities. For example, the ‘portfolio
coverage’ metric generated insights as to what
proportion of the portfolio could be assessed
and how relevant disclosures may have
improved or declined from the base year. Refer
to the Metrics section for the relevant metrics.
High-level summary
The Climate Risk and Opportunities Assessment
Framework (CRAF) consists of four key steps as
shown in Figure 2. This analysis was undertaken
by subject matter experts within the IMT. Results
were shared with the Portfolio Managers, the
Chief Investment Officer and governance bodies
in line with the governance process documented
in the Governance section. A detailed explanation
of these steps is set out under the Climate Risk
Assessment Framework (CRAF) section on the
next page.
The CRAF is designed to evaluate climate risks and
opportunities across Fisher Funds’ investments,
based on available information and resources.
The risks and opportunities identified through
this assessment process identified potential
future impacts of climate change on the Portfolio
through both physical and transition risks.
Only those investments that meet Fisher Funds’
‘scope, boundary and materiality criteria’ set out
below are included for assessment in the CRAF.
The materiality approach is approved by the ESG
Committee.
•Scope and Boundary: The internal operations
of Kingfish as a LIC and the internal operations
of Fisher Funds itself, as well as any upstream
and downstream operations of the Portfolio
and Fisher Funds, are not relevant as this
climate statement is limited to assessment of
climate-related risks to entities invested in by
Fisher Funds.
•Materiality: All of the Kingfish portfolio were
included in the ISS ESG Climate Impact Report.
•The RI Team prioritised engagement with the
upper quartile of entities in the highest emitting
sectors that did not have any SBTs in the last
reporting period. Refer to the Targets section
for more details.
•When constructing portfolios, the investment
process involved consideration of a wide range
of risks, including, but not limited to, climate
risks and opportunities. Fisher Funds’ strategy
and investment process does not specifically
allocate capital to climate sectors or themes.
Instead, an integrated investment approach is
used across various stages of the investment
process. During the period, at the diversified
fund level, this involved determining which
asset classes to invest in, the extent of the
funds’ exposure to each asset class and the
implementation strategy for each asset class.
•Following the 2024 climate statement
disclosure, some additional ESG and climate
factors from the ISS ESG dataset were
embedded into the IMT’s entity analysis,
including a climate traffic dashboard. This was
done to assist each Portfolio Management Team
with monitoring specific ESG and climate risks.
Embedding these additional factors has allowed
the relevant information to feed more actively
into conversations and thought processes
within the IMT and with entities where Fisher
Funds may invest.
•Data limitations are noted in Appendix 3.
Fisher Funds is committed to integrating climate-
related considerations into its overall strategy.
As part of this commitment, climate-related
risks, opportunities and the transition planning
approach will continue to be refined. In addition,
annual reviews of climate risk, transition risk and
opportunities will be conducted for the portfolio.
Fisher Funds is committed to improving the
assessment process over time and to the ongoing
development of its Climate Risk Assessment
Framework and transition plan.
Quantitative
identification
Qualitative
identification
Analysis
Evaluation
Figure 2: Climate risk and opportunity
assessment framework
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

03 | Strategy
Climate Statement
2021Climate Statement
Quantitative identification
The RI Team used the ISS ESG solution that
produces the Climate Impact Report (CIR) which
covered the Kingfish portfolio for the reporting
period to 31 March 2025. ISS ESG primarily
sourced the emissions data used in the CIRs from
disclosures made by issuing entities during the
2023 fiscal year (1/07/2023 - 30/06/2024). These
disclosures typically came from Sustainability
Reports, Annual Reports, Carbon Disclosure
Project submissions or other publicly available
resources. When this information was not
available, ISS ESG applied estimated emissions
models to generate emissions data .
The ISS ESG solution utilises scenario analysis.
Scenario analysis takes inputs of an entity’s
carbon emissions, and global climate scenario
parameters to assess the potential financial
outcomes for entities that have been invested in
(e.g. an entity or debt security listed on a stock
exchange) across a range of potential future
scenarios. This is a way to systematically explore
the potential effects of a range of plausible future
events under conditions of uncertainty.
The CIR provides Fisher Funds with an initial
quantitative climate impact assessment of the
portfolio against a wide range of carbon metrics,
scenario analysis, net zero analysis, transition
climate risk analysis and physical climate risk
analysis. The analyses incorporate sectoral and
regional emissions pathways, including Network
for Greening the Financial System (NGFS). ISS
ESG reviews and enhances its methodology
as needed, aiming to include the most up-to-
date information. In the past year, 23 different
scenarios were added to ISS ESG’s database and
no material methodology changes were made.
Refer to the Appendix for more information on ISS
ESG methodologies.
The portfolio may be exposed to various natural
hazards in disparate geographies, which
may affect the value of the portfolio and the
benchmark. Within the CIR, ISS ESG rates the
potential physical risks within the portfolio. This
is done using a rating range of 0 - 100, zero
being the highest and 100 being the lowest or no
physical risk. Only material physical risks (defined
by IMT as a physical risk score 0 - 50), indicating
potentially high financial impacts of the physical
hazards are captured for the CRAF analysis. A
further materiality threshold is then applied at a
Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS)
sector level, analysing GICS sector risks by
physical risk that are greater than 10% at a total
portfolio level.
To support the quantitative process, Fisher Funds
has adopted the Financial Services Council
(FSC) ‘FSC Climate Scenario Narratives for the
Financial Services Sector’. After a review, the IMT
and the RI Team determined these narratives to
be relevant and well aligned with Fisher Funds’
strategy. These scenarios offer the distinct,
consistent and comparable framework necessary
for conducing quantitative analysis. These
narratives were developed by the FSC Scenario
Analysis Committee and Working Group, which
is a recognised industry body for New Zealand’s
funds management and insurance sectors. The
FSC’s work (including both physical and transition
risk narratives) aims to enhance consistency
and comparability of climate risk disclosures
across the financial services sector. Fisher Funds
supports this objective to the extent appropriate
for its operations. Refer to the Appendix for the
full FSC climate scenario narratives.
2
Data currently available and timeliness of collection from third party aggregators, including ISS ESG, have limitations due to the infancy
stage of climate-related disclosures both in New Zealand and internationally. This is not limited to ISS ESG and is a common issue across
the industry. Fisher Funds expects data to become more reliable as timeliness and quality of data disclosed by entities improves over
time. Fisher Funds also expects greater worldwide standardisation as more jurisdictions require climate-related reporting by law. Fisher
Funds is committed to engaging with ISS ESG on its offering and will continue to monitor data providers as they continue to evolve. More
information about data limitations included in Appendix 3.
Climate risk
assessment framework
Quantitative
Risk Assessment
Using the current and anticipated quantitative
analysis on the portfolio from ISS ESG and FSC
Climate Scenario Narratives
Evaluation
Further
Analysis
Combining of
quantitative,
qualitative research,
portfolio manager
and IMT insights
Fisher Funds
Qualitative Risk
Assessment
Performed by IMT
outlined in more detail
on the next page
Figure 3: Fisher Funds’ climate risk assessment framework
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

03 | Strategy
Photo: Claire Horwood
2223
Photo: Claire Horwood
The selected FSC Climate Scenario narratives,
including the sector-specific physical and
transition drivers, were used to score and assess
climate-related physical risks and transition risks
and opportunities for the portfolio. This enabled
consistent application across the portfolios
managed by Fisher Funds, time horizons and
scenarios.
Quantitative assessment includes: the breadth
of impact across multiple sectors (and therefore
entities) in the portfolio; significance of impact
should the risk eventuate; and assessment of
relative significance.
As noted, the scientific scenarios utilised by ISS
ESG do not correspond to those used within
the FSC Sector Narratives. However, this is a
known limitation and is addressed as part of the
qualitative stage.
The following NGFS scenarios were used; Net Zero
2050 ‘Orderly’, National Determined Contributions
(NDCs) ‘Too Little Too Late’, and Current Policies
‘Hothouse’.
More information on the scenarios and time
horizons can be found in the Appendix 1.
Qualitative identification
On completion of the quantitative identification
process, the RI Team completed its initial
analysis and developed an understanding of the
significance of the outputs.
This information was then provided to the Portfolio
Manager as prereading, along with the FSC
narratives, for their qualitative assessment.
As noted above, there are some limitations in the
outputs produced at the quantitative stage, which
means those outputs cannot be relied upon in
isolation. These are addressed in the qualitative
stage by the Portfolio Manager’s experience and
judgement.
The Portfolio Manager reviews the quantitative
output provided and then amends and assesses
the various physical and transition climate-related
risks and opportunities based on their own
knowledge of the entities in which they invest and
alongside the FSC sector narratives.
The quantitative outputs and qualitative overlay of
the Portfolio Manager are then presented to the
IMT for consideration.
The wider expertise of the IMT adds critical
debate and different perspectives to the
assessment process.
The RI Team also facilitates discussion with a
set of questions for the Portfolio Manager. This
is a critical phase of the process, embedding
continued learning that may be incorporated in
investment decisions.
To ensure consistency across the portfolios, the
scoring implemented using the climate-related
physical risk impacts and transition risks derived
from the FSC narratives are not amended.
Further analysis
During the further analysis phase of the CRAF,
the RI Team combines the quantitative and
qualitative assessments, the FSC narratives,
Portfolio Manager and IMT insights, outcomes of
any critical debate and any additional research
undertaken.
The IMT reviews the output of this work.
Evaluation
Evaluation is the final stage, during which the RI
Team presents the completed analysis pack to
the Portfolio Manager for approval. These packs
include assessments of physical and transition
risks, opportunities and year-on-year trend
analysis with commentary.
Once approved, climate-related risks and
opportunities content is incorporated into this
climate statement. The governance process
outlined in the Governance section is then
followed to approve the climate statement for the
Portfolio.
For more information on the scenarios and time
horizons, data limitations and methodologies refer
to the Appendices.
3
Source: https://www.ngfs.net/ngfs-scenarios-portal/explore
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
2425Climate Statement
03 | Strategy
Climate-related risks
and impacts
As noted in the CRAF process, an assessment
of climate-related physical and transition risks
and opportunities over all material investments
in portfolios under Fisher Funds’ management,
including Kingfish, for the year ending 31 March
2025 was completed at the final Evaluation stage
and the approved content was incorporated into
this climate statement.
As part of the CRAF process, outlined in the
previous section, Fisher Funds assessed the
potential physical and transition impacts on the
portfolio. This included an assessment of how well
prepared the investee entities are to respond to
climate change across each of the time horizons
outlined in Appendix 1. This also included an
assessment of the current financial impact of
climate-related physical and transition risks that
the entities may experience.
A summary of the most significant potential
anticipated physical risks (physical risk scores
between 0 and 50 and at a GICS sector level
greater than 10%) identified through the CRAF
process is set out in the following tables. To
produce these summaries, a detailed physical
risk assessment was completed for the portfolio,
noting the physical climate risk (e.g. flood,
wildfire) the risk impact (e.g. operational, financial,
reputational) the relevant sector (e.g. industrial,
consumer discretionary) and the percentage of
the portfolio exposed to the physical risk. These
tables also show the anticipated future impact of
transition risks.
Note that potential financial impacts are not
disclosed because Fisher Funds has relied on
adoption provision 2 NZ CS 2 (anticipated financial
impacts) for this reporting period. However,
current and anticipated portfolio financial value
at risk (VaR) emerging from the relevant issuing
entity’s exposure to physical risks is set out in
the Metrics section. Adoption provisions applied
to this climate statement have been specified in
Appendix 2.
Anticipated potential climate-related
risks and impacts
To understand how climate-related risks affects
the portfolio, Fisher Funds looks at these risks
and how they may raise or lower the value of the
entities it invests in. This can impact how the
portfolio performs over time. However, it is often
hard to tell exactly what has caused an entity’s
value to change during the year. Many factors
could influence the value of an entity, for example,
cyberattacks, changes in management or boards
can impact an entity’s value just as much as a
climate event.
The analysis for the current period identified a
range of potential climate-related physical risk
events across different sectors and geographies,
that had the potential to have a financial impact
on the entities we invest in (i.e. an impact on entity
valuation), based on factors such as location of
operations, asset value and revenue source.
None of the potential climate-related risks were
confirmed to have impacted the investee entities
for the 12-month period ending 31 March 2025.
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
2627Climate Statement
03 | Strategy
Physical risks
Company namePhysical
risk type
Physical
risk hazard
Most impacted sectorRegion
% of
portfolio
exposed
Potential anticipated future impactTime horizonPotential impact on portfolio
Kingfish
Acute
Drought,
Flood, Wildfire
Industrials, financials
New Zealand
26% and 14%
More frequent and severe weather
events may disrupt operations and
supply chains, affecting freight,
transport, and key locations. These
disruptions may limit the ability to
serve customers. This could damage
company reputations, impact
customers and suppliers, and lead to
customer losses.
Medium
and long term
Increased VaR, decrease in dividends,
lower cash reserve/cash flow and lower
distributions to investors. Increased
difficulty to sell shares (and at a reduced
price) especially for high emitters.
Decrease in portfolio book worth,
decrease in Kingfish share price due to
underlying entities decreasing in value,
reduced earnings growth and share price
over time.
Acute, Chronic
Drought, Flood,
Heat Stress
Health care17%
An increase in frequency and severity
of weather events may impact business
operations and supply chains more
broadly. For example key locations
may not be able to service customers
(workforce)/or delivering of products
or manufacturing (for example supply
chain disruption). This may result in
customer retention issues.
Medium
and long term
AcuteDrought, FloodUtilities11%
Risks include increased regulatory
scrutiny and energy price volatility.
Events may cause power blackouts
from lack of electricity generation
or tranmission/distribution. These
disruptions may impact operating
facilities, essential infrastructure,
customers and businesses.
Medium
and long term
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
2829Climate Statement
03 | Strategy
Transition risks
Company nameTransition
risk type
Most impacted sectorRegion
% of
portfolio
exposed
Potential anticipated future impactTime horizonPotential impact on portfolio
Kingfish
Technology, Market,
Policy/Legal
Industrials
New Zealand
26%
The industrials sector is typically carbon
intensive. Increased regulatory pressure
(for example, carbon pricing, policy
changes, emissions standards), rising
operational and compliance costs and
potential stranded assets. Technology
advancements (low carbon technology
transition), customer demand may require
substantial capital investment and could
reshape competitor dynamics. Companies
that don't adapt could get left behind.
Medium
and long term
Increased VaR, decrease in dividends,
lower cash reserve/cash flow and lower
distributions to investors. Increased
difficulty to sell shares (and at a reduced
price) especially for high emitters.
Decrease in portfolio book worth,
decrease in Kingfish share price due to
underlying entities decreasing in value,
reduced earnings growth and share
price over time.
Utilities11%
This sector faces significant transition
risks. Regulatory pressures, including
carbon pricing, stricter emissions limits,
and renewable energy mandates, can
increase compliance/operational costs
(for example phasing out of emission
intensive energy and investing into
renewable energy infrastructure and grid
modernization) and potential stranded
assets. Market impact may include
changing customer/investor expectations,
that may heighten reputational and market
risks. Additionally, evolving policies
around energy efficiency, demand-side
management, and climate disclosures
may increase legal and compliance
burdens, requiring utilities to adapt rapidly
to maintain financial performance and
stakeholder trust.
Medium
and long term
Market, Policy/LegalHealth care17%
The healthcare sector is a lower carbon
sector so transition risk is generally lower.
However, impacts could include increased
requirements for emission reporting,
carbon pricing and stricter environmental
standards. Supply chain disruptions could
occur (materials and transportation),
higher utility costs and pressure to adapt.
Medium and
long term,
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
3031Climate Statement
03 | Strategy
Opportunities
Climate opportunities for the portfolio refer to
investment opportunities that may arise from the
global shift toward a low carbon, climate resilient
economy. These opportunities may come from
entities working to reduce or adapt to climate
risks, such as adopting low emissions energy
sources or innovating new technologies.
Climate opportunities were developed by the RI
Team and Portfolio Manager at a point in time.
These statements are designed to help IMT build
its understanding and preparedness for the
uncertain future impacts of climate change and
opportunities that may arise.
As part of the Metrics captured in the Portfolio
Summary section, Fisher Funds has reported
green revenues (please refer to Glossary) and
will continue to monitor those that are seen as
contributing positively to climate action. This
information will be monitored to understand how
the portfolio may be impacted over time.
Area of
opportunity
Physical opportunityTransition opportunitySectorRegion
Time
horizon
Kingfish
Resource
efficiency
Adopting resource-efficient solutions throughout production, distribution, buildings,
machinery and transport; an entity can reduce operating costs and enhance its environmental
performance. This opportunity encompasses improving energy efficiency alongside initiatives
in materials use, water conservation and waste management.
• improving energy efficiency
• implementation of sustainable resource
management practices (materials, water
and waste)
• modernising infrastructure/
manufacturing
• reducing GHG emissions
All sectorsAll
Short,
medium
and long term
Renewable
energy
Increasing demand for electricity provides opportunities to improve resource efficiency (for
example, heat pumps instead of gas or fuel for boilers). Improved optimisation and waste
reduction. Renewable energy infrastructure, grid modernszation, low carbon technologies.
• investing in renewable energy (solar,
wind, hydro)
• low carbon technology development
(energy storage, hydrogen)
• providing access to capital/financing
opportunities and expansion into
other markets
• reducing GHG emissions
EnergyAll
Short,
medium
and long term
Products
and services
Innovating and developing new low emissions products and services can enhance an entity's
competitive position, capitalise on changing consumer and producer preferences and benefit
from the growing demand for sustainable energy solutions.
• developing low carbon products
and services
• innovating to reduce carbon footprints
of supply chains
• accessing new markets
• indirectly reduce GHG emissions
Products
and services
All
Short,
medium
and long term
AgricultureAdopting technological innovations like climate-resilient crop varieties and precision
agriculture, enables the agriculture sector to physically adapt to changing climate conditions,
improve food securit, and strengthen an entity’s reputation.
• leveraging technology to enhance and
sustain agricultural practices
• accessing new funding
• accessing new markets
• indirectly reduces GHG emissions
• improving supply chain resilience
AgricultureAll
Short,
medium
and long term
TransportationAccelerating adoption of low emissions/sustainable transport and logistics solutions. For
example, electric vehicles can help an entity meet their regulatory requirements, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their reputation.
• providing parts for these solutions
• manufacturing low emission vehicles
• reduce GHG emissions
• improved reputation
• increases customer demand
• financing opportunities for this (for
example green bonds)
Transportation,
logistics other
entities with fleets
All
Short,
medium
and long term
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
3233Climate Statement
03 | Strategy
Opportunities
Area of
opportunity
Physical opportunityTransition opportunitySectorRegion
Time
horizon
Kingfish
Construction
and
engineering
Integrating climate resilience into building design and construction reduces long-term
maintenance costs, minimises service disruptions and attracts investors and tenants seeking
sustainable, future-proof properties. Adopting green building standards and innovative
materials also supports regulatory compliance and strengthens reputation in a shifting climate
landscape.
• providing low carbon materials
• energy efficient methods
• green buildings
• accessing increased funding, sustainable
finance, green bonds etc
• reduce GHG emissions
Real estate,
infrastructure,
utilities, industrials
All
Short,
medium
and long term
MarketsPromoting sustainable investments and financing mechanisms, such as green bonds and low
emissions energy production can facilitate investment in environmentally responsible projects
and capture new market opportunities within the broader framework of the transition to a
low carbon economy. This can enhance an entity’s reputation and attract socially responsible
investors and customers.
• leverage sustainability financing tools
• opens up investing opportunities
and markets
• indirectly reduces GHG emissions
Financials, listed
securities of entities
that raise capital for
such projects
All
Short,
medium
and long term
ResilienceBuilding adaptive capacity offers an opportunity to respond to climate change by enhancing
efficiency, innovating production processes and creating new products, which can strengthen
competitiveness, improve risk management and ensure business continuity.
• innovation and product redesign (climate
resilient)
• operational efficiency reducing GHG
emissions and resource use
• strengthening risk management, navigating
changing regulatory environment
• securing long-term business continuity
All sectorsAll
Short,
medium
and long term
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

35Climate Statement
Photo: Rebecca Nolan
Risk management
This section describes how Fisher Funds
manages risk and the approach to
Responsible Investing.
04 | Risk management
Managing investments’ climate risk ................................................36
Fisher Funds’ responsible investment approach ............................37
04
Risk management
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Fisher Funds’ responsible
investment approach
Managing investments’
climate risk
1
Avoid the
Bad
Fisher Funds will not invest in entities that produce goods or services that can’t be
used responsibly or that cause widespread harm.
This means Fisher Funds won’t invest in entities:
•that produce core components or systems used in weapons. This includes, but
is not limited to, cluster munitions, landmines, chemical and nuclear weapons
•that own proved or probable fossil fuels reserves and revenue share from
exploration and extraction of fossil fuels, excluding metallurgical coal, of 15%
or more; or has its primary business activity in any of the following subsectors:
integrated oil and gas, crude oil producers, offshore drilling and other services,
oil and gas equipment and services, oil and gas drilling, oil and gas exploration
and production, coal (excluding metallurgical coal) and consumable fuels
•that manufacture cigarettes (including e-cigarettes) or other tobacco-
related products
•where their core business includes operating gambling establishments or the
manufacture of specialised hardware or software used exclusively for gambling
•involved in the hunting of whales and processing of whale meat
•that have exhibited unacceptable corporate behaviour that Fisher Funds regards
as a fundamental break down of the integrity of the business. This includes,
but is not limited to, human rights abuses and abuse and degradation of the
environment.
2
Embrace
the Good
Once Fisher Funds has avoided the bad, it then seeks to embrace the good.
A key element in Fisher Funds’ indepth research process is a thorough
understanding of how an entity works with its stakeholders, how it treats the
environment and how it manages its governance responsibilities.
Fisher Funds’ research is supplemented with insights from leading global ESG data
providers, giving it a 360-degree view of an entity and its impact on ESG factors.
Viewing an entity through this lens helps Fisher Funds make better investment
decisions.
3
Promote
Change
This third element in Fisher Funds’ Responsible Investing process is promoting
change within entities where Fisher Funds has a direct relationship.
To promote positive change Fisher Funds can use voting rights to leverage its
relationship with entities to uphold Fisher Funds’ ESG approach.
Climate Statement
3637Climate Statement
Following the CRAF outlined in the Strategy section (Figure 3) there
were no remedial actions, that is, alteration of investment strategy
or exiting positions. All climate risks identified will continue to be
monitored. The monitoring will be done by the RI Team and the
relevant Portfolio Manager and will be conducted annually.
Fisher Funds manages risk, including climate risk, in the portfolio by
selecting which entities to invest in and the proportion of securities
to hold in those entities. Refer to the Strategy section, which
outlines the investment selection process.
Fisher Funds’ responsible investment policy is also followed as part
of the investment selection approach. It sets out the criteria that
excludes an entity from Fisher Funds’ investable universe.
A summary of the Fisher Funds responsible investment approach is
set out in Figure 4. The responsible investment policy is available on
the Fisher Funds website.
Fisher Funds may exercise voting rights on behalf of investors
in relation to any entity that the portfolio invests in. This means
Fisher Funds can vote (known as proxy voting) on shareholders’
resolutions. These resolutions may relate to an entity’s risk
management framework, its approach to mitigating climate impacts
in its business or the setting of climate metrics and targets for the
entity to achieve over a period. In this way Fisher Funds can use its
vote to support an entity’s stance on climate risk management.
Figure 4: Responsible investment approach
04 | Risk management
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Metrics and Targets
This section details key metrics
and targets for Kingfish,
including any assumptions and
comments on methodologies.
05 | Metrics and Targets
39Climate Statement
Photo: Jin Wan
05
Metrics and Targets
Guidance...........................................................................................40
Kingfish summary .............................................................................42
Targets ..............................................................................................50
SBT Target scorecard .......................................................................52
Target engagement ..........................................................................53
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

05 | Metrics and Targets
Climate Statement
4041Climate Statement
Metrics
The metrics detailed in this section are provided
by ISS ESG and are subject to the limitations as
set out below and assumptions noted by ISS ESG
in its methodology documents. For more detail on
these see Appendix 3.
The information about entities within Kingfish
cannot be relied on as reflective of their real-time
position as at 31 March 2025. The passage of time
between the date an entity reports its data, the
date ISS ESG collects that data and the end date
of the reporting period for this climate statement
can be significant. ISS ESG works to ensure data
is as up to date as possible, however, its accuracy
depends on the timing and availability of data
provided by entities.
All dollar values in the metrics detailed in this
section are New Zealand Dollar.
Trends
The trends detailed in this section are intended
to provide a view of directional movement and
progress over time, reflecting broader patterns.
This high-level overview acknowledges the
inherent complexities in the data, as numerous
factors can influence year-on-year changes, such
as underlying data, changes in source entity
report data and differences in actual emissions
versus modelled emissions. Climate metrics often
rely on complex models and assumptions, many
of which change over time. Because of this, the
data can vary in ways that make detailed year-to-
year comparisons less reliable or meaningful. As
quality of data improves over time, trend analysis
may reveal more useful insights.
Benchmarks
The emissions data and other metrics for Kingfish
are compared with the Portfolio’s benchmark in
the following section to provide investors with
a meaningful point of comparison. A Portfolio’s
benchmark is a point of reference against which
a Portfolio’s performance, or characteristics, are
compared. The benchmark and the portfolio
should be appropriately aligned (e.g. the same or
similar asset class, sectors, geography, investment
style and risk/return profile) so that meaningful
and fair comparisons can be made. However,
benchmarks can also change over time which
limits Fisher Funds’ ability to make like-for-like
comparison and generate reliable trend data.
Internal emissions price
Fisher Funds does not use an internal emissions
price due to the evolving nature of the industry
frameworks, however, the IMT does consider
carbon pricing as part of its fundamentals-based
investment process when researching entities.
GHG emissions
There are three different categories of GHG
emissions that an entity may be responsible for:
•Scope 1 - Direct emissions from sources owned
or controlled by the entity (e.g. company
vehicles).
•Scope 2 - Indirect emissions from consumption
of purchased electricity, heat, or steam.
•Scope 3 - Other indirect emissions from
sources not owned or controlled by the entity
(e.g. investments).
The GHG emissions information provided by ISS
ESG relates solely to financed emissions, which
is Scope 3 category 15 (specifically, scope 3
category 15 (of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol – the
Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and
Reporting standard).
The Portfolio’s emissions are based on it’s holdings or share of
scope 1 and 2 emissions of the underlying investee entities. Any
reference to scope 1 and 2 emissions in the metrics is the scope 1
and 2 emissions of the investee entities (and therefore the Portfolio’s
financial emissions).
Guidance
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

05 | Metrics and Targets
43Climate Statement
Kingf ish
Metrics
In the Metrics section, Fisher Funds outlines the relevant metrics for Kingfish
and compares them to those in previous climate-related disclosures.
Portfolio summary
Kingfish invests in shares in companies and is exposed to climate-
based risks, and opportunities, through the entities it invests in and
their value.
Investments are subject to many risks, including risks that are not
climate based, so it is important to consider climate-based risks
in a broader context. Fisher Funds wants to ensure that Kingfish
maintains an acceptable level of risk both in absolute terms and
relative to its benchmark.
Kingfish will inevitably see its climate-related risk profile change as
it buys and sells assets over time and as the issuing entities evolve.
This is in addition to the potential for physical and transition climate
risks changing, as the passage of time brings clarity on the future
state of the world (as contemplated by the climate scenarios used in
this climate statement).
Fisher Funds expects the entities issuing securities into which
Kingfish invests to recognise risks to their organisations and act
in the most appropriate way for the long-term benefit of their
shareholders and other stakeholders. In doing this, Fisher Funds
expects they will consider physical and transition climate risks as
part of the management of their organisations. As part of Fisher
Funds’ ongoing engagement with entities, it selectively checks that
appropriate attention is being given to climate-related risks and
opportunities.
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
4445Climate Statement
Emissions exposure (tCO
2
e)Sector contributions to emissions (%)
MetricsEmissions
Portfolio coverage
As at 31 March 2025, coverage has remained
consistent with the base year.
In the Kingfish portfolio, for the current year, 93%
of the emissions were created by holdings in the
industrials and utilities sectors.
By comparison, in the base year, 88% of the
emissions were created by holdings in the
same sectors.
20242025
Portfolio covered100%100%
Portfolio not covered0%0%
20242025
Portfolio
BenchmarkPortfolio
Benchmark
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
11,945
4,742
9,287
4,982
Consumer Staples
Industrials
Materials
Health Care
Utilities
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
47%
42%
1%1%
46%
46%
4%
5%
2%
6%
05 | Metrics and Targets
The Kingfish portfolio emitted approximately
4,742 tonnes of CO2 from scope 1 and 2 emissions.
This is a lower emissions profile than if Fisher
Funds had invested in the benchmark, which
would have created an emissions profile of 11,945
tonnes of CO2.
The emissions have decreased in the current year
from in the base year.
2024
2025
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
4647Climate Statement
Relative carbon footprint (tCO
2
e/Invested)
Scope 1 and 2 emissions
As the global economy decarbonises in line with
pledges and targets, the level of transition risks
and opportunities grow. When evaluating the
assets vulnerable to transition risk from a whole-
of-portfolio perspective, portfolio transition value
at risk (TVaR) for transition risk is a useful metric.
This is a measure of the potential loss that an asset
might experience. This metric is presented as a
net number between the positive and negative
potential share price movement in the portfolio.
A negative TVaR means positive price movement.
Emissions
For every million invested, what is my carbon
footprint?
The weighted average carbon intensity (WACI)
based on scope 1 and 2 emissions for the Kingfish
portfolio as calculated by ISS ESG is approximately
29.52 tonnes of CO2 per unit of revenue,
compared with the benchmark at approximately
46.66 tonnes of CO2 per unit of revenue. By this
measure, the Kingfish portfolio has less carbon
intensity than the benchmark.
The weighted average carbon intensity has
decreased in the current year from the base year.
For the Kingfish portfolio, for every $1 million
invested, the relative carbon footprint (emissions
exposure) as calculated by ISS ESG for the current
year is 10.44 tonnes of CO2 (tCO2e) below the
benchmark, which has a carbon footprint of 26.30.
The relative carbon footprint has decreased in the
current year, from the base year.
Transition-related risks
Transition value at risk (%)
In the current year, for Kingfish, the portfolio TVaR
is around 4% of the portfolio value based on the
2050 scenario.
The portfolio TVaR has declined to 4% of the
portfolio value, from -3% of the portfolio value
in the base year. Indicating a negative share
price movement. The size of these climate
risks out to 2050 are relatively small compared
with other risks faced by issuing entities, such
as technological disruption, competition and
regulation.
20242025
Portfolio
BenchmarkPortfolio
Benchmark
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
26.3
10.44
20.49
10.99
2024
Portfolio
2024
Benchmark
2025
Portfolio
2025
Benchmark
Kingfish-3%-2%
4%3%
05 | Metrics and Targets
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20242025
Portfolio
BenchmarkPortfolio
Benchmark
33.81
29.52
46.66
51.93
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
4849Climate Statement
One way to assess a Portfolio’s exposure to
climate transition risks, and to identify potential
opportunities, is to evaluate the commitment
of the entities in which the Fund is invested to
the transition, as well as their demonstrated
ability to generate revenue from ‘green’ products
or services.
Green revenues are generally viewed as
contributing positively to climate action, while
brown revenues are considered obstructive to it.


Climate-related risksOpportunities
Rising temperatures may impact the climate
system – the analysis outlined in the Strategy
section (the CRAF) allowed the IMT to assess the
assets in the portfolio from a whole-of-portfolio
perspective against physical risks. Portfolio value
at risk (VaR) is a useful metric. This is a measure of
the potential loss that the assets in the portfolio
may collectively experience and impact the
portfolio value.
As at 31 March 2025, the Kingfish VaR was around
0.7% of the portfolio value based on the 2050
scenario, this remained the same as the base
year, indicating no additional potential loss
year on year.
Assets aligned with climate-related opportunitiesPortfolio value at risk (%)
As at 31 March 2025, the percentage of assets
in the Kingfish portfolio aligned with green
revenues was 3% (decreased from 2024) and in
contrast 15% was derived from brown revenues (as
calculated by ISS ESG) a 4% decrease from the
base year.
2024
Portfolio
2024
Benchmark
2025
Portfolio
2025
Benchmark
Kingfish0.7%0.6%
0.7%0.6%
2024
Green Revenue
2024
Brown Revenue
2025
Green Revenue
2025
Brown Revenue
4%19%3%15%
05 | Metrics and Targets
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
5051Climate Statement
TargetsTargets
In the Portfolio Summary section, Fisher Funds has outlined specific
metrics for Kingfish and has compared them to those in our base
year climate statements.
When it came to establishing a target for the base year reporting
period, Fisher Funds selected science based targets (SBTs) which
are a way to establish an entity’s commitment to disclosing and
reducing its GHG emissions. When entities set a SBT it needs to be
independently verified. Setting these targets also shows the entity’s
commitment to reducing targets by 2050. SBTs were chosen by
analysing the data provided by ISS ESG. It should be noted that
SBTs is not the only way an entity can set an emissions target, there
are other frameworks, including net zero and some entities may
choose to set their own targets not using a prescribed framework.
This data is subject to the limitations set out in Appendix 3.
Photo: Matt Logan
Our approach
Fisher Funds has taken a two-pronged approach
to establishing the metrics and setting the targets.
The first is to assess and manage. This enables
Fisher Funds to better understand the climate-
related and transition risks and opportunities
over time.
In addition, better disclosure from entities and
more widely adopted climate-related disclosure
policy settings globally, will allow Fisher Funds to
better assess the climate strategies of the entities
in which it invests.
The second is to engage as an active investor. As
referred to in the Strategy section, in last year’s
climate statements Fisher Funds committed to
engaging with the upper quartile of entities in
the highest emitting sectors (refer to Appendix
5) as per the Net Zero Investment Framework
(NZIF) that did not have any science based
targets (SBTs). By engaging and holding them to
account, this assists Fisher Funds in managing
climate risks and supports the transition to a lower
carbon future. This also supports the transition
planning process.
When setting targets, the following criteria was
endorsed by the ESG Committee:
•Targets: SBT targets will remain in place, for the
current reporting year. Chosen targets will be
reviewed annually.
•Disclosure: will be completed annually on
how the target metrics change year on year,
showing the commitment percentages to SBTs
as defined in the base year metric.
•Engagement approach: look to engage with the
upper quartile of entities as defined by Fisher
Funds in the highest emitting sectors that do
not have targets.
SBT target scorecard
The SBT initiative (SBTi) is a collaboration that
provides guidance and validation for entities
setting emissions reduction targets that an entity’s
target is in line with scientific recommendations,
meaning they are rigorous and ambitious enough
to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, to keep
global warming well below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C, and
helps entities define a clear pathway to reduce
their GHG emissions. Definitions of SBTs can
be found in the Glossary. Through an entity’s
emissions strategy, they move between defined
SBT categories.
The Kingfish SBTs are outlined below. The
following table shows the current year SBT
percentages and how they have improved in an
absolute sense or a reduction in that category
year on year.
05 | Metrics and Targets
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
5253Climate Statement
05 | Metrics and Targets
Kingfish
In the current year, 68% (compared to 69% in the base year) of the
Fund’s portfolio value is committed to an emissions reduction goal
via an approved SBT, however, 12% of entities in the Portfolio do not
have a SBT reduction target, compared with 22% in 2024.
SBT target scorecard
S BT ’s
Kingfish Limited
20242025
PORTBMPORTBM
Approved SBT
Committed SBT
Ambitious SBT
Non-ambitious SBT
No target
52%
6%
22%
3%
16%
53%
49%
55%
11%
12%
3%
10%
22%
13%
20%
11%
9%
12%
9%
12%
During the last 12 months the IMT has engaged
directly with entities on climate-related disclosure,
such as energy transition, emissions management
and disclosure and transparency.
The engagement of the IMT Team, as defined by
the previous year’s climate disclosure, was stated
as engaging with the upper quartile of entities in
the highest emitting sectors (refer to Appendix
5) as per the NZIF, that did not have any science
based targets (SBTs).
This process discovered that at the time of our
analysis across the portfolio this applied to one
entity. The entity identified has an SBT focused
strategy outlining an emissions reduction plan and
has environmental stewardship targets.
While Fisher Funds has chosen SBTs as a specific
metric and target to monitor and review, when
forming the engagement plan, Fisher Funds saw
a range of different approaches. Some set an
emissions reduction plan with their own targets,
not aligned to any particular framework, others
used SBTs or net zero.
It is expected that investee entities will modify
their approaches over time. For example,
reclassification of targets as entities may move
from a Committed SBT to an Approved SBT, or
removal of targets. Fisher Funds and reo® will
continue to monitor and review the commitments
of investee entities and engage on ESG matters,
including climate emissions, with them. Fisher
Funds will also continue to review whether
additional entities may need to be included in the
engagement programme.
Fisher Fund’s engagement process will continue to
evolve and mature over time.
More information about Fisher Funds’ broader
engagement and stewardship for 2024 can be
found here.
Target engagement
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Photo: Claire Horwood
55Climate Statement
Appendices
06
Appendices
06 | Appendices
Appendix 1 — FSC Climate Scenario Narratives for the
Financial Services Sector .................................................................56
Appendix 2 — Adoption provisions .................................................70
Appendix 3 — Service description as provided by ISS ESG ..........71
Appendix 3 — Data limitations identified by Fisher Funds’ ............71
Appendix 4 — Restatements ............................................................72
Appendix 5 — Net zero framework highest emitting sectors .........73
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
5657Climate Statement
To support the quantitative process, Fisher
Funds has adopted the Financial Services
Council (FSC) ‘FSC Climate Scenario Narratives
for the Financial Services Sector’. After a
review, the IMT and the RI Team determined
these narratives to be relevant and well aligned
with Fisher Funds’ investment strategy. These
narratives offer the distinct, consistent and
comparable framework for conducting the
necessary analysis.
These narratives were developed by the FSC
Scenario Analysis Committee and Working
Group, a recognised industry body for New
Zealand’s funds management and insurance
sectors. The FSC’s work (including both physical
and transition risk narratives) aims to enhance
consistency and comparability of climate risk
disclosures across the financial services sector.
Fisher Funds supports this objective to the
extent appropriate for its operations.
A description of the climate narratives is
included below and the time horizons are
included under Time Horizons narrative also
included in these Appendices.
Climate scenarios are estimates and are not
forecasts. The future is inherently uncertain.
Climate scenarios are only plausible versions of
the future that help in understanding what the
future could look like. Scenarios are an important
tool used to analyse and evaluate climate-related
risks and opportunities and may not accurately
predict future outcomes. Scenarios are based on
many assumptions and are limited by the data
available at the time and may have limitations.
These three scenarios outlined below were chosen
for being relevant and appropriate to assess the
resilience of Fisher Funds investment model and
strategy in relation to climate-related risks and
opportunities as the underlying variables (for
example, carbon prices, gross domestic product
(GDP), policy positions) are widely available.
Having visibility of this transparency allows Fisher
Funds to better understand the assumptions.
There are limitations to consider, NGFS scenarios
share the same socioeconomic pathway, some
fiscal components that are not accounting for
example, estimated losses to GDP associated with
potential acute events (for example, floods and
wildfires). Scenarios are also non-linear in nature,
for example, events that subsequently trigger
other events, like the melting of ice impacting the
gulf stream and potentially impacting climates
of nearby continents. Models rely on economic
Appendix 1FSC Climate Scenario
Narratives for the Financial
Services Sector
data rather than scientific literature and in some
instances, regions can be grouped together and
have similar attributes applied, when they can be
quite different. These factors may have an impact
on the outcomes, for example, limited insights
of macro variables across scenarios, GDP losses
may be underestimated, not capturing real-world
outcomes, short-term risks being understated,
emissions pathways may differ from realised
outcomes and climate risks and impacts may be
understated.
NGFS models are applicable globally, across
asset classes, geographies and GICs sectors our
portfolios have exposure to. These are broadly
aligned to the FSC scenario selection and are
widely adopted by investment managers in New
Zealand and globally. Aotearoa New Zealand
Climate Standard (NZ CS 1.13) requires analysis
of at a minimum a 1.5 degrees Celsius climate-
related scenario and a 3 degrees Celsius or
greater climate-related scenario and a third
climate-related scenario. Fisher Funds elected
the third scenario to be one more aligned with a
more realistic New Zealand scenario, with greater
exposure to medium-high physical risk and
transition risk. For the 3 degrees Celsius or greater
scenario Fisher Funds selected a challenging
physical risk scenario assuming ‘business
as usual’ with limited uptake of emissions
regulation globally.
Scenario 1: Orderly (1.5°C)
The Orderly scenario represents collective
action towards a low carbon global
economy. In this scenario, there are steady
and constant societal changes related to
technology, policy and behaviour to support
the transition to a lower emissions economy.
This is matched by an increasing carbon price
that reinforces low carbon behaviour change.
The coordinated and timely action around
the world to curb greenhouse gases prevents
the worst predicted impacts of climate
change, however, the long-term chronic
impacts from historic greenhouse gas (‘GHG’)
emissions still occur, although not severely.
Overall, based on the literature review and
stakeholder engagement, this scenario
represents a medium level of transition risk
and a low level of physical risk relative to the
other scenarios.
Dataset aligned with scenario dimension
The NGFS Net Zero 2050 limits global warming
to 1.5°C through stringent climate policies
and innovation, reaching global net zero CO2
emissions around 2050. This requires strong
climate policy, technology advances and
behavioural change. While carbon dioxide
removals (CDRs) are used to accelerate even
further decarbonisation, its use is minimised
wherever possible.
06 | Appendices
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
5859Climate Statement
Drivers of change
Emissions pathway: Globally, the Orderly scenario
shows a steady, steep decline in global emissions,
as seen in the figure below. Overall, emissions
reduce at an average of 3.4% per annum, with
a 101% reduction in net emissions in 2050,
compared to 2020 (NGFS, 2023). This reduction
leads to net emissions being less than zero in
2050 (NGFS, 2023) as indicated by the emissions
pathway intersecting the x axis in the figure below.
Environmental: In this scenario, the curbing of
global GHG emissions through effective policies
and the transition to a low carbon economy has
helped to curb the most significant physical
impacts of climate change. New Zealand’s average
temperature increase reaches 0.7°C (min 0.4,
max 1.3) by 2050, and remains constant out to
2100 (NIWA, 2023). Globally, average temperature
increases reach 1.4°C (min 1, max 1.8) by 2100
(IPCC, 2021b). Limiting the increase in global
temperatures to 1.5°C relative to 1850-1900 levels
has helped to minimise the increase in severity of
extreme weather.
Policy: Progressive policy activity across the
globe, such as the implementation of national and
international emissions reduction requirements,
mandatory climate-related reporting, emissions
trading schemes, carbon taxes including border
adjustments and an increase in legislation that
bans emissions-intensive activities, along with
increasing carbon prices, act to incentivise
decarbonisation. Carbon prices will reach
NZ$250 per tonne of carbon in New Zealand and
US$400 per tonne globally in 2050 (CCC, 2021b),
(NGFS, 2023).
Social: Society at large expects and puts
pressure on entities to decarbonise. This is driven
by concerted behaviour change across the
population, including preference changes towards
low emissions products or services throughout the
supply chain, climate activism including through
litigation and negative media attention oriented
towards entities with a lack of appropriate action
towards climate change, and/or greenwashing
allegations (when an organisation exaggerates
its practices to make them appear more
environmentally friendly). Human quality of life
continues to increase, resulting in an overall
population growth slow down in the medium
term, with the global population reaching 8.5
billion (IPCC, 2021a).
Technological: There is increased research and
development into low emissions and emissions
abatement technology and a rapid uptake of
existing low emissions and emissions abatement
technologies across all sectors. The transport
sector sees widespread adoption of electric
vehicles (‘EVs’) with an average of 85% of all
vehicles on the road running on electricity by
2050 (CCC, 2021a). Residual emissions remain in
the heavy trucking and aviation sectors, where
emissions reductions are more difficult to achieve.
Figure: Orderly global emission pathway using NGFS data.
Supporting the electrification of the transport
fleet is the continued transition to a renewable
electricity generation system, which reaches
94% renewable by 2030 in New Zealand and 61%
globally (CCC, 2022) (IEA, 2022a). Significant
improvements in renewable storage technology
allows for electricity production to reach 100%
renewable and 88% renewable in New Zealand and
globally respectively by 2050. The primary energy
sector is not far behind the electricity sector, with
90% of all energy in New Zealand and 67% of all
energy globally sourced from renewables by 2050
(CCC, 2022) (IEA, 2022a). Residual emissions
remain from process heat application and
industrial processes, such as cement and steel
making, which are hard to abate. The agriculture
sector also undergoes major technology and
behaviour changes to reduce biogenic methane,
largely through widespread adoption of biogenic
methane inhibitors, vaccines and low emissions
stock variants. Farmers successfully implement
ambitious practice changes to become more
emissions efficient. Approximately 90,000
hectares are converted from livestock agriculture
to horticulture by 2050, nearly doubling the
current area of horticulture. Methane reductions
are also supported in the waste sector with a 73%
organic waste recovery rate by 2050, alongside a
major expansion of landfill gas capture globally.
Economic: Throughout this period, the global
economy benefits from the stable transition to
a low carbon economy, with the GDP reaching
US$289 trillion by 2050 (NGFS, 2023). Likewise,
the orderly transition in New Zealand positively
impacts the New Zealand economy, including
the New Zealand agricultural and horticultural
sectors, with the GDP reaching NZ$485 billion
in 2050 (NGFS, 2023). All countries face internal
challenges brought by transformational change
to their economies, including job losses and skill
shortages. However, these issues are managed
effectively with the help of a stable climate,
economy and international relations.
FSC Climate Scenario
Narratives for the Financial
Services Sector
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20202050
2045
204020352030
2025
BtCO2e
06 | Appendices
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
6061Climate Statement
FSC Climate Scenario
Narratives for the Financial
Services Sector
Dataset aligned with scenario dimension
Emissions pathway: Globally, the Too Little Too
Late scenario shows a steady decline in global
emissions, as seen in the figure below. Overall,
emissions reduce at an average of 1.0% per
annum, with a 31% reduction in net emissions
in 2050 compared to 2020 (NGFS, 2023). This
reduction leads to a net emission of 26.7 BtCO2e in
2050 (NGFS, 2023), significantly higher than zero.
Environmental: Although global emissions
begin to reduce from mid-century, the delay
in abatement efforts has resulted in the
materialisation of a number of physical climate
risks. By 2050, temperatures around New Zealand
have increased by an average of 0.8°C (min 0.4,
max 1.3) and continue to increase to an average
of 1.4°C (min 0.7, max 2.2) by 2100 (NIWA, 2023).
Globally, average temperature increases reach
2.7°C (min 2.1, max 3.5) by 2100 (IPCC, 2021b).
In New Zealand the increased energy contained
within the atmosphere by this temperature increase
is helping to drive greater extreme weather events
especially in the latter half of the century. By 2050,
the number of hot days (defined as those reaching
over 25°C) in Northland, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s
Bay and Canterbury have increased by an average
of 54%. By 2100 this has increased to 96% (NIWA,
2023). At the same time, the level of precipitation
in the same regions are decreasing, reaching a 10%
reduction by 2100 (NIWA, 2023). In combination,
these changes are driving up drought levels in
Northland and around the East Coast of New
Zealand. While certain regions in New Zealand face
increased drought conditions, other regions are
seeing increased average precipitation. By 2100,
the West Coast of the South Island is experiencing
20% more precipitation during the winter months,
bringing increased risk of floods to the area (NIWA,
2023). The intensity of precipitation around the
lower South Island is also increasing, driving up
the risk of heavy downpours that can create flash
flooding. By the medium and long term, New
Zealand experiences a median increase in sea level
of 0.24 and 0.55m, respectively (NIWA, 2023).
Globally, under the Too Little Too Late scenario,
greater climate fluctuations are predicted
compared to the Orderly scenario (IPCC, 2021a).
However, there are regions that are worse
impacted than others. Stronger temperature
increases are reported over the northern
hemisphere than the southern hemisphere
(Nazarenko, 2022). With regions at high latitudes,
including the Arctic and northern regions of
North America, Europe and Asia, having the most
significant temperature increase, with warming
expected to be twice the global average (3 - 4°C
by 2050) (Nazarenko, 2022).
Prolonged reduction in precipitation is seen in
parts of northern and central Europe, eastern
Africa, and southern Australia increasing risk of
drought (IPCC, 2021a). While parts of South Asia
and East Asia have increased precipitation by
2050, with greater frequency and intensity of
flooding occurring compared to the past (IPCC,
2021a). Sub-Saharan Africa has areas of both
lower and higher precipitation increasing risk
of both flood and drought, further exacerbating
challenges associated with agriculture and food
security in the region (IPCC, 2021a).
Sea-level rise of 0.20m by 2050, and 0.56m by
2100, will affect coastal regions (NASA, 2023).
Small Island Developing States (‘SIDS’) including
low-lying islands in the Pacific, Caribbean and
Indian Ocean are expected to be severely
impacted by the predicted sea-level rise (IPCC,
2021c). In addition, coastal areas worldwide are
projected to face increased risk from storm surges,
flooding, and sea-level rise. This results in loss of
land, damage to infrastructure, displacement of
populations, impacts on coastal ecosystems and
impacts to trade routes (NASA, 2023).
Policy: The European Union (EU), Japan, China,
the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US),
Canada and New Zealand make early climate
policy implementations. For example, national and
international emissions reduction requirements,
mandatory climate-related reporting, emissions
trading schemes, carbon taxes, including border
adjustments, and legislation that bans emissions-
intensive activities, and increase carbon prices,
which act to incentivise decarbonisation. In
2030 the carbon price in New Zealand will reach
NZ$140 per tonne of carbon, whilst globally it
will reach US$34 (CCC, 2022) (NGFS, 2023). In
other parts of the world, however, for example,
the Middle East, Asia (excluding Japan and China)
Australia and central and south America, there is
little policy action incentivising a low emissions
future. From mid-century, climate policy and
price begin to align and accelerate globally. This
shift is partly driven by the increasing evidence
and awareness of the social, economic and
environmental degradation caused by a continued
increase in fossil-fuelled development. By 2050
carbon prices will increase to NZ$250 per tonne
of carbon in New Zealand and US$50 globally
(CCC, 2022) (NGFS, 2023).
Adaptation plans are put in place in developed
nations and act to reduce the physical impacts of
climate change. Regions with limited resources,
infrastructure and adaptive capacity will face
greater challenges in mitigating the physical
effects of climate change and, consequently,
experience greater negative impacts.
Social: Behaviour changes and social pressure
in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand drives decarbonisation in these countries
in the short term, however, outside of these
countries, behaviour change does not begin until
the medium term. Lower GDP growth, together
with higher population estimates, transition
costs and physical climate impacts will increase
inequities, as the world’s more marginalised nations
Scenario 2: Too Litte Too Late
(2°C - 2.6°C)
The ‘Too Little Too Late’ scenario represents
a misaligned and delayed transition to a low
carbon economy between different parts of
the world. In this scenario, some countries
are early movers on the transition to a low
emissions economy, introducing policy that
brings about net zero emissions by 2050. In
other parts of the world, however, there is
little action towards a low emissions future,
with fossil fuelled development continuing
throughout much of the remaining first half of
the century. From mid-century, global efforts
to address climate change begin to align
and exceed those by the early movers. Large
increases in carbon price will drive a rapid
improvement in low emissions technology
efficacy and uptake. This shift is partly driven
by the increasing evidence and awareness
of the social, economic and environmental
degradation caused by a continued increase
in fossil-fuelled development. Despite making
a concerted effort to reduce emissions
and move to a low emissions economy at
mid-century, the changes come too late to
prevent wide-ranging acute and chronic
physical climate impacts. Overall, based
on the literature review and stakeholder
engagement, this scenario represents a high
level of transition risk compared to the other
scenarios and a medium level of physical risk
compared to the other scenarios.
The NGFS Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs) scenario projects 2.6°C
average global temperature rise relative
to pre-industrial levels, associated with
moderate to high physical risk exposure. This
scenario is also characterised by a slower
take up in technology in the first half of the
century, accompanied by less transition risk
on a global scale in the medium term.
06 | Appendices
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
6263Climate Statement
are exposed to higher rates of poverty, political
and economic instability and physical climate
impacts. Prioritisation by developed nations on
covering internal transition costs and an increase in
displaced people seeking to migrate to safer living
conditions, will increase geopolitical tensions,
as will increased challenges in agriculture, food
security and water availability as a result of greater
volatility in precipitation, combined with increased
risk of drought and flood (IPCC, 2021a).
Technological: There are delays in the
development of low emissions and emissions
abatement technology, restricting early climate
moving nations’ progress on decarbonisation until
closer to the medium term, when global efforts to
decarbonise begin to align with early movers.
With renewable electricity technologies already
well developed, New Zealand achieves a 94%
renewable electricity rate in the short term due
to the continued expansion of New Zealand’s
renewable electricity network, especially through
wind, solar and geothermal (CCC, 2021a). This is
well ahead of the global 46% renewable electricity
rate in 2030 (IEA, 2022). The expansion of New
Zealand’s renewable electricity continues in the
medium term. However, a lack of viable renewable
energy storage technology, and the decision not
to invest in the pumped hydro scheme at Lake
Onslow, prevents a 100% renewable electricity
generation rate. Some natural gas usage remains
in the system to provide base load electricity,
which results in 98% renewable electricity rate by
2050 (CCC, 2021b). Globally, by 2050, renewable
electricity rates have increased to 71% through
gradual conversion. Unlike electricity, the uptake of
renewable primary energy in New Zealand is limited
in the short term, as New Zealand faces challenges
in decarbonising process heat systems due to a
lack of investment into low emissions alternatives.
In the medium term, renewable primary energy in
New Zealand increases significantly, reaching 80%
(CCC, 2021b). Much of this increase is driven by the
rise in renewable electricity and the conversion of
low-process heat boilers to biomass and electricity.
Again, New Zealand is well ahead of the global
renewable energy rates of 19% in 2030 and 37% in
2050 (IEA, 2022).
In the transport sector, emissions reductions
happen slowly, with only 6% of the fleet electrified
in the short term. By the medium term, the rate
of fleet electrification reaches 76% (CCC, 2021b).
EV sales reach critical mass and steadily take
over the international vehicle fleet nearer to the
medium term. Residual emissions are largely the
result of aviation emissions, which see little to no
reduction, even by the medium term.
FSC Climate Scenario
Narratives for the Financial
Services Sector
Figure - Too Little Too Late global emission pathway using NGFS data
Economic: The high transition risks combined with medium physical
risks under a Too Little Too Late scenario will lead to significant
financial impacts, such as job loss of 900,000 annually by 2070
and declines in global economic growth in the medium term, with
GDP reaching US$274 trillion by 2050, a reduction of approximately
US$9 trillion compared to an Orderly scenario (Deloitte, 2022),
(NGFS, 2022a). On the other hand, global population growth
exceeds that of an Orderly scenario, with a global population of 9.2
billion people resulting in a lower standard of living for many across
the globe, as a smaller GDP is shared amongst a greater population
by 2100 (IPCC, 2021b).

20202050
2045
204020352030
2025
BtCO2e
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
06 | Appendices
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
6465Climate Statement
Dataset aligned with scenario dimension
The NGFS ‘Current Policies’ (CPs) assumes
that only currently implemented policies are
preserved, leading to high physical risks. Slow
technology uptake and low CDR activity.
Emissions pathway: The Hothouse scenario
shows minimal change in global emissions, as
seen in the figure below, with a slight increase
projected between 2020 -2025 and then gradually
decreasing. Overall, emissions reduce at an
average of 0.4% per annum, leading to an 11%
reduction in net emissions in 2050 compared
to 2020. This reduction leads to net emissions
being 34.3BtCO2e in 2050, well short of net zero
(NGFS, 2023).
Environmental: The lack of action towards climate
change allows for GHG emissions to continue
to rise unabated through the remainder of the
century, leading to severe physical risk. A leading
driver of this physical risk is the increase in global
average temperature, which reaches 2.4°C in
the medium term, climbing to 4.4°C by 2100
(IPCC, 2021a). In New Zealand, temperatures have
increased, on average, by 1.0°C (min 0.5, max 1.7)
by 2050 and 3.0°C (min 2.0, max 4.6) by 2100
(NIWA, 2023).
The variability of climate changes across the
country, increasing over time. In the long term,
New Zealand sees large precipitation changes,
such as on the West Coast in the winter season,
where area-average increases of up to 40% are
experienced (MfE, 2018). The long term also
brings an overall increase in drought intensity
that manifests in several ways. The north and east
of the North Island experience an increase in dry
days and lower rainfall levels (MfE, 2018). This
coincides with an average increase of 50mm in
the July-June potential evapotranspiration deficit
(‘PED’), with the biggest changes arising in the
northern and eastern North Island and areas to
the east of the South Island’s main (MfE, 2018). In
addition to drought, the level of snowfall reduces,
with the number of snow days decreasing by
Scenario 3: Hot House World (>3°C)
This scenario represents minimal action
towards a low carbon global transition.
Despite increasing levels of social, economic
and environmental degradation, there is little
shift in social and political traction towards a
low emissions future. As a result, there is little
behaviour change and a lack of low carbon
emissions technology development. This
leads to a continued and increasing level of
fossil fuel use, strong globalisation, increasing
consumption and materialism. The impact of
these activities continues to drive emissions
higher throughout the remaining 21st century,
leading to significant materialisation of acute
and chronic physical risks. In the first half
of the 21st century this physical risk sees
increasing severity of extreme weather, which
is accompanied by rising sea levels in the
latter half of the 21st century. This threatens
coastal developments worldwide, placing
pressure on global relations. Overall, this
scenario represents a low transition risk and
a high level of physical risk when compared
to the other scenarios. The NGFS Current
Policies scenario assumes that only currently
implemented policies are preserved, leading
to high physical risks and a slow technology
uptake and low CDR activity.
FSC Climate Scenario
Narratives for the Financial
Services Sector
at least 30 days in the long term, reducing the
overall snowpack that supplies several lakes and
rivers in the South Island (MfE, 2018). As with
other physical risks, the high level of emissions
has increased the overall impact of sea-level
rise around the country. The median sea-level
rise around New Zealand reaches 0.28m in the
medium term, increasing to 0.79m in the long
term (MfE, 2017). In the medium term, the high
frequency of extreme weather events sees coastal
areas regularly faced with storm damage.
Globally, under the Hot House World scenario,
greater climate fluctuations are predicted
compared to both Orderly and Too Little Too
Late scenarios (IPCC, 2021a). Global average
temperature is increased by 2050 with regions at
high latitudes, including the Arctic and northern
regions of North America, Europe, and Asia having
the most significant temperature increases, with
warming forecast to be three times the global
average (3 - 5°C by 2050) (Nazarenko, 2022).
Regions that are already prone to water stress,
such as parts of the Mediterranean, the Middle
East, southwestern US and parts of Africa and
Asia, see increased frequency and intensity of
both droughts and floods, with Sub-Saharan
Africa projected to have a 40% increase in
wetness (IPCC, 2021a). Sea-level rise of 0.23m
by 2050, and 0.77m by 2100, will impact coastal
regions (NASA, 2023). SIDS will be severely
impacted by the projected sea-level rise (IPCC,
2021a). In addition, coastal areas worldwide will
face increased risk from storm surges, flooding,
and sea-level rise. This will result in loss of land,
damage to infrastructure, displacement of
populations, impacts coastal ecosystems and
trade routes.
Policy: Early adopters of progressive climate
policy, the EU, the UK, the US, Canada and New
Zealand, reverse, revoke or otherwise roll back
climate policies. Japan, China and Australia
push pause on further development and
implementation of climate policies currently under
development. The Paris Agreement fails as NDCs
are not met and nations begin to withdraw. By
2050 the carbon price in New Zealand is NZ$35
per tonne of carbon, whilst globally it is even
lower at US$6 per tonne of carbon (CCC, 2021a)
(NGFS, 2023). Investment in adaptation is minimal.
Social: There is limited behaviour change or social
pressure to drive decarbonisation globally. The
focus on global growth by any means necessary
drives higher rates of economic inequality,
increasing political instability and geopolitical
tensions around the world. There is an increase in
displaced people seeking to migrate to safer living
conditions.
In New Zealand over the medium term, the
frequency of extreme weather events and
rising sea levels causes economic impacts and
disruptions, reducing quality of life. Hydro lake
levels reach critically low levels, threatening the
reliability of electricity supply to households.
Sea-level rise and increased flooding events make
coastal properties and those properties in flood
plains uninsurable in the short term and over the
long term there is widespread retreat from these
areas and homes as they become uninhabitable.
This leaves these property owners with significant
financial losses. Cities and towns located in areas
affected by sea-level rise and extreme weather
events see a significant loss of population as
people move away from affected areas and
towards elevated, inland areas perceived as lower
risk. This causes a substantial loss of value for all
properties in the areas experiencing population
loss, while the areas people are moving to see
a significant increase in property values and a
housing shortage. Additionally, impacts to the
transport network affects the construction and
property sector, causing issues with the supply
of raw materials to building sites and delaying
the construction of new housing, especially in
high-demand areas. As a result, building costs rise
steadily in the medium term, making it even more
challenging to adapt to the housing challenges
created by climate change.
06 | Appendices
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
6667Climate Statement
FSC Climate Scenario
Narratives for the Financial
Services Sector
Technological: There is an overall lack of
technological change to support emissions
reduction. By 2050, fossil fuels continue to be the
dominant source of primary energy, even after
accounting for current technology trends (IPCC,
2021a). This is reflected in renewable energy
levels, which only reach 61% in New Zealand and
26% globally by 2050 (CCC, 2021a; IEA, 2022)
(IEA, 2021a). Renewable electricity sourcing in
New Zealand, while high by global standards
(93%) has only increased by 1% between 2030
and 2050 to reach 94% (CCC, 2021a; IEA, 2022)
(IEA, 2021a). Although fossil fuels continue to
dominate in the world’s energy mix, the level of
transport electrification in New Zealand continues
to rise out to 2050, with 69% of the national road
transport fleet electrified (CCC, 2021a).
Economic: Unabated productivity by emissions-
intensive industries spur income accumulation
within emissions-intensive sectors, however,
surmounting costs from increasingly pervasive
chronic physical climate change impacts
negatively affect GDP at national and global
scales. US$273 trillion is expected by the medium
term under this scenario, capturing a decrease
of 6% due to chronic physical risk, a difference
of US$11 trillion when compared to an Orderly
scenario (NGFS, 2023)19. Acute physical risk
events will result in widespread displacement,
reduced productivity due to temporary closures
of workplaces and income losses from damage
to assets. Alongside a reduction in GDP, global
population growth exceeds that of the Orderly
scenario, with a total of 8.2 billion people in the
medium term (IPCC, 2021a).
Agriculture continues to grow, using industrial
agriculture fuelled mostly by fossil fuel-based
fertiliser and machinery. Over the short and
medium term, New Zealand’s meat and milk solids
exports increase from 3 billion kilograms in the
short term to 3.1 billion kilograms in the medium
term (CCC, 2021a). In the long term, however, the
ability for continued growth in agriculture becomes
increasingly difficult due to the impacts of extreme
weather around New Zealand. Alternative proteins
increase in popularity in the medium and long
term, largely due to their lower costs to produce
and the ability to improve food security for nations
with limited agricultural land (Te Puna Whakaaronui,
2022). A lack of policy support and behavioural
change sees alternative protein manufacturing
remain a niche industry in New Zealand.
Transport and shipping around the country
are also impacted, with flooding and storms
damaging transport infrastructure and restricting
the ability for goods to move around the country.
This has a flow-on effect on the construction and
property sector, causing issues with the supply of
raw materials to building sites.
20202050
2045
204020352030
2025
BtCO2e
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
06 | Appendices
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Photo: Mahdee Nokairi
Time Horizons narratives
An important part of scenario analysis is selecting
appropriate time horizons. Fisher Funds has
selected these from the FSC’s Climate Scenario
Narratives guide, with some amendments to reflect
the view determined at IMT workshops that took
place for the inaugural reporting period.
The short-term defined time horizon differs from
the FSC short-term horizon of 2025. The IMT
determined this to be too ‘short term’ in nature,
given 2024 was defined as the base year. Given the
change to short term, medium term was altered
from 2030 to 2040 but is within the time horizon
range of 5 - 10 years. There was no change to the
long-term horizon and this is aligned with the FSC
Time Horizons.
Short term: present to 2030
•More or less aligns with short- to medium-term
investment time horizons for investors.
•Aligns with many interim targets of
issuing entities.
•Captures the impact of climate change for
investors who may have liquidation events in
this timeframe
Medium term: present to 2040
•More or less aligns with short- to medium-term
investment horizons for investors.
•Captures the impact of climate change for
investors who may have liquidation events in
this timeframe.
•More likely to capture the impact of policy
changes in countries around the world as
they aim to set up frameworks to encourage
decarbonisation.
Long term: present to 2050
•More or less aligns with long-term investment
horizons for investors.
•Captures the impact of climate change for
investors who may have liquidation events in
this timeframe.
•Captures the impact of climate change over
a long-term horizon where impacts are more
likely to be present in the economy.
06 | Appendices
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
7071Climate Statement
06 | Appendices
Appendix 3Appendix 2
Service description as provided by ISS ESG
Fisher Funds subscribes to Institutional
Shareholder Solutions (ISS) ESG for climate
information and analysis. ISS ESG is a provider of
environmental, social and governance solutions
for asset owners, asset managers, hedge funds
and asset servicing providers. ISS ESG solution
provides climate data, analytics and a bespoke
services to help financial market participants
understand, measure and act on climate-related
risks and opportunities across all asset classes. ISS
ESG platforms are capable of providing carbon
footprinting and climate risk and opportunity
analysis across portfolio assets.
ISS ESG takes an exhaustive approach to data
collection and analysis and delivery to its clients.
The ISS ESG methodologies provide details
about the underlying models used for estimating
non-disclosed data. The ISS ESG methodology
documents the use of estimated data within its
various products and elaborates the extent of
estimated data and therefore assists the clients
in identifying the uncertainties and limitations
associated with the use of this dataset.
More information on ISS ESG methodology can
be found here: www.issgovernance.com/esg/
methodology- information
Adoption provisions
To recognise that it may take time to develop the capability to
produce high-quality climate-related disclosures and that some
disclosure requirements, by their nature, may require an exemption,
NZ CS 2 provides a limited number of adoption provisions from
the disclosure requirements in Aotearoa New Zealand Climate
Standards. Additional amendments were made in November 2024.
The table below outlines the adoption provisions that have been
used in this climate statement.
Provision numberNZ CS 2 adoption provision
2Anticipated financial impacts of physical and
transition impacts identified, available in the
first and second reporting period.
4Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions —
disclosing gross emissions in metric tonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) classified
as scope 3, available in the first and second
reporting period.
5Comparatives for scope 3 GHG emissions —
comparative information for the immediately
preceding 2 reporting periods.
6Comparatives for metrics for scope 3 GHG
emissions — comparative information for the
immediately preceding 2 reporting periods.
7Analysis of trends — analysis of the main
trends evident from a comparison of each
metric from previous reporting periods to the
current reporting period, except for scope 3
GHG emissions.
8For accounting periods prior to 31 December
2025, scope 3 emissions can be excluded
from assurance engagement.
For avoidance of double scope 3 GHG
emissions have not been assured.
Data limitations identified by Fisher Funds
ISS ESG is improving its methodologies and ESG
dataset globally, however, currently some data is
unavailable or uncertain. This means that there
are limits to the reliability of data and analysis that
ISS ESG provides. Through collating and reporting
emissions with ISS ESG, several limitations that
may have an impact on data integrity and the
reporting of information in this climate statement
have been identified. These limitations include:
•Investee entities may not report their emissions,
which results in ISS ESG not collecting data on
these entities.
•There may be a lag between an entity reporting
climate metrics publicly and ISS ESG including
this information in its platform.
•If an entity invested in by the Portfolio does not
report its emissions, ISS ESG may estimate the
emissions based on entities in the sector or
industry, using its proprietary methodologies.
•There is no globally recognised standard for
measuring emissions for some asset classes
(e.g. cash and derivatives).
•Rounding of large numbers in emissions
intensity calculations can cause small
differences in reported values.
•There is a level of uncertainty in the ISS ESG
VaR in quantifying specific dollar impacts for
individual entities on a forward-looking basis.
In light of these limitations, Fisher Funds has
implemented several internal processes and
controls to measure and monitor the materiality
of the data limitations on reporting. Fisher Funds
will continue to work with ISS ESG to improve data
quality and reliability.
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
7273Climate Statement
06 | Appendices
ISS ESG emission data limitations -
fund metrics
ISS ESG’s solution was used to calculate the
emissions profile of each Portfolio. The ISS ESG
solution calculated the emissions profile of each
Fund using the ISS ESG proprietary methodology
to measure the GHG emissions (scope 1 and
scope 2) as set out in this climate statement. The
methodology attributes scope 1 and 2 emissions of
entities the Portfolio has invested in, as a proportion
of the total value of that entity held by the Portfolio.
For the reasons explained above, the disclosures
required by NZ CS 1 (i.e. GHG emissions calculation
standards, consolidation approach and sources and
exclusions) are qualified as follows:
a. Standards: ISS ESG has internal controls
over its data but this has not had a third party
review. This independent assurance is planned
to take place within the next year. In addition
to this, Fisher Funds is developing its own
sample testing process over emissions data
that will be used to verify emissions for future
disclosure periods.
b. Consolidation approach: The entities in which
each Portfolio is invested publish their GHG
emissions data based on the consolidation
approach selected by that entity. As a result, no
single consolidation approach for aggregated
GHG emissions across the funds can be stated.
c. Sources: ISS ESG used several sources
to determine the emissions factors and
global warming potential (including the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) recommendations and regional or
country-level factors) depending on the
information available for the entity in which each
Portfolio invested. As a result, no single source
can be stated.
d. Exclusion criteria: ISS ESG excluded data that
was assessed as unreliable. However, the specific
exclusion sources and underlying rationale were
not disclosed. According to discussions with
ISS ESG, any data that has been excluded was
deemed insufficiently reliable for inclusion.
Appendix 3Appendix 4Appendix 5
Restatements
In future reporting years, Fisher Funds may need
to restate values that have been published in the
current reporting period where there has been a
material change. For example, if an entity a Fund
invests in corrects previously reported emissions
data, metrics that have been disclosed based on
the incorrect information may also need to be
corrected. Restatement will occur typically if data
changes across the Portfolio are in aggregate 5%
or more of total emissions.
The following table shows the highest emitting sectors from the NZIF and GICs.
SectorGICS sector nameGICS sub industry code
Electric utilities
EnergyIntegrated oil and gas
Electric utilities
Utilities

Independent power producers & energy traders
Multi utilities
Oil & gas
Energy



Integrated oil and gas
Oil & gas refining & marketing
Oil & gas exploration and production
Oil & gas storage & transportation
MaterialsDiversified chemicals
Oil & gas (plus
distribution)


Energy

Oil & gas storage & transportation
Oil & gas exploration & production
MaterialsDiversified chemicals
Coal mining




Energy

Coal & consumable fuels
Oil & gas refining & marketing
Consumer discretionaryAutomobile manufacturers
IndustrialsIndustrial conglomerates
MaterialsTrading entities & distributors
Diversified metals and mining
Autos
Consumer discretionaryAutomobile manufacturers
Airlines
IndustrialsAirlines
Shipping

EnergyOil & gas storage & transportation
IndustrialsMarine
Aluminium

MaterialsAluminium
IndustrialsTrading entities and distributors
Cement
MaterialsConstruction materials
Pulp & paper
MaterialsPaper packaging
Paper products
Steel
MaterialsSteel
Chemicals




Materials




Commodity chemicals
Diversified chemicals
Fertilisers and agricultural chemicals
Industrial gases
Specialty chemicals
Diversified mining


Materials


Diversified metals and mining
Copper
Steel
Other industrials
Information technology

Electronic equipment and instruments
Technology hardware, storage and peripherals
Industrials



Aerospace and defence
Construction machinery and heavy trucks
Heavy electrical equipment
Electrical components & equipment
Consumer discretionaryConsumer electronics
MaterialsConstruction materials
Net zero framework highest emitting sectors
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

75Climate Statement
Photo: Mahdee Nokairi
Glossary
TermDefinition
Base yearThe first financial year that a climate-related disclosure relates to. This is a
12-month period against which future metrics can be measured and provides a historic
point for comparison.
Brown and green revenuesThe brown revenue percentage gives the estimated proportion of the issuer’s revenue
considered to be derived from products or services with significant or limited obstruction
to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 Climate Action.
The green revenue percentage gives the estimated proportion of the issuer’s revenue
considered to be derived from products or services with contributions to SDG 13
Climate Action.
Delayed transitionDelayed transition assumes global annual emissions do not decrease until 2030. Strong
policies are then needed to limit warming to below 2°C. Negative emissions are limited.
This scenario assumes new climate policies are not introduced until 2030 and the level
of action differs across countries and regions, based on currently implemented policies,
leading to a ‘fossil recovery’ out of the economic crisis brought about by COVID-19. The
availability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies is assumed to be low, pushing
carbon prices higher than in net zero 2050. As a result, emissions exceed the carbon
budget temporarily and decline more rapidly than in the well-below 2°C scenario after
2030 to ensure a 67% chance of limiting global warming to below 2°C. This leads to both
higher transition and physical risks than the net zero 2050 and below 2°C scenarios.
OpportunitiesThe potentially positive climate-related outcomes for an entity. Efforts to mitigate and
adapt to climate change can produce opportunities for entities, such as through resource
efficiency and cost savings, the adoption and utilisation of low -emissions energy.
SBTsSBTs are goals that organisations set to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in
line with the Paris Agreement to mitigate the worst effects of the climate crisis. Ratified by
more than 190 countries, the Paris Agreement aims to limit the rise of global temperatures
to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while also striving for a limit of 1.5°C.
SBTs:
•No target – no clearly defined GHG emissions reduction targets are set by the entity.
•Non-ambitious target – a clearly defined GHG emissions reduction target set by the
entity, however, the target is not aligned with the emissions reductions required to limit
the global temperature increase to well below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels.
•Ambitious target – a clearly defined GHG emissions reduction target is set by the
entity that may be aligned with the emissions reductions required to limit the global
temperature increase to well below 2°C compared to pre- industrial levels.
•Committed SBT – the entity has set an ambitious target. The entity has publicly
committed to setting a SBT in line with the Science Based Targets Initiative.
•Approved SBT – an ambitious target has been set by the entity, which has been
approved by the Science Based Targets Initiative.
07 | Glossary
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Climate Statement
7677Climate Statement
07 | Glossary
TermDefinition
Scope 1 emissionsScope 1 covers emissions from sources that an organisation owns or controls directly. For
example, from burning fuel in a fleet of vehicles (if they are not electrically powered).
Scope 2 emissionsScope 2 covers emissions that an company entity causes indirectly and come from where
the energy it purchases and uses is produced. For example, the emissions caused when
generating the electricity used in its buildings.
Scope 3 emissions
Scope 3 covers emissions that are not produced by the entity itself and are not the result
of activities from assets owned or controlled by them but by those that it is indirectly
responsible for up and down its value chain. An example of this is when Fisher Funds buys,
uses and disposes of products from suppliers. Scope 3 emissions include all sources not
within the scope 1 and 2 boundaries.
Source: www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-are-scope-1-2-3-
carbon-emissions
tCO
2
eTonnes (t) of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (e). Carbon dioxide equivalent is a standard
unit for counting GHG emissions regardless of whether they are from carbon dioxide or
another gas, such as methane.
Transition riskRisks related to the transition to a low-emissions, climate-resilient global and domestic
economy, such as policy, legal, technology, market and reputation changes associated
with the mitigation and adaptation requirements relating to climate change.
TVaRTVaR measures the potential loss an asset might experience from future decarbonisation
costs and opportunities.
The Transition (and physical) VaR is an equity-based analysis, and its output should not be
interpreted as the potential change in price of a bond. However, the VaAR remains a useful
metric for fixed income as it is a holistic indicator of the issuer’s exposure to physical or
transition risks, even if not directly material to the bond price itself.
Upstream and
downstream emissions
Upstream emissions come from the production of an entity’s products or services.
Downstream emissions come from the products’ use and disposal.
VaRVaR measures individual companies’ exposure to physical risks. Physical risks can have a
financial impact on a company at both the operational and the market level.
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679

Contact: Private Bag 93502,
Takapuna, Auckland 0740
+64 9 489 7094
enquire@kingfish.co.nz
fisherfunds.co.nz
Docusign Envelope ID: 350B6280-134C-458D-9B30-EDEAEE590679