KMD Brands announces Release of Climate-Related Disclosure

KMD BRANDS LIMITED W kmdbrands.com


KMD BRANDS LIMITED
NZX / ASX

28 November 2025

KMD Brands announces Release of Climate-Related Disclosure
KMD Brands Limited (NZX/ASX: KMD, KMD Brands) has today published its second Climate-Related
Disclosure (CRD) prepared in accordance with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CS).
The CRD covers the 12-months ended 31 July 2025 and should be read in conjunction with KMD Brands’ FY25
Annual Integrated Report, released on 24 September 2025.
A copy of KMD Brands’ FY25 CRD is attached and is also available on our investor website at
www.kmdbrands.com/reports.

ENDS

For further information, please contact:
Frances Blundell
E: companysecretary@kmdbrands.com

---

Climate Related
Disclosures
2025

Contents
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Chair and CEO message ......................................................2
1.2 About KMD Brands .................................................................3
1.3 Compliance statement ..........................................................4
1.4 Statement of limitations .......................................................4
2
GOVERNANCE
2.1 Board oversight ........................................................................5
2.2 Role of the management team ........................................6
3
STRATEGY
3.1 Climate scenario analysis .........................................................7
3.2 Climate-related risks and opportunities ...........................9
3.3 Transition planning ....................................................................13
4
RISK MANAGEMENT
4.1 Climate risk identification and assessment ..........16
4.2 Management of climate risks ........................................16
5
METRICS AND TARGETS
5.1 Our GHG emissions inventory ........................................17
5.2 Our targets and performance ........................................18
5.3 Other metrics .........................................................................20
6
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: GHG emissions sources .........................................21
Appendix 2: Glossary ........................................................................24
Appendix 3: Independent Limited Assurance Report ...24
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20251
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

1.1 Chair and CEO message
On behalf of the board of directors, we are pleased
to present KMD Brands’ second Climate-Related
Disclosure (CRD), prepared in accordance with the
Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CS 1,
2, and 3).
KMD Brands Limited (KMD Brands or the Group) is a global outdoor, lifestyle, and
sports company, proudly certified as a B Corporation (B Corp). B Corps are businesses
that are committed to accountability, transparency and continuous improvement.
This year marks a significant step forward in our climate journey, as we deepen our
understanding of the risks and opportunities climate change presents to our business
and continue to evolve our response.
During FY25, we have made important progress in several key areas. We have strengthened
our risk policy and framework, to support greater alignment between our climate risk
assessment process and our enterprise risk management processes. Our scenario analysis
has been updated using recent climate science and data, informed by insights from both
internal experts and external advisors.
A major focus this year has been developing systems to capture the impacts of climate events
across our operations and value chain. This is a complex and ongoing exercise, as reliable data
points remain difficult to source. Nevertheless, we recognise that robust data is essential for
effective decision-making and tracking our progress against our climate commitments.
We have remained actively engaged in consultations on updates to the Aotearoa New Zealand
Climate Standards (NZCS), including recent submissions to ensure the perspectives of KMD
Brands and our stakeholders are reflected in the evolving climate reporting framework. Under the
recently revised thresholds, our formal climate reporting obligations will change from 2026.
While our mandatory reporting obligations are shifting, as a Certified B Corp, we remain
committed to practices that align with our business strategy, shareholder expectations, and
broader responsibility to people and planet. We will carefully consider the needs of all our
stakeholders in how we approach future disclosures.
We are encouraged by the progress made this year but recognise that there are many challenges
ahead that will require continued collaboration, innovation, and resilience. We remain committed
to supporting our teams, supply chain partners, and industry peers as we collectively navigate
the transition to a low-carbon future, while returning to profitable growth for our shareholders.

1. INTRODUCTION
Brent Scrimshaw LEFT
Group CEO and Managing Director
David Kirk RIGHT
Chairman
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20252
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
1. INTRODUCTION
6. APPENDICES

1.2 About KMD Brands
The Group consists of three iconic brands: Kathmandu, Rip Curl, and Oboz.
KMD Brands operates in multiple geographic regions across the globe,
from its corporate office functions, extensive retail footprint, sourcing and
manufacturing of product and wholesale customer distribution, as well as
online presence.
Key to the purpose and vision of KMD Brands is a love of the outdoors.
Each of our three iconic brands creates high-quality products that are
designed for purpose, driven by innovation, aiming to be the best for people
and planet, and made specifically with the outdoors in mind. Be it surfing,
hiking or spending time in the open air, our goal is to promote and enrich
activities that bring our customers the joy of an experience outdoors.
As a B Corp, we are committed to embedding responsible
business practices across all our brands, protecting the
value of our business for long-term success while seeking to
recognise the impact of our business on all stakeholders.
Kathmandu’s journey began in Aotearoa New Zealand more than 30 years
ago. We’re on a mission to improve the wellbeing of the world by getting
more people outdoors – because nature has a positive transformative
effect on us all. The outdoors makes us happier, more open, free and fun.
Our vision at Kathmandu is to be the world’s most loved outdoor brand.
Born in the legendary Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, just outside our
front door, the mountains near Bozeman beckon us. This 10-million-
acre laboratory is where we test our designs and draw inspiration
for new ideas. It’s where we immerse ourselves in nature’s wonders.
It even inspired our name “Oboz” (Outside + Bozeman = Oboz).
Founded in 1969 in Bells Beach, Australia, Rip Curl is the ultimate surfing
company. For more than 50 years, we have led the surfing market and
become synonymous with surf culture. ‘The Search’ – the relentless
pursuit of the perfect wave – lives in the spirit of everything we do.
Our vision is to be the ultimate surfing company in all that we do.
PURPOSE
INSPIRING PEOPLE TO EXPLORE
AND LOVE THE OUTDOORS.
TO BE THE LEADING FAMILY OF
GLOBAL OUTDOOR BRANDS –
DESIGNED FOR PURPOSE, DRIVEN
BY INNOVATION, BEST FOR PEOPLE
AND PLANET.
VISION
Our brands
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20253
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
1. INTRODUCTION
6. APPENDICES

This report contains forward-looking statements and
opinions, including climate-related scenarios, targets,
assumptions, estimates, judgments, climate projections,
forecasts, statements of KMD Brands’ future strategy,
and operating environment, that may not evolve as
anticipated. Such statements are inherently uncertain
and subject to limitations, particularly as inputs, available
data and information are subject to change. We base
those statements and opinions on reasonable information
we know at the date of publication. We do not:
• represent those statements and opinions will not change
or will remain correct after publishing this report, or
• promise to revise or update those statements
and opinions if events or circumstances change
or unanticipated events happen after publishing
this report except as required by law.
The risks and opportunities described in this report, and our
strategies to achieve our targets, may not eventuate or may
be more or less significant than anticipated. There are many
factors that could cause KMD’s actual results, performance
or achievement of climate-related metrics (including
targets) to differ materially from that described, including
economic and technological viability, climatic, government,
consumer, and market factors outside of KMD’s control.
This disclosure sets out our present understanding of KMD’s climate-related
risks and opportunities, our strategy to respond to these risks and opportunities
and our expectations of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change in
relation to the Group, and our approach to scenario analysis. This reflects KMD’s
current understanding as at 18 November 2025.
1.4 Statement of limitations1.3 Compliance statement
During preparation of this disclosure, the New Zealand
Government announced changes to the reporting
thresholds for listed issuers by proposed amendment
to the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. Pending
legislative change, the Financial Markets Authority
(FMA) has recorded that it will take a “no-action
approach” to preparation of statements by affected CREs.
Notwithstanding the “no-action” relief, KMD has chosen
to prepare this CRD in compliance with the NZ CS.
In preparing this statement, KMD Brands has elected
to use the following adoption provisions in NZ CS2:
• Adoption provision 2: Anticipated financial impacts.
• Adoption provision 4: Scope 3 GHG emissions (noting
that KMD Brands has disclosed emissions for all
Scope 3 sources, except for Category 8 (Upstream
leased assets), 10 (Processing of sold products) and
13 (Downstream leased assets), none of which fall
within KMD Brands’ GHG emissions footprint).
• Adoption provisions 5 and 6: Comparatives for Scope 3
GHG emissions and comparatives for metrics (noting
that KMD Brands provides comparative metrics for
FY24 as required).
• Adoption provision 7: Analysis of trends.
• Adoption provision 8: Scope 3 GHG emissions assurance.
This statement is for the FY25 reporting period (1 August
2024 to 31 July 2025) (FY25). These disclosures follow
the NZ CS recommendations and are structured around
four key areas: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management,
Metrics and Targets. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions and metrics disclosed in this statement
should be read with the methodologies, assumptions
and uncertainties set out in Appendix 1 (Table 8).
KMD Brands Limited is a New Zealand registered
company listed on the NZX (primary listing) and ASX
(foreign exempt listing). This CRD includes disclosures
for KMD Brands and each of its subsidiaries, but excludes
certain specific geographic regions of immaterial size
as further described in section 3.1.2. References to KMD
should be taken to include the Group, as appropriate.
This is KMD Brands’ second CRD (group climate statement) as a climate-
reporting entity under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, prepared
in compliance with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards
(NZ CS 1, 2 and 3).
This disclosure was approved on behalf of KMD Brands Limited on 18 November 2025.
We give no representation, guarantee, warranty or
assurance about the future business performance of KMD
Brands, or that the outcomes expressed or implied in any
forward-looking statement made in this document will
eventuate. While we have sought to provide a reasonable
basis for any forward-looking statements, we caution
reliance on representations that are necessarily subject
to material uncertainty, assumptions and data challenges,
particularly given the longer-term horizons required for
CRD disclosures, and that are necessarily less reliable than
other statements KMD may make in its annual reporting.
This disclaimer should be read along with the methodologies,
assumptions and uncertainties and limitations on pages
21 to 23.
Nothing in this statement should be interpreted as capital
growth, earnings or any other legal, financial tax or other
advice or guidance. We disclaim to the fullest extent
permitted by law any loss suffered by reliance on this
disclosure. We expect that forward-looking statements
made in this document will be updated, amended and
restated in future iterations of our disclosures as the quality
and reliability of data, assumptions and methodology
continues to evolve. For detailed information on our financial
performance, please refer to our Annual Integrated Report,
available at https://www.kmdbrands.com/reports.
Brent Scrimshaw
Group CEO and Managing Director
David Kirk
Chairman
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20254
1. INTRODUCTION
6. APPENDICES

2.1 Board oversight
The Board approves and adopts the appropriate policies and
procedures to enable directors, management and employees
to fulfil their functions effectively and responsibly. The Board
meets regularly, at least eight times each year. The Board is
supported in this function by the Audit and Risk Committee
(ARC), which meets at least five times per year, and assists
the Board in discharging its responsibility for strategic
risk oversight. During FY25, the Board was informed about
matters relating to governance of climate-related risks and
opportunities, including consideration of NZ CS requirements,
at the Board meetings held in November 2024 and June
2025, as well as receiving updates from the ARC in August
2024, November 2024, March 2025 and June 2025. The
Board also considered climate-related risks and opportunities
during its review and approval of the refreshed climate
scenarios for KMD in June 2025.
KMD Brands has a Risk Management Policy which is
reviewed annually. The purpose of the Risk Management
Policy is to ensure that, through the KMD Brands Enterprise
Risk Management (ERM) framework, appropriate systems
and methods are designed and implemented to identify,
and to the extent that is reasonably practicable, minimise
and control our material risks in line with our organisational
risk appetite. The ARC reviews reports on assessment of
key material enterprise risks from management, which are
provided at least twice per year. The ARC is also responsible
for oversight of compliance with CRD regulations relevant to
KMD Brands.
During FY25, the KMD Brands Board has continued to
broaden its understanding of climate-related matters
through learning sessions and discussions, drawing on the
wealth of knowledge available both internally within KMD
Brands and from external industry specialists. In addition,
one KMD Brands Director has continued in her role as a
Steering Group member of Chapter Zero New Zealand
which is part of a global network of directors committed
to taking action on climate change. The KMD Brands
Board Charter mandates that directors keep up-to-date
with trends and changes impacting KMD
Brands’ business. It also encourages them
to participate in professional development
courses to maintain their knowledge on
relevant issues. For more information on the
Board’s skills and competencies, refer to the
KMD Brands Corporate Governance Statement.
This document includes a director skills matrix,
which is reviewed and updated annually, and which
includes specific skill categories for ‘Sustainability for
communities, climate and product circularity’ as well as
‘Risk management, including non-financial risk’.
KMD Brands’ commitment as a B Corp embeds
consideration of impacts on all stakeholders and the
environment within the governance processes of KMD
Brands. This approach is entrenched in the Constitution
of KMD Brands and provides a governing framework for
decision making across the organisation. As part of its
stakeholder engagement processes, KMD Brands has
undertaken Group-wide ESG materiality assessments and,
informed by these assessments, has developed a KMD
Brands Environment Social and Governance strategy (the
Group ESG Strategy) that covers the entire Group. These
materiality assessments include consideration of material
issues to KMD Brands’ business such as the impacts of
climate change and biodiversity loss. As part of implementing
this strategy, governance over climate change-related
issues is centrally coordinated. The Board was involved in
the development process which led to the formation of the
Group ESG Strategy. The Board also approved the Strategy’s
final focus areas, metrics and targets, which include metrics
relevant for managing climate-related risks and opportunities.
These metrics are reported on to the Board at least annually.
Performance metrics linked to climate-related risks and
opportunities are also incorporated into remuneration
policies as described in more detail at paragraph 5.3.3 of
this document.
The Board of KMD Brands is responsible for the overall corporate
governance and oversight of risk for the Group, including our response
to the risks and opportunities presented by climate related issues.

2. GOVERNANCE
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20255
1. INTRODUCTION
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
2. GOVERNANCE
6. APPENDICES

2.2 Role of the management team
The Chief Legal and ESG Officer, in conjunction with the
Chief Financial Officer, are responsible for overseeing
and embedding KMD Brands’ ERM framework within the
business, which includes climate-related risk assessment.
Both of these officers report directly to the Group CEO.
The KMD Brands’ group executive leadership team (E LT),
which includes the Brand CEOs, are responsible for
assessment and monitoring of all risks, including climate-
related risks and opportunities. The wider management
team participates in regular risk assessments, at least
twice per year, using the risk management framework to
assess the current level of exposure to, and impact of, risks
to KMD Brands, and to consider whether appropriate risk
mitigation strategies and controls are in place. Reporting
on material risks during each reporting period is provided
twice per year to the ELT and ultimately the Board.
The Group CEO has ultimate oversight over our Group ESG
strategy, with regular reporting to the Board on strategic
performance. The Chief Legal and ESG Officer is responsible
for oversight of KMD Brands’ ESG team, who collectively
implement the Group ESG Strategy. This includes climate
reporting, supply chain engagement, and our emissions
reduction strategy, driving accountability and reporting
on progress internally and externally. The ESG team
interacts with stakeholders across the business to raise
awareness of climate-related issues, provide education on
key policies and initiatives connected to both sustainability
and social initiatives, and partner with the business on
programmes relating to climate risks and opportunities.
Brand CEOs are ultimately responsible for driving activities
within the business units comprising their brands. We
have a detailed ESG strategic plan for each Brand with
specific actions, targets and accountabilities which ladders
up to the Group ESG Strategy. We also plan for, and are
assessed through, a substantial verification process to
maintain B Corp certification across the Group. Our next
group B Corp certification process is due to take place
at the end of calendar year 2026. This process drives
continual improvement as we look for new ways to embed
responsible business practices, process improvements,
and management of climate-related risks and opportunities
across the entire Group in order to maintain certification.
Updates are provided at least annually to the Board on the
progress against key metrics tied to the Group ESG Strategy,
which include climate-related risks and opportunities. Further
information on organisational structure and engagement
with the governance body is provided in Figure 1 opposite.
The Board delegates responsibility for strategy implementation and management
of the ERM framework, which includes assessment and monitoring of, and strategy
relating to, climate-related risks and opportunities, to KMD Brands’ Group
Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director (Group CEO). The Group CEO is
supported by an executive leadership team to deliver on these responsibilities.
Figure 1: Governance structure
GROUP CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER (CEO)
Overall responsibility for
implementation of strategy and
management of the enterprise
risk framework.
Provides reports directly to the
Board on material issues at each
Board meeting.
AUDIT AND
RISK COMMITTEE (ARC)
Responsible for reviewing and
monitoring risk management
polices and systems, and the
framework for material risk
identification and assessment,
including climate-related risks, and
oversight of climate disclosure
reporting. Receives reporting on a
six-monthly basis following ELT
material risk assessments.
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM
(ELT)
Delivery of strategy and
responsible for regular assessment
and monitoring of risk including
control and mitigation strategies.
Contribute to, and consider,
material risk reports on a six-
monthly basis. Provides individual
updates directly to the Board at
least twice per year on key areas of
responsibility.
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
(CFO)
In conjunction with the CLESGO,
responsible for embedding risk
management framework, climate
risk assessment processes and
external reporting. Provides
reports directly to the Board
on material issues at each
Board meeting.
CHIEF LEGAL AND ESG OFFICER
(CLESGO)
In conjunction with the CFO,
responsible for embedding risk
management framework, climate
risk assessment processes and
external reporting. Oversight of the
Group ESG team. Provides twice
yearly reporting on ESG strategy
performance to the Board.
KMD BRANDS BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Responsible for overall corporate governance and oversight of risk, including
climate-related risk and opportunities, key policies and overall strategy.
Receives a report back from the ARC following each ARC meeting.
1. INTRODUCTION
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20256
2. GOVERNANCE
6. APPENDICES

3. STRATEGY
3.1 Climate scenario analysis
3.1.1 Process
As detailed in our first CRD statement, in FY24 KMD
Brands completed an entity-level scenario analysis and risk
assessment of our climate-related risks and opportunities.
During FY25, we revisited and updated our scenario
analysis and climate risk assessment, assisted by Deloitte.
The aim of conducting a risk assessment based on scenario
analysis is not to predict the most likely outcomes of climate
change, but instead, is part of a process for systematically
exploring the effects of a range of plausible and challenging
future events under conditions of uncertainty to build a
better understanding of the potential impacts on our strategy.
The scenarios are intended to provide an opportunity for us
to develop our internal capacity better to understand and
prepare for the uncertain future impacts of climate change.
As part of the review of our climate scenario analysis
during FY25, we considered the material macroeconomic
and geopolitical changes, the financial analysis performed
on KMD Brands’ five key cost drivers (discussed further
below) and emerging climate science and data sets that
informed the basis of our existing climate scenarios, to
determine what changes were needed to our scenarios.
The updated scenario narratives were reviewed and
approved by the Board. We have set out a brief summary
of our updated scenario narratives at 3.1.4 below.
KMD Brands continued with the role of a Steering Committee
(Steer Co) of senior leaders to provide oversight and
make decisions throughout the process of refreshing
scenario narratives. The scenario analysis refresh process
completed during FY25 was a standalone exercise.
3.1.2 Scope and boundary
The scope and boundary of the scenario analysis and
climate risk assessment remains the same as KMD Brands
originally determined in FY24. In determining this scope and
boundary, the Steer Co considered factors including the
licensing component of Rip Curl operations, future consumer
demand, changes in travel demand, reliance on primary
commodities, fluctuations in foreign exchange rates that
could impact cash flow and revenue, geographical location
of suppliers and manufacturers, physical location of stores
(both owned and operated, and of wholesale partners)
with the following scope and boundaries determined:
• Regions – South America, Africa and the Middle East
were deemed to be out of scope due to the limited
size and materiality of the business in those regions.
• Brands – all three Brands, Rip Curl, Kathmandu and Oboz,
were in scope.
• Value chain inclusions – four-tiers upstream were included
and one-tier downstream (refer to Figure 2 opposite).
We aligned with the time horizons adopted in KPMG’s
“The Futures of Retail” report (Retail Sector Scenario
Analysis). This sector level scenario analysis, which KMD
Brands participated in forming during FY23, sets out
integrated climate change scenarios for New Zealand’s
retail sector. While several of the driving forces identified
in the Retail Sector Scenario Analysis were adopted, a
number were adjusted to reflect the drivers most relevant
to KMD Brands. The time horizons against which our
climate risk assessment and scenario analysis were
performed are consistent with the tenure of our profile of
retail store leases, the useful life of key IT systems, and
the usual cycle of the KMD Brands purchase cycle.
The time horizons adopted were:
• Short-term is defined as Present day to 2030
• Medium-term is defined as 2031 to 2040
• Long-term is defined as 2041 to 2050.
Figure 2: Value chain inclusions
• Take-back, repair,
resale and recycling
programs
• Consumer
preferences
and behaviour
(including impacts
on consumer
leisure travel)
• Retail and wholesale
network
• Freight, Distribution
Centres and third-
party logistics
• Different channels
to market:
e-commerce, retail,
wholesale, licensing
• Final stage
manufacturing
• Transporting of
products to port
• Raw material
production
• Raw material
sourcing
• Synthetic /
natural fibres
• Transporting
materials from
farm to processing
factories
DOWNSTREAM
KMD RETAIL
& WHOLESALE
OPERATIONSUPSTREAM
• Raw material
processing and
fabric mills
• Transporting
of raw material
from processing
factories to final
manufacturing
factories
TIER 1
TIER 2 & 3
TIER 4
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20257
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

1. The global warming scenarios selected by KMD Brands differ from those chosen in the Retail Sector Scenario Analysis. This is because at the time of conducting the
scenario analysis, there was no available downscaled data for the SSP3 — 7.0 scenario which would impact the ability to use this scenario for the physical risk assessment
process. For the physical risk rating exercise, it was agreed to use the SSP 2, RCP 4.5 degree scenario to allow for a better comparison to provide a clearer low, middle and
high ground for emissions pathways.
2. Temperature estimate range 1.6°C by 2060, 1.4°C by 2100: IPCC AR6 report – Summary for Policymakers (ipcc.ch)
3. NGFS Short-Term Climate Scenarios Technical Documentation, May 2025.
4. Carbon removal includes sequestration from forestry and nature based solutions.
Table 1: Pathway overview and key assumptions
3.1.3 Scenarios and pathways adopted
We referenced the Network for Greening the Financial
System (NGFS) scenarios detailed in Table 1 below to
consider the physical and transition-related impacts for
KMD Brands over each time horizon. Given KMD Brands’
global reach, we took the high-level scenario architecture
and learnings, and scenario outputs, from the Retail Sector
Scenario Analysis and expanded on the relevant parts to
encompass the global footprint of our operations, with more
focus on our specific business model (encompassing both
retail and wholesale channels) and by making additional or
differentiated assumptions where needed. We selected these
scenarios as being most relevant and appropriate to assess
the resilience of our business model and strategy as they are
easily comparable to other retailers, which encouraged us
to select pathways aligned with the Retail Sector Scenario
Analysis where it made sense to do so, but tailored in places
representative of the global, rather than New Zealand specific,
focus of our business, and utilising more up to date data.
1
ORDERLY DISORDERLY HOT HOUSE WORLD
NGFSNet Zero 2050 (1.5°C)
2

and Highway to Paris
3
Delayed Transition (1.7°C)
and Sudden Wake-up Call
Current Policies (3°C+)
and Disasters and
Policy Stagnation
IPCCSSP 1-1.9, 1.4°CSSP 1-2.6, 1.8°CSSP 5-8.5, 4.4°C
NIWARCP 1.9RCP 2.6, 4.5RCP 8.5
Policy ambition1 . 4°C1.6°C3°C+
Policy reaction to climate change Immediate and smooth Delayed Current policies only
Regional policy variationMedium variationHigh variationLow variation
Carbon removal
4
Medium-high useMedium useLow use
Technology changeFast changeSlow then fast changeSlow change
Short-term
Present day to 2030
Physical impacts:
Low to Medium
Transition impacts:
High
Physical impacts:
Low to Medium
Transition impacts:
Low to Medium
Physical impacts:
Low to Medium
Transition impacts:
Low
Medium-term
2031 to 2040
Physical impacts:
Low to Medium
Transition impacts: High
Physical impacts: Medium
Transition impacts: High
Physical impacts: High
Transition impacts: Low
Long-term
2041 to 2050
Physical impacts: Low
Transition impacts: Low
Physical impacts: Medium
Transition impacts: Low
Physical impacts: High
Transition impacts: Low
We adopted the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP)
provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC AR6) to assess KMD Brands
evolving risk profile. The global data sets that informed
the KMD Brands scenario analysis included the IPCC AR6
dataset and the NGFS Regional Model of Investments and
Development (REMIND) and Global Change Assessment
Model (GCAM) datasets. The NGFS released an updated data
set (Phase V) in November 2024 that presents significant
changes to the data set it previously published which has
been reflected in our updated scenario narratives. The SSPs
build upon the Representative Concentration Pathways
(RCPs) from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5).
We used the RCP scenarios (that are aligned to the SSP
scenarios) from IPCC AR5 for climate metrics that have not
yet been developed within the IPCC AR6 models. In our FY25
scenario refresh, we also incorporated the NGFS short-term
scenarios released in May 2025 which provide a framework
for assessing the immediate impacts of climate change and
policy developments on economies and financial systems.
These scenarios provide a snapshot of the evolving risk
profile over time in relation to increasing increments of
global warming. These scenarios represent three plausible
futures under which the emissions concentration in the
Earth’s atmosphere, the corresponding global earth surface
temperatures and resulting climate hazard impacts are
linked to political, social and economic conditions.
3.1.4 Climate scenario narratives
To set the scene for our annual physical climate risk and
transition risk register refresh, the scenarios summarised in
this section 3.1.4 were presented to the Steer Co in multimedia
and written format. The scenarios were designed to aid an
understanding of the nuances of each scenario; to reflect
material data updates; and to convey the potential impact
that recent geopolitical shifts could have on each scenario’s
warming trajectory. The scenarios were informed by financial
scenario analysis performed on our five climate-related cost
drivers, which are explained in section 3.2. This information
enabled the Steer Co to critically review the existing climate risk
register and the existing risk ratings, and to adjust accordingly.
A brief description of the revised climate scenario narratives
we adopted in FY25 is set out in the following paragraphs. It is
emphasised that these are subject to uncertainty and material
change as better data becomes available and climate modelling
further develops.
Orderly
Early and coordinated global action drives investment
into low-carbon technologies, supported by stable carbon
markets, disclosure mandates, and carbon border taxes
that help halve emissions by 2030 and reach net zero
by 2050. Geopolitical tensions accelerate the shift to
renewables, making clean energy more affordable and
enabling manufacturers to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
Rapid AI adoption boosts clean energy capacity and
circular manufacturing, while consumer and investor
demand promotes product decarbonisation and low-
carbon shipping. Although transition risks are high in the
short to medium term, long-term physical risks are low,
with weather-related insurance costs rising but mitigated
by adaptive business models like asset leasing.
Disorderly
Fragmented global responses and policy reversals, especially
by major emitters, undermine climate commitments, stall
investment in green technologies, and erode investor
confidence. Delayed carbon border taxes and weak shipping
levies limit emissions reductions, while a sudden policy
shift post-2027 triggers financial instability and inflation,
dampening retail demand and increasing production costs.
Climate-related damage escalates, driving up insurance
costs and forcing relocations, while volatile commodity
pricing and slow adoption of low-carbon technologies hinder
sustainable product development. The result is higher near-
term emissions, more frequent extreme weather events, and
increased exposure to physical climate risks, making late-
stage transitions significantly more costly for businesses.
Hot house world
Global retreat from climate commitments leads to fossil
fuel-dependent growth, minimal decarbonisation investment,
and a failure to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Transition
risks remain low, but physical climate risks escalate sharply,
causing resource scarcity, price volatility, and widespread
disruption across the textile supply chain. Economic
instability, rising inflation, and climate-induced migration
drive up costs, reduce demand, and strain labour availability,
while weak regulation allows unchecked capital flows and
environmental degradation. Frequent extreme weather
events, rising insurance costs, and sea level rise force
retail relocations and undermine profitability, with strained
global tourism and climate-related barriers to leisure
activities reducing demand for specialised products.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20258
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

During our FY25 climate risk review, we performed quantitative
analysis to determine the most material risks to our business, and to
begin to quantify our anticipated financial exposure to climate risk.
To better understand the extent to which KMD Brands is
vulnerable to climate change, we took a value chain
approach to our climate risk assessment to quantify the
impact of climate change on KMD Brands' five key cost
drivers: commodity prices, logistics costs, labour and
manufacturing costs, fixed assets and inventory (costs
associated with damage recovery and asset loss), and
consumer demand attrition.
We then considered the previous year's climate risk
register by cost driver against the outputs of the
quantitative climate data analysis (for physical risks),
and in the context of our updated scenario narratives.
This enabled us to critically review and qualify the
relevance of the top scoring 20 risks identified during
the previous reporting cycle; and to determine whether
the ratings of these risks would need to be adjusted.
Applying this approach to our top 20 risks by risk score
enabled us to assess our vulnerability to climate hazards.
Our climate risk ratings were revised on this basis and are
set out in Tables 2 and 3 on the following pages. By applying
a materiality threshold, we were able to determine that none
of the top 20 rated climate risks present a material threat to
KMD’s value in the short-term. If left unmanaged, however,
these risks could materially impact revenue and margin in
the medium and long-term. We have applied materiality in
relation to our assessment of these risks, utilising the risk
scoring methodologies which we set out in section 4.1.
Through quantitative analysis and scenario refinement,
our reassessment of physical climate risks saw movement
within our top twenty rated risks, reflecting improved data
and a more targeted understanding of exposure across our
value chain.
Year-on-year changes in transition risk ratings reflect both
regulatory developments and revised impact timelines.
While some ratings increased due to
approaching regulatory implementation dates
and evolving customer expectations, others
decreased or were removed from our reporting
as anticipated impacts have not materialised
within previously expected timeframes.
The climate related opportunities set out in Table 4, if
accessed through future changes to our business, are
believed to have the potential to improve our financial
performance, and also reduce our impact on the planet.
This year’s review of climate-related opportunities
focused on identifying those that are genuinely additive
to our strategy. Opportunities that were previously included
but found to be by-products of risk events or extensions
of existing practices have been removed, ensuring our
reporting reflects only material and strategic value creation.
Other risks and opportunities that did not meet a
materiality threshold have not been disclosed. However,
we will continue to monitor the materiality of those
risks and opportunities and adjust our disclosures in
future as required to reflect changes over time.

3.2 Climate-related risks
and opportunities
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 20259
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

Physical risks
KMD Brands’ climate risk assessment shows that the company is most vulnerable to physical climate risks like extreme weather, wildfires, heatwaves, and floods. These impacts will likely be experienced across the entire value chain, from grower to end-consumer.
However, the overall risk exposure is low over the time horizons considered in our assessment based on current, available data. Under our time horizons to 2050, the impacts under all three scenarios are not widely differentiated, with physical risks in the short
and medium-term ranked as minor exposure, rising to moderate to high exposure for extreme weather events and increased temperatures under the Hot House World scenario by 2050. The difference in the scale and severity of the impacts between the three
scenarios is expected to be more pronounced in the period 2050 to 2100 which is not covered by this analysis.
Table 2: Physical risks
RISK SCORE AND SCENARIO
CategoryDescriptionCurrent impacts during the reporting periodAnticipated impactsTime horizonOrderlyDisorderlyHot HouseGeography most impacted
Extreme
weather events
Increase in intensity of
average wind speed and
number of windy days.
Increase in intensity and
frequency of cyclone events.
• Observed physical impact: Tropical Cyclone
Alfred impacted South East Queensland
and Northern New South Wales in March
2025 resulting in lost trading days.
• Current financial impact: No material
financial impact from this physical
impact during the reporting period.
• Closure of factories, warehouses and stores impacting
production timelines, distribution and sale of product (R-P1).
• Damage to inventory, store fit outs and raw materials
resulting in write offs and loss of revenue (R-P2).
• Grid blackouts and communications network outages
negatively impacting productivity (R-P3).
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Asia, Australasia
Increased
temperatures
Increasing annual average
temperatures resulting in
significantly more hot days
per annum causing extended
dry periods.
• Observed physical impact: 50+
days of temperatures over 36°C at
our OnSmooth Factory in Chiang Mai
Thailand during the reporting period
resulting in lost production time.
• Current financial impact: No material
financial impact from this physical
impact during the reporting period.
• More hot days are expected to reduce sales, especially in
rainwear and insulation, which are highly weather-sensitive
categories (R-P4).
• Negative impacts on raw material production and growing
conditions reducing quality of, and accessibility to, key
commodities increasing price and procurement cost. This
may impact product margin and reduce revenue (R-P5).
• Impacts on working conditions for our own, and contracted
supplier, employees, reducing productivity and delaying
product timelines (R-P6).
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Australasia, Asia, Americas
Pluvial and
fluvial flooding
Increasing frequency and
intensity of pluvial flooding
due to increasing extreme,
rare rainfall events.
• Observed physical impact: Our Chiang Mai
factory was flooded in October 2024 resulting
in damage to inventory, fixed assets (plant
and equipment) and lost production time.
• Current financial impact: No material
financial impact from this physical
impact during the reporting period.
• Damage to warehouses, stores and inventory causing loss
of revenue (R-P7).
• Transport and shipping delays resulting in loss of revenue
(R-P8).
• Impacts on manufacturing suppliers in areas where
flooding is occurring with greater frequency impacting
lead times and capacity for product delivery (R-P9).
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Australasia, Asia
WildfireIncrease in wildfire
events due to increasing
temperatures, lower rainfall
and drought conditions.
• Observed physical impact: The Los
Angeles City wildfires in January 2025
caused power supply loss to our 3rd
party logistics warehouse in California
impacting despatch timeframes.
• Current financial impact: No material
financial impact from this physical
impact during the reporting period.
• Inventory loss, store fit out damage, loss of revenue (R-P10).
• Disruption of transport networks causing delay in
movement of product (R-P11).
• Delays in wholesale customer payments causing an
increase in accounts receivable and an increase in bad
debts (R-P12).
• Impacts on air quality on employee health and consumer
activities post wild-fire event (R-P13).
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Australasia, Americas
and South East Asia
Risk rating:

Very low

Minor

Moderate

High

Extreme Time horizons: Short Present day to 2030 Medium 2031 to 2040 Long 2041 to 2050
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202510
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

Transition risks
Transition risks are the potential challenges that emerge as global economic growth decouples from fossil fuels. These risks are influenced by a range of socio-political factors, including evolving climate policies, changing investor and consumer attitudes, and the
introduction of innovative technologies. Under the “Orderly” and “Disorderly” scenarios, transition risks are anticipated to have the most significant impact because these scenarios involve the implementation of global policies designed to mitigate the effects of
climate change. Conversely, in a “Hot House” scenario, substantial policy changes are not expected to take place, transition risks are not likely to be experienced and therefore, no “impact” rating has been given. Transition risks were considered across the time
horizons extending out to 2050 and rated based on anticipated timing of impact and timeframe for action. We also considered the impact that each risk would have on our business operations, applying a 5-tier ‘impact’ score. The urgency and impact ratings were
combined to give our final transition risk score.
Table 3: Transition risks
RISK SCORE AND SCENARIO
CategoryDescriptionCurrent impacts during the reporting periodAnticipated impactsTime horizonOrderlyDisorderlyGeography
MarketConsumer preference for
sustainable product
• Observed transition impact: Consumer
purchase behaviours driven by promotional
pricing.
• Current financial impact: No material
financial impact from this transition impact
during the reporting period.
• Limited consumer willingness to pay for low-emissions
product ranges, posing a risk to market share and
reduced revenue (R-T1).
Short-term and
Medium-term
Global
Policy, legal and
technology
Investment required for
transition capabilities
• Observed transition impact: Evolving
EU climate-related regulations targeting
the textile and apparel sector are adding
cost and operational complexity through
new product disclosure and end-of-
life management requirements.
• Current financial impact: No material
financial impact from this transition
impact during the reporting period.
• Global product traceability and disclosure requirements
may increase operational costs and disrupt design
workflows, affecting delivery timelines and resource
allocation (R-T2).
Short-term and
Medium-term
Europe, Australasia
ReputationInvestor sentiment• Observed transition impact: Investor
sentiment continues to support
ESG as a priority for many, though
there is an observable variability
in views on its importance.
• Current financial impact: No material
financial impact from this transition
impact during the reporting period.
• Failure to meet defined sustainability targets and
investor expectations which may result in a reduced
share price and availability of finance (R-T3).
Short-term and
Medium-term
Global
Risk rating:

Very low

Minor

Moderate

High

Extreme Time horizons: Short Present day to 2030 Medium 2031 to 2040 Long 2041 to 2050
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202511
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

Opportunities
Opportunities refer to the potential benefits and positive outcomes that could be realised by KMD Brands as we adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. By identifying and capitalising on these opportunities, we can mitigate climate-related risks and
drive sustainable growth for our business. Each opportunity would require investment and a change in strategic focus, which are important considerations in our strategic planning. Opportunities were considered across the time horizons extending out to 2050
and rated based on urgency of required action considering anticipated timing of opportunity impact. For physical opportunities, we also evaluated the impact that each opportunity would have on our business operations and resilience, applying a 5-tier ‘impact’
score. The urgency and impact ratings were combined to give our final opportunity score. For Transition Opportunities, in a “Hot House” scenario, substantial policy changes are not expected to take place, therefore opportunities are not likely to be experienced
and therefore, no “anticipated impact” rating has been given.
Table 4: Opportunities
PHYSICAL
OPPORTUNITY SCORE AND SCENARIO
CategoryDescriptionAnticipated impactsTime horizonOrderlyDisorderlyHot HouseGeography most impacted
Increased
product demand
More pronounced weather
patterns and more extreme
seasonality of conditions.
• Greater consumer demand for products used for specific weather conditions resulting in
increased sales in key product categories and support for increased margin (O-P1).
Short-term
Medium-term
Long-term
Global
TRANSITION
OPPORTUNITY SCORE AND SCENARIO
CategoryDescriptionAnticipated impactsTime horizonOrderlyDisorderlyGeography most impacted
MarketPotential for increased
profitability and growth
driven by rising demand for
climate-responsive products,
reduced competition in
existing markets, and
heightened barriers to entry
for new market participants.
• Ability to build a strong customer value proposition and expand market presence
through demonstration of sustainable business practices resulting in increased
sales, greater customer loyalty and market share growth (O-T1).
Short-term and
Medium-term
Global
Energy SourceEarly adoption of renewable
energy sources
• Early investment in solar energy across key operating sites may reduce energy costs
in the longer term, improving operating profit and reducing emissions (O-T2).

Short-term and
Medium-term
Global
Risk rating:

Insignificant

Possible

Moderate

Strong

Significant Time horizons: Short Present day to 2030 Medium 2031 to 2040 Long 2041 to 2050
Risk rating:

Insignificant

Possible

Moderate

Strong

Significant Time horizons: Short Present day to 2030 Medium 2031 to 2040 Long 2041 to 2050
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202512
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

3.3 Transition planning
3.3.1 Current Business Model and Strategy
KMD Brands operates a global, brand-led business model
focused on delivering connected consumer experiences
through technical products, distinctive design, and fast
go-to-market execution.
Our strategy is underpinned by intelligent decision-making,
data-informed shared services, scalable processes, and
integrated technology systems. Responsible financial
governance supports sustainable profitability, cost discipline,
and ROI-focused capital allocation across our portfolio.
Our global operations are supported by Centres of Excellence
(CoEs) in Supply Chain Management, Finance, People,
Property, Legal, ESG, and IT. These CoEs centralise expertise,
drive operational efficiencies, and promote best practices
across our three brands – Kathmandu, Rip Curl, and Oboz. As
a certified B Corp, we are committed to positive social and
environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.
Global footprint
SOUTH AMERICATOTAL
Owned stores8
Licensed stores107
Wholesale doors+800
Materials sourcingBrazil
Factories
(Total Tier 1, % of KMD
Brands spend on branded product)
7, <1%
FRANCE
BRAZIL
USA
CANADA
Bozeman
Vancouver
San Clemente
Global Office Locations
São Paulo
Hossegor
AUSTRALASIATOTAL
Owned stores264
Licensed stores19
Wholesale doors+900
Materials sourcing
Australia,
New Zealand
Factories
(Total Tier 1, % of KMD
Brands spend on branded product)

4, <1%
ASIATOTAL
Licensed and JV stores78
Wholesale doors+300
Materials sourcingVietnam, China, Thailand,
Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia,
South Korea, Bangladesh,
India, Pakistan
Factories
(Total Tier 1, % of KMD
Brands spend on branded product)

126, 98%
EUROPETOTAL
Owned stores29
Licensed stores10
Wholesale doors+1,900
Materials sourcingFrance
Factories
(Total Tier 1, % of KMD
Brands spend on branded product)

4, <1%
NEW ZEALAND
AUSTRALIA
INDONESIA
THAILAND
Chiang Mai
Bangkok
Bali
Torquay
Christchurch
Melbourne
GRI 2-1
AFRICA &
MIDDLE EASTTOTAL
Licensed stores40
Materials sourcingSouth Africa
Factories
(Total Tier 1, % of KMD
Brands spend on branded product)

0, 0%
NORTH AMERICATOTAL
Owned stores27
Licensed stores26
Wholesale doors+3,900
Materials sourcingUSA
Factories
(Total Tier 1, % of KMD
Brands spend on branded product)

1, <1%
KMD Brands Annual Integrated Report 202567
2. CREATING VALUE
3. FINANCIAL REPORT
4. ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
1. OVERVIEW
COMMERCIALSYSTEMSFINANCE
PEOPLELEGALESG
Our Group Functions
Our shared Group support functions provide centres of excellence, implement
common platforms and leverage scale across our brands.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202513
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

3.3.2 Transition Plan Aspects of Our Strategy
In our second year of CRD, KMD Brands is articulating
below the principles guiding development of our transition
plan, designed to enhance the resilience of our business
model to climate change risks and to take advantage
of opportunities. Our approach is informed by the UK
Transition Plan Taskforce 2023 framework, focusing on:
• Decarbonising the Business: We aim to reduce
Scope 1 and 2 emissions by at least 47% by July
2030 (from a FY19 base), through solar installations,
energy efficiency upgrades, and transitioning our
vehicle fleet to hybrid/electric. Selected Scope 3
emissions, including, but not limited to, freight, waste,
and purchased goods and services, are targeted for
a minimum 28% reduction by July 2030 (against a
FY19 base). Waste reduction initiatives aim to divert
90% of operational waste from landfill by 2030.
• Responding to Climate-Related Risks and
Opportunities: We are working to actively increase the
use of responsibly sourced materials in our products,
invest in technical innovation, and closely monitor
our retail stores and key operational sites to mitigate
climate-related hazards. Our commitment to product
innovation and deep category expertise will enable
us to remain agile in the face of changing climatic
conditions, while strengthening our customer value
proposition and expanding market presence through
the demonstration of sustainable business practices.
• Contributing to an Economy-Wide Transition:
We actively participate in key industry groups, such
as the B Corp community, Seamless (Australia) and
Mindful Fashion New Zealand, and seek to foster
consumer uptake of circular business models, and
encourage supply chain transparency. Initiatives
include product take-back, renewal, repair, and
recycling programs across our brands, and encouraging
verified energy data reporting from our suppliers.
KMD Brands’ Transition Plan, outlined on the following
page, is intentionally designed to be agile and adaptive,
enabling us to respond swiftly to evolving consumer
preferences, market dynamics, and climate-related
developments. We acknowledge that climate scenarios
are not forecasts, and our strategic approach remains
grounded in adaptability and responsiveness. In developing
our Transition Plan, we have identified a set of key
actions already underway, which form part of our existing
Group ESG Strategy and our newly launched ‘Next Level’
strategy reset announced at the beginning of FY26.
These actions provide the foundation for our current
priorities and are expected to evolve over time, building
on progress achieved and aligning with shifts in consumer
demand and climate-related risks and opportunities.
At this stage, we do not anticipate significant changes to our
overarching strategy as a result of our Transition Plan. Rather,
the initiatives are embedded within our current strategic
framework and are aligned with mitigating climate risks and
capturing opportunities. Successful delivery of the plan will
depend on addressing several key challenges, including
supplier engagement, reliability of Scope 3 emissions
data, cost and capital constraints, and the pressures of a
difficult trading environment. These factors will be closely
monitored, and our approach will be adapted as needed.
3.3.3 Alignment with Capital Deployment and
Funding Decision-Making
While climate-related risks and opportunities are not yet
fully integrated into all internal capital deployment and
funding decisions, the transition initiatives outlined on the
following page already form part of our broader Group
ESG strategy and annual budget processes. For example,
capital expenditure and operational funding have been
allocated to solar investments, low-emission lighting
upgrades, product emission reporting tools and circular
business model programs. We have included further
detail in section 5.3.2 (Table 7) on the capital investment
during FY25. Financial accountability is also embedded
through sustainability-linked loan (SLL) commitments,
which apply across our syndicated debt funding facility.
OUR PEOPLE,
OUR COMMUNITIES
SCIENCE-BASED
CLIMATE ACTION
CIRCULAR
BUSINESS
MODELS
KMD Brands Group ESG Strategy
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202514
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

KMD BRANDS HIGH-LEVEL TRANSITION PLAN
The key principles of our Transition Plan at page 14 above aim to embed decarbonisation of our business within our strategic thinking and value chain operations, while responding to our climate-related risks and opportunities and contributing to
an economy-wide decarbonisation transition. Our priority areas, existing work and planned initiatives are set out below. Further detail about KMD Brands’ climate-related risks and opportunities are set out on pages 10 to 12.
Key Transition Plan Actions and Risks/Opportunities:
Priority areaActions already underwayAchievements to dateCurrent strategy and planned initiativesRelevant Risk/Opportunity
Scope 1 and 2 emissions reductionSolar installations, energy efficiency, electric vehicle
pilot for AU fleet
Solar at 22 sites, EV trial• Expand solar and upgrade HVAC systems at key
strategic AU sites
• Vehicle fleet transition
O -T 2 , R-T 3
Scope 3 emissions reductionFreight consolidation, 3PL partnerships, product impact
analysis for Scope 3 data quality improvement
17% air freight emissions reduction (FY24 vs. FY25)• 3D design platform
• Science Based Target (SBT) / Sustainability Linked
Loan target (SLL)
• Embedding new technology tools to improve
Scope 3 data quality
R-T 3
Waste reductionWaste audits, waste-to-landfill diversion72% waste diverted from landfill FY25• Scope 3 SBT/SLL targets R-T 3
Responsible materialsIncrease responsible material content in our productsFor FY25:
• Kathmandu 100% sustainable cotton;
• Rip Curl 47% of wetsuit range containing responsibly
sourced materials;
• Oboz 64% of range using a minimum of 20% environmentally
preferred materials by weight
• Traceability tools
• Product lifecycle management (PLM) system
investment
• Focus on responsible material innovation
R-P5, R-T2
Product innovationCategory expertise in insulation, rainwear, UPF wearWinner of three product innovation ISPO awards in FY25 • Focus on technical products and speed-to-market
• Circular design processes
O-P1, R-P4
Store network resilienceClimate hazard monitoringGeographic Information System (GIS) completed on impacts of
extreme heat, extreme rainfall and storm surge, on key asset
register locations
• Monitor climate events and respond as needed to
alter store operations to limit potential damage
R-P1, R-P2, R-P7, R-P10
Circular modelsTake-back, repair, recycling, rental programs
established
Multiple customer take-back programs launched; global repair
services, resale in AU/NZ, rental services in EU
• Increase communication of programs to customers
to build awareness
O-T1, R-T1
Supply chain engagement Energy data reporting136 factories reporting verified GHG data in FY25• Support continued supplier uptake and engagement
of the Higg Facility Environmental module (FEM)
R-T 3
Industry collaborationMaintaining key industry membershipsGroup B Corp certification achieved 2023• Complete Group B Corp recertification calendar
year 2026
R-T 3 , O -T 1
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202515
3. STRATEGY
6. APPENDICES

4. RISK MANAGEMENT
Overall risk identification and assessment at KMD Brands is completed
according to the Risk Management Policy and ERM Framework approved
by the Board of Directors, which outline the process for the identification,
classification, review and control of business risks.
The Framework incorporates a set of risk appetite
statements, approved by the Board, which establish the
Group’s appetite for risk in each of the key areas of our
business strategy. The ERM framework sets out the
guiding principles, roles and responsibilities of the risk
assessment process and reporting requirements. The
Board recognises that some element of risk is inherently
necessary in order to achieve the strategic aims for the
Group’s businesses and to deliver value to shareholders.
During FY25, we refreshed our Risk Management Policy
and ERM Framework to further support greater alignment
of our climate risk assessment process to the KMD Brands
ERM framework. The methodologies and frameworks for
climate risk assessment and enterprise risk management
differ significantly, presenting challenges for full integration.
However, we were pleased to make progress during the
year through development of an internal methodology
to enable us to align the overall severity rating of climate
risks identified through the scenario analysis and risk
assessment process into our broader enterprise risk
assessment processes and underlying risk register.
We expect to continue to conduct climate and enterprise
risk management assessments separately, utilising
designated workshops and distinct methodologies
for initial ratings. However, by applying our internal
methodology for conversion across climate related
risks, we can align the outcomes of both assessments,
ensuring consistency in both ratings and terminology.
5.

For the physical risk rating exercise, SSP 2, RCP 4.5 degree scenario was used to allow for better comparison to provide a clear low, middle and high ground for emissions pathways.
During FY25, through workshops involving KMD Brands’
subject matter experts (SMEs), we revisited the list of
climate risks originally identified in FY24 through the
categorisation of material cost drivers. KMD Brands’
SMEs discussed and explored what had changed since
the original risk rating process in FY24 that may increase
or decrease the potential risk to KMD Brands from key
climate hazards. SMEs were asked to consider if there were
any additional or emerging material risks or opportunities
that should be added to the risk register. We incorporated
the results of the further Geographic Information System
analysis (further detail is provided in the “Metrics and
Targets” section) completed during FY25, and the updates
to the climate scenarios approved by the Board.
SMEs were then asked to consider, and, if necessary,
adjust the rating for each material risk statement over
the three time horizons (identified at page 10 for physical
risks and page 11 for transition risks), in relation to each
of the three warming-scenarios selected using the
scoring methodology set out on the page opposite.
The application of materiality is grounded in our risk
assessment processes, and incorporates both a qualitative
and quantitative analysis, utilising the risk scoring
methodologies which we set out on the page opposite.
4.2 Management of climate risks
The outputs of the FY25 climate risk assessment review
workshops were analysed and considered in the context
of our broader ERM framework, to allow us to prioritise the
climate risks that require close monitoring and treatment
over time. Using KMD Brands’ risk methodology, we can
distinguish between risks that are within our tolerance and
require monitoring, and those that exceed our tolerance and
require treatment.
Both climate and non-climate risks are prioritised in a
consistent way under our existing ERM framework and ranked
based on residual risk. Climate risks can exacerbate other
non-climate risks on our risk register. For instance, our supply
chain operations, retail store management, and product
development could be impacted by climate-related risks.
Our approach to treatment and monitoring aligns with our
strategic priorities. The treatment for climate risks may involve
avoidance or mitigation if the aim is to reduce the likelihood,
or we may treat a risk through adaptation if the aim is to
reduce the impact by building resilience to withstand the risk.
We will continue to progress our capability in relation to
how we record, report, monitor and manage these risks
over future reporting periods. Our focus remains on
systematically and pragmatically incorporating climate-
related risks into the ERM framework to strengthen
overall risk management. We currently plan to revisit the
climate risk assessment on at least an annual basis.
4.1 Climate risk identification and assessment
Appropriate method for rating chronic risks that increase in frequency and intensity over the long-term.
+
SensitivitySensitivity
Adaptive
capacity
Adaptive
capacity
x=
ExposureExposure
Risk
score
Risk
score
VulnerabilityVulnerability
Figure 3: Assessment of physical climate risk
4.1.1 Assessment of Physical Risks
Currently we determine a Physical Risks score annually for
each material risk. The Physical Risks score is calculated on
the basis of the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity,
with the latter two scores giving an overall vulnerability score.
A score was determined for each risk under each of the
three scenarios, informed by our internal risk consequence
table and guided by climate hazard data provided for RCP
2.6, RCP 4.5
5
and RCP 8.5 at the future time horizons. Each
of these elements was rated on a scale of 1 to 5 / Very low –
Extreme. The resulting climate risk score was then used to
prioritise the physical risks. The following diagram sets out
the approach to calculating the physical climate risk score.
4.1.2 Assessment of Transition Risks
The key assumption of the Orderly Transition scenario is
that the global objective of achieving emissions reductions
in line with limiting global warming to no more 1.5°C has
been achieved by taking early action to decarbonise.
Transition risks were identified against the backdrop of
a NGFS Orderly Transition / IPCC AR6 SSP1-1.9 pathway.
The rationale for testing against the Orderly scenario is
that transition risks are assumed to be highest under this
scenario, in terms of regulatory and policy frameworks,
consumer preferences and expectations, and cost of capital.
We assessed transition risks using a time-to-impact
urgency criteria, based on the UK’s third climate risk
assessment and New Zealand’s National Climate
Change Risk Assessment methods. We then applied a
qualitative impact weighting to gauge materiality, using
KMD Brands’ risk consequence table and materiality
thresholds. These thresholds consider factors like financial
impact on EBIT, compliance with legal and regulatory
standards, and effects on health, safety, and wellbeing.
The Transition Risk rating was then derived from a combined
scoring of the urgency criteria with an impact rating of
1 to 5 / Very Low to Extreme to give an overall score.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202516
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
6. APPENDICES

5. METRICS AND TARGETS
5.1 Our GHG emissions inventory
Our Kathmandu brand has been measuring and building
on the reporting of its GHG emissions for over a decade.
Kathmandu first completed certification under the Toitū
carbonreduce programme in 2017, with each Brand
completing this certification on an annual basis since
2021. From 2022, we have measured and reported our
GHG emissions at a Group level following the acquisition
and integration of the Rip Curl and Oboz brands.
5.1.1 Emissions categories
We measure and monitor our total GHG emissions
across Scope 1, 2 and 3 against a 2019 base year.
Our Scope 1 emissions include direct emissions from
sources within our operational control, such as fleet
vehicles and gas heating. Scope 2 emissions include
indirect emissions from the energy we purchase from
electricity grids around the world. We disclose Scope 2
emissions calculated using both the location-based and
market-based methods in our emissions reporting.
The substantial majority of our GHG emissions resides in
the Scope 3 categories, representing our supply chain and
the raw material processing, manufacture and transportation
of our products. For FY25, we are relying on Adoption
Provision 4: Scope 3 GHG emissions (NZ CS 2) and have
disclosed data relating to our Scope 3 emissions profile
at an aggregate level, rather than by Scope 3 category.
We are also relying on Adoption Provision 8: Scope 3
GHG emissions assurance (NZ CS 2), which excludes
Scope 3 from the scope of the assurance engagement.
5.1.2 Accounting and verification
We measure and report our GHG emissions in tonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO
2
e), the standard unit
of measurement to compare and account for various
GHGs based on their global warming potential (GWP).
We calculate, report and seek third-party verification of our
emissions inventory annually, in line with the KMD Brands
financial year (1 August – 31 July) using the operational
control consolidation approach, accounting for the direct
(Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) GHG emissions of the
business activities for which we have operational control,
as well as the indirect (Scope 3) GHG emissions associated
with our organisation’s activities. Refer to page 100 of our
FY25 Annual Integrated Report for more information.
In FY25, assurance of our Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions has
been completed by our external auditor, KPMG. Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions have been subject to a limited assurance
engagement. Refer to Appendix 3 for the independent
assurance report for FY25. KPMG performed assurance
readiness procedures to determine whether the preconditions
for assurance as required by the relevant standards were met
over Scope 3 emissions. These procedures do not constitute
an assurance engagement. No assurance was obtained
over Scope 3 emissions in reliance on Adoption Provision
8 and the FMA’s Scope 3 Assurance Exemption Notice.
5.1.3 Reporting boundary
Our GHG inventory includes all direct emissions from
activities within the operational boundaries of KMD Brands,
including all owned and operated subsidiaries, offices,
stores and operated distribution centres and the indirect
emissions associated with our organisation’s activities.
Our GHG inventory is prepared in accordance with
the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Corporate Accounting
and Reporting Standard, and our reporting boundary
includes all relevant emissions sources categorised by
the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Corporate Standard
and Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard. We
measure and report (at an aggregated level) emissions
data in our Scope 3 reporting boundary across each
of the following GHG Protocol Scope 3 categories:
• Category 1: Purchased goods and services
• Category 2: Capital goods
• Category 3: Fuel and energy related activities
• Category 4: Upstream transportation and distribution
• Category 5: Waste generated in operations
• Category 6: Business travel
• Category 7: Employee commuting
• Category 9: Downstream transportation and distribution
• Category 11: Use of sold products
• Category 12: End-of-life treatment of sold products
• Category 14: Franchises
• Category 15: Investments
We exclude the following GHG Protocol Scope 3 Categories
from our GHG inventory as these activities are not
relevant to our organisation’s activities and therefore
we have no measured emissions in these categories:
• Category 8: Upstream leased assets
• Category 10: Processing of sold products
• Category 13: Downstream leased assets
(Scope 3 Reporting Boundary).
For our approved Scope 3 Science Based Target outlined
at paragraph 5.2.2, categories 2, 6, 7, 9 and 14 are excluded
(Scope 3 SBTi Target Boundary).
See Table 8 in Appendix 1 for a description of key
methodologies, assumptions, emissions factors and
exclusions applied when calculating our GHG emissions.
5.1.4 Methods and uncertainty
Our GHG inventory is calculated using Toitū Envirocare’s
emissions calculation and reporting software platform
‘emanage’. Emissions factors are sourced from a range of
public and proprietary sources including, but not limited to:
• New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (MfE, 2025)
• UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
(BEIS, 2024)
• Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy,
the Environment and Water (DCCEEW, 2024)
• UK Department for Energy Security and
Net Zero (DESNZ, 2024 & 2025)
• Climate Transparency Report (CT, 2022)
• Ember (2025); Energy Institute – Statistical
Review of World Energy (2025) – with major
processing by Our World in Data
• International Energy Agency (IEA, 2024)
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2025)
Emissions factors from these sources are selected when
calculating our GHG inventory, prioritising relevance and
endorsed data sets where available. When using emissions
factors, we assume the selected factors are representative of
the activity we are measuring based on available information.
We apply these factors to relevant activity data, such as litres
of fuel consumed, or kWh of electricity consumed. Activity
data for Scope 1 is sourced from fuel card and internal
financial reports, and activity data for Scope 2, from electricity
meters and bills. Where primary data is not available, estimates
are used based on similar activities in our own operations
or industry average figures. Refer to Table 8 in Appendix 1
for a full description of key assumptions, methodology and
levels of certainty in the calculations of our GHG emissions.
When calculating Scope 3 emissions there is an inherent level
of uncertainty that can be a result of incomplete or estimated
activity data, and the limitations of some emissions factors.
Our emissions are calculated using actual or estimated
data that best represent the direct and indirect activities of
our operations and value chain, such as electricity or fuel
consumed. This activity data is then multiplied by emissions
factors that best represent the emissions impact of the
relevant activity in tCO
2
e. When using emissions factors,
we assume the selected factors are representative of the
activity we are measuring based on available information.
As science continuously evolves, access to data improves
and best practice methodologies emerge, there are
limitations when selecting and applying emissions factors
that could result in significant differences in our reporting.
Best efforts are made to select the most representative
emissions factors, prioritising primary data sources, endorsed
data sets such as government produced reports and
industry average databases wherever these are available.
To accurately track progress towards our GHG reduction
targets over time, we will sometimes need to adjust our
base year emissions inventory to account for significant
changes to our business, methodological changes, the
discovery of significant errors, and general improvements
in reporting and data. Our recalculation policy is a 5%
increase or decrease in total emissions due to changes
and improvements in reporting practices. We may also
choose to recalculate our baseline for changes less than
5%, particularly if structural changes to the business occur.
During FY25, our base year data has remained unchanged;
however, our FY24 Scope 3 total has been restated this
year due to the discovery of a calculation error. This has
decreased our total Scope 3 emissions in FY24 by 2.3%.
Although this falls below our recalculation threshold, we
have chosen to recalculate for accuracy and transparency.
As reporting regulations continue to evolve, our processes
for identifying, measuring, and recording GHG information
are still under development, as are the internal controls
that support these processes. We recognise that there
are currently limitations in both the methodologies
and controls applied, and that further improvements
are needed to enhance the reliability and robustness
of our GHG emissions data and reporting. We remain
committed to ongoing refinement as best practice
methodologies and expectations continue to advance.
See Table 8 in Appendix 1 for a description of key
methodologies, assumptions, emissions factors and
exclusions applied when calculating our GHG emissions.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202517
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

5.2 Our targets and performance
5.2.1 Scope 1 and 2 emissions
In April 2023, we received formal validation from Science
Based Targets initiative (SBTi) confirming that our carbon
reduction targets met SBTi’s internationally recognised
criteria. By 2030, KMD Brands commits to reduce absolute
Scope 1 and 2 emissions by at least 47% from our FY19
base year. This target has been validated under the SBTi
Criteria V5.0 for near-term targets. The SBTi classifies
targets against the long-term temperature pathways of
global emissions falling well-below 2°C and 1.5°C. The
SBTi’s Target Validation Team classified our Scope 1 and
2 target ambition as being in line with a 1.5°C trajectory.
Carbon offsets are not relied upon and do not contribute
towards meeting this emissions reduction target.
In FY25, KMD Brands’ total Scope 1 and 2 emissions
(location-based) were 9,177 tonnes of carbon
representing a 27% decrease in our 2019 base year
on an absolute basis. Our combined Scope 1 and 2
emissions increased by 4% in FY25 over our prior year.
Reported Scope 1 emissions remained steady in FY25
compared to FY24, decreasing by just 1%. Scope 1 emissions
have reduced by 21% compared to our 2019 base year.
This change is substantially due to reduced travel since
2020’s COVID-19 restrictions, more fuel-efficient hybrid
vehicles in the fleet and improved access to primary data.
TARGET
FY24 PERFORMANCE
Reduce absolute Scope 1 and 2
emissions by a minimum of
47%
by 31 July 2030, from a FY19 base year
27%
decrease in Scope 1 and 2 emissions
compared to FY19 base year and
4% decrease compared to FY24
Scope 2 location-based emissions increased slightly by
4% in FY25 over FY24 primarily due to growth in our store
network and better-quality data from our energy monitoring
system. However, this increase was moderated by our
ongoing programme of solar installations at strategic
locations. While overall, our Scope 2 emissions (location-
based method) represent a 27% decrease on our base
year, this is in large part due to the ‘greening’ of electricity
grids across Australia, rather than individual actions by
KMD Brands. Continued progress in reducing our Scope
2 emissions relies heavily on the Australian energy
grid’s ongoing shift towards renewable energy sources.
Additionally, we must balance our investments in solar
installations with our profitability, which may influence the
speed at which we work towards our reduction targets.
Our FY25 gross direct Scope 1 & 2 emissions are set out in
Table 5, on page 19.
5.2.2 Scope 3 emissions
We measured our full value chain emissions sources as
defined by the categories in the GHG Protocol’s Corporate
Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting
Standard. Our Scope 3 science-based target (over a
subset of our Scope 3 emissions) was approved by SBTi
in 2023. KMD Brands commits to reduce absolute Scope
3 emissions by a minimum of 28% by 31 July 2030 from
a FY19 base year
6
(Scope 3 SBTi Target). The SBTi’s
Target Validation Team classified our Scope 3 target
ambition as being in line with a well-below 2°C trajectory.
Carbon offsets are not relied upon and do not contribute
towards meeting this emissions reduction target.
Our Scope 3 SBTi Target includes the following GHG Protocol
categories: 1 (purchased goods and services), 3 (fuel and
energy related activities), 4 (upstream transportation and
distribution), 5 (waste generated in operations), 11 (use of
sold products), 12 (end-of-life treatment of sold products),
and 15 (investments). It excludes the following categories: 2
(capital goods), 6 (business travel), 7 (employee commuting),
8 (upstream leased assets), 9 (downstream transportation
and distribution), 10 (processing of sold products), 13
(downstream leased assets), and 14 (franchises). Our Scope
3 SBTi Target includes the substantial indirect emissions
in our supply chain where we have less control. Our Scope
3 SBTi Target Boundary represents over 80% of our total
Scope 3 emissions reporting boundary in FY19, aligned
with SBTi’s criteria for Scope 3 targets. This selection of
6. As set out at section 5.1.3 above, our Scope 3 SBTi Target Boundary includes
the following GHG Protocol categories: 1 (purchased goods and services), 3
(fuel and energy related activities), 4 (upstream transportation and
distribution), 5 (waste generated in operations), 11 (use of sold products), 12
(end of life treatment of sold products), and 15 (investments).
emissions sources was included in our Scope 3 target due
to the materiality of these categories and our ability to
influence reductions. Achieving our Scope 3 SBTi Targets is
challenging due to our complex global supply chain. While
we can influence many aspects of our Scope 3 footprint,
we do not have direct control over many of its constituent
elements. Progressing towards our Scope 3 SBTi Target
requires collaboration with our suppliers across our entire
supply chain as we are significantly dependent on, and have
a focus on supporting, our suppliers to transition away from
the use of coal and to adopt renewable energy sources
in the manufacturing process. It is also dependent on the
availability of, and access to, affordable renewable energy
sources in the key sourcing countries in our supply chain.
Table 8 in Appendix 1 sets out a full description of key
assumptions and levels of certainty in the calculations of
our GHG emissions.
For FY25, we are relying on Adoption Provision 4: Scope
3 GHG emissions (NZ CS 2) and have disclosed data at
an aggregate level of our Scope 3 emissions profile and
performance for FY25 to our Scope 3 SBTi Target.
During the reporting period, we have seen reductions in
the Scope 3 indirect emissions of our value chain, such as
those relating to capital goods, upstream freight, waste
and end-of-life treatment of sold products when compared
with FY24 and our base year of FY19. These reductions
are primarily due to reductions in freight-related emissions,
supported by a focus on packing efficiencies, prioritising
sea freight over air, and inventory optimisation. However,
our emissions reduction from end-of-life treatment of sold
products in FY25 was primarily attributable to reduced
inventory order volume amidst the current trading
environment. We anticipate that these emissions will increase
again in the short-term when trading conditions improve.
Our Scope 3 SBTi Target contains a number of risks,
assumptions and dependencies that may impact our
ability to reach the Target. The most significant category
of our Scope 3 emissions (Category 1: Purchased goods
and services) incorporates third-party emissions from the
production of goods in our supply chain, including the
raw material processing and manufacture of the products
that carry our branding. The access to, and quality of,
data contributing to our emissions calculations in this
category in particular is a difficult area to measure and
track. In particular, data in Category 1 is currently calculated
using a “spend-based” method, utilising data from the
cost of purchasing goods and services, multiplied by an
emissions factor based on industry averages. However,
the activity data and emissions factor used may not be an
accurate representation of the actual emissions footprint
of individual product composition. We expect we will need
to make further adjustments to our reported emissions
profile particularly in this Category as our access to higher
quality and better representative data and emissions factors
improves and new methodologies develop. This may impact
our ability to reach our current Scope 3 SBTi Target.
We are focussed on improving our access to Scope 3 data
for significant emissions sources, including as discussed
above, for Category 1: Purchased Goods & Services. During
FY25 we have made further progress on improving our
access to better quality representative data by adopting
Worldly’s Product Impact Calculator (PIC). This tool
provides us with detailed, product-by-product emissions
data using real information from the factories we use. The
PIC evaluates the environmental impacts associated with
all stages of a product’s life cycle, including raw material
extraction, production impact using verified factory GHG
emissions, product use and ultimately disposal. This tool
will provide deeper insights into the lifecycle impacts of
our products and production processes, identifying those
with the highest contribution to our Scope 3 emissions. We
have started to integrate the PIC within our systems, with
the emissions output from the tool expected to eventually
replace the majority of the spend-based data that is currently
used for calculating Scope 3 Category 1 emissions.
During FY25, 41% of our tier 1 and 48% of our traced tier
2 factory partners, a total of 136 assessments, completed
verified environmental assessments using Worldly’s
Higg Facility Environmental Module (FEM). The FEM
helps our manufacturing facilities measure and improve
their environmental performance. The module measures
environmental management systems, energy use and
GHG emissions, water use, wastewater, air emissions,
waste and chemical management. Each of the impact
areas is scored and contributes equally to the total FEM
score, where a higher score indicates higher performance.
The average score increased by 21% from the previous
year and was 25% above the platform’s benchmark score.
72% of these facilities have an implementation plan to
improve energy use and/or GHG emissions, and 69% have
reduced energy use compared to their baseline. We will
continue to discuss how we best support these facilities
to improve their energy use performance which now
directly feeds into our product data using the PIC tool.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202518
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

5.2.3 Emissions inventory
The table below summarises our operational GHG emissions data for the reporting period 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2025 with comparisons to our prior year and base year data from FY19.
Table 5: KMD Brands GHG emissions inventory
CategoryFY19 Base year emissions
(tCO
2
e)
7
FY24 emissions
(tCO
2
e)
8

FY25 emissions
(tCO
2
e)
9

% change
from base year
% change
FY25 vs FY24
Scope 1653518514-21%-1%
Scope 2
Scope 2 (location-based)11,9348 , 3 418,663-27%+4%
Scope 2 (market-based)10,47410,23110,568+1%+3%
SUBTOTAL: Scope 1 and 2 (location-based)12,5878,8599,17 7-27%+4%
Scope 3: Reporting Boundary
10
210,473168,622171,174-19%+2%
Scope 3: SBTi Target Boundary
11
192,895151,333151,374-22%0%
Emissions intensity ratio (tCO
2
e / $million of Revenue)
12
Not reported181182N/A+1%
7. Our FY19 base year is partially verified including GHG Protocol Scopes 1, 2 & 3. The base year is estimated from a Scope 3 screening and inventories for Kathmandu, Rip Curl and Oboz from FY19, FY20 & FY21 respectively.
8. During FY25, data for FY24 Scope 3 Category 4 has been restated due to the discovery of a calculation and methodology error.
9. In FY25, KPMG was engaged to carry out a limited assurance review of our Scope 1 & 2 emissions. KPMG performed assurance readiness procedures to determine whether the preconditions for assurance as required by the relevant standards were met over Scope 3 emissions. These procedures do not constitute an assurance engagement.
No assurance was obtained over FY25 Scope 3 emissions in reliance on Adoption Provision 8.
10. Refer to paragraph 5.1.3 for information on our Scope 3 Reporting Boundary.
11. Our Scope 3 SBTi Target Boundary includes the following GHG Protocol categories: 1 (purchased goods and services), 3 (fuel and energy related activities), 4 (upstream transportation and distribution), 5 (waste generated in operations), 11 (use of sold products), 12 (end of life treatment of sold products), and 15 (investments).
12. GHG emissions intensity has been calculated using Scope 1, Scope 2 (location-based) and total measured Scope 3 emissions. Our FY24 emissions intensity ratio has been restated due to the restatement of our FY24 Scope 3 total.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202519
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

We are not currently seeing impacts from these transition
risks and our assessment is that none of our business
activities are presently vulnerable to these risks. We consider
that these risks are being actively managed and mitigated
through initiatives governed by our Group ESG Strategy,
as outlined at section 3.3, Transition Planning, above.
Further, we consider that all (100%) of our brands are
aligned with the key transition opportunity identified to
build a strong customer value proposition and expand
market presence through demonstration of sustainable
business practices (as was our assessment in FY24).
For each of our brands, this is an area of focus, and part
of the underlying business strategy and priorities.
We are also actively taking steps to align our operations with
the opportunity identified for early investment in solar energy
across key operating sites. We currently have solar systems
operating at a total of 22 sites, including our head office and
flagship store in Torquay, distribution centre in Melbourne,
our wetsuit manufacturing facility in Thailand, and our head
office in Bozeman. With solar installed at 19 of our retail
stores across Australia, this constitutes 9% of our Australian
operated store network with onsite solar systems in place.
As we progress on our journey towards climate change
maturity, our comprehension of how climate-related risks
could have an effect on our business will continue to evolve.
This will enable us to further refine our mitigation strategies
and provide more precise reporting on the degree of
vulnerability or alignment in future disclosures.
DescriptionInitiativeFY24 spend (NZD)FY25 spend (NZD)
Installation, maintenance
and repair of solar
energy systems
New installations, maintenance of
existing systems
$98,553
(investment)
Due to economic and trading
conditions, planned new solar
energy system installations
were put on hold during FY25
Investment in circular
business models
Kathmandu REDU, Upparel and
ImpacTex recycling programmes
NZ soft plastic recycling scheme
Rip Curl Wetsuit recycling
$291,327
(exp enditure)
$237,68 5
(exp enditure)
Lighting upgrades Installation of energy-efficient,
LED lighting in store builds or refit
$205,770
(investment)
$50,000
(investment)
Investment in product
emissions reporting tool
Product lifecycle assessment
tools
$54,000
(exp enditure)
$52,000
(exp enditure)
Table 7: Capital expenditure or investment deployed towards climate-related risks and opportunities during the reporting period
We do not currently use an internal price on carbon.
5.3 Other metrics
5.3.1 Potential vulnerability to physical and
transition risks and alignment to opportunities
We have chosen to report on potential exposure to physical
and transition risks as the relevant metric for assessment
of vulnerability, as this represents the best available data
and analysis for the current reporting period. During
FY25, assisted by Deloitte, we expanded our Geographic
Information System (GIS)
13
analysis to consider the
impacts by key geographic region of three climate hazards,
being extreme heat, extreme rainfall and storm surge, on
key retail store, warehouse and owned manufacturing
locations from our asset registers (Asset Locations).
Table 6 shows, by geographic region, the percentage of
KMD Brands’ business assets that could be potentially
exposed to the physical climate risks arising from these
climate hazards under the Hot House World scenario at
the long-term time horizon considered in our climate risk
assessment.
14
Of these Asset Locations, only our wetsuit
factory in Thailand is an owned asset; the rest of the Asset
Locations are leased. This analysis relates to potential
exposure of assets to these climate hazards rather than
their vulnerability, which is mitigated by the ability to adapt
our leasing portfolio to more climate-resilient locations
with the average lease term being less than five years.
We consider our exposure to the transition risks identified
through our climate risk assessment process to be immaterial
at this stage, as was our assessment in FY24. We have
assessed the highest rated transition risks identified, being
changes in consumer preference for sustainable product,
investment required for transition capabilities and investor
sentiment due to failure to meet expectations in relation to
sustainability practices and goals, against the internal risk
consequence table contained in our ERM Framework.
Climate hazardAmericasAustralasia Europe
South
East Asia
% of assets potentially exposed to an increasing number of hot days
16
6%7%2%4%
% of assets potentially exposed to precipitation-related risks
17
0%3%1%0%
% of assets potentially exposed to storm surge related risks
18
4%29%2%2%
Table 6: % of assets (as a proportion of the value of total assets across the Group) potentially exposed to increasing number
of hot days, precipitation-related risks and storm surge related risks under 3°C+ scenario at 2050
15

5.3.2 Capital deployment
During FY25, we have deployed capital expenditure or investment towards the following climate-related risks
and opportunities:
5.3.3 Remuneration
All employees have ESG responsibilities included in their job descriptions and have an ESG-related objective as part of annual
goal setting and performance evaluation processes.
Executives and certain senior management roles are eligible to participate in a Short-term incentive (STI) scheme that delivers
rewards by way of cash and/or deferred equity. The amount of any STI paid in a year, after first achieving a minimum Group
Earnings Before Interest and Tax threshold, is linked to the individual’s overall performance assessment, including achievement
against their annual goals or key performance indicators (KPIs). STI outcomes for the executive team are aligned with the
Group’s strategic objectives, with each member of the executive team, including the Group CEO, having individual KPIs linked
back to strategic focus areas. These KPIs are specific to each executive’s role and responsibilities and include KPIs linked to
climate-related risks and opportunities. In FY25, the potential STI incentive for executive management ranged between 30%
and 75% (30% and 60% in FY24) of an individual’s fixed annual remuneration, with a potential of up to 90% (90% in FY24) for
the Group CEO. Any STI award is allocated in proportion to the KPIs achieved during the financial year, with only part of any
STI award representing KPIs linked to climate-related risks and opportunities, and payment of any STI award is subject to
achievement of the financial performance hurdle.
13. GIS analysis was undertaken using the NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 dataset, which is comprised of global downscaled climate scenarios derived from the General Circulation Model
(GCM) runs performed under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), that inform the greenhouse gas emissions scenarios known as the Shared
Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs).
14. Note that for FY25, KMD Brands is disclosing vulnerability values per business asset location (rather than on a subsidiary basis as in FY24), therefore comparative metrics
for FY23 and FY24 are unavailable for this dataset.
15. SSP3-7.0 scenario at 2050.
16. Assets and operations located in areas potentially presenting high temperature-related risks, based on the 3°C+ scenario at 2050.
17. Assets and operations potentially exposed to precipitation-related risks (fluvial and pluvial flooding) based on 3°C+ scenario at 2050.
18. Assets and operations potentially exposed to storm surge related inundation, based on the number of assets exposed to a 1 in 100 year storm surge event at 2050,
under a 3°C+ scenario. Storm surge is a new metric for FY25.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202520
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
6. APPENDICES

6. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: GHG emissions sources
Table 8: GHG emissions sources, methods, assumptions, exclusions and uncertainty
GHG protocol scope & categoryActivity measuredEmissions factor sourceMethodology, key assumptions, exclusions and uncertainty (qualitative)
Scope 1
Direct emissions sources.
Direct emissions from mobile combustion of
fuel used in company-owned vehicles.
Direct emissions from stationary combustion
of fuels used to produce heat, steam and/or
electricity.
DCCEEW (2024)
MfE (2025)
USEPA (2025)
DESNZ (2024)
DESNZ (2025)
Toitū
Activity data is sourced from our fleet management portal, internal financial reporting and supplier invoices.
Average-data method: the unit of fuel consumed multiplied by relevant fuel emission factor (petrol, diesel, LPG
and natural gas).
Excludes sites for which stationary combustion is not yet verified.
Excludes fugitive emissions from air-conditioning systems across our sites, as these are deemed de minimis
(less than 1% of total emissions).
High certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 2 (location-based method)
Purchased electricity.
Indirect, location-based emissions from
imported electricity for owned and operated
sites.
DCCEEW (2024)
MfE (2025)
IEA (2024)
USEPA (2025)
TMOE (2024)
TMOE (2025)
CT (2022)
AIB (2024)
BEIS (2024)
DESNZ (2025)
Activity data is sourced from supplier invoices and our third-party energy monitoring system.
Average-data method: kWh consumed multiplied by local electricity emissions factor.
Assumes utility provider reporting is accurate.
High certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 2 (market-based method)
Purchased electricity.
Indirect, market-based emissions from imported
electricity for owned and operated sites.
DCCEEW (2024)
NZECS
BraveTrace (2025)
IEA (2024)
Green-e
TMOE (2024)
TMOE (2025)
CT (2022)
AIB (2024)
AIB (2025)
USEPA (2025)
Activity data is sourced from supplier invoices and our third-party energy monitoring system.
Average-data method: kWh electricity consumed multiplied by market or residual-mix factor.
Market and residual-mix factors are unavailable in some territories where we operate; assumes the location-
based method is a representative proxy.
High certainty in activity data. Medium certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 1
Purchased goods and services.
Indirect emissions from the upstream cradle-
to-gate processes for the production and
delivery of purchased goods and services to
our organisation.
DESNZ (2024)
DESNZ (2025)
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting (ERP).
Spend-based screening method: $NZD spent on purchased goods and services multiplied by relevant DESNZ
emissions factor for GL code. Assumes all upstream raw materials, processing, assembly and transportation
between manufacturing stages (cradle-to-gate) is in scope of selected emissions factor. Assumes emissions
from the manufacturing of all purchased inventory are equivalent to apparel manufacturing.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 2
Capital goods.
Indirect emissions from the upstream cradle-to-
gate processes for the production and delivery
of capital goods to our organisation.
DESNZ (2024)Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting (ERP).
Spend-based screening method: $NZD spent on Capital goods multiplied by relevant DESNZ emissions
factor for GL code. Assumes all upstream raw materials, processing, assembly and transportation between
manufacturing stages (cradle-to-gate) is in scope of selected emissions factor.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202521
6. APPENDICES

GHG protocol scope & categoryActivity measuredEmissions factor sourceMethodology, key assumptions, exclusions and uncertainty (qualitative)
Scope 3 Category 3
Fuel and energy related activities.
Indirect emissions from the transmission and
distribution losses that occur in electricity grids
that we purchase electricity from.
DCCEEW (2024)
MfE (2025)
IEA (2024)
USEPA (2025)
DESNZ (2024)
DESNZ (2025)
CT (2022)
AIB (2024)
Activity data is sourced from supplier invoices and our third-party energy monitoring system.
Average-data method: kWh consumed multiplied by relevant electricity emissions factor for transmission and
distribution losses in the applicable territory.
Assumes utility provider reporting is accurate.
Excludes the indirect lifecycle emissions associated with the extraction, production and transport of the fuels
used by the company and generation of electricity purchased by the company. Deemed de minimis (less than
1% of total emissions).
High certainty in activity data.
Medium certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 4
Upstream transportation
and distribution.
Indirect emissions from the transportation
and distribution of our purchased inventory
from the port of origin to the point of receipt,
such as a distribution centre or store.
DESNZ (2024)
DESNZ (2025)
MfE (2025)
Activity data is sourced from internal supply-chain reporting, supplier provided impact reporting and
estimates of average distances travelled between port of origin and receipt, as well as between distribution
centres and end customers.
Average-data method: tonnes per estimated kilometre travelled multiplied by emission factor for relevant
mode (air, sea or road).
Assumes the cradle-to-gate transportation of materials and components during manufacturing, prior to us
taking ownership of finished goods, is accounted for in Scope 3 Category 1 and 2. Medium certainty in activity
data. Low certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 5
Waste generated in operations.
Indirect emissions from waste generated at
operated sites.
Turner et al. (2015)
DESNZ (2024)
DESNZ (2025)
DCCEEW (2024)
MfE (2025)
Activity data is sourced from supplier provided waste management reporting.
Average-data method: Mass disposed by waste stream (landfill, comingled and mixed plastics recycling, paper
and cardboard recycling, soft plastics recycling, glass recycling, aluminium recycling and neoprene recycling)
multiplied by emission factor for relevant waste type.
Assumes primary data from waste management providers is accurate and can be used as a representative
proxy for operational waste where primary data is unavailable. Assumes mixed plastic recycling is a suitable
emissions factor for neoprene recycling.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 6
Business travel.
Indirect emissions from business related air and
road travel.
MfE (2025)
Toitū
DESNZ (2025)
DESNZ (2024)
DCCEEW (2024)
Activity data is sourced from corporate travel agency and internal financial reporting.
Average-data method: distance travelled by class (economy, premium economy, business or first class) or
mode (taxi, rental vehicle, Uber or Uber Green) multiplied by relevant emissions factor.
Assumes reporting from corporate travel agency is accurate.
Medium certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 7
Employee commuting.
Indirect emissions from employees commuting
to their place of work.
MfE (2025)Activity data is sourced from an estimated average commute derived from Statistics New Zealand and
applied to the number of full-time employees globally.
Average-data screening method: estimated distance travelled and emissions factor for a medium sized
petrol vehicle.
Assumes Auckland statistics are representative of global locations and four weeks annual leave is taken.
Assumes New Zealand MfE factors are representative of global road vehicles.
Excludes casual employees and time worked from home. Deemed de minimis (less than 1% of total emissions).
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202522
6. APPENDICES

GHG protocol scope & categoryActivity measuredEmissions factor sourceMethodology, key assumptions, exclusions and uncertainty (qualitative)
Scope 3 Category 9
Downstream transportation
and distribution.
Indirect emissions from purchased electricity
for third-party operated sites owned and
operated by our wholesale customers.
DESNZ (2024)
DESNZ (2025)
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting, supplier invoices and our third-party energy
monitoring system.
Average-data method: 5% of the average annual kWh consumption at Kathmandu and Rip Curl operated
stores multiplied by local electricity emissions factor.
Assumes the impact of wholesale customers operating a retail store is similar to the impact of our own retail
operations. This impact is allocated at 5%, based off utilisation rates in our own operations and the estimated
space occupied by the goods of other brands that these retailers stock.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 11
Use of sold products.
Indirect emissions from customer use of sold
products that directly consume electricity or
contain fuel.
MfE (2025)
DCCEEW (2024)
DESNZ (2025)
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting.
Average-data method: estimated lifetime consumption of electricity of sold electrical products multiplied by
local electricity emissions factor.
Average-data method: combustion of cooking fuel from sold gas products multiplied by relevant fuel emission
factor (Propane, Butane and Isobutane).
For electrical products, we assume customers follow user instructions and use sold products in the country of
purchase for approximately four years.
Indirect use phase emissions, such as the laundering and care of sold products, are excluded.
For gas products we assume customers combust the entire contents of the product.
Medium certainty in activity data.
Medium certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 12
End-of-life treatment
of sold products.
Indirect emissions of end-of-life treatment of
sold products.
BEIS (2025)Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting.
Average-data method: average mass of sold products in reporting year multiplied by emissions factor for
textiles in landfill.
Assumes all product is destined for landfill eventually and has an equal impact to textiles in landfill.
Medium certainty in activity data.
Low certainty in emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 14
Franchises.
Indirect Scope 2 emissions from purchased
electricity for third-party operated sites owned
and operated by licensees under the Rip Curl
name.
Ember (2025), Energy Institute - Statistical
Review of World Energy (2025) – with major
processing by Our World in Data
Activity data is sourced from internal financial reporting, supplier invoices and our third-party energy
monitoring system.
Average-data method: average annual kWh consumed at operated Rip Curl stores multiplied by local
electricity emissions factor.
Assumes utility provider reporting is accurate and licensed stores have a similar impact to our operated stores.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
Scope 3 Category 15
Investments.
Indirect emissions from our joint-venture Rip
Curl Thailand.
n/a - no specific emission factor is used for this sourceActivity data is sourced from internal financial reporting.
Average-data screening method: $m revenue from Rip Curl Thailand multiplied by emissions intensity
(tCO
2
e/$ m) of Rip Curl Group operations / 50% ownership.
Assumes Rip Curl Thailand has a similar emissions intensity to sites operated across the Rip Curl Group.
Low certainty in activity data and emissions factor sources.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202523
6. APPENDICES

Appendix 2: GlossaryAppendix 3: Independent Limited Assurance Report
© 2025 KPMG, a New Zealand Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG global organization of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited,
a private English company limited by guarantee. All rights reserved.
Document classification: KPMG Public
Independent Limited Assurance
Report to KMD Brands Limited
Conclusion
Our limited assurance conclusion has been formed on the basis of the matters outlined in this report.
Based on our limited assurance engagement, which is not a reasonable assurance engagement or an audit,
nothing has come to our attention that would lead us to believe that, in all material respects, the scope 1 and 2
gross greenhouse gas emissions, additional required disclosures of scope 1 and 2 gross greenhouse gas
emissions and scope 1 and 2 gross greenhouse gas emissions methods, assumptions and estimation
uncertainty disclosures included in the Climate Related Disclosures (GHG disclosures) are not fairly
presented and prepared in accordance with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CSs) issued
by the External Reporting Board (the criteria) for the period 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2025.
Information subject to assurance
We have performed an engagement to provide limited assurance in relation to KMD Brands Limited’s GHG
disclosures for the period 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2025.
Below are the locations of the GHG disclosures subject to assurance:
NZ CS 1-3 requirement Climate Related Disclosure reference Page
NZ CS 1 22 (a) Section 5.2.3, Table 5 (Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions)
19
NZ CS 1 24 (a) Section 5.1.3 (Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions)
17
NZ CS 1 24 (b) Section 5.1.3 (Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions)
17
NZ CS 1 24 (c) Appendix 1 (Scope 1 and Scope 2 sources) 21 to 23
NZ CS 1 24 (d) Appendix 1 (Scope 1 and Scope 2 sources) 21 to 23
NZ CS 3 52 Appendix 1 (Scope 1 and Scope 2 sources) 21 to 23
NZ CS 3 53 Appendix 1 (Scope 1 and Scope 2 sources) 21 to 23
Our conclusion on the GHG disclosures does not extend to any other information included, or referred to, in the
Climate Related Disclosures or other information that accompanies or contains the Climate Related Disclosures
and our assurance report, including but not limited to Scope 3 emissions and related methods, assumptions and
estimation uncertainty disclosures and emissions intensity ratio (other information).
Criteria
The criteria used as the basis of reporting include the NZ CSs. As disclosed on page 17 of the Climate Related
Disclosures, the greenhouse gas emissions have been measured in accordance with the World Resources
Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Greenhouse Gas Protocol standards and
guidance (collectively, the GHG Protocol):
•The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (revised edition); and
Te r mDefinition
AIB (2024)European Residual Mixes. Association of Issuing Bodies. Brussels, Belgium. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)
ARCAudit and Risk Committee of the Board
Asset LocationsRetail store, warehouse and owned manufacturing locations from KMD Brands asset registers
B CorpB Corporation or Benefit Corporation
BEIS (2024)UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Government greenhouse gas conversion factors for
company reporting. London, United Kingdom. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
BraveTrace (2025)BraveTrace. Annual Production Year Report: Including Residual Supply Mix (RSM) for New Zealand.
Auckland, New Zealand.
CRDClimate-related disclosure
CT (2022)Carbon Transparency Climate Transparency Report 2022. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
DESNZ (2024)UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Government greenhouse gas conversion factors for
company reporting. London, United Kingdom. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
DESNZ (2025)UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Government greenhouse gas conversion factors for
company reporting. London, United Kingdom. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
ERMEnterprise Risk Management framework
ESGEnvironmental, Social and Governance
E LTExecutive Leadership Team
FEMHigg Facility Environmental Module
GHGGreenhouse gas emissions
Green-eGreen-e® certification program. Green-e® is a program of the nonprofit Center for Resource Solutions,
based in San Francisco, USA.
IEA (2024)International Energy Agency. IEA Emission factors. Paris, France. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
KMD Brands or the GroupKMD Brands Limited and its subsidiaries
MfE (2025)New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. MfE Guidance for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting. Wellington,
New Zealand. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
NGFSNetwork for Greening the Financial System
NIWANational Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research
NZ CSAotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards 1, 2 and 3
NZECSNew Zealand Energy Certificate System. Administered and developed by Certified Energy, New Zealand.
NZ SAE 1New Zealand Standard on Assurance Engagements 1 – Assurance Engagements over Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Disclosures
PICProduct Impact Calculator
RCPRepresentative Concentration Pathway for Emissions
Retail Sector Scenario Analysis“Integrated Climate Change Scenarios for New Zealand’s Retail Sector” published by KPMG August 2023
SBTiScience Based Targets initiative
Scope 3 SBTi TargetKMD Brands approved Scope 3 SBTi target
SMEKMD Brands subject matter experts
SSP Shared socio-economic pathway
STIShort term incentive plan
tCO2eTonne of carbon dioxide equivalent
TMOE (2025)Thailand Ministry of Energy. Energy Statistics, CO2 Statistic. Emissions Dashboard. Energy Policy and Planning
Office, Ministry of Energy, Royal Thai Government. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
Turner et al. (2015)Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling. 2015, Pages 186-197. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
USEPA (2025)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Washington, DC, USA.
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202524
6. APPENDICES

•Additionally, scope 2 emissions have been measured in accordance with The Greenhouse Gas Protocol:
GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance: An amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.
As a result, this report may not be suitable for another purpose.
Standards we followed
We conducted our limited assurance engagement in accordance with New Zealand Standard on Assurance
Engagements 1 (NZ SAE 1) Assurance Engagements over Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disclosures and
International Standard on Assurance Engagements (New Zealand) 3410 Assurance Engagements on
Greenhouse Gas Statements (ISAE (NZ) 3410) issued by the New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards
Board (Standard). We believe that the evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a
basis for our conclusion.
Our responsibilities under the Standard are further described in the ‘Our responsibility’ section of our report.
Other Matter – Prior year comparatives not assured
The GHG disclosures for the period 1 August 2023 to 31 July 2024 and base year period 1 August 2018 to 31
July 2019 were not subject to our limited assurance engagement and, accordingly, we do not express a
conclusion, or provide any assurance on such information.
Our conclusion is not modified in respect of this matter.
How to interpret limited assurance and material misstatement
A limited assurance engagement is substantially less in scope than a reasonable assurance engagement in
relation to both the risk assessment procedures, including an understanding of internal control, and the
procedures performed in response to the assessed risks.
Misstatements, including omissions, within the GHG disclosures are considered material if, individually or in the
aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the relevant decisions of the intended users taken on
the basis of the GHG disclosures.
Use of this assurance report
Our report is made solely for KMD Brands Limited. Our assurance work has been undertaken so that we might
state to KMD Brands Limited those matters we are required to state to them in the assurance report and for no
other purpose.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, none of KPMG, any entities directly or indirectly controlled by KPMG, or
any of their respective members or employees accept or assume any responsibility and deny all liability to
anyone other than KMD Brands Limited for our work, for this independent assurance report, and/or for the
opinions or conclusions we have reached.
Our conclusion is not modified in respect of this matter.
KMD Brands Limited’s responsibility for the GHG disclosures
The Directors of KMD Brands Limited are responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the GHG
disclosures in accordance with the criteria. This responsibility includes the design, implementation and
maintenance of such internal control as Directors determine is relevant to enable the preparation of the GHG
disclosures that are free from material misstatement whether due to fraud or error.
The Directors of KMD Brands Limited are also responsible for selecting or developing suitable criteria for
preparing the GHG disclosures and appropriately referring to or describing the criteria used.
Our responsibility
We have responsibility for:
•planning and performing the engagement to obtain limited assurance about whether the GHG
disclosures are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error;
•forming an independent conclusion based on the procedures we have performed and the evidence we
have obtained; and
•reporting our conclusion to KMD Brands Limited.
Summary of the work we performed as the basis for our conclusion
A limited assurance engagement performed in accordance with the Standard involves assessing the suitability in
the circumstances of KMD Brands Limited’s use of the criteria as the basis for the preparation of the GHG
disclosures, assessing the risks of material misstatement of the GHG disclosures whether due to fraud or error,
responding to the assessed risks as necessary in the circumstances, and evaluating the overall presentation of
the GHG disclosures.
We exercised professional judgment and maintained professional scepticism throughout the engagement. We
designed and performed our procedures to obtain evidence about the GHG disclosures that is sufficient and
appropriate to provide a basis for our conclusion.
Our procedures selected depended on the understanding of the GHG disclosures that is sufficient and
appropriate to provide a basis for our conclusion. The procedures we performed were based on our professional
judgment and included inquiries, observation of processes performed, inspection of documents, analytical
procedures, evaluating the appropriateness of quantification methods and reporting policies, and agreeing or
reconciling with underlying records.
In undertaking limited assurance on the GHG disclosures the procedures we primarily performed were:
•obtained, through inquiries, an understanding of the KMD Brand Limited’s control environment,
processes and information systems relevant to the preparation of the GHG disclosures. We did not
evaluate the design of particular control activities, or obtain evidence about their implementation;
•performed walkthroughs of key processes and data sets;
•agreed a selection of GHG emissions data to relevant underlying source documents and reperformed
emission factor calculations for a limited number of items; and
•considered the presentation and disclosure of the GHG disclosures.
The procedures performed in a limited assurance engagement vary in nature and timing from, and are less in
extent than for a reasonable assurance engagement. Consequently, the level of assurance obtained in a limited
assurance engagement is substantially lower than the assurance that would have been obtained had a
reasonable assurance engagement been performed.
Our independence and quality management
This assurance engagement was undertaken in accordance with NZ SAE 1. NZ SAE 1 is founded on the
fundamental principles of independence, integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care,
confidentiality and professional behaviour.
We have complied with the independence and other ethical requirements of Professional and Ethical Standard 1
International Code of Ethics for Assurance Practitioners (including International Independence Standards) (New
Zealand) (PES 1) issued by the New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, which is founded on
fundamental principles of integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality and
professional behaviour.
The firm applies Professional and Ethical Standard 3 Quality Management for Firms that Perform Audits or
Reviews of Financial Statements, or Other Assurance or Related Services Engagements (PES 3), which requires
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202525
6. APPENDICES

the firm to design, implement and operate a system of quality control including policies or procedures regarding
compliance with ethical requirements, professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
We have also complied with Professional and Ethical Standard 4 Engagement Quality Reviews (PES 4) which
deals with the appointment and eligibility of the engagement quality reviewer and the engagement quality
reviewer’s responsibilities relating to the performance and documentation of an engagement quality review.
Our firm has also provided statutory audit and reasonable assurance bank covenants compliance services to
KMD Brands Limited and performed agreed upon procedures engagement for store revenue certificates and
assurance readiness procedures over Scope 3 emissions. Subject to certain restrictions, partners and
employees of our firm may also deal with KMD Brands Limited on normal terms within the ordinary course of
trading activities of the business of KMD Brands Limited. These matters have not impaired our independence as
assurance providers of KMD Brands Limited for this engagement. The firm has no other relationship with, or
interest in, KMD Brands Limited.
As we are engaged to form an independent conclusion on the GHG di sclosures prepared by KMD Brands
Limited, we are not permitted to be involved in the preparation of the GHG disclosures as doing so may
compromise our independence.
The engagement partner on the assurance engagement resulting in this independent assurance report is Peter
Taylor.
KPMG
KPMG Christchurch
20 November 2025
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GOVERNANCE
3. STRATEGY
4. RISK MANAGEMENT
5. METRICS AND TARGETS
KMD Brands Climate Related Disclosures 202526
6. APPENDICES

KMDBrands.com