Summerset Group Holdings Limited/Announcement

Sustainability Review & Climate-Related Disclosures FY25

ESG26 February 2026SUMHealthcare

Summerset Group Holdings Limited
Level 27 Majestic Centre, 100 Willis St, Wellington
PO Box 5187, Wellington 6140
Phone: 04 894 7320 | Fax: 04 894 7319
Website: www.summerset.co.nz

NZX & ASX RELEASE

27 February 2026

SUMMERSET RELEASES THIRD CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES
DOCUMENT
Retirement village operator Summerset Group Holdings Limited today released its Sustainability
Review and Climate-Related Disclosures FY25 document, alongside their FY25 Annual Report.
Summerset Chief Executive Scott Scoullar said the company was proud to provide shareholders
and stakeholders with another comprehensive overview of their sustainability work.
“Sustainability and how we live up to our environmental, social and governance (ESG)
obligations, is important to our investors. Summerset prides itself on its sustainability work to
date and we’re pleased to provide a full view of what we’ve done in FY25 and more information
on the risks and opportunities climate changes creates for our business.
“After several years of embedding sustainability into our business, in 2025 we were able to
accelerate our delivery and implement even more meaningful change,” Mr Scoullar says.
“Sustainability and ESG practices are now commonplace throughout Summerset’s business
units and our teams are working collaboratively across multiple projects that impact design,
construction and operations in both New Zealand and Australia.”
A major focus for the year was enhancing energy resilience, including significant progress in the
transition away from gas.
“We’ve recognised the long-term energy-supply risks and emissions profile associated with gas.
In FY25 we set a target to fully remove utility gas from our remaining 28 villages by 2028. Seven
villages transitioned off gas during the year, and we have a clear programme to complete the
remaining sites over the next three years.”
Mr Scoullar said solar energy generation also remains a pivotal part of Summerset’s resilience
and emissions-reduction strategy, providing tangible benefits in terms of reducing power costs
and consumption.
“During FY25 we installed a further 1,500+ solar panels – retrofitting some older villages and
installing many as part of the construction of new buildings too. We’ve also started a pilot
programme offering solar panels for residents on their homes to reduce their power costs and
improve their resilience.
“The pilot kicked off at our Hobsonville village last year and we’ve seen great up take from
residents. We will assess the pilot in 2026 to see if we want to roll it out further.”
Summerset’s award-winning construction waste diversion programme also continued to hit new
standards with 78% of the company’s construction waste diverted from landfill during the year.

Major FY25 sustainability achievements included:
• Installation of more than 1,500 solar panels and launched a resident solar panel pilot
• 5,624 tonnes of construction waste diverted from landfill
• Embodied-carbon baselines established across all of Summerset’s major construction
typologies (e.g. villas, townhouses and village centres completed by FY25)
• All three sustainability linked lending performance targets met again
• Continued progress towards Summerset’s near-term science-based target of a 49%
reduction in Scope 1&2 emissions intensity per sqm by 2028 (against 2022 base year).
Summerset also received external recognition for its sustainability leadership during the year
both at a local and international level.
“In 2025 we won the Corporate ESG category at the Institute of Financial Professionals New
Zealand’s awards, we achieved an A rating from the Carbon Disclosure Project (a signal of
global leadership in climate disclosure and action), our Karaka and Boulcott villages were
recognised by the RVA and the Wellington Regional Business Excellence awards respectively
for their sustainability activities and Forsyth Barr judged us the third highest ranking company
and a "leader" in their ESG ratings for NZX-listed companies.
“It is pleasing to be recognised externally for the work that we do, but we know this is an ever-
changing field and we have to keep working hard to deliver.”

ENDS

For investor relations enquiries: For media enquiries:
Margaret Warrington Louise McDonald
Chief Financial Officer Senior Communications & Media Advisor
Investor.relations@summerset.co.nz louise.mcdonald@summerset.co.nz
+64 21 246 3793

ABOUT SUMMERSET

• Summerset is one of the leading operators and developers of retirement villages in New
Zealand, with 40 villages completed or in development nationwide
• In addition, Summerset owns seven proposed sites at Belmont (Auckland), Rotorua (Bay
of Plenty), Mission Hills (Napier), Masterton (Wairarapa), Otaihanga (Kāpiti Coast),
Rolleston (Canterbury), and Mosgiel (Dunedin)
• Summerset also has four villages in development (Cranbourne North, Chirnside Park,
Torquay and Oakleigh South) and owns three other proposed sites in Victoria, Australia
(Craigieburn, Drysdale and Mernda)
• Summerset provides a range of living options and care services to more than 9,500
residents

---

Sustainability Review
AND CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES FY25

F ront cover: Summerset Boulcott, Lower Hutt
This page: Wearable arts competition at Summerset in the River City
About this report
Summerset’s
Sustainability Review and Climate-related
Disclosures FY25 covers our sustainability performance
and activities for the 12 months from 1 January 2025
to 31 December 2025, unless otherwise stated. Prior
sustainability reviews (including our first two climate-
related disclosures) can be found on our website here.
This report is a record of our work towards reducing our
impact on the environment, society and the economy,
guided by our Sustainability Framework and our ten-
year Strategic Plan. Questions about the report can be
directed to investor.relations@summerset.co.nz
Statement of Compliance
Summerset Group Holdings Limited is a climate-
r
eporting entity (CRE) under the Financial Markets
Conduct Act 2013. This report contains the group climate
statements for Summerset Group Holdings Limited and
its subsidiaries (Summerset) for FY25. These disclosures
have been prepared in compliance with New Zealand
Climate Standards (NZ CS 1, NZ CS 2 and NZ CS 3),
published by the External Reporting Board.
No adoption provisions have been used by Summerset
f
or this report. A reference table highlighting where in
this report our disclosure statements can be found is in
Appendix I of this report.
Important Notice / Disclaimer
This report contains current and forward-looking
st
atements about climate change, the impacts of it,
and Summerset’s response to it. These are based on
ever evolving assessments, judgements, assumptions
and incomplete data.
Forward-looking statements and opinions (such as those
concerning scenarios, anticipated impacts, risks and
opportunities, metrics and targets, and transitional
activities) in this report should not be relied upon,
as actual outcomes may differ materially from what
is de
scribed.
While Summerset aims to provide accurate information
f
or the year ended 31 December 2025 as at the
publication date (27 February 2026), we emphasise that
this report and its contents:
•should not be relied upon as guarantees of
futur
e performance
•contains no representations, warranties or assurances
in r
elation to any forward-looking statements
or opinions
•is not an
offer or recommendation to invest in,
distribute or purchase financial products nor is the
information intended to constitute earnings guidance
•do not constitute legal,
financial, investment or tax
advice or advice of any other kind
•presents all amounts at face value unless discounting
is specifically
stated
Future outcomes may differ from the scenarios and
assumptions pr
esented in this report due to economic,
technological and market factors beyond Summerset’s
control. For detailed financial performance, please refer
to our Financial Statements in our Annual Report FY25.
Key information
Company name: Summerset Group Holdings Limited
Head Office
address: Level 27, Majestic Centre,
100 Willis St, Wellington, New Zealand
This report was approved by the Board on
26 February
2026
Mark Verbiest
Chair
Fiona Oliver
Director & Chair of the
A
udit & Risk Committee
02

Contents
04
C E O A N D B O A R D I N T R O D U C T I O N
07
S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y H I G H L I G H T S
08
Sustainability snapshot
09
S U M M E R S E T ' S B U S I N E S S
A N D S T R A T E G Y
10
Our business model and strategy
13
Climate Action Plan
14
Capital allocation and investment
17
S C E N A R I O S
18
Scenario analysis
20
Summerset's climate scenarios
24
Risks and opportunities
34
M E T R I C S A N D T A R G E T S
35
Our GHG emissions
38
Key metrics and targets
43
G O V E R N A N C E
44
Board & Management
46
Risk management
47
A P P E N D I X
47
Appendix I: NZ CS reference table
49
Appendix II: GHG information
57
Appendix III: GHG assurance

CEO and Board introduction
Welcome to Summerset’s
Sustainability review and Climate
Related Disclosures FY25, for the 12
months ended 31 December 2025.
This report is our fourth sustainability review, and
the third report that includes our mandatory climate
disclosures. This is an important document for us
to provide transparency to our investors, and other
stakeholders, on the work we do, as well as the risks, and
opportunities, that climate change poses for Summerset.
We are proud of the work we have done to date to
impr
ove our environmental, social and governance (ESG)
processes for the betterment of our business and for the
areas we live, work and operate in.
We have successfully embedded sustainability into our
business operations over the last five years and this has
allowed us to move faster in FY25 and do more. During
2025 we focused on resilience, delivering tangible and
real-world impacts against the risks that climate change
poses for us as a business.
Sustainability and ESG practices are now commonplace
thr
oughout Summerset’s business units and our teams
are working collaboratively across multiple projects
that impact design, construction and operations. This
cross-functional approach is embedded across our
portfolio and is central to our transition planning and
sustainability strategy.
This year, we accelerated our transition off
gas, expanded our renewable energy generation
capability
, and continued to set new benchmarks
in waste minimisation with our construction waste
avoidance programme.
We
identified resilience as a key focus as we want to
be able to ensure that our village communities can
operate as independently as possible in the event of
external disruptions, such as major power outages,
wher
ever practicable.
Our achievements have been recognised with industry
awards, and our buildings are being celebrated for
sustainable design.
Gas transition
We recognise the importance of moving away from
natur
al gas and LPG at our villages, both due to the
energy supply risks (in the supply of gas in future as well
as the increasing cost) and because of the climate issues
the use of gas creates.
In FY25, we made the decision to accelerate our
transition away from utility gas, setting a target to
remove gas from our remaining 28 villages by 2028.
During the year we successfully transitioned seven
villages off gas as part of this programme. A small
working group is delivering the transition, and funding
has been allocated to support this important work over
the coming years.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy generation
Solar energy remains a pivotal part of our resilience
plan, while at the same time pr
oviding tangible benefits
to us in terms of reducing our power costs and
grid consumption.
This year we rolled out a further 1,500+ solar panels –
retrofitting some older villages and in the construction
of new buildings. These solar panels are located on
our village centre buildings and provide power for
resident homes and amenities including the café,
pool, indoor cinema, as well as the care centre and
serviced apartments.
Our solar panels at our Richmond village saved
appr
oximately $35,000 in electricity costs in their first
year of operation, a better return than we’d initially
anticipated, and we expect to see similar savings across
our other villages.
As well as our village centre buildings, we are looking at
options f
or our independent living residents. In Q4 we
started a resident solar pilot – putting solar panels on
a number of villas at our Hobson
ville village. We’ve had
strong interest from residents at that village and plan to
run the pilot for a year before we assess its suitability to
roll out the initiative to more villages.
Waste diversion and embodied carbon
Our construction waste diversion targets remain a
continued f
ocus. In 2025 we diverted 5,624 tonnes of
construction waste from
landfill.
We’re looking beyond the construction phase too,
and ha
ve moved towards reduced embodied carbon
04

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
CEO AND BOARD INTRODUCTION
products in our civil works phase. For example, our
construction team have sourced underground pipes
with less embodied carbon than products we’ve
used previously, increasing the sustainability of our
future villages.
Embodied carbon refers to the total greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production
of a building's materials, from extraction through
manufacturing, transportation and construction. We
made significant steps in our understanding and
reduction of embodied carbon during FY24 and
we’ve continued that into this year. Understanding
and minimising embodied carbon is crucial in our
efforts to combat climate change and build more
sustainable communities.
Our aim is to use 30% reduced embodied carbon
concr
ete product wherever possible in our New Zealand
builds. We’re also investigating a 37% reduction for parts
of the build at our Half Moon Bay village. This reduces
our climate impact and, helpfully, is cost-neutral.
This year, we took a
significant step forward by
measuring the embodied carbon of our typical village
centre buildings (these house the care centre, serviced
apartments, café and other village amenities) for the
first
time. Results show a reduction in embodied carbon
between the original generation of buildings and the
new versions — similar to the improvements we’ve
previously achieved in our standard villa and townhouse
building typologies.
While we haven’t yet measured all building types,
the
se results reinforce the value of design-led carbon
reduction and support our continued work with
designers, contractors and suppliers to reduce waste
and improve efficiency.
Progress against our targets
We pride ourselves on setting external and internal
per
formance markers that hold us to account. These
are stretch goals that ensure we remain focused and,
in some cases, provide us with added benefits
if we
hit them.
In 2025 we met all of our sustainability-linked lending
(SLL) performance targets again. These targets are
ongoing dementia care certification and increasing
dementia bed provision, reducing emissions intensity per
square metre, and diverting construction and demolition
waste from landfill. Achieving these has triggered a six
basis-points adjustment on our lending and generated
approximately $1.2m in interest savings for us.
Last year, we announced our commitment to a rigorous
ne
ar-term approved science-based emissions reduction
target. This requires a 49% reduction in Scope 1
and 2 emissions intensity per square metre by 2028,
using FY22 as our baseline. In FY25 we achieved a
9% reduction toward this target, excluding the use of
renewable energy certificates (RECs). We remain focused
on delivering this ambitious goal through operational
efficiencies, renewable energy procurement, and our
targeted decarbonisation initiatives.
Toitū-certified
We have made the decision to transition from Toitū Net
C
arbon Zero to being Toitū Carbon Reduce certified.
Transitioning to Toitū Carbon Reduce keeps us within
the r
espected Toitū framework, while focusing on
verified emissions reduction, rather than offsetting our
unavoidable emissions. With our extensive initiatives and
investment (most notably in our gas decarbonisation
acceleration and our successful solar panel roll out)
we believe achieving these goals should be our focus
in the coming years. This strategic shift reflects the
significant
progress we’ve made in the implementation
of our own sustainability initiatives programme and
our confidence to continue executing on reducing our
emissions intensity as a company.
Summerset has held Toitū Net Carbon Zero certification
from 2018 to 2024, during which time we purchased
Gold St
andard verified carbon credits across a mix
of New Zealand and international projects. Our
emissions reporting under Toitū Carbon Reduce will
r
emain independently assured and aligned with our
emissions reduction targets and sustainability-linked
lending requirements.
Social and Governance
Our focus as a business is creating meaningful social
initiativ
es that support our purpose of bringing the best
of life to the more than 9,500 residents who call our
villages home. At a village level we have a large number
of residents who have embraced sustainability – from
food waste minimisation to textile repurposing, creative
reuse of household items, and community recycling
initiatives like battery and soft plastics collection.
At a company level we have continued to invest heavily
in aged care, which is very important to our residents
as well as the communities that we work in. Providing
modern, high-quality aged care is essential to give older
New Zealanders and Australians what they want and
need as their health changes.
During FY25 we opened fully refurbished care centres
at our Havelock North and Trentham villages as well as
completing brand new care centres at Cambridge and
our first one in Australia at Cranbourne North in Victoria.
We are on track to deliver a further five village centre
buildings, all with purpose-built care facilities, in the
next 12–18 months at our Waikanae, Whangārei, Milldale,
Prebbleton and Blenheim villages.
We also employ more than 3,100 people across
Ne
w Zealand and Australia and we continually look
at how we can provide meaningful career pathways
and opportunities for our people to give them every
opportunity to be at their best in and out of work.
A key piece of work for the year was our Employee Value
Pr
oposition (EVP). This is Summerset’s commitment to
our people, and our people’s commitment to each other,
of what they’ll give and receive from working with us.
Our EVP is “Together we bring villages to life” and
contains four promises – Belong, Impact, Inclusion and
05

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
CEO AND BOARD INTRODUCTION
Growth. No matter what part of the business our people
work in they are there to bring our villages to life from
the moment we buy land right through to when they are
operational.
The EVP will be a marker and goal that we will hold
ourselves to over the coming years to ensure we’re living
up to the promises we’ve made. For more information on
our work to provide greater social sustainability see the
"Our people and community" and "Our villages sections"
of our Annual Report.
We are very pleased to maintain a consistent and
settled go
vernance structure that continues to adapt
and change to the growing expectations around
ESG accountability
We have a very strong governance structure from our
Boar
d down to ensure that we monitor our risks and that
we have the appropriate skills and experience to help
us to respond to the risks and opportunities that climate
change will present in the future. This includes regular
reviews of ESG indicators, integration of climate-related
risks into strategic planning, and ongoing board-level
engagement with sustainability performance.
External recognition
We were honoured to again be recognised by Forsyth
Barr in their f
ourth Carbon & ESG Ratings for NZX-listed
companies. Summerset was rated the third-highest NZX-
listed company based on their criteria, up from 10th last
year. Forsyth Barr again graded Summerset as a "leader"
among NZX-listed companies for our ESG work.
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), an internationally
r
ecognised disclosure framework that measures
businesses’ competency against a wide range of climate
change measures, has awarded us an A grade this year.
This was a significant improvement against the very
creditable B rating we achieved in recent years. This
rating change recognises our strengthened governance,
improved emissions transparency, and progress against
our emissions reduction targets. Being an A List
company signals global leadership in climate disclosure
and action, and is only achieved by 4% of organisations
who disclose to CDP
.
Our sustainability work was also recognised by the
Institute of Financial Professionals New Zealand (INFINZ),
when Summerset won the Corporate ESG category at
their 2025 awards.
Work continues
We are very proud of the work we’ve undertaken to date.
S
ummerset has continued to increase our resilience
and contribution to New Zealand and Australia’s
climate goals.
We believe we’re meeting our strategic objective
of being a good corporate citizen and positively
contributing to every community we work, and our
residents live, in. However, we know that sustainability
and ESG is an ever-evolving area and we’ll continue to
challenge our thinking, assumptions and the projects we
invest in as well as finding new ways to engage with our
residents and to give them opportunities to contribute to
our ESG work.
We would like to thank the Summerset team for their
dedication to bringing our village
s to life. Thank you also
to our residents, suppliers, stakeholders and investors
for working so collaboratively with us and pushing us to
be better.
Scott Scoullar
Chief Executive Officer
Smoking ceremony, Summerset Torquay
06

Waste to Waist show during Recycling week, Summerset in the Sun, Nelson
Sustainability highlights
07

Sustainability snapshot
91,787 tCO
2
e total greenhouse gas emissions
from 1 January to 31 December 2025
91% village resident satisfaction
and 89% care resident satisfaction
1,500+ solar panels installed across New Zealand
and Australia (total solar panels across villages are now
2,700+) and 795 MWh of renewable energy generated
and consumed from rooftop solar in FY25
230+ community organisations supported
across New Zealand and Australia
31% reduction in gas-use emissions intensity
per main building since FY17
43% of our board members are women and 55%
of senior management team are women (executive and
senior leadership teams)
5,624 tonnes of construction waste diverted from
landfill, representing 78% of total waste generated under
our construction waste avoidance programme
84% retention of permanent employees,
strengthening workforce stability and improving from FY24
100% achieved all three of our sustainability-linked
lending performance targets, attracting an interest
margin discount
132 ethnic groups represented across our
workforce, reflecting broad cultural diversity and inclusion
25% of our gas villages transitioned off
utility gas in FY25
2% gender pay gap company wide, -2% across
senior management and executives (a negative gender
gap indicates women earn more on median)
25 villages host electric vehicles, giving
residents access to low-emission transport and
trial opportunities
400+ uniform garments recovered for
reuse or recycling
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SUSTAINABILITY HIGHLIGHTS
| SUSTAINABILITY SNAPSHOT
08

Resident using village electric vehicle, Summerset by the Dunes, Pāpāmoa
Summerset's business and strategy
09

Our strategy
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SUMMERSET'S BUSINESS AND STRATEGY
| OUR BUSINESS MODEL AND STRATEGY
10

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SUMMERSET'S BUSINESS AND STRATEGY
| OUR BUSINESS MODEL AND STRATEGY
Summerset designs, builds, owns and operates
retirement villages. The vast majority of the company's
villages include care centres providing a continuum of
care for residents as their needs change. We currently
have 44 villages either completed or in development (40
in New Zealand and four in Australia), with a land bank
of ten greenfield sites (seven in New Zealand and three
in Australia).
Summerset's purpose is "bringing the best of life". This
motivates the products, services and interactions we
have with our more than 9,500 residents every day.
This purpose is supported by our strategy, split into
key areas that have corresponding short- and long-term
initiatives. Three key areas that drive ESG work are "Be
a good corporate citizen", "become a more efficient and
effective business" and "invest in our people".
Sustainability has been a part of the overall vision at
Summerset since we first measured our carbon footprint
in 2017. We continue embedding sustainability into
key business processes and practices to develop and
operate villages responsibly. This commitment reflects
our vision to create a sustainable future for all—our
residents, employees, and communities—and positions
Summerset to transition alongside the New Zealand
and Australian Governments towards a low-emissions,
climate-resilient future.
Transition plan aspects of Summerset's strategy
What is a transition plan?
The Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards
define a
transition plan as part of an entity’s overall strategy that
outlines its targets, including any interim targets, and the
actions it will take to move to a low-emissions, climate-
resilient future. Transition planning involves reshaping
and evolving the business model in response to climate-
r
elated risks and opportunities.
Summerset's approach
Sustainability is embedded across our entire
or
ganisation. Over the past few years, we’ve been
building and refining a circular approach to how we
design, build, and manage our environments. This means
that we consider sustainability through each part of the
process from the start of the village to it's operation, and
back through as we redesign and redevelop or refurbish
the villages we own as they age. This approach informs
decisions at every level and connects our strategy with
our Climate Action Plan and the targets that underpin our
transition, many of which are aligned with climate
science and sustainability performance.
Our transition plan spans the full building and
construction lifecycle, as shown in Figure 1—from design
and procurement through construction, operations,
refurbishment, and end-of-life reuse and recycling. This
integrated view supports resource efficiency and
innovation while enabling us to grow responsibly.
Key elements of our approach include:
•
Emissions reduction targets
We have committed to near, medium, and longer-
term emissions intensity r
eduction targets. These
targets drive adaptation and continued innovation
across our business model and built environment
portfolio.
•
Lifecycle integration
Transition planning is embedded across design,
pr
ocurement, construction, operations, and beyond.
Each phase informs the next, enabling continuous
improvement and responsiveness to emerging
technologies, regulatory shifts, and climate science.
•
Strategic alignment
Our transition planning is closely linked to our ten-
y
ear strategy, Climate Action Plan, and SLL targets.
This alignment ensures coherence across capital
deployment, operational decisions, and long-term
Figure 1: Our transition plan
11

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SUMMERSET'S BUSINESS AND STRATEGY
| OUR BUSINESS MODEL AND STRATEGY
planning. Refer to Table 2 for details of our capital
deployment plan aligned to transition priorities.
•
Adaptability and resilience
We recognise the need to remain nimble. Our
appr
oach is designed to be flexible, acknowledging
the long lead times in village development and
the evolving nature of climate-related risks and
opportunities. An example of this adaptability is our
decision this year to prioritise gas transition, driven
by the increasing risk of future supply constraints
and potential cost volatility. In response, we have
implemented a new target to get 28 villages off
utility gas by the end of 2028. We are also exploring
r
esident-focused decarbonisation opportunities. In
FY25, we introduced a solar pilot for residents,
enabling them to access renewable energy and
reduce their own carbon footprint.
Our transition approach builds on our circular principles
and r
equires coordinated action across the building and
construction lifecycle. It combines resource efficiency
with innovation and collaboration to deliver on our
low-carbon commitments. Underpinning this approach
is our commitment to near-, medium-, and longer-
term emissions intensity reduction targets. These
intensity-based targets drive continuous adaptation and
innovation across our business model, enabling us to
reduce emissions intensity while continuing to grow.
This transition is supported by strong social initiatives
and governance practices that prioritise resident
wellbeing, aged care investment, and inclusive
career pathways for our people—ensuring sustainability
is embedded across environmental, social, and
governance dimensions.
Resident‑shar
ed surplus produce stand built using recycled timber,
Summerset by the Dunes, Papamoa
Table 1: Emissons targets and progress
2017–2022
Original short-term
five-
year target
2023–2028
1
Near-term five-
year
target
2022-2031
2
Medium-term
sust
ainability linked
lending targets (3)
2017–2032
1
Longer-term target
Target
⌄
5%
reduction in emissions
intensity per $M of
r
evenue by 2022 (2017
base year)
⌄
49%
reduction in emissions
intensity per squar
e
metre by 2028 (2022
base year)
˄ incr
easing number of
dementia beds
˅ emissions intensity
reduction per
square metre
3
˄ div
ersion of
construction waste
from landfill
⌄
62%
reduction in emissions
intensity per squar
e
metre by 2032 (2017
base year)
Progress
4
⌄
16%
⌄
9%100%
5⌄
12%
1.Emissions intensity reduction targets are science-based and cover Scopes 1 and 2 only
2.Targets are confirmed through 2026 and 27. Targets to 2031 will be set closer to the relevant reporting period
3.Selected Scopes/categories and includes the impact of RECs
4.Progress figures exclude the purchase of RECs in FY23, 24, 25, except where noted in footnote 3
5.100% indicates discount level achieved in 2025 for all three targets
12

OUR PRIORITIESDESIGN & CONSTRUCTIONDECARBONISATION OF VILLAGES
MANAGING OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES
Actions and targets to manage
our climate-related risks and
opportunities
Our Climate Action Plan outlines key initiatives, delivery approach, and outcomes for managing climate-related risks and
opportunities. Details are summarised above and expanded in tables and sections throughout this report. Many initiatives support
our decarbonisation strategy and scenario analysis.
Capital deployment
Planned capital allocation for climate-related risks, opportunities, and transition plan components is detailed on pages 14-16.
Other climate-related targets
Sustainability-linked lending targets are in the Metrics and Targets section (page 34) and Think Green intensity metrics appear in
the table on page 40.
OUR INITIATIVESHOW WE’LL DELIVEROUTCOME EXPECTED
Design and construction
• Sustainable, low-carbon design for all new builds
Integrate sustainability into briefs; specify low-carbon
materials; apply lifecycle planning; drive construction waste
and efficiency improvements
All new builds meet low-carbon standards by 2028; progress
towards supplier engagement target (70% by 2028); supports
Scope 3 emissions reduction
Smart water management
•
Water-efficient villages, measured and managed
Install smart irrigation/meters; monitor usage; drought-
tolerant planting and effective landscaping techniques
Smart water metering in all villages where feasible; improved
water efficiency
Solar generation
•
S
olar panels for villages and resident opportunity
Install solar panels in new and existing villages; expand
resident solar pilot; monitor uptake and impact
Retrofit solar complete by 2033 (where applicable); resident
solar pilot completed by 2026 and expanded if successful;
reduces Scope 2 emissions and grid reliance
Gas transition
•
Re
move utility gas from all existing villages
Remove utility gas from 28 villages, upgrade infrastructure
as required
28 villages off gas by 2028; enhanced operational efficiency
and energy security; Scope 1 emissions reduction
Embodied carbon
• Lower carbon in building materials
Baseline and reduce carbon in key typologies; specify low-
carbon materials; engage suppliers
Reduction in embodied carbon for measured typologies;
supports Scope 3 emissions reduction
Fleet electrification
•

A
ll village vehicles electric, supporting resident EV takeup
Transition village vehicles to electric; expand infrastructure
charging; enable resident EV experience
Transition fleet to electric and hybrid alternatives; resident EV
access in all villages; reduces Scope 1 emissions
Waste minimisation
• Sustainable, low-carbon design for all new builds
Strengthen construction waste recovery; circular procurement;
design-out waste, monitor key performance indicators (KPIs)
Sector leading diversion rates; reduces Scope 3 emissions
Our Climate Action Plan summarises how we are tackling the challenges of decarbonisation and transition
Climate Action Plan
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SUMMERSET'S BUSINESS AND STRATEGY
| CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
13

Capital allocation and investment
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SUMMERSET'S BUSINESS AND STRATEGY
| CAPITAL ALLOCATION AND INVESTMENT
Alignment with capital deployment and
funding processes
Summerset undertakes detailed financial forecasting,
monthly and annual planning, incorpor
ating our targets,
ten-year strategy, and internal modelling that reflects
climate scenarios. A 50-year horizon is considered for
our build programme. Alongside this, we adopt a long-
term strategic approach to asset management, enabling
climate-related risks and opportunities to be assessed on
a project-by-project basis.
Climate considerations are integrated early in project
feasibility and design, shaping decisions from land
acquisition through to construction. Site selection
includes rigorous assessment of physical risks such as
flooding
and sea-level rise, alongside transition risks
like insurance and managed retreat. This proactive
approach ensures resilience is factored in before
development begins.
During design and refurbishment, we integrate
sustainability initiatives such as designing out waste,
adopting low-carbon materials, and implementing
advanced smart systems for energy and water
optimisation. Our teams continually review, where
applicable, and trial emerging technologies and
processes, including prefabrication techniques and
circular material solutions, to ensure each project
reduces emissions and strengthens long-term resilience.
Supporting this approach is our SLL programme, which
tie
s financial performance to sustainability targets.
To achieve these targets, we maintain an annual
Sustainability Initiatives Budget and Decarbonisation
Fund, alongside
project-specific budgets. Together,
these mechanisms position Summerset to mitigate
climate-related risks while capitalising on opportunities.
Capital investment
Summerset’s Climate Action Plan is primarily supported
thr
ough capital expenditure captured in:

•Sustainability Initiatives Budget (property and asset
management pr
ogramme)
•Decarbonisation Fund (sustainability programme)
•Village Refurbishment Project Budget (design and
de
velopment programme)
Our new village developments and construction
incorporate significant capital investment across all our
successfully embedded sustainability initiatives which
are now standard in our designs. These investments
are not currently tracked or reported on. Additional
expenditure within operational budgets, outside of the
above areas, is also not tracked or reported.
Planned capital expenditure for FY26 is outlined in Table
2, which details investment directed towards climate-
related risks and opportunities. A key focus this year and
going forward, is the acceleration of our gas transition.
We have committed to removing utility gas from 28
villages by 2028, supported through the Decarbonisation
Fund. This investment reflects our proactive response
to energy market uncertainty - particularly the growing
risk of supply constraints and cost volatility - while
contributing to our broader emissions reductions efforts.
In FY25, ~17% of Summerset’s total capital expenditure
on pr
operty, plant, and equipment for existing sites
was allocated to renewable energy generation, energy
efficiency upgrades and decarbonisation projects. This
represents a slight increase on the previous year.
While opportunities 3 and 4 are included in the Risk and
Oppor
tunities tables (pages 32 and 33), a distinct budget
has not been itemised for these at this stage, as their
associated spend cannot yet be quantified separately.
This does not mean that no resources are allocated but
rather that the activities are integrated into our business-
as-usual operations.
CASE STUDY
E M P O W E R I N G R E S I D E N T S
T
O D E C A R B O N I S E
Summerset’s resident solar pilot at our Hobsonville
village builds on the company’s wider solar roll-
out programme, which began in 2022. This next
step extends our transition planning beyond core
operations by enabling residents in independent villas
to generate renewable energy and reduce their own
carbon footprint.
Under the pilot, rooftop solar panels were installed
on participating residents' villas with Summerset
contributing 50% of the installation cost.
Uptake has been good, with residents embracing the
oppor
tunity to reduce electricity bills and actively
participate in a more sustainable future. Feedback
has also been positive, with residents enjoying the
ability to track their solar generation through an easy-
to-use app.
This initiative
reflects our commitment to innovation
and adaptability, providing valuable insights into
whether a wider roll-out to independent villas across
other applicable villages would be a meaningful next
step in our transition journey.
14

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SUMMERSET'S BUSINESS AND STRATEGY
| CAPITAL ALLOCATION AND INVESTMENT
Table 2: Capital expenditure and investment towards climate-related risks and opportunities (current operations)
InitiativeMetric ($NZ)Method/assumptionsPlanned spend (to FY28) and detailLink to
c
limate risks
and opportunities
Renewable
ener
gy
development
(solar)
FY25: $800,000
FY2
4: $600,000
FY23: $350,000
FY22: $50,000
FY26 estimate:
not provided
This metric tracks capital spend on
retrofit solar installations,
including stand-alone common area buildings, main buildings, solar
streetlights and our resident solar pilot. The majority of FY25
spend relates to installations at Te Awa’s main building, Taupō’s
apartment block, Trentham’s pool house, and contributions to our
resident solar
offering. It excludes solar panels installed during the
construction phase of new builds.
Metric trend: Spend increased in FY25 as the programme
e
xtended to upgrading solar streetlights at older villages. Spend
on retrofit solar panel installations remained steady with FY24.
Prior to that, in
vestment was lower as the programme was
progressively implemented.
No estimate provided, as allocation
is r
eviewed annually and takes into
account our new build delivery
schedule and the prioritisation of other
transitional projects.
Detail
: Solar delivery began with
small pool house installations in FY23,
progressing to main building retrofits in
FY24 and FY25. In line with our plan,
rooftop solar on main buildings will be
integrated during the construction phase
from FY26.
Supports Summerset
in incr
easing
our renewable
generation capacity
(Opportunity - 01)
Investment in
ener
gy
solutions
projects -
other
FY25: $250,000
FY2
4: $300,000
FY23: $450,000
FY22: $100,000
FY26 estimate:
not provided
This metric tracks capital spend on LED lighting upgrades, water
metering, and EV char
ging infrastructure. In FY25, the focus was on
completing 100% of interior LED upgrades across older villages and
progressing water metering installations. EV charging infrastructure
was a major cost driver in FY24, with fewer installations in FY25
following strong roll-out in the prior years.
Metric trend:
The EV charging project commenced in FY22 and
ramped up in FY23 and FY24, contributing to higher spend in those
years. In FY25, spend tapered as EV infrastructure needs reduced
and LED upgrades neared completion.
No estimate provided, as allocation
r
emains under prioritisation and will
reflect business needs and transitional
project priorities.
Detail
: FY26 allocation remains under
prioritisation. With EV chargers largely
complete and LED upgrades moving to
business-as-usual, any additional spend
will depend on business priorities, with
water metering and monitoring progress
under consideration.
Supports Summerset
to decarbonise
.
Residents can
also contribute
through utilising low
carbon infrastructure
(Opportunity - 01)
Investment in
energy
solutions
projects - gas
transition
FY25: $800,000
FY24: $250,000
FY23: n/a
FY22: n/a
FY26: estimate
$3-4m
This metric calculates capital spend on gas decarbonisation. In
FY25, we recognised the need to accelerate our gas transition
programme and have separated this spend from "other" energy
solutions projects.
Metric trend:
Spend increased significantly from FY24 to FY25,
reflecting the acceleration of this programme. After trialling new
technology in FY24, we expanded roll-out in FY25, transitioning
seven of 28 gas villages off utility gas.
An estimated $10–12m investment
is required to complete gas
decarbonisation of existing villages
by FY28.
Detail
: This is an evolving programme,
with costs reviewed as new technologies
emerge. Investment covers conversion
of natural gas and LPG systems for hot
water, heating, cooking and laundry.
Supports Summerset
to decarbonise.
Residents can
also contribute
through utilising low
carbon infrastructure
(Opportunity - 01)
15

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SUMMERSET'S BUSINESS AND STRATEGY
| CAPITAL ALLOCATION AND INVESTMENT
InitiativeMetric ($NZ)Method/assumptionsPlanned spend (to FY28) and detailLink to
c
limate risks
and opportunities
Embodied
carbon
me
asurement
solution
FY25: $6,000
FY24: $7,000
FY23: $6,000
FY22: N/A
FY26: estimate
$6,000
Annual subscription cost for a solution to measure the embodied
carbon of our built en
vironment.
Metric trend:
Spend remains consistent year-on-year.
Ongoing annual investment in a
solution to enable the me
asurement of
embodied carbon.
Supports
S
ummerset’s efforts
to reduce embodied
carbon thr
ough
sustainable design
and construction
(Opportunity - 02)
Construction
w
aste
avoidance
FY25: 0
FY24: $145,000
FY23: $
400,000
FY22: n/a

FY26:
Not applicable
In FY25, our programme diverted 5,624 tonnes of construction
w
aste from landfill. Working more closely with our supply chain,
improving design practices to reduce waste, and engaging directly
with construction trades on-site have been key areas of progress.
Metric trend:
As this programme develops into its fourth year and
the number of active construction sites increases - particularly
in metro areas - more sites are utilising mass balance reporting,
including villages in Melbourne, Australia. Programme costs
have reduced year-on-year as practices and efficiencies become
embedded into business operations.
Any spend related to this initiative is
included within oper
ational budgets.
Supports Summerset
deliv
ering on the
performance target
related to our
sustainability-linked
lending facility
(Opportunity - 02)
Numbers are rounded to nearest 000
16

Waste to Waist show during Recycling week, Summerset in the Sun, Nelson
Scenarios
17

Scenario analysis
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| SCENARIO ANALYSIS
Scenario analysis undertaken
Throughout 2023 and early 2024, Summerset
par
ticipated in both the Construction and Property
Sector, and the Health Sector scenario creation
processes. These two sector scenarios are key
considerations for Summerset due to the nature of
our business as both a constructor and operator
of retirement villages. Both complete sector scenario
analysis documents are available online, including on
the External Reporting Board's (XRB) website.
1
Along
with other key stakeholders within each sector, we
were working group members contributing to the
development of these sector scenarios, with technical
facilitation and support from Beca and Tonkin & Taylor for
the Construction and Property Sector, and Health Sector,
scenarios respectively.
In 2024 Summerset continued to run a stand-alone
process for scenario analysis. This process involved a
detailed breakdown, cross-examination and comparison
of both relevant sector scenarios, with particular focus
on archetypes, reference scenarios, driving forces, key
assumptions and data.
Once this comparison was completed Summerset then
under
took an internal process to select the most relevant
drivers from each sector scenario analysis. This included
examining the drivers and their definitions, including
redefining these drivers to be more Summerset-relevant
as required. Following driver selection, scenarios and
narratives were updated.
These
refined scenarios were then used throughout the
rest of our climate-related disclosures work programme
for 2024. Summerset feels that these updated scenarios
better
reflect the balance between our two core
business functions: the construction and delivery of new
retirement villages, and the operation of our villages,
including providing healthcare to our residents.
For 2025, Summerset opted to continue with a
st
and-alone process and utilising our 2024 scenarios.
Prioritisation was given to incorporate feedback (from
st
akeholders, regulators and analysts) as well as
reviewing our outputs (risks and opportunities). Work has
continued on upskilling the business including greater
focus on Australian involvement and considerations.
Why these scenarios
All three scenarios present plausible futures for
S
ummerset but each scenario demonstrates a different
series of challenges and issues to navigate. The
thr
ee scenarios are detailed on the next pages but
include a 1.5ºC (Orderly) and >3ºC (Hot-house world)
scenarios in line with the requirements of the XRB’s New
Zealand Climate Standards (NZCS). The third scenario
is a middle of the road pathway balancing increased
transition against partially unmitigated physical risks:
2ºC (Disorderly).
Time horizons
Summerset’s scenario analysis is structured around
the thr
ee time horizons set out in Table 3. These
same horizons are used when assessing the potential
impacts of risks and opportunities. We also consider
how uncertainties and assumptions may influence
our responses, and we monitor key information and
emerging trends that help us prioritise action over time.
Scenario analysis process
The scenarios created through both the Construction
and Pr
operty Sector and Health Sector processes were
developed in accordance with the XRB and other
guidance on developing sector scenarios. They followed
the recognised structure of six key steps:
•
Steps 1 and 2: Engage sector stakeholders
and set
focal questions, scope and timeframe for the scenario
development process.
•
Step 3: Identify and prioritise driving forces of
r
elevance to the sector. Driving forces, also known
as drivers, are typically broad scale factors which
influence the direction of future change.
•
Step 4: Select outcomes and pathways combinations
f
or narrative development which are of greatest
relevance and provide the greatest challenge (such
as using the four Network for Greening the Financial
System (NGFS) narrative quadrants).
•
Step 5: Draft narratives and quantify variables
which follow a clear internal logic. Synthesise any
r
elevant data from existing scenarios and projections.
Generate new data if doing so is feasible and
adds value.
•
Step 6: Review and
finalise the scenarios. Check the
scenarios are internally consistent and fit for purpose.
Document methodology in a comprehensive report.
When Summerset reviewed both sector scenarios and
undertook our own process, we undertook a shortened
process that focused on step 3 onwards. It was felt
that both sector scenarios covered steps 1 and 2
sufficiently for our purposes and approach. During its
own scenario analysis process, Summerset has not
performed additional modelling beyond that used to
create the existing international scenarios (e.g., SSPs,
RCPs and NGFS scenarios), which were relied on to
develop the sector scenarios.
Throughout the scenario analysis process Summerset's
Climate Working Group acted as the key mechanism
for consulation, feedback and considerations.
Supplementary to this was the additional inclusion of
Summerset's Sustainability Forum as a key stakeholder
from mid-2024 moving forward for all climate-related
disclosures work programme deliverables.
Building on this work, climate‑r
elated risks and
opportunities were assessed against a range of
scenarios, with oversight from the Senior Leadership
Team and review by the Board. The outcomes of this
scenario analysis inform the organisation’s strategy, risk
management approach, and decision‑making.
1.https://www.xrb.govt.nz/standards/climate-related-disclosures/resources/sector-level-scenario-analysis/
18

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| SCENARIO ANALYSIS
Table 3: Time horizons for scenario analysis
Short
Present (2025)–2030Short
(0–5 years): Aligns with the immediate priorities of our ten-year strategic focus. Additionally, it matches
our approximate construction timeframes for new villages, our near-term sustainability targets (2028), and our
financial strategy (primarily bond maturity horizons)
Medium
2031–2050Medium
(5–10 years): Aligns with the medium-to-long-term priorities of our ten-year strategic focus.
Additionally, it matches with our five-year-plus term sustainability targets (2032), financial modelling horizons,
and the approximate timeframe for design and consenting processes for new villages
Long
2051–2100Long
(10–30 years) Thinking long-term out to a 30-year horizon aligns with international emission reduction
targets (Paris Agreement, 2050). Additionally, it coincides with long-term forecasts for New Zealand
population growth demographics which formulate input for our village and business model feasibility
The tables on pages 20 to 23 provide a brief overview
of e
ach of Summerset’s climate-related scenarios, the
various emissions reduction pathways in each scenario,
and the assumptions underlying pathway development.
2
Future scenario analysis and
development opportunities
Summerset's main priority is to ensure that climate
change and scenario analysis become common
consider
ations when making relevant business decisions,
thereby helping us better transition to a low carbon
resilient future economy. This involves; ensuring our
scenarios remain relevant and fit for purpose each year,
assessing operating stand-alone vs integrated scenario
analysis and utilising the prefered method.
2.Summerset’s climate scenario narratives do not assume or rely on carbon sequestration from afforestation, nature-based solutions and negative emissions technology reflecting the inherent uncertainty of such measures and
inst
ead focusing on enabling assessment of physical and transition risks relevant to its development and operating portfolio. The scope of operations includes risks from supply‑chain issues, financial or insurance costs, damage or
loss of assets, reduced asset value, and higher care or maintenance needs that increase overall costs as noted in our FY24 Sustainability Review and Climate-related Disclosures
Solar panels
retrofitted on the pool house at Summerset at the Course, Trentham
19

Summerset's climate scenarios
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| SUMMERSET'S CLIMATE SCENARIOS
ORDERLY (1.5ºC)
The world succeeds in limiting global warming to 1.5ºC
abo
ve pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.
This takes a coordinated, ambitious, international and
corporation-led proactive effort of well-signalled and
supported regulatory changes, policies and targets.
With the new policies and regulatory changes, all sectors
are required to play their part and help reduce GHG
emissions. This leads to a prioritisation of electrification
and sustainable practices. Embodied carbon becomes
a main metric for the construction and property sector
to measure and demonstrate the sector’s changing
behaviour and contributions. Additionally, regulations
and policies are put in place to protect vulnerable
populations from the impact of climate change (both
physical and transitional).
New Zealand still experiences extreme weather events
affected by climate change (acute impacts), particularly
in the short- and medium-term, which strongly influence
public support for rapid change. Infrastructure is
prioritised for adaptation rather than resilience. Weather
pattern shifts occur, with increases across measures
such as rainfall, sea level rise and the number of
hot days.
Societal and market behaviour moves rapidly to support
and prioritise change
. Focus and favouritism are given to
sustainable and renewable solutions over fossil fuels and
non-sustainable practices.
Likely temperature
increase by
2100 (global)
1.0–1.8°C
Pathways
RCP 2.6, SSP 1-1.9
NGFS ‘Net Zero 2050’,
IEA ‘Net Zero Emissions’,
CCC ‘Tailwinds’
Impacts
on GDP
Immediate and smooth
Policy
reaction
Immediate and smooth
Technology
change
Fast

Behaviour
change
Fast
Physical
risk severity
Moderate
Transition
risk severity
Low – Moderate
Socio-political
instability
Low – Moderate
Health impacts of
physical risk
Low – Moderate
Orderly 1.5°C
Proactive change and legislation help keep emissions on track with
the Paris Agreement. This leads to a world with higher transition
risks but lower physical climate change risks.
ASSUMPTIONS
20

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| SUMMERSET'S CLIMATE SCENARIOS
DISORDERLY (2ºC)
Average temperature increases are limited to between
1
.5ºC and 2.5ºC above pre-industrial levels by
2100. However, climate change focused policies and
decarbonisation initiatives are not introduced until 2030
(globally, within New Zealand, and within the sector).
Consequentially, it is a rapid, stringent and costly effort
to decarbonise.
From 2030 there is a spike in demand for low carbon
materials and energy efficient technology as change is
now heavily prioritised. Early adopters and fast movers
get the opportunity to utilise materials, expertise and
knowledge, while late movers face increased cost and
competition. During this time critical infrastructure,
particularly the national grid, faces intense pressure
to keep up with the sudden surge of electrification
and transition.
New Zealand still faces extreme weather events and
shifting weather patterns with increases across measures
such as rainfall, sea level rise and the number of
hot days. A lack of action through the 2020s results
in a heightened vulnerability to assets through the
medium term (2030–2050). This significantly increases
the impact of weather-related events and changing
weather patterns as adaptation has not been well
implemented or prioritised.
Following this realisation, protecting vulnerable
populations become
s a priority, with infrastructure,
technology, and decision-making factoring a mixture of
adaptation and resilience.
Likely temperature
increase by
2100 (global)
1.3–2.4°C
Pathways
RCP 2.6, SSP 1-2.6, NGFS
‘Delayed Transition’,
IEA, ‘Sustainable
Development’, CCC
‘Headwinds’
Impacts
on GDP
Moderate – Major
Policy
reaction
Delayed
Technology
change
Slow – fast

Behaviour
change
Slow – fast
Physical
risk severity
Moderate
Transition
risk severity
High
Socio-political
instability
Moderate
Health impacts of
physical risk
Moderate
Disorderly 2.0°C
A disjointed and delayed approach sees temperatures increase
past 1.5ºC but then rapid action occurs which helps minimise
the long-term impacts.
ASSUMPTIONS
21

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| SUMMERSET'S CLIMATE SCENARIOS
HOT-HOUSE WORLD (>3ºC)
There is a global focus towards nationalism and security
of r
esources (food, energy, water and space). This
collectively leads to a deprioritisation of climate change
mitigation and adaptation, resulting in a failure to
implement regulations, policies or controls to limit the
effects of climate change.
Consumer and market behaviour remains interested in
climate change but does not drive significant mitigation.
The focus emphasises resilience and responses to
climate-related events rather than proactive adaptation.
Emissions continue to grow unabated, and this leads to
significant shifts in climate patterns and climate-related
extreme weather events.
Average temperature increases exceed 2ºC by 2050
and 3ºC above pre-industrial levels by the end of the
century, resulting in severe physical impacts of climate
changes. There are significant changes in sea level rise,
rainfall intensity and number of hot days, all of which
drive heat-related issues such as illnesses, diseases and
epidemics as well as hampering food production and
living conditions.
This places immense strain and burden upon
communitie
s (particularly the elderly and vulnerable),
the associated services (health, emergency response,
local councils) and critical infrastructure. Net migration
to New Zealand and climate refugees further exacerbate
the issues.
Likely temperature
increase by
2100 (global)
2.8–4.6°C
Pathways
RCP 8.5, SSP 3-7.0, NGFS
‘Current Policies’, IEA
‘Stated Policies’, CCC
‘Current Policies’
Impacts
on GDP
Severe
Policy
reaction
None – current policies
Technology
change
Slow

Behaviour
change
Slow
Physical
risk severity
Extreme
Transition
risk severity
Low
Socio-political
instability
High
Health impacts of
physical risk
High
Hot-house world 3.0°C
Climate change action is stagnant with only current policies
kept, which drives high emissions and temperatures.

This results in severe physical risks occurring.
ASSUMPTIONS
22

Geographic climate considerations
WAIKATO
(Taupo, Hamilton & Waikato) We can expect 16-68
more hot days per year and average precipitation
changes range from a 10% decrease to 1%
increase. The greatest seasonal precipitation
change is projected in spring
TARANAKI
We can expect 7-50 more hot days per year and
average precipitation changes ranging from a 8%
decrease to 3% increase. The greatest seasonal
precipitation change is projected in autumn
UPPER SOUTH ISLAND
(Marlborough, Nelson & Tasman)
We can expect 6-36 more hot days
per year. Average precipitation
changes range from a 9% decrease
through to a 4% increase
We can expect 9-91 more hot days per year and
precipitation decrease between 6% and 25%
NORTHLAND
We can expect 8-90 more hot days per year and
precipitation decrease between 2% and 20%
AUCKLAND
(Western Bay of Plenty, Tauranga & Rotorua Lakes)
We can expect 16-74 more hot days per year and
average precipitation changes ranging from a 9%
decrease to 1% increase. The greatest seasonal
precipitation change is projected in spring
BAY OF PLENTY
(Napier and Hastings) We can expect 18-
62 more hot days per year and average
precipitation to decrease by 1% to 9%
HAWKE’S BAY
(Wellington, Porirua, Lower Hutt,
Upper Hutt & Kapiti) We can expect
1-36 more hot days per year. Average
precipitation changes range from a
4% decrease through to a 4% increase
WELLINGTON
(Christchurch and Waimakariri) We can
expect 9-39 more hot days per year. Average
precipitation changes range from a 6%
decrease through to a 6% increase
CANTERBURY
(Dunedin) We can expect 5-26 more hot
days per year. Average precipitation changes
range from an 8% decrease through to a 11%
increase. The greatest seasonal precipitation
change is projected in summer
OTAGO
WESTERN
AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN
TERRITORY
SOUTH
AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND
NEW SOUTH
WALES
VICTORIA
(Melbourne) We can expect 10-52 more very
hot days (over 41.2ºC) per year. Rainfall is
expected to decline and water availability
is likely to be important with droughts and
evaporation having significant impact
1
The sources of data used to construct each scenario, including the climate-related scenarios on
pages 20 to 22 and the regional climate change projections on this page 23, are:
•
Health Sector Scenarios and Construction & Property Sector Scenarios
(www.xrb.govt.nz/standards/climate-related-disclosures/resources/sector-level-scenario-analysis)
•
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (MfE), Climate-projections-summary-dashboard
(www.environment.govt.nz) by the relevant territorial authority to asset location. At time of
reporting the worst case scenario available is SSP3-7.0
•
F
or Australia from Victoria State Government, Greater Melbourne Climate Projections 2024
An overview of potential regional climate change projections in
locations with Summerset villages. The changes are taken with a
long-term worst-case (3.6ºC by 2100) scenario lens
1

(Horowhenua, Manawatu, Whanganui and
Palmerston North) We can expect 4-37 more hot
days per year and average precipitation changes
range from a 7% decrease to 4% increase
MANAWATU
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| SUMMERSET'S CLIMATE SCENARIOS
23

Risks and opportunities
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
CLIMATE-RELATED RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The tables on the following pages set out the key climate-related risks and opportunities that Summerset identified against our three selected scenarios. To determine potential
impact, the
se risks and opportunities were assessed against an internal materiality matrix for each scenario. The exposure and alignment metrics in the tables are new metrics in
FY25 and accordingly comparative information is not included.
Other risks and opportunities that did not meet the materiality threshold have not been disclosed. However, Summerset will continue to monitor the materiality of those risks and
oppor
tunities and adjust our disclosures in future, as required, to reflect changes in materiality.

Physical Risk - 01: Risk posed by changing severity and frequency of extreme weather events (flooding, wildfires, and winds)
Assessment and vulnerability
Current
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement actions
Risk:
Heavy rainfall events are
increasing in both intensity and
frequency. This presents a risk of
flooding to our villages and surrounding
infrastructure that could impact our
ability to safely and successfully operate
our villages
Vulnerability: <1% of our units are
consider
ed at risk of flooding due to
extreme rainfall
1
Materiality:
The units are only
potentially affected in the most extreme
scenarios used (a 1 in 100 Annual
Exceedance Probability (AEP) with RCP
8.5 2081 – 2100 event)
Using this high threshold for
identification and a timeframe beyond
our current design life of villages help
raise potential issues early. This allows
Summerset to respond and mitigate (as
required) in ample time
In FY25 there was no
material damage or
impact to an
y of our
operational villages,
or sites under
development due to
extreme rainfall.
Minor
flooding as
a function of the
village stormwater
design was observed
at various times
throughout the year.
In no instance did
damage occur nor
significant
disruption
to residents
or operations.
Scenarios:
Hot House World >3
o
C
Timeframe for impact:
2026-2100
Future impact commentary: The anticipated increase
in heavy rainfall events could lead to:
•damage to Summerset villages
•disruption to village operations and residents
•increased insurance premiums
•increased costs (OPEX/CAPEX) due to required
mitigation, r
esilience or adaptation measures
Anticipated
financial impact: Summerset has chosen
not to quantify the financial impacts of this
risk. Data availability constraints and uncertainty
around assumptions, potential effects and long-
term climate projections mean quantification is
currently unfeasible.
Exisiting mitigations:
•New village site selection and design standards modelled
to meet or e
xceed RCP8.5 projections
•Targeted due diligence with engagement of external
specialists to ensur
e flood resilience (e.g. conservatively
engineered stormwater catchment areas, targeted run off
and overflow areas)
•Engagement and work with local and regional councils
as r
equired to assist in mitigating impact to the
surrounding area
•Ongoing programme to assess, monitor and mitigate (as
r
equired) flood and sea-level risk risks
New mitigations or achievements:
Continuation of our targeted programme of works for two
units identified as having higher potential exposure to
e
xtreme rainfall and future sea-level rise. Specifics include
detailed reviews of historical design information, verification
through new physical surveys, updated flood modelling and
analysis of local authority flood data to validate risk profiles.
24

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Physical Risk - 01: Risk posed by changing severity and frequency of extreme weather events (flooding, wildfires, and winds)
Assessment and vulnerability
Current
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement actions
Risk:
Maximum temperatures
experienced are increasing in both
intensity and frequency. This presents
an increased risk of wildfire which could
resulting in damage to Summerset’s
villages and residents
Vulnerability: Our Australian villages
determine and mitigate
wildfire risk
as part of the Building Code. We will
review our NZ villages for wildfire risk in
the future
Materiality: Our current expectation is
that no operational villages are at a
material risk of damage due to wildfires.
However, Summerset continues to take
precautions during site selection due
diligence and village design
In FY25 there was
no material damage
or impact to an
y
of our operational
villages, or sites
under development
due to wildfires.
Scenarios:
Hot House World >3
o
C
Timeframe for impact:
2050-2100
Future impact commentary: The anticipated increase
of wildfires could lead to:
•damage to Summerset villages
•disruption to village operations & residents
•increased insurance premiums
•increased costs (OPEX/CAPEX) due to required
mitigation, r
esilience or adaptation measures
Anticipated financial impact: Summerset has chosen
not to quantify the financial impacts of this
risk. Data availability constraints and uncertainty
around assumptions, potential effects and long-
term climate projections mean quantification is
currently unfeasible.
Existing mitigations:
•New village site selection and design standards modelled
to meet or e
xceed RCP8.5 projections
•New sites that have an increased probability of wildfires
(e.g. Australia, regions of New Zealand dense with
f
orestry or close to hazards such as transmission lines
undergo additional due diligence via engagement of
external specialists
•Existing risk controls to mitigate potential risks (e.g.
incorpor
ation of fire breaks, use of non- or low-
flammable materials)
New mitigations or achievements:
Summerset did not implement any new mitigations for
maxium temperatures and wildfires in FY25. Summerset
complies with existing building requirements and considers
RCP8.5 projections for future site selection and design. A risk
assessment and monitoring programme is in place.
Risk: Extreme wind conditions (gales,
storms, tornadoes etc.) are increasing
in both intensity and frequency. This
presents an increased risk of damage to
our villages and residents.
Vulnerability: We are still determing
exposure of operational villages to
extreme winds
Materiality: The current level of
risk is very low due to our
adherence to specified design
standards (AS/NZS 1170.2:2021)
In FY25 there was
no material damage
or impact to any
of our operational
villages or sites
under development
due to extreme wind.
Scenarios: Hot House World >3
o
C
Timeframe for impact: 2026-2100
Future impact commentary: The anticipated increase
of extreme wind events could lead to:
•damage to Summerset villages
•disruption to village operations & residents
•increased insurance premiums
•increased costs (OPEX/CAPEX) due to required
mitigation, r
esilience or adaptation measures
Anticipated
financial impact: Summerset has chosen
not to quantify the financial impacts of this
risk. Data availability constraints and uncertainty
around assumptions, potential effects, and long-
term climate projections mean quantification is
currently unfeasible.
Existing mitigations:
•New sites that have an increased probability of extreme
winds (e.g. regions of New Zealand) undergo additional
due diligence
•Existing risk controls to mitigate potential risks (e.g.
alter
ation of village design, specific material selection,
reinforced roofing, site orientation, strategic landscaping)
New mitigations or achievements:
Summerset did not implement any new mitigations for
e
xtreme wind conditions in FY25. Summerset complies
with existing building requirements and considers RCP8.5
projections for future site selection and design. A risk
assessment and monitoring programme is in place.
1.Riley Consultants Ltd undertook a flood
risk assessment and hydraulic modelling for a 1:100 AEP event, including climate change allowance under the RCP8.5 scenario. The assessment concluded that inundation risk is limited to
two units. The
findings are subject to the assumptions, limitations, and exclusions outlined in the report.
25

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Physical Risk - 02: Risk posed by longer-term shifts in climate patterns (sea-level rise, sustained hot periods, changing percipitation)
Assessment and vulnerability
Current
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement actions
Risk:
Increased periods of sustained
hot weather present an increased
risk to the health and wellbeing
of Summerset’s residents and staff
(due to their increased susceptibility
to heat related illness, e.g. heat
stroke, dehydration)
Vulnerability:
0% of Summerset’s
operational villages are considered
at risk of overheating during periods
of sustained hot weather
Materiality: We anticipate this risk
to only materialise and impact
us beyond the current asset
lifecycle. Monitoring is underway to
allow us to react quickly if this
assumption changes
In FY25 there was
no material impact
on our village
s, staff
or residents due to
sustained periods of
warm weather.
Scenarios:
Hot House World >3
o
C
Timeframe for impact:
2051-2100
Future impact commentary: Sustained periods of hot
weather could lead to:
•increased risk of heat-related issues or illnesses for
residents and staff (e.g. heat stroke, dehydration)
•increased costs (OPEX/CAPEX) due to required
mitigation, r
esilience or adaptation measures
(e.g. greater cooling requirements and
additional resources)
Anticipated financial impact: Summerset has chosen
not to quantify the financial impacts of this risk.
Data availability constraints and uncertainty around
assumptions, potential effects and long-term climate
projections mean quantification is currently unfeasible.
Summerset believes long-term climate shifts are unlikely
to directly impact our operations. Instead, regulatory
changes - such as mandated heating thresholds in aged
care - are expected to be the first response to chronic
climate change.
Existing mitigations:
•Legislation in Australia currently requires maximum heat
thr
esholds which Summerset must comply with. Our
designs currently met/exceed these requirements
•Staff
training and equipment to mitigate risk of heat-
related illness (PPE, preventative measures). This also
includes resident care and wellbeing
•Summerset's solar panel installation programme
continued in FY25
. Solar panels help reduce operational
costs during hot weather and periods of high
sunshine hours
•Monitoring of building design standards, regulations and
fit-for-purpose assets are installed
New mitigations or achievements:
•Summerset did not implement any new mitigations for
sust
ained periods of hot weather in FY25, partly due to
the long-term time horizon for this risk to eventuate. A
risk assessment and monitoring programme is in place.
Risk:
Changing precipitation
patterns present an increased risk to
the operation of our villages (due to
likely periods of extended drought
or water restrictions)
Vulnerability: We are still
determing the exposure of our
operational villages due to changing
precipitation patterns
Materiality: We only expect this
risk to materialise over a longer-
term horizon. We will continue to
monitor changing projections and
take mitigative actions as required
In FY25 there was no
material impact on
our village
s, staff or
residents due to
changing
precipitation
patterns.
Scenarios:
Hot House World >3
o
C
Timeframe for impact: 2051-2100
Future impact commentary: Changing precipitation
patterns could lead to:
•increased risk of drought and/or water restrictions for
our village
s and construction sites
•increased costs (OPEX/CAPEX) due to required
mitigation, r
esilience or adaptation measures (e.g.
rain water collection or reticulation systems, changes
to construction methodology and build windows)
Anticipated
financial impact: Summerset has chosen
not to quantify the financial impacts of this risk.
Data availability constraints and uncertainty around
assumptions, potential effects and long-term climate
projections mean quantification is currently unfeasible.
Existing mitigations:
•New village site selection and design standards modelled
to meet or e
xceed RCP8.5 projections
•Engagement and work with local and regional councils
as r
equired to assist in mitigating impact to the
surrounding area
•Existing risk controls to mitigate potential risks (e.g.
incorpor
ation of rain capture technology in Australia,
installation of water measuring tools, village design
including landscaping)
New mitigations or achievements:
•Summerset did not implement any new mitigations for
changing pr
ecipitation patterns in FY25, partly due to the
long-term time horizon for this risk to eventuate. A risk
assessment and monitoring programme is in place.
27

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Transition Risk - 01: Risk of policy and/or regulatory change in response to climate change
(embodied carbon requirements, maximum heat thresholds, energy or fuel profiles)
Assessment and vulnerability
Current
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement actions
Risk:
There is an increasing risk that policy
and regulation changes will be influenced and/
or driven by climate change. Specific examples
relevant to Summerset include:
Embodied carbon requirements
Vulnerability:
100% of Summerset’s business
practices that are considered at risk of regulatory
change affecting embodied carbon
Materiality: Embodied carbon requirements are a
significant consideration as we design, build and
operate our own villages. Summerset has had an
embodied carbon programme in place for the last
three years
Energy fuel profile
Vulnerability:
100% of Summerset’s portfolio
is considered at risk of regulatory change or
policies
affecting our energy or fuel profiles
Materiality:
Summerset’s energy and fuel profile
is significantly material. This is primarily due
to the interlinked nature of emissions reduction
targets and energy profile. Multiple work
programmes are underway
Maximum heat threshold
Vulnerability:
13% of Summerset’s portfolio is
considered at risk of regulatory change or
policies requiring a maximum heat threshold in
our designs
Materiality:
Maximum heat thresholds policy
change has a low materiality as Australia
has established legislation which Summerset
complies with, and New Zealand has no proposed
policy or regulation. However, it is worth
including given the potential risk to residents
In FY25 Summerset
spent $8
00k across
CAPEX initiatives in
current operations such
as solar panel installation
to grow our renewables
generation which can be
attributed to the risk of
energy profile regulation
or change.
Additionally, our
e
stablished embodied
carbon programme
continued. The
attributable cost is
restricted to software
subscription cost ($7k).
The remaining
programme costs are
integrated into business-
as-usual and without
significant
investment,
separating these costs is
not possible.
In FY25 there was
no material impact
on Summerset’s villages
or residents due to
maximum heat threshold
design requirements
or regulations.
Scenarios:
Orderly 1.5
o
C and Disorderly 2.0
o
C
Timeframe for impact:
2026-2050
Future impact commentary: policy or regulatory change
could lead to:
•Summerset having to alter existing infrastructure
(e.g. removal of gas boilers, installation of enhanced
cooling capability)
•change to design standards (e.g. energy
efficiency requirements)
•feasibility of future Summerset’s village and
land acquisitions
•increased costs (OPEX/CAPEX) stemming from
r
equired mitigation, or adaptation measures (e.g.
specific material sourcing)
•increased pressure on critical infrastructure during
ener
gy transitional phases
Anticipated
financial impact: Summerset is expected
to quantify the financial impact of policy or regulatory
change if the legislation or policy is virtually certain, i.e.
it is past select committee stage and the likely financial
impact is material.
Summerset expects that regulatory change has the
potential to significantly affect Summerset and its
operations. The likely outcome is increased CAPEX and
OPEX spending to remain compliant.
However, due to the
significant level of uncertainty
around how, when and what regulatory changes will
affect Summerset, quantification is not possible.
We will continue to take proactive steps to mitigate
potential r
egulatory changes when sufficient certainty
around regulatory and policy direction allows.
Existing mitigations:
•Our embodied carbon programme is
driving man
y different initiatives such
as measurement and reduction, material
innovation and supplier engagement,
design considerations focusing on
reducing waste.
•Achievements include reduced carbon
concr
ete standardised for all new builds,
environmental product declarations
(EPD) implemented for concrete,
aluminium, rebar, insulation panels.
•Proactive engagement with key
st
akeholders (e.g. government,
regulators, industry bodies)
•Australian village design requirements
ar
e compliant with existing
regulatory requirements
New mitigations or achievements:
•Completed in FY25 embodied carbon
me
asurement for our typical main
building typologies
•Expanded EPD sourcing and
supplier engagement, impr
oving data
quality and supporting lower-carbon
material choices
•Integrated waste minimisation into
de
sign to reduce upfront emissions and
landfill impact
28

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Transition Risk - 02: Risk of changing market behaviour influenced by or reacting to climate change
Assessment and vulnerability
Current
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement sctions
Risk:
There is an increasing risk that
market behaviour will be influenced by and/
or react to climate change and climate
change events. Specific examples relevant to
Summerset include:
Consumer behaviour
Vulnerability: 100% of operations are
e
xposed to changing consumer behaviour
Materiality:
Summerset relies upon new
enquiries and residents moving into our
villages. Over time our prospective residents'
demographic and ideology can and will
change with potential prioritisation of
sustainability and climate change mitigation
or resilience growing in importance
Supply chain
Vulnerability:
100% of operations are
exposed to supply chain disruptions
Materiality:
Summerset relies upon both
domestic and international supply chains to
continue to operate. Supply chain volatility
can be linked to a variety of climate change
factors (events, regulation, demand)
Summerset’s reputation and brand
Vulnerability:
100% of operations are tied to
Summerset’s reputation and brand
Materiality: Summerset’s reputation and
br
and are tied to performance against both
physical climate change events (e.g. storms,
floods) and non-physical (e.g. supply chain,
sustainability awards, regulation)
Sustainability-linked financials
Vulnerability:
100% of operations are tied
to SLL
Materiality:
Summerset has linked its entire
financial lending to SLL and is therefore
bound by sustainability performance
targets (SPT)
In FY25 there
w
as no material
impact or financial
impact of this
transition risk.
Scenarios:
Orderly 1.5
o
C and Disorderly 2.0
o
C
Timeframe for impact:
2026-2050
Future impact commentary: changing market behaviours
driven by climate change could lead to:
•changes in Summerset’s attractiveness to customers,
stakeholders or investors
•increased costs (OPEX/CAPEX) driven by multiple
f
actors such as; achievement of targets, supply chain
volatility, climate resilience programmes, and maintain
reputation or perception
Anticipated financial impact: Current estimates indicate
that achieving the SPT discount level on the SLL will
be between ~$3m and ~$10m savings over the period
2026–2036
This is a present value estimate of the expected savings
Summerset will achieve by meeting between one and three
of the three SLL discount SPT levels annually for the period
2026–2036
Quantification
method: The SLL savings are calculated
based on Summerset’s internal long-term debt forecast
and margin discounts specified on the SLL. Interest
cost savings each year are then discounted back to
31 December 2025 to derive the present value
Key assumptions: One SPT has levels that have been set to
2026, and two SPT have levels that have been set to 2028.
This estimate assumes that the SLL continues to operate
beyond these dates through to 2036 with three SPT, and
similar interest rate savings for meeting the discount level
The SLL also includes neutral levels for each of the three
SPT wher
e no savings will apply to interest costs, as well
as premium levels that must be paid by Summerset as
additional interest cost if any of the three SPT are at or
below premium levels
Summerset’s best estimate is that the discount level will be
met f
or between one and three of the SPT annually, and
for any SPT where the discount level is not met, that the
neutral rate will apply
Existing mitigations:
•Established emissions intensity reduction
t
argets combined with our Climate Action Plan
keep us on track to meet targets (see page 13)
•Modelling of required investment against
gr
owth to ensure we are on track to
achieve targets
•Frequent reporting to the executive and board
on sust
ainability initiatives and targets
•Participation in voluntary sustainability and ESG
disclosur
e schemes (CDP, S&P Global, Forsyth
Barr) to gauge market perception
•Centralised procurement function for
construction and de
velopment, focusing on
forecasting and long-term agreements to
help reduce supply chain volatility (price,
availability, options)
New mitigations or achievements:
•Summerset won the INFINZ Business NZ
– Corporate ESG Award for progress in
embodied carbon and performance against our
SLL targets
•Expanded embodied carbon measurement
acr
oss typical main building typologies to
identify low-carbon material opportunities
•Continued engagement with national supplier
and contr
actor forums on ESG priorities
(emissions reporting, waste reduction, and
EPDs) to align with climate objectives
•Effective November 2025,
refinanced bank
debt facilities, extended maturity dates
for most tranches. All tranches remain
sustainability-linked, including new FY25
tranches. Additionally, discount levels were
achieved for all three SPT - one measured to
30 June
and two to 30 September 2025
29

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunity - 01: Opportunity to change Summerset's energy profile
Assessment and alignment
Currently
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement actions
Summerset has multiple opportunities to
suppor
t the transition towards a low
emissions economy and reducing the
contribution that Summerset’s energy
profile has on our emissions
Specific
opportunities:
•transition away from fossil fuels (e.g.
gas boilers)
•installation of solar panels
•installation of energy
efficient
technology (e.g. LEDs)
•electrification
of transportation (EVs)
and provision of charging technology
Alignment:
100% of our activites are
aligned with this opportunity, partly due
to our entire banking facility being
sustainability linked and tied to emissions
reduction targets
Dedicated CAPEX spend is allocated each
y
ear to continue this programme
Summerset invested
ne
arly $2m in
FY25 including
accelerating the
transition away from
utility gas (used
in 28 villages),
continued solar
panel installations,
LED retrofits and EV
charger provision.
This investment,
f
ocused on retrofit
programmes,
reflecting a
deliberate effort to
reshape our energy
profile, reduce
reliance on fossil
fuels, and improve
operational
efficiency.
Scenarios:
Orderly 1.5
o
C and Disorderly 2.0
o
C
Timeframe for impact:
2026-2036
Future opportunity commentary: by altering Summerset’s
energy profile and supporting a transition to a low carbon
economy Summerset could:
•reduce our emissions profile/intensity
•reduce OPEX costs
•achieve SLL performance targets
•increase demand or attractiveness of Summerset (with
both potential r
esidents and investors)
Anticipated financial impact: Summerset is expected to
quantify the financial impact of technology change related
to GHG emission reduction if the technology is provable and
virtually certain
Estimated CAPEX spend of ~$12M during 2026–2036 for
retrofit initiatives affecting portfolio and energy profile. This
increased CAPEX spend is effectively offset by the potential
savings from meeting SLL SPT over the same time period
(see Transition Risk – 02)
Quantification
method:
•CAPEX is allocated annually for sustainability and
emissions reduction initiatives, with spend being
prioritised in each calendar year.
•Annual CAPEX discounted back to 2025 for present value
Key assumptions:
•CAPEX applies only to existing villages. All new villages
ha
ve solar panel installation, LEDs and EV charger
provision as part of construction.
•Gas transition includes kitchen equipment, hot water,
pool he
ating, fireplaces, laundry.
•We expect to complete gas transition by 2028.
•We expect to complete LED conversions by 2030.
•We expect to complete retrofitting
solar panel
installations, where possible, by 2033
Existing mitigations:
•Integration of climate-related risks into
our enterprise risk management fr
amework
resulting in ongoing proactive management
•Established emissions intensity reduction
t
argets combined with our Climate Action
Plan keep us on track to meet our targets (see
page 13)
New mitigations or achievements:
•A key strategic decision was taken in the year
to acceler
ate our gas transition programme,
establishing a pathway to convert 28 sites
by 2028
•FY25 saw the continued implementation
of our initiativ
es programme designed to
support transition to a low carbon economy
and meet our emissions reduction targets (see
Table 2)
•Capital allocation for decarbonisation
incr
eased from $1.1m in FY23 to $1.5m in
FY24, reaching approximately $2m in FY25
(see Table 2)
30

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunity - 02: To prioritise sustainable design decisions
Assessment and alignment
Current
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement actions
Summerset has the opportunity to prioritise
sust
ainable design decisions
Alignment: With Summerset continuing
to de
sign and build new villages every
year prioritising sustainable design is an
important opportunity. Approximately 75%
of our CAPEX is spent on the development
and construction of new villages, which
is where we can ensure we embed
sustainability into our design processes.
In FY25 there was
no material
financial
impact or realisation
of this opportunity.
Progress included
embodied carbon
me
asurement and
expanded EPD
sourcing with
supplier
engagement.
Scenarios:
Orderly 1.5
o
C and Disorderly 2.0
o
C
Timeframe for impact:
2026-2050
Future opportunity commentary: Prioritising sustainable
design decisions could lead to:
•a reduction of carbon emissions (e.g. embodied carbon,
construction waste, improved operational effectiveness)
•potential increase in CAPEX for implementation projects
or alternativ
e product selection (e.g. higher- cost
construction materials selected for low embodied
carbon measurements)
•increased customer, stakeholder, and/or investor
per
ception resulting in an increase in demand
or attractiveness
Anticipated
financial impact: Due to the absence of reliable
data, we are presently unable to undertake quantification
Summerset expects the greatest impact from prioritisation of
sustainable design decisions to be reflected in our brand and
reputation with residents, customers and investors. The value
associated with this is likely to be significant but cannot be
quantified due to the significant uncertainty associated with
any quantification method
Existing mitigations:
•Periodic review of village and
building de
signs focusing on resilience,
sustainability, emissions reduction and
embodied carbon (examples of successful
design changes include tile layout
and carpeting requirements, both
reducing wastage)
•Summerset has an established research
and de
velopment team within our design
division which considers new and innovative
technologies, processes and materials
New mitigations or achievements:
•Completed embodied carbon measurement
f
or our typical main building typologies
•Expanded EPD sourcing and supplier
engagement, impr
oving data quality and
supporting lower-carbon material choices
31

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunity - 03: To maximise stakeholder investment through sustainability leadership and ESG performance
Assessment and alignment
Current
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement actions
Summerset has the opportunity to
maximise st
akeholder investment through
sustainability leadership and strong
ESG performance
Alignment:
100% of Summerset's activites
are aligned with this opportunity
Summerset has publicly disclosed
emissions intensity reduction targets, SLL
commitments, and has a track record
of recognition, including multiple ESG-
related awards
Additionally part of our ten-year strategy
is being a good corpor
ate citizen, which
includes ESG performance and leadership
In FY25 there was
no material
financial
impact or realisation
of this opportunity.
However, strong
sustainability leadership
and ESG performance
could enhance access
to capital, support
customer demand and
occupancy through
growing preference for
responsible providers
and strengthen
brand value.
Scenarios:
Orderly 1.5
o
C and Disorderly 2.0
o
C
Timeframe for impact:
2026-2035
Future opportunity commentary: Sustainability leadership
and strong ESG performance could lead to increased
customer, stakeholder, and/or investor perception resulting
in an increase in demand or attractiveness
Anticipated financial impact: Due to the absence
of reliable data, we are presently unable to
undertake quantification.
Summerset is expected to quantify the financial impact
of market behaviour/reputation change if there is specific
evidence that supports the existence of such a change,
and the likely financial impact is material.
Summerset expects the value associated with strong
sust
ainability focus and ESG leadership to be significant.
However, due to the significant uncertainty associated
with any quantification method, Summerset has opted
not to disclose an indicative figure for the anticipated
financial impacts.
Existing mitigations:
•Integration of climate-related risks into
our enterprise risk management fr
amework
resulting in ongoing proactive management
•Summerset’s sustainability framework is
underpinned b
y a suite of emissions
targets, including an approved near-term
science-based target and medium-term
SLL targets. These targets guide our
decarbonisation efforts and are supported
by our Climate Action Plan and dedicated
budget. Together, they enable targeted
investment, performance tracking, and
integration of climate priorities, reinforcing
our ability to deliver long-term stakeholder
value through ESG
•Voluntary third-party ESG and sustainability
disclosur
e participation
New mitigations or achievements:
•Sustainability leadership recognised by
winning the INFINZ Corpor
ate ESG Award
reflecting progress in embodied carbon and
SLL targets.
•Village recognition in prestigious
sust
ainability awards demonstrates
leadership in environmental and
social responsibility.
•Achievements include initiatives from
Kar
aka’s partial gas transition and Boulcott's
sustainability efforts to St John’s Excellence
Award, highlighting ability to deliver
tangible ESG outcomes.
32

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
SCENARIOS
| RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunity - 04: To build a smart land portfolio focused on resiliency (specifically climate, but also encompassing water, nature and biodiversity)
Assessment and alignment
Current
i
mpacts (FY25)
Future impactsManagement actions
Summerset's long-term growth is
underpinned b
y careful and considered
land acquisition. Securing high-quality,
strategically located sites ensures a
robust development pipeline, enabling
the consistent delivery of new
retirement villages
Alignment:
100% of Summerset’s
operations are aligned with this opportunity.
Summerset continues to operate a
landbank for future village development
Applying a specific lens that incorporates
climate change resilience and adaptability,
helps ensure that Summerset’s landbank
remains fit for purpose and feasible through
changing circumstances
In FY25 there was
no material
financial
impact or realisation of
this opportunity.
Scenarios:
Hot House World 3
o
C
Timeframe for Impact: 2026-2100
Future Opportunity Commentary:
Carefully selecting the
right parcels of land to purchase can allow Summerset to:
•prevent unnecessary climate mitigation costs (e.g.
flood prevention measures, high wind roofing designs)
•increase safety and security of Summerset residents
•have easier access to insurance (increased insurability),
or lo
wer insurance costs (low-risk portfolio)
Anticipated Financial Impact: Due to the absence
of r
eliable data, we are presently unable to
undertake quantification
Summerset expects the value associated with building
a smart land portfolio to be significant as qualitatively
stated above
However, due to the significant uncertainty associated with
any
quantification method, Summerset has opted not to
disclose an indicative figure
Existing mitigations:
•Integration of climate-related risks into
our enterprise risk management fr
amework
resulting in ongoing proactive management
•Robust due diligence practices
when considering land acquisitions,
including incorpor
ating climate
change considerations
•Village design requirements to consider and
meet R
CP8.5 climate change projections
ensuring suitable resilience
New mitigations or achievements:
Summerset did not implement any new
mitigations when assessing land purchases
in FY25
Aerial view highlighting native vegetation and growth at Summerset Waikanae
33

Gardening at Summerset at Wigram
Metrics and targets
34

Our greenhouse gas emissions
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
METRICS AND TARGETS
| OUR GHG EMISSIONS
We have retained our Toitū Envirocare certification for
FY25, transitioning this year from Toitū Net Carbon
Zero to Toitū Carbon Reduce. This certification requires
annual adherence to rigorous standards and rules, with
a focus on measuring and reducing GHG emissions
in accordance with ISO 14064-1:2018. The Carbon
Reduce programme provides third party certification of
our emissions management approach and reflects our
embedded, company-wide programme of initiatives to
reduce emissions intensity.
Total emissions for the year ended 31 December
2025 were 91,787 tCO
2
e, an increase of 82,980 tCO
2
e
compared to our 2022 base year, primarily driven by
Scope 3 emissions. Scope 3 emissions totalled 86,211
tCO
2
e in FY25, up 26% from FY24, with the majority
attributable to construction activities. Capital goods
and purchased goods and services together accounted
for over 85% of total emissions and 91% of Scope 3
emissions. We measure and report on a selected subset
of Scope 3 categories in line with the Greenhouse
Gas Protocol – A Corporate Accounting and Reporting
Standard (Revised Edition) (GHG Protocol), including
fuel and energy-related activities, waste generated in
operations, business travel, downstream transportation
and distribution, and downstream leased assets. Full
details of our Scope 3 boundaries, methodologies,
assumptions, and exclusions are provided in Appendix
II of this report.
This year, we introduced quantity‑based r
eporting to
assess whether it would improve the accuracy of our
Scope 3 calculations. While this first step covered
only a small portion of our total Scope 3 emissions,
it demonstrated benefits: improved accuracy, better
alignment with our construction activities, and greater
visibility into contributing materials. We continue to
measure embodied carbon across our development
typologies, which helps us understand possible material
choices and identify low-carbon alternatives. Across
our supply chain, we have expanded the use of EPDs,
implemented emissions checklists, and worked closely
with supplier
s to support their own emissions reporting.
Our supplier forums have provided a platform for sharing
best practice and driving engagement on emissions
reduction. These steps are part of our ongoing efforts to
enhance data quality and completeness, and to identify
opportunities for meaningful Scope 3 reductions in our
most high-impact and influenceable areas.
Electricity and gas remain the primary sources of our
Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Our model of care requires
significant and unavoidable electricity demand, while
gas is used for hot water, cooking, and laundry -
core services in aged care. As our resident population
grows, absolute emissions are expected to increase.
Through our gas decarbonisation programme, we are
seeing reductions in Scope 1 emissions from natural gas
and LPG; however, these will be offset over time by
higher Scope 2 emissions as we transition these services
to electricity. Our renewables programme, including
the implementation of solar panels across our village
centres, will help to complement this transition and slow
the growth in Scope 2 emissions. We have already seen
evidence of the positive impact of solar generation, with
strong and consistent generation levels being achieved
across several of our solar-equipped main buildings.
In addition to generating our own renewable energy,
w
e also purchase RECs to support renewable energy
generation in New Zealand and Australia. In New
Zealand, this was achieved through Meridian’s Certified
Renewable Energy product, enabling us to report the
vast majority of market-based Scope 2 emissions as zero,
in line with the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance. RECs
covered all New Zealand sites except for a small office
in Napier, which closed part-way through the year. In
Australia, market-based Scope 2 emissions for all active
construction sites were zero. This was achieved through
100% GreenPower from Shell Energy until August 2025,
after which we transitioned to a Corporate Power
Purchase Agreement (CPPA) with Momentum Energy,
sourcing 100% of our electricity from the Granville
Harbour W
ind Farm, supported by Large-scale RECs. This
does not extend to our Australian office, which remains
outside these arrangements.
A summary of Summerset’s GHG emissions for FY25 is
set out in Table 4 on the following page.
How Summerset calculates GHG emissions
Our GHG emissions have been calculated in accordance
with the GHG Pr
otocol, the GHG Protocol Scope 2
Guidance, and the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain
(Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard (2011).
Since we have held Toitū certification since 2018, our
inventory also meets the ISO 14064-1:2018 standard
required to meet certification criteria.
1
To calculate our emissions, we utilise Toitū’s e-manage
software, which integrates emissions factors and
corresponding global warming potential (GWP) rates.
For FY25, e-manage employed a mix of 2025 and prior
y
ear emissions factors and GWP rates, including:
•Ministry for the Environment. Measuring emissions: A
guide for organisations: 2025 detailed guide
•Australian Department of Industry, Science, Energy
and R
esources. National Greenhouse Accounts
Factors. Canberra, Australia
•Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2025
•Market Economics Limited. Consumption Emissions
Modelling
, report prepared for Auckland Council.
March 2023
•New Zealand Gazette
•Brave Trace – Residual Supply Mix
•Ledgard and Falconer. Update of the carbon footprint
of fertilisers used in New Zealand. 2019
The Ministry for the Environment’s emission factors are
pr
edominantly based on 100-year GWP values from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)
1.KPMG and Ernst & Young Limited assurance procedures do not cover the ISO14064-1 standard
35

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
METRICS AND TARGETS
| OUR GHG EMISSIONS
Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Full details of all
emissions factor libraries used, units of measurement
and GWP sources used can be found in Table 13 on page
55 in Appendix II.
Our boundary
Summerset continues to apply the operational control
consolidation appr
oach to its emissions, in line with
the methodology outlined in the GHG Protocol. Our
emissions inventory encompasses all activities within the
operational boundaries of Summerset Group Holdings
Limited, including head offices, retirement villages
and construction sites. This includes villages under
construction, those in de
velopment, and operating
villages with construction ongoing. Emissions from our
Australian operations have been included since 2018,
with emissions from both construction and operational
activities incorporated as new developments come
online. No material facilities, operations, or assets have
been excluded.
Emissions sources
In line with the GHG Protocol, Summerset's emissions
in
ventory excludes sources that contribute less than one
CASE STUDY
D O I N G G O O D – C A R I N G , C O N N E C T I N G
A
N D C O N T R I B U T I N G
Across Summerset villages, residents and staff
are finding practical ways to contribute to
their communities— from repurposing textiles to
supporting local charities and driving grassroots
initiatives that reflect care, connection and
everyday action.
Summerset Summerhill, Palmerston North
At Summerhill, the team has started repurposing our
car
e centre linen, towels, and blankets that are no
longer suitable for resident use by donating them
to the SPCA. Items are collected in the laundry and
taken to the SPCA when the box is full. It’s a simple
way to reduce waste and support a local organisation
doing great work in the community.
Summerset at Monterey Park, Hobsonville
Residents at Hobsonville have teamed up with local
textile recycling group ImpacTex NZ to repurpose
clothing and reduce this waste from going to
landfill. This is a resident-driven initiative, with the
group collecting and donating garments. It’s a great
example of people doing good, feeling good, and
being sustainable in everyday ways.
Summerset Mountain View, New Plymouth
At Mountain View, residents creatively linked
Alz
heimer’s month fundraising to sustainability
by selling homemade ‘Enviro-packs’ and knitted
facecloths at Market Day. This initiative was deeply
personal, with long-time volunteers involved with
Alzheimers Taranaki, and it reflects Summerset’s
dementia-friendly v
alues and the power of resident-
led engagement.
Table 4: FY25 GHG emissions
FY22
tCO
2
e
FY23
t
CO
2
e
FY24
t
CO
2
e
FY25
t
CO
2
e
Scope 1
Total Scope 1
2,0972,2132,4642,345
Scope 2
Total Scope 2 (Location-based)
2,4991,4182,0473,231
Scope 2: Market-basedn/a171618
Scope 2: Location-based2,4991,4182,0473,231
Scope 3
Total Scope 3
4,21067,38668,41486,211
Category 1: Purchased goods and services2110,98611,42814,727
Category 2: Capital goodsn/a51,17350,53563,655
Category 3: Fuel and energy-related activities230205449529
Category 5: Waste generated in operations9104617311,025
Category 6: Business travel6671,057585510
Category 7: Employee commutingn/a2,2683,0173,194
Category 13: Downstream leased assets2,3811,2371,6692,571
Total GHG emissions
(L
ocation-based)
8,80771,01772,92591,787
Notes:
Historical recalculations in FY24 resulted in changes to categories 1, 2 and 7 (see base year and restatement)
2022 and 2023 inventories were audited by Toitū, 2024 by Ernst & Young Limited, 2025 by KPMG
36

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
METRICS AND TARGETS
| OUR GHG EMISSIONS
percent of the total emissions within their respective
categories, and collectively account for less than five
percent of total emissions and removals. These
exclusions are not considered material to the inventory
or its intended use, or for users relying on this data.
Excluded sources include minor operational activities
such as relocation costs, electricity from data centres
and transmission and distribution losses associated with
natural gas. No exclusions have been applied to Scope 1.
For a breakdown of Scope 2 and 3 exclusions, including
rationale and estimated impact, refer to Table 12 on
page 54 of Appendix II. Methodology, assumptions, data
quality, and uncertainty considerations are detailed in
Table 11 on pages 50 to 54 of Appendix II.
Base year and restatement
Our base year emissions inventory covers the period
1 January
2022 to 31 December 2022. We measure our
emissions annually, in line with our financial reporting
cycle as a publicly listed company. We acknowledge
that the base year does not fully cover several Scope
3 categories across our entire value chain. These
additional categories were first incorporated into our
emissions inventory for FY23.
In FY24, we recalculated FY23 capital goods and
pur
chased goods and services emissions to correct for
deflation or breakdown of basic price, margin and taxes.
This reduced emissions for those categories from 94,716
tCO
2
e to 62,139 tCO
2
e. FY23 employee commuting was
also updated using more accurate emissions factors,
adjusting the total from 3,000 tCO
2
e to 2,268 tCO
2
e.
Since the base year, our reporting scope has grown
to
reflect new entities and sites. For a map listing
our completed, in development and proposed villages
see pages 34 and 35 of our Annual Report 2025. No
recalculations were required this year.
Recalculation procedure
A recalculation procedure is applied to ensure the base
y
ear inventory remains accurate and comparable over
time. The inventory is reviewed annually to
confirm it
reflects current operations.
A quantitative threshold of ±5% is used as the trigger
for material changes. Recalculation may occur under the
following circumstances:
•structural changes - mergers, acquisitions,
div
estments, or outsourcing/insourcing of
emitting activities.
•methodology improvements - updates to calculation
methods, emission f
actors, or activity data that
materially affect base year emissions.
•errors - discovery of
significant errors or cumulative
errors that are collectively material.
In addition to quantitative criteria, qualitative factors are
considered, including:
•timing of emission factor releases.
•financial
and administrative effort required to update
the inventory.
•alignment with science-based targets and frequency
of r
eview.
This approach is consistent with the GHG Protocol and
industr
y best practice.
Assurance of GHG emissions
KPMG has provided independent, third-party limited
assur
ance over our Scope 1, Scope 2 (location- and
market-based), and Scope 3 emissions presented in
Table 4 and Table 10 for the 2025 reporting period.
The assurance was conducted in accordance with the
New Zealand Standard on Assurance Engagements 1:
Assurance Engagements over Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Disclosures (NZ SAE 1), and the International Standard
for Assurance Engagements (New Zealand): Assurance
Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements (ISAE
(NZ) 3410).
Assurance for 2024 was provided by Ernst &
Young Limited, as detailed in our FY24 Sustainability
Review and Climate-related Dislcoures (available on
our website). Assurance for the years 2017 to
2
023 was conducted by Toitū Envirocare, with
statements available at https://www.toitu.co.nz/our-
members/members/summerset-group-holdings-limited
Organisational structure of our emissions inventory
* Napier office closed in February 2025
** In development and fully completed
SUMMERSET GROUP
HOLDINGS
SUMMERSET HOLDINGS
(AUSTRALIA)
SUMMERSET
HOLDINGS
SUMMERSET
OFFICES
4
offices*
SUMMERSET
VILLAGES**
4
0 sites
SUMMERSET
LANDBANK
7
sites
SUMMERSET
LANDBANK
4
sites
SUMMERSET
VILLAGES
3
sites
100%
100%
100%
37

Key metrics and targets
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
METRICS AND TARGETS
| KEY METRICS AND TARGETS
Summerset’s key metrics, targets, and FY25 performance with prior year comparisons are detailed in the table below. Summerset considers that the target contributes to limiting
global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius because it has been developed to align with 1.5 degree pathways identified by the IPCC using guidance produced by SBTi. SBTi has
validated our near-term targets (Scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity and Scope 3 supplier engagement) as aligning with a 1.5 degree pathway.
TARGETBASELINE & HISTORYPERFORMANCEMETHOD/ASSUMPTIONS
GHG EMISSIONS PROFILE
1. Near (5 year)
49%⌄
Science-based target
Reduce Scope 1 and 2
emissions intensity b
y 49%
per sqm by 2028 from a
FY22 baseline, in line with a
1.5
o
C trajectory

2. Medium-to-Long
(5 years +)
62%⌄
Science-aligned target
Reduce Scope 1 and 2
emissions intensity by 62%
per sqm by 2032 from a
FY17 baseline, in line with a
1.5
o
C trajectory

FY22 (BASELINE)
Emissions intensity of
6.94* kgCO
2
/m
2
FY23
Emissions intensity of
3.03* kgCO
2
/m
2
FY24
Emissions intensity of
3.07 kgCO
2
/m
2

FY17 (BASELINE)
Emissions intensity of
7.15* kgCO
2
/m
2
FY23
Emissions intensity of
3.03* kgCO
2
/m
2
FY24
Emissions intensity of
3.07* kgCO
2
/m
2
FY25:
Emissions intensity of 2.68 kgCO
2
/m
2
In FY25, we exceeded our emissions intensity target of 3.54
k
gCO
2
/m
2
by 25%. This marks a continuation of the progress
made in FY23 and FY24, and to date we have achieved a 61%
reduction. With a focus on implementing our decarbonisation
initiatives, adopting more efficient technologies across our
portfolio, and investing in RECs, we are confident in our ability
to meet our 2028 targets. The target and performance include
the use of RECs but do not include the use of offsets. For a
breakdown of our FY25 GHG emissions please see Table 10 on
page 49.
FY25:
Emissions intensity of 2.68 kgCO
2
/m
2
In FY25, we made reasonable progress toward our longer-
term emissions intensity t
arget 2.72 kgCO
2
/m
2
, with a further
reduction in emissions intensity. We recognised the need to
accelerate our gas transition and put steps in place to do
this in 2025. Our new builds will incorporate more efficient
technologies where appropriate. The target and performance
include the use of RECs but do not include the use of offsets.
For a breakdown of our FY25 GHG emissions please see Table
10 on page 49.
Sources of uncertainty to note include (both targets):
•data provided as part of project analysis
including w
eather pattern variances and behavioural
estimates/averages
•future operating conditions can dictate performance
•ability to
retrofit into existing infrastructure
Method of calculation (both targets)
Summerset's emissions are calculated using the
oper
ational consolidation approach and stated in
accordance with the GHG Protocol, the GHG Protocol
Scope 2 Guidance, and the GHG Protocol Corporate Value
Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
Assumptions (both targets)
Summerset's plan to achieve its targets and assumptions
ar
e outlined across pages 10 to 16 of this report
Targets support
Physical risk - 01, 02, Transition risk - 01, 02,
Oppor
tunity - 01, 02, 03
38

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
METRICS AND TARGETS
| KEY METRICS AND TARGETS
TARGETBASELINE & HISTORYPERFORMANCEMETHOD/ASSUMPTIONS
INCREASE IN SUPPLIER ENGAGEMENT
70%⌃
of Summerset's suppliers
b
y emissions covering
purchased goods and
services, capital goods, fuel
and energy related activities,
upstream transportation
and distribution, waste
generated in operations
and business travel, to
have science-based targets
by 2028.
FY23
Our Scope 3 value
chain emissions were
67,386 tCO
2
e
FY24
Our Scope 3 value
chain emissions were
68,414 tCO
2
e
FY25:
Value chain emissions were 86,211 tCO
2
e.
Throughout the year, we strengthened our engagement
with supplier
s, achieving an 88% engagement rate with our
construction suppliers (based on spend). This included activity
to identify which partners already monitor and report their own
emissions, and seeking environmental product declarations
(EPDs) to support more reliable and transparent measurement.
We focussed our efforts on construction suppliers given capital
goods form a significant portion of our Scope 3 emissions.
Sources of uncertainty to note include:
•method of calculation (predominantly spend based)
•supplier awareness and willingness to engage
Method of calculation
We utilised the Toitū carbon value chain calculator as
par
t of our annual inventory verification, which also
included references to the GHG Protocol and any available
supplier EPDs
Assumptions
For details on the assumptions used, as well as data quality
and uncer
tainly please refer to Table 11 in Appendix II
Target supports:
Transition risk - 01, 02, Opportunity - 02, 03

SCOPE 1 GAS TRANSITION - ** NEW **
28 by 28
FY24 (BASELINE)
28 existing utility
gas villages (natural
and LPG)
FY25:
Seven of the 28 villages were transitioned off utility gas
during FY25
.
Sources of uncertainty to note include:
•technical feasibility of full electrification in older
village
s, resident impact, supplier capacity, timing and
cost variability
Method of calculation
Progress is measured by number of villages transitioned
Assumptions
Villages have been prioritised by asset age, high gas usage/
emissions and supplier contr
act expiry. All new villages are
designed utility gas free
Target supports:
Transition risk - 01, 02, Opportunity - 02, 03
39

Targets
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
METRICS AND TARGETS
| KEY METRICS AND TARGETS
Clear emissions targets remain central to guiding our
efforts to reduce our emissions intensity and tracking
performance. These targets enable us to focus resources
effectively and assess progress against our sustainability
objectives.
Near-term (five-year) target
A near-term
(five-year) target to reduce Scope 1 and 2
emissions intensity by 49% by FY28, from an FY22 base
year, was approved by the SBTi in 2024. This target
remains unchanged and continues to guide our
decarbonisation efforts.
Our target-setting approach has evolved over time. The
initial goal—a 5
% reduction in emissions intensity
per million dollars of revenue over five years—was
exceeded. In 2022, a science-aligned target was adopted
using the SBTi’s tool and submitted for approval in 2024,
resulting in minor adjustments to the current near-term
target.
Summerset's approved science-based targets:
•
Scopes 1 and 2 emissions intensity - 49% per square
metre by FY28 from an FY22 base year, aligned with a
1.5
o
C temperature pathway
•
Scope 3 supplier engagement - 70% of suppliers by
emissions-covering purchased goods and services,
capital goods, fuel and energy-related activities,
upstream transportation and distribution, waste
generated in operations, and business travel to have
science-based targets by 2028
Medium-term target
Our medium‑term t
argets are embedded within the SLL
facility established in 2021, with no set expiry. Relevant to
climate change, this includes a
confirmed and annually
stepped emissions‑intensity target (through 2026) to
reduce our market‑based Scope 1 and 2 emissions, plus
a small subset of Scope 3 emissions (waste to landfill,
travel, resident electricity, T&D losses and paper). The
emissions‑intensity target under the SLL is aligned with
the science required to limit global warming to 1.5°C. In
2025, the emissions‑intensity discount t
arget was
≤0.0098 tCO
2
e/000 m
2
and the target does not rely on
offsets. Target setting and performance are subject to
independent assurance.
We also have an annually stepped target to reduce
construction waste to landfill (through 2028). In 2025,
the target was an average reduction of >80% in major
metropolitan areas and >41% in regions. We also have
a dementia care bed target, which is not related to
climate change.
We continued to make strong progress against our SLL
t
argets this year. Our construction waste avoidance
programme again exceeded expectations, with all 20
sites in New Zealand and Australia collectively diverting
significant amounts of waste from landfill (see our case
study on page 45). Emissions intensity reduction targets
w
ere met, and dementia care commitments were upheld
through maintained accreditation and the opening of
new memory care centres across our portfolio.
Longer-term (five+ years) target
Our original longer-term science-aligned target was
intr
oduced in late 2020, committing to a 62% reduction
in Scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity per square
metre by 2032, from a 2017 base year. While this
target has not been approved by the SBTi, it remains
aligned with a 1.5°C global warming trajectory. Scope
2 emissions continue to be measured using the market-
based method.
Table 5: Think Green intensity metrics
EMISSIONS
S
OURCE
INTENSITY METRICFY17FY21FY22FY23FY24FY25
Gas
(Scope 1)
Emissions from gas used per main building m
2
(tCO
2
e/m
2
)
0.0130.0120.0120.0110.0110.009
Fuels
(Scope 1)
Emissions used from fuels used per operational
village (tCO
2
e/village)
9.7711.2212.3213.3414.8311.32
Electricity
(Scope 2)
Location-based emissions from electricity used
per main building m
2
(tCO
2
e/m
2
)
0.1700.0190.0180.0090.0110.015
Travel
(Scope 3)
Emissions from travel per head office
staff
member (tCO
2
e/head office staff)
2.960.011.902.461.341.24
Waste
(Scope 3)
Emissions from waste per total residents & staff
(tCO
2
e/residents+staff) (excl wastewater)
0.1160.0970.0960.0430.0370.039
Resident
electricity
(Scope 3)
Emissions from resident electricity per resident
(tCO
2
e/resident)0.3360.2740.3040.1550.1920.269
Paper
(Scope 3)
Emissions from paper per
staff member
(tCO
2
e/staff)
0.0200.0110.0090.0070.0130.008
Notes:
These are our original emissions sources under the Toitū programme which began in 2017
Increases in FY25 electricity related intensities are predominantly due to a rise in grid average emissions factor
40

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
METRICS AND TARGETS
| KEY METRICS AND TARGETS
Think Green intensity metrics
Our internal Think Green programme tracks key
emissions intensity metrics to driv
e improvements in
areas such as paper use, waste to landfill, and energy
consumption. These measures keep sustainability front
of mind for our teams and enable us to monitor progress
year-on-year. We remain focused on initiatives that
deliver measurable reductions through efficiency,
behavioural change, and technology upgrades.
Industry metrics and emissions intensity
In FY25, Summerset continued to track emissions
intensity using tw
o practical measures: emissions per
square metre and emissions per million dollars of
revenue. These metrics are increasingly referenced
across the sector and help demonstrate efficiency and
progress in reducing emissions relative to growth. Our
results show continued improvement in both measures,
reflecting operational efficiencies and a stronger focus
on the built environment.
Cost of carbon
In FY25, Summerset applied an internal carbon price of
$25 per tonne of CO
2
e (excluding GST) for feasibility and
pr
oject assessments. This price reflects the expected
near‑term cost of acquiring voluntary carbon credits
based on the average cost of Gold Standard
credits purchased in FY24 under Toitū Net Carbon Zero
certification. Following our transition to Toitū Carbon
Reduce, Summerset no longer purchases carbon
credits; accordingly, this price is used as a short‑term
cost assumption and does not represent a forecast of
long‑term transition risk or future carbon prices.
Summerset reviews its internal cost of carbon annually,
and the application of this metric continues to be refined
as learnings are incorporated.
For comparative purposes, Summerset
first applied an
internal cost of carbon in FY23 at approximately $69 per
tonne of CO
2
e based on the New Zealand Unit (NZU)
market price at year‑end, with an internal carbon price of
approximately $23 per tonne of CO
2
e applied in FY24
following the same approach as FY25 (based on the
e
xpected cost of acquiring voluntary carbon credits).
GHG emissions intensity reduction and
decarbonisation impact
In FY25, we progressed a range of decarbonisation
initiativ
es (see Table 2 pages 15-16). As we transition
away from gas, electrification reduces emissions from
gas use but increases reliance on grid electricity,
which has its own emissions depending on the grid
average emissions factor. Our emissions profile is also
shaped b
y ongoing growth, with new operational villages
increasing total energy use. While emissions intensity
has generally reduced over time, FY25 saw an increase
overall driven primarily by a change in the New Zealand
grid electricity emissions factor. For performance trends
and methodology notes, see Table 6. For decarbonisation
impact see Tables 7 and 8.
Table 6: Emissions intensity measured in tCO
2
e per square metre (m
2
) and per million dollars of revenue (NZD)
FY22FY23FY24FY25
Per m
2
Per M$
r
evenue
Per m
2
Per M$
r
evenue
Per m
2
Per M$
r
evenue
Per m
2
Per M$
r
evenue
Scope 10.00318.650.00308.130.00317.700.00276.48
Scope 20.003810.520.00195.210.00256.400.00378.93
Scope 30.006417.720.004110.950.00369.020.004410.64
Total0.013336.890.009124.280.009223.120.010726.05
Notes:
Floor area basis. m
2
is based on gross floor area measurement, including common areas, resident accommodation and independent living areas that are
occupied or complet
e and available for sale
Calculation method. All figures use the location-based method
Consistency. For comparability, only emissions sources present in FY22 are included in future years

Table 7: Impact of decarbonisation initiatives on emissions intensity per m
2
(kgCO
2
e)
FY22FY23FY24FY25
FY28
T
ARGET
FY32
T
ARGET
Pre initiatives emissions per m
2
7.025.975.736.52--
Post initiatives emissions per m
2
6.945.895.596.32--
Post initiatives & RECs emissions per m
2
6.943.033.072.683.542.72
Notes:
Calculation method. Figures prior to 2023 figures use the location-based method; from 2023 onwards market-based factors apply. FY24 pre and post
initia
tives updated due to m
2
adjustments
Floor area basis. Denominator (m
2
) represents the gross floor area of all structures that are operational and/or available for occupancy
Definition
of Initiatives. Refers to spend associated with the decarbonisation pathway for existing sites
41

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
METRICS AND TARGETS
| KEY METRICS AND TARGETS
Table 8: Impact of decarbonisation initiatives
InitiativeAchievements FY25Impact
Solar panel installationsRetrofit
and construction phase installs, resident solar pilot at
Hobsonville village
Lower emissions, reduced grid reliance, improved resilience, supports
r
esident decarbonisation and cost savings
Gas transitionGas transition accelerated, utility gas removed from seven villagesCuts operational emissions, mitigates future supply and cost risk,
impr
oves safety
EV
fleet and charging stations
Fleet expanded to 25 village EVs, charging stations available in almost
all village
s
Lower transport emissions, enhanced convenience, growing EV car-
sharing oppor
tunity for residents
Embodied carbonBaseline assessments completed for our main building typologiesEnables smarter material choices, reduces upfront emissions, informs
future design, identifies highest-impact materials
Waste minimisationExceeded construction waste diversion targets, operations programme
continues to evolve, food waste recycling for residents
Lower landfill impact, reduced disposal costs, improved
resource efficiency
Supply chain engagementSupplier and contractor forums and emissions checklists in place,
impr
oved internal processes for Scope 3 emissions reporting
Greater accountability, better data quality, supports long-term
emissions r
eduction
Water managementWater metering installations at existing villages and all new villages have
w
ater metering
Enables accurate measurement, supports conservation initiatives,
r
educes water-related costs, improves resilience to climate-related
water risks
Vertical construction and waste‑management in action at S
ummerset Half Moon Bay
42

Solar panels installed during construction at Summerset Cambridge
Governance
43

Board & Management
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
GOVERNANCE
| BOARD & MANAGEMENT
Roles and responsibilities
Summerset's Board of Directors (Board) is the
go
vernance body responsible for the oversight of
climate-related risks and opportunities. The Audit and
Risk Committee supports the Board in this role, as
outlined in the diagram, including through reviews
of the risk register and consideration of Summerset’s
climate‑related disclosures. The Board also receives
reports from the executive on progress against climate
and sustainability targets.
The Board considers climate-related risks and
opportunities when developing and overseeing
implementation of overall strategy, plans and budgets.
These climate considerations are a key strategic focus,
including aiming to improve the climate resilience,
sustainability and efficiency of both new developments
and the e
xisting portfolio. The Board has reviewed and
approved the corporate strategy, sustainability policy,
and sustainability and climate-related targets.
Board skillset
The Board ensures they have the appropriate skills
and capability to o
versee governance at Summerset.
These skills, including sustainability and climate-related
competencies, are detailed in the director skills matrix in
our latest Annual Report (available here or on our ESG
Profile page on our website).
To support the Board, development sessions facilitated
b
y external consultants and advisors are held as required
to upskill the directors. Additionally, the Board accesses
climate-related expertise from within Summerset and
from external specialists when required.
Monitoring progress against targets
The Board monitors progress and oversees the
achie
vement of sustainability and climate-related
metrics. Annually, GHG emissions targets, progress
against the baseline year, and results are presented for
review and feedback. Based on these results, the Board
assesses whether additional initiatives or adjustments are
SUMMERSET BOARD (FY25 = 7 MEETINGS)
• Responsible for supervising and directing the management
of Summerset including guiding strategic direction and
corporate governance
• Accountable to the shareholders for management of key risks
and opportunities including those related to climate change
• Agrees key metrics and targets in accordance with strategic
objectives. Monitors progress against targets
• Considers and approves key regulatory reporting, including
the Annual Report and Sustainability Review and Climate-
related Disclosures
AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE (ARC) (FY25 = 7 MEETINGS)
• Delegated authority for matters relating to external/internal
audit, risk management, finance and insurance
• Responsible for ensuring appropriate processes, policies
and practices are in place for the management of risks and
opportunities, including those relating to climate change
• Reviews and endorses approval of key regulatory reporting
where applicable, including the Annual Report and
Sustainability Review and Climate-related Disclosures
• In FY25, ARC reviewed the risk register and/or considered
Summerset’s climate-related disclosures (including risks and
opportunities) on five occasions
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM (ELT)
• Led by the Chief Executive, responsible for the day to day
management of Summerset including Summerset’s risk
management processes
• Reports to the Board (at least annually) on progress against
climate and sustainability targets
• Tables the outcome of due diligence (including climate-
related risks) on material land acquisitions for approval
• Reports the ELT’s performance against KPI’s (including
sustainability-related KPIs)
• Reports to the ARC on climate-related risks and opportunities
at least annually
SUSTAINABILITY FORUM
• Meets quarterly and
includes key members
of the ELT, Head of
Sustainability and
essential business unit
managers
• Oversees development,
monitoring and
performance of our
sustainability framework
which encompasses our
targets and initiatives
CHIEF DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER (NZ) &
CHIEF OPERATIONS
OFFICER (AU)
• Both ELT roles are
responsible for the
selection and acquisition
of new sites for
Summerset’s landbank
• Ensures associated
due diligence which
encompasses climate
change considerations
and resilience
CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER (CFO)
• Head of Sustainability
reports directly to
the CFO
• Oversees the
sustainability-linked
lending programme and
associated performance
• Sets OPEX and CAPEX
budgets yearly
OTHER KEY ROLES
WITHIN SUMMERSET’S
BUSINESS
• Head of Procurement
• Head of Design Concepts
• GM Strategy
• GM Acquisitions and
Development (NZ)
• GM Property and
Asset Management
• Risk and External
Reporting Manager
• Investment and
Strategy Manager
44

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
GOVERNANCE
| BOARD & MANAGEMENT
needed to meet commitments and remain on track to
achieve our targets.
Sustainability and decarbonisation initiatives, including
targets within the ten-year strategy such as SLL
performance and embodied carbon targets, are reviewed
quarterly as part of the Chief Executive’s ESG reporting
and key performance indicators (KPI) updates.
Incentivisation and remuneration
Specific
sustainability and/or climate-related targets are
included in relevant ELT members' short- and long-term
(STI and LTI) incentive schemes. Relevant members are
those that have directly correlating programmes of work.
Each KPI element represents a 10% weighting, making it a
material component.
These KPIs are designed to drive greater focus and
integration of sustainability while managing climate
change awareness and risk in the business. For more
information on STI and LTI schemes please see the FY25
Annual Report here.
Resident tending her garden at Summerset on Cavendish, Casebrook
CASE STUDY
C O N S T R U C T I O N W A S T E A V O I D A N C E P R O G R A M M E - L E A D I N G W I T H A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y
Over the past four years, Summerset has embedded
landfill
avoidance into the heart of our construction
programme. What began as a bold sustainability
initiative has grown into a trans-Tasman effort
spanning more than 20 construction sites across
New Zealand and Australia, involving hundreds of site
personnel, trades, and partner organisations.
The programme launched with a strong commitment
to 100% source separation on-site-a hands-on
approach that built ownership and accountability from
the ground up. While mass balance methods are
now incorporated where appropriate, our foundation
remains rooted in empowering teams to actively sort
and manage waste at source.
Impact in numbers
15,000+ TONNES DIVERTED
10,000+ BINS COLLECTED
26+ WASTE STREAMS TRACKED
~60+% RECOVERY RATE
Targeting impact, Not just the numbers
Each year, our diversion targets increase as part
of our SLL f
acility, reinforcing the connection
between environmental performance and financial
accountability. Construction sites are categorised into
groups to reflect the varying recycling infrastructure
and diversion opportunities across locations.
Our current groupings are Metro and Regions, with a
new Sub-Metro category planned for 2027. To prepare
for this additional challenge, we’ve taken the bold step
to introduce the Sub Metro category internally ahead
of schedule — shifting our Christchurch, Wellington,
and Hamilton construction site
s into this grouping.
This internal move allows us to test and refine our
approach while external targets remain unchanged.
What’s next?
We’re focused on reducing waste at source through
smar
ter design, digital site measurement, and factory-
based solutions for key materials. These types
of innovations help minimise offcuts and improve
material efficiency before waste even reaches the bin.
Our Lost Opportunities Register and enhanced B2B
reporting, help identify service gaps and refine
processes. A monthly cross-functional working group
brings together site teams, sustainability leads, and
industry partners to share learnings and ideas.
Our wider work focuses on refining how we
measure impact and reduce waste at source.
This includes identifying high-volume, low-weight
materials that disproportionately affect landfill space,
understanding how different waste streams influence
landfill longevity, conducting bin audits to inform
smarter procurement decisions, and exploring
material-specific diversion targets to challenge
suppliers. We continue to work closely with our supply
chain partners through our supplier engagement
programme, encouraging better packaging, improved
separation, and transparent disposal practices. It’s
about lifting the entire ecosystem — creating
shared responsibility and driving change beyond our
own sites.
45

Risk management
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
GOVERNANCE
| RISK MANAGEMENT
Integrated risk management process
Summerset acknowledges that the world’s
under
standing of climate change, and how it is
impacting our environments (natural and built), is an
ever-changing area. New sources of data and scientific
information, as well as new regulations and technology,
are constantly shifting the dynamic. This means that
businesses need to be conscious that their management
of climate-related risks is constantly evolving. To address
this, Summerset chose to integrate our climate-related
risks into our existing Enterprise Risk Framework. This
helps keep climate change risks top of mind and builds
engagement across the business.
Our risk management framework and process
Summerset’s Enterprise Risk Framework and Risk
Management P
olicy adopts the principles detailed in
AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018. This helps to ensure that risk
management is well structured and effective throughout
the business.
Risk identification is undertaken by all staff at
Summerset. We use a variety of tools and methods
to help with risk identification. Detailed below are the
specific tools and methods used in identifying our
climate-related risks.
Stakeholder engagement
•The Climate Working Group, and key individuals,
including the Risk and E
xternal Reporting Manager,
worked with the business to assist in understanding,
identifying and assessing climate-related risks across
our entire business.
Village
specific analysis
•Summerset engaged external consultants to help
determine the
specific exposure of identified
physical risks across our portfolio. This was at a
high level and has resulted in a more detailed
investigation programme being created to improve
our understanding of Summerset’s exposure across
multiple scenarios and time horizons.
Scenario analysis
•The scenario creation and analysis processes
(det
ailed in the Strategy section of this report)
helped to identify and assess potential impacts of
climate change, which in turn shaped our climate-
related risks.
External scanning
•Key individuals throughout the business, including
the EL
T, engage with key market participants, external
resources and consultancies to understand potential
changes to existing risks or new and emerging risks.
This helps Summerset with our risk management
through proactive engagement and action.
Risks identified are assessed using Summerset's
Enterprise Risk Matrix based on the consequence of
impact and the likelihood of occurrence. Residual risk
ratings are determined after taking into consideration the
effectiveness of the control environment.
Summerset appreciates that the impacts of chronic,
long-term ph
ysical climate-related risks are not likely
to occur over timeframes that
fit into a traditional
risk matrix.
Therefore, for these specific risks there was greater
emphasis and consider
ation given to the severity of the
consequence. However, we still chose to integrate these
risks so we can track key data and indicators over time
that will help grow our understanding and enable us to
monitor these chronic risks.
All of Summerset’s risks, including climate-related risks,
are managed in line with Summerset’s risk appetite.
Risks are regularly reported on and prioritised for
action according to probability and severity, allowing
for prioritisation of climate-related risks relative to other
types of risks.
Frequency of risk assessment
The key operational risks for Summerset are reviewed
and r
eported to the ELT monthly, while key strategic risks
are reported to the Board on an annual basis and form
part of our annual risk management plan that is approved
b
y the Board.
In conjunction with our regular reporting of key
operational and strategic risks, the Climate Working
Group will conduct an annual review and update of
climate-related risks, which will run concurrently with our
annual scenario analysis process.
This is not an exhaustive source of climate risks
identification
or assessment, as when business
processes (strategy planning, site identification and
due diligence), stakeholder engagement (regulation and
legislation monitoring, climate scenario sector groups)
or external scanning identify new or changing risks,
Summerset will conduct or update our risk assessments
through the Climate Working Group and Risk and
External Reporting Manager.
Any material change to our climate change risks
outside of r
egular processes would be reported through
the Climate Working Group and Risk and External
Reporting Manager.
Time horizons
Summerset utilises a single time horizon for scenario
analysis as st
ated on Table 3 on page 19. However,
when considering risk management we also consider
more appropriate horizons such as alignment with our
strategy, emission reduction targets, asset life cycle and
age, and financial modelling. This allows us to prioritise
and make timely decisions around mitigation, investment
and overall direction for the company.
Value chain exclusions
No
significant parts of the value chain have been
excluded from the analysis. However, when considering
our supply chain, many suppliers are still early in
their maturity journey. Consequently, Summerset's
understanding of climate-related risks across the whole
value chain, particularly the supply chain, is limited by
availability and quality of data and information.
46

Appendix
Appendix I: NZ CS reference table
Table 9: Reference guide to
specific pages for New Zealand Climate Standard Provisions (NZCS 1 and NZCS 3)
NZ CS provisionsPage reference
Governance (NZ CS 1)
Identity of governance body responsible for oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities – 7(a)44
Governance body oversight – 7(b) and 8(a), (b), (c) and (d)44
Management's role – 7(c), and 9(a), (b), and (c)44-45
Strategy (NZ CS 1)
Current physical and transition impacts – 12(a)24-33
Current
financial impacts – 12(b) and (c)
14-16,
24-33
Scenario analysis undertaken – 11(b)18-23
Climate-related risks and opportunities – 14(a), (b) and (c)24-33
Anticipated impacts – 15(a)24-33
Anticipated
financial impacts – 15(b), (c) and (d)
24-33
Current business model and strategy – 16(a)10-13
Transition planning - transition plan aspects of strategy and extent of alignment with internal capital deployment – 16(b) and (c)11-13
Risk management (NZ CS 1)
Processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate-related risks – 18(a) and 19(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)46
Integration into overall risk management processes – 18(b)46
Metrics and targets (NZ CS 1)
Disclosures - 21(a), (b), (c), (d)See 22(a)-(h), 40, n/a,
see 23(a)-(e)
Metric categories (GHG) emissions – 22(a) and (b)36/49,
38-39
Metric categories (other) – 22(c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h)28-29,
24-27, 30-33,
14-16, 41, 45
47

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX I: NZ CS REFERENCE TABLE
NZ CS provisionsPage reference
Targets – 23(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)12, 38-40
GHG emissions – 24(a), (b), (c) and (d)35-37,
54-56
GHG assurance – 25 and 26(a), (b) and (c)35-36,
57-60
Other (NZ CS 3)
Scenario analysis employed including methodologies and underlying assumptions – 51(a) and (b)18-23
GHG emissions calculation or estimate methodologies, assumptions, limitations and rationale for methods – 5235-37,
50-54
Uncertainties relevant to quantification of GHG emissions and
effects of these uncertainties – 53
50-54
Explanation for any base year GHG emissions restatements – 5437
48

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX I: NZ CS REFERENCE TABLE
Appendix II: GHG information
Table 10: GHG Protocol category breakdown
CATEGORYSUB-CATEGORYEMISSIONS
(
tCO
2
e)
Scope 1
Scope 1 Total
2,345
Mobile combustion (including company owned or leased vehicles)466
Leakage of refrigrants6
Stationary combustion1,874
Scope 2*
Scope 2 Total (location-based)
3,231
Imported electricity (market-based)18
Imported electricity (location-based)3,231
Scope 3
Scope 3 Total
86,211
Category 1: Purchased goods and servicesPurchased good and services**14,727
Category 2: Capital goodsCapital goods***63,655
Category 3: Fuel- and energy-related activitiesTransmission of energy (T&D losses)212
Well-to-tank278
Category 5: Waste generated in operationsDisposal of solid waste and wastewater1,025
Category 6: Business travelAir travel484
Rental cars and rideshare26
Category 7: Employee commutingEmployee commuting3,194
Category 13: Downstream leased assetsResident electricity2,571
Total emission
(S1, 2 & 3)
91,787
* Market-based emissions were calculated by utilising low-carbon attributes from mechanisms such as contractual instruments and RECs bundled with the consumed electricity. Location-based emissions were determined using the
a
verage emissions intensity of the grids where energy consumption occurs, relying on grid-average emission factor data.
** Capital assets from operations are included in purchased goods and services. Emissions from operational suppliers are calculated using emissions factors specific to each supplier.
*** Capital goods are capitalised consistent with the GHG Protocol guidance and our accounting procedures.
49

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX II: GHG INFORMATION
Emissions sources and calculation methods
Table 11 provides an overview of all emissions sources in Summerset’s GHG Inventory, including data sources, calculation methods, any assumptions made in the calculation
pr
ocess and an assessment of data quality and uncertainty.
To support our emissions reporting, a variety of calculation methods are used depending on the nature and availability of data:
•supplier-specific method – uses product-specific emissions data associated with goods or services, multiplied by the quantity utilised
•hybrid method – combines
product-specific emissions data (where available) and secondary data (e.g., industry averages) when required
•average data method – estimates emissions by multiplying the quantity of a product (e.g., kilograms, litres) by an appropriate secondary emission factor
•spend-based method – estimates emissions by multiplying the cost of goods and services purchased multiplied by an appropriate dollar spend emission factor.
Assessing GHG emissions remains a developing field, with scientific
understanding and calculation methodologies continuously evolving; while access to data is improving, there
are still estimation uncertainties and limitations in emissions factors. Data quality and uncertainty are assessed using the scales outlined below. Although the quantification of
effects of uncertainty is not included, a qualitative classification of uncertainty is detailed per emissions source.
DATA QUALITY SCALE:
•Low – Data has notable inaccuracies, inconsistencies or variability, which may limit its accuracy
•Medium – Data is generally reliable but contains some inaccuracies or missing values requiring extrapolation
•High – Data is accurate, consistent and mostly complete
UNCERTAINTY SCALE:
•Low – There is strong
confidence in data reliability and accuracy, with clear understanding of limitations
•Medium – There is reasonable confidence in data reliability, with some acknowledged limitations
•High – There is limited confidence in reliability, with reasonable unknowns affecting accuracy
Table 11: Emissions sources included
GHG
P
ROTOCOL
CATEGORY
EMISSION
S
OURCES
DATA
S
OURCES
ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGYDATA QUALITYUNCERTAINTY
Scope 1
Diesel & petrolFuel records
fr
om supplier
portal and
internal finance
system
Average data method: 99% of fuel usage is sourced from the supplier portal
wher
e data is broken down by litres by fuel type. Staff petrol claims (1%) are
taken from the finance system, converted from dollar amounts to litres using
average petrol prices (sourced from GlobalPetrolPrices.com).
High: Assumed
supplier r
eports
and data from
our finance system
are complete
and accurate
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
Natural gas
distributed
commer
cial
Supplier
in
voices/
removal
records
Average data method: Consumption quantity in kWh is sourced from
supplier r
ecords. The small inconsistencies in reading times and billing
periods have a negligible impact on emissions.
High: Assumed
supplier r
eports
are complete
and accurate
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
50

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX II: GHG INFORMATION
GHG
PROTOCOL
CATEGORY
EMISSION
SOURCES
DATA
SOURCES
ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGYDATA QUALITYUNCERTAINTY
LPG stationary
commer
cial
Supplier
in
voices
Average data method: LPG usage from supplier invoices is converted to
kWh using Elgas con
version factors. The small inconsistencies in reading
times and billing periods have a negligible impact on emissions.
High: Assumed
supplier has
pr
ovided complete
and accurate
invoice data
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
RefrigerantsSupplier
in
voices
Average data method: Property managers collect refrigerant leak data
fr
om supplier and/or maintenance records, specifying the refrigerant type
and quantities.
Medium: Assumed
accur
ate supplier
invoices and correct
property staff inputs
Medium: Due to
v
ariability in activity
data and inherent
uncertainty in
emissions factors
Biofuel and
biomass
Supplier
in
voices
Average data method: Pellet consumption (tonnes) from supplier records
is multiplied b
y the nationwide emissions factor, timing inconsistency
between invoice and consumption has a negligible impact on emissions.
High: Assumed
supplier has
pr
ovided complete
and accurate
invoice data
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
Scope 2
Electricity –
location-based
Supplier
in
voices/
records
Average data method: Electricity usage in kWh is multiplied by the NZ 2024
quar
terly national average or VIC 2025 location-based emissions factor,
depending on the region. For NZ 2024 factors are used, as at the time of
reporting 2025 factors are not available.
High: Assumed
supplier has
pr
ovided data for all
ICPs/meters
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low reliability in
emissions factors
Electricity –
mark
et-based
Supplier
in
voices/
records
Average data method: Electricity in kWh from supplier is multiplied by the
NZ or VIC r
esidual mix emissions factor for the period. RECs, and green
power agreements are used to negate any emissions covered to zero.
High: Assumed
supplier has
pr
ovided data for all
ICPs/meters
Low: Due to emissions
f
actor being highly
specific to Summerset,
and high data quality
Scope 3
Category 1:
Pur
chased goods
and services
Paper useSupplier
in
voices/
records
Average data method: Paper quantity (tonnes) from the national supplier is
multiplied b
y the product-specific national emissions factor.
High: Assumed
supplier r
eports
are complete
and accurate
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
FertilisersSite records
and supplier
in
voices
Average data method: Property managers track fertiliser purchases by
type and quantity
. NPK content is identified and multiplied by respective
emission factors, with all data sourced from our villages.
Medium: Assumed
supplier has
pr
ovided complete
and accurate
invoice data, and
property staff inputs
are complete
Medium: Due to
v
ariability in activity
data and inherent
uncertainty in
emissions factors
51

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX II: GHG INFORMATION
GHG
PROTOCOL
CATEGORY
EMISSION
SOURCES
DATA
SOURCES
ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGYDATA QUALITYUNCERTAINTY
Purchased
goods and
ser
vices –
supplier spend
Spend from
finance records
Spend-based method: Spend data is extracted from the
finance system and
categorised as operational (purchased good and services) or construction
spend (capital goods). Spend is adjusted using CPI deflators to align the
purchasing power of current spend with the year in which the emissions
factors were produced, trade margins are split out and tax is removed.
Suppliers are attributed the most relevant emissions factor from within the
selected emission factor set according to the product and/or service they
provide. Costs exclude any spend that is already captured by a more precise
method of calculation. Freight emissions are included in supplier costs as
they cannot be separated. Capital assets from operational suppliers are
accounted for under purchased goods and services.
Medium: Assumed
dat
a from our
finance system
is accurate and
complete, and
supplier provided
data is verified
High: Due to
lo
w specificity in
emission factors and
uncertainty in method
of calculation
Category 2:
C
apital goods
Capital goodsSpend based:
Spend fr
om
finance/
supplier
Quantity:
S
upplier
records/
internal
estimates
Spend-based method (91%): See above explanation; the key delimiter for
capit
al goods is that spend tagged with “construction” is capitalised and,
based on the vendor, an estimate of the spend relating to products/services
is made to determine an appropriate emissions factor.
Average data method (9%): For certain typologies (eg villas) emissions were
e
stimated using construction material volumes. Actual volumes use supplier
records and estimated use quantity surveyor estimates. Emissions factors
and calculation methodology followed the BRANZ model.
Medium: Assumed
dat
a from our
finance system
is accurate and
complete, and
supplier provided
data is verified
High: Due to
lo
w specificity in
emission factors and
uncertainty in method
of calculation
Category 3:
F
uel- and energy-
related activities
not Included in
Scope 1 or
Scope 2
Electricity
distributed T
&D
losses
Supplier
in
voices/
records
Average data method: Electricity usage (kWh) from supplier records is
multiplied b
y the national average emissions factor for losses. 100% of data
is sourced from supply chain partners.
High: Derived
fr
om meter data
therefore accurate
and complete
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
Well-to-tank
emissions fr
om
fuels used
Supplier
in
voices/
records
Average data method: Well-to-tank emissions are calculated using quantities
(in kWh or L) fr
om the underlying fuel source and multiplied by the well-
to-tank emissions factor. Quantities of fuels are sourced from suppliers as
outlined above.
High: Assumed
supplier r
ecords
are complete
and accurate
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
Water supplyWater meter
r
eadings and
council
invoices
Average data method: Water consumption (litres) for each operational and
construction site is sour
ced from available data, such as automated water
meter readings, council invoices and manual readings. For sites where
readings are not available, estimated usage per unit is applied to determine
total water usage. The NZ water supply emissions factor is applied to the
total usage data. 100% of data is obtained through supply chain partners.
Medium: Some
e
xtrapolation of data
across sites
Medium: Due to
v
ariability in data
quality and inherent
uncertainty in
emissions factors
52

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX II: GHG INFORMATION
GHG
PROTOCOL
CATEGORY
EMISSION
SOURCES
DATA
SOURCES
ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGYDATA QUALITYUNCERTAINTY
Category 5:
W
aste generated
in operations
Waste from
oper
ations and
construction
Supplier
r
ecords
Average data and
supplier-specific method: Quantities of waste (tonnes)
from each operational and construction site is sourced from supplier
records. Where the destination of waste is known to have a specific
emissions factor, this is used. All other landfill sites are assumed to utilise
landfill gas recovery, allowing us to apply the national average emissions
factor. NZ emission factors for waste are applied to our Melbourne Australia
village in VIC. 100% of data is obtained through supply chain partners.
High: Assumed
supplier r
ecords
are complete
and accurate
Medium: Due to the
uncer
tainty in the
waste type mix and
low variability in
emissions factors
Waste from
offices
Waste auditAverage data method: Annual head office waste audit provides tonnes per
staff
member per year. This result is extrapolated to other offices with
estimated total tonnage for each office then multiplied by the relevant
emissions factor. 100% of data is obtained through internal records.
Medium: Some
e
xtrapolation of data
across offices
Medium: Level of
dat
a quality and
lack of externally
provided numbers
Disposal of
liquid w
aste –
wastewater
Based on water
consumption
Average data method: An estimate of 95% of water consumption is used to
calculate emissions r
elating to wastewater. This estimated usage is applied
to the NZ emissions factor for wastewater.
Medium: Some
e
xtrapolation of data
and estimates used
in calculation
Medium: Due to
v
ariability in data
quality and inherent
uncertainty in
emissions factors
Category 6:
Busine
ss travel
Air travel and
r
ental cars
Supplier &
finance
records
Distance-based method: Travel distance (km) is provided by the supplier,
br
oken down by travel method and origin/destination. Passenger kms are
multiplied by the most appropriate national average emissions factor. For
staff claims related to travel (<1%) we multiply the number of claims for
each travel method by the average travel distance from the more detailed
supplier data. The distance is then multiplied by the relevant emission
factor. Expense claim data is extracted from our finance system with 100%
of data obtained through supply chain partners.
High: Assumed
supplier r
eports
and data from
our finance system
are complete
and accurate
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
TaxiSupplier &
finance
records
Spend-based method: Due to limited detail on specific
trips, total spend
from supplier invoices and our internal finance system (for staff claims)
is multiplied by the relevant emissions factor. 100% of data is obtained
through supply chain partners.
High: Assumed
supplier r
eports
and data from
our finance system
are complete
and accurate
Medium: Due
to limit
ations in
calculation method
and inherent
uncertainty in
emissions factors
Category 7:
Emplo
yee
commuting
Employee
commuting
Employee
sur
vey
Average data method: 2023 staff survey collected data on employee
commuting, including tr
ansport method, distance and frequency, and is
assumed to represent 2025 commuting behaviour. Data is extrapolated
to estimate total annual distance by transport method, with emissions
calculated using relevant factors. 100% of data is obtained through
staff
survey.
Medium: Impacted
b
y number of
responses and
interpretation of
survey questions
Medium: Due to
e
xtrapolation of
survey data and
inherent uncertainty in
emissions factors
53

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX II: GHG INFORMATION
GHG
PROTOCOL
CATEGORY
EMISSION
SOURCES
DATA
SOURCES
ASSUMPTIONS & METHODOLOGYDATA QUALITYUNCERTAINTY
Category 13:
Do
wnstream
leased assets
Resident
electricity
Supplier
r
ecords
Average data method: Electricity (kWh) is provided by the resident billing
supplier and multiplied b
y the NZ or VIC location-based emissions factor.
Electricity usage is gathered using individual smart meters in resident units.
100% of data is obtained through supply chain partners.
High: Assumed data
r
eceived is accurate
and complete
Low: Due to high
dat
a quality and
low variability in
emissions factors
Exclusions
The following GHG emission sources have been excluded from our inventory due to their low materiality and poor availability of data. Each excluded source makes up less than
1% of the tot
al emissions in its respective scope, and the total emissions excluded do not exceed 5% of our total inventory (classified as not material). These exclusions are not
consider
ed significant to our inventory, its intended use or its users.
There are no exclusions for Scope 1.
Table 12: Scope 2 & 3 Exclusions – breakdown, rationale and estimated impact
SCOPE 2 & 3 CATEGORYGHG EMISSIONS SOURCEBUSINESS UNITREASON FOR EXCLUSION
ESTIMATED
E
XCLUSION
(tCO
2
e)
% OF
T
OTAL
INVENTORY
Scope 2: Indirect emissions from
pur
chased energy
Electricity used in data centersOperationsBelow materiality threshold
2.110.002
Scope 3, category 3: Fuel- and Energy-
R
elated activities not Included in Scope 1 or
Scope 2
T&D losses from natural gasOperationsData has been intermittent and below
materiality thr
eshold
400.044
Scope 3, category 3: Fuel- and Energy-
R
elated activities not Included in Scope 1 or
Scope 2
T&D losses from data centersOperationsBelow materiality threshold
0.170.0002
Category 6: Business TravelRelocation costsOperationsData not readily available or reliable00%
Emissions factors
Table 13 outlines the emission factor sets applied to various emissions sources, units of measurement and the GWPs.
54

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX II: GHG INFORMATION
Table 13: Emissions factors
EMISSION FACTOR SOURCEEMISSIONS SOURCE APPLICABLE TOUNITGWP-100
Ministry for the Environment. Measuring
emissions: A guide for organisations: 2025
detailed guide
Diesel & petrolLIPCC AR5
Natural gas distributed commercialkWhIPCC AR5
LPG stationary commercialkWhIPCC AR5
RefrigerantskgIPCC AR5
Electricity – Summerset – location-based NZkWhIPCC AR5
Electricity – residents NZkWhIPCC AR5
Electricity distributed T&D losseskWhIPCC AR5
Well-to-tank emissionsLIPCC AR5
WaterLIPCC AR5
BiomasstIPCC AR5
Waste (where
specific landfill factors are not available)
tIPCC AR5
Rental carskm/$IPCC AR5
Taxi$IPCC AR5
Air travel*km/$IPCC AR5
Employee commutingkmIPCC AR5
Australian Department of Industry, Science,
Ener
gy and Resources. National Greenhouse
Accounts Factors. Canberra, Australia 2025
Electricity – Summerset – location-based AUSkWhIPCC AR5
Electricity – Summerset – market-based AUSkWhIPCC AR5
Electricity – residents AUSkWhIPCC AR5
Department for Energy Security and Net
Z
ero. Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion
factors 2024
PaperkgIPCC AR5
Market Economics Limited. Consumption
Emissions Modelling, report prepared for
Auckland Council. March 2023
Purchased goods and services$IPCC AR4
Capital goods$IPCC AR4
New Zealand GazetteWastetIPCC AR5
55

SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX II: GHG INFORMATION
EMISSION FACTOR SOURCEEMISSIONS SOURCE APPLICABLE TOUNITGWP-100
BraveTrace – Residual Supply MixElectricity – Summerset – market-basedkWhIPCC AR6
Ledgard and Falconer. Update of the
carbon footprint of fertilisers used in New
Zealand. 2019
FertiliserkgIPCC AR5
Supplier EPDsSupplier EPDsVariousIPCC AR4/5
* Radiative forcing is associated with air travel emissions at higher altitudes and results in a higher global warming potential. Ministry for the Environment applies a multiplier of 1.7
Absolute emissions performance
Table 14 presents our absolute emissions performance compared to the previous year and base year. FY25’s total emissions are 91,787 tCO
2
e, a 26% increase on FY24. A significant
portion of the FY24–FY25 increase is attributable to the higher NZ grid emissions factor, which has elevated our Scope 2 electricity location‑based emissions and Scope 3
C
ategory 13 resident electricity emissions. The remainder reflects the impacts of our growing business. The increase on the base year reflects the expanded reporting scope and
the inclusion of additional Scope 3 emission sources.
Table 14: Prior year absolute performance
SCOPECATEGORYBASE YEAR
(2022) tCO
2
e
2023
tCO
2
e
2024
tCO
2
e
2025
tCO
2
e
CHANGE
F
ROM 2024
(%)
CHANGE
F
ROM BASE
YEAR (%)
Scope 1Scope 12,0972,2132,4642,345-5%12%
Scope 2Location-based2,5111,4172,0473,23158%29%
Market-based-17161812%-
Scope 3Category 12110,98611,42814,72729%70,027%
Category 2-51,17350,53563,65526%-
Category 323020544952918%130%
Category 59104617311,02540%13%
Category 66991,059585510-13%-27%
Category 7-2,2683,0173,1946%-
Category 132,3691,2371,6692,57154%9%
Total emissions
(S1, 2 & 3)
8,80771,01772,92591,78726%942%
Note:
Our 2022 base year did not fully reflect
our current reporting scope. From FY23 onwards we expanded our inventory to align with updated reporting requirements. This includes: (i) the introduction of Renewable Energy Certificates
(RECs), and (ii) the inclusion of additional Scope 3 categories and the transition to full value‑chain reporting — notably Purchased Goods and Services (Category 1), where the base year figure represented only a partial value
56

© 2026 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.
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX II: GHG INFORMATION
Toitū Envirocare provided ISO 14064-3:2019 assurance for our 2022 GHG inventory at a reasonable level, and for the 2023 inventory, at a reasonable level for all mandatory programme categories, with limited assurance for ISO
c
ategories 3 & 4 additional emissions. 2024 NZSAE 1 assurance was provided by Ernst & Young Limited, 2025 by KPMG
Appendix III: GHG assurance
Independent Limited Assurance Report to Summerset Group Holdings 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 r
espects, the the scope 1, 2 and 3 gross greenhouse gas emissions, additional required disclosures and associated methods, assumptions and estimation uncertainty
disclosures included in the Sustainability Review and Climate-related Disclosures FY25 (the Climate Statement) on pages 35 to 37 and Appendix II (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 January
2025 to 31 December 2025.
Information subject to assurance
We have performed an engagement to provide limited assurance in relation to Summerset Group Holdings Ltd’s (the Company) GHG disclosures for the period 1 January 2025 to
31 December 2025.
Below are the locations of the GHG disclosures subject to assurance:
NZ CS 1-3 RequirementReference
NZ CS 1 22(a)Table 4 - page 36 and Table 10 - page 49
NZ CS 1 24(a-d)Page
35-37 and page 54-56
NZ CS 3
52-53
Tables 11 and 12 – Appendix II
NZ CS 3 54Page 37
Our conclusion on the GHG disclosures does not extend to other information included, or referred to, in the Climate Statements on pages 2 to 34 and 38 to 48. We have not
performed any procedures with respect to the other information.
57

Document classification: KPMG Public.
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX III: GHG ASSURANCE
Criteria
The criteria used as the basis of reporting include the NZ CSs. As disclosed on page 35 of the Climate Statement, the greenhouse gas emissions have been measured in
accor
dance with the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Greenhouse Gas Protocol Standards (collectively, the GHG Protocol):
•The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (revised edition)
•The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 2 Guidance: An amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard
•The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Corporate Value Supply Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting 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 Disclosur
es 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 assured by another practitioner
The GHG disclosures for the period ended
31 December 2024, was subject to a limited assurance engagement by another practitioner whose report dated 27 February 2025
expressed an unmodified conclusion 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
under
standing 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
r
elevant decisions of the intended users taken on the basis of the GHG disclosures.
Inherent limitations
GHG
quantification is subject to inherent uncertainty because of incomplete scientific knowledge used to determine emission factors and the values needed to combine
emissions of different gases.
Use of this assurance report
Our report is made solely for Summerset Group Holdings Ltd. Our assurance work has been undertaken so that we might state to Summerset Group Holdings Ltd those matters we
ar
e required to state to them in the assurance report and for no other purpose.
Our report should not be regarded as suitable to be used or relied on by anyone other than Summerset Group Holdings Ltd for any purpose or in any context. Any other person
who obt
ains access to our report or a copy thereof and chooses to rely on our report (or any part thereof) will do so at its own risk.
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 Summerset Group Holdings Ltd 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.
58

Document classification: KPMG Public.
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX III: GHG ASSURANCE
Summerset Group Holdings Ltd's responsibility for the GHG disclosures
The Directors of Summerset Group Holdings Ltd are responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the GHG disclosures in accordance with the criteria. This responsibility
include
s 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 Summerset Group Holdings Ltd 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 is 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 Summerset Group Holdings Ltd.
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 Summerset Group Holdings Ltd’s use of the
criteria as the basis f
or 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 disclosur
es that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our conclusion.
Our procedures selected depended on an understanding of the GHG disclosures that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our conclusion. The procedures we
per
formed 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 Company’s control environment, processes and information systems relevant to the preparation of the GHG disclosures.
W
e did not evaluate the design of particular control activities, or obtain evidence about their implementation;
•evaluated whether the Company’s methods for developing estimates are appropriate and had been consistently applied. Our procedures did not include testing the data on
which the e
stimates are based or separately developing our own estimates against which to evaluate the Company’s estimates;
•agreed a selection of GHG emissions data to relevant underlying source documents and re-performed emission factor calculations for a limited number of items;
•performed analytical procedures on particular emission categories by comparing the expected GHGs emitted to actual GHGs emitted and made inquiries of management to
obt
ain explanations for any significant differences we identified; and
•considered the presentation and disclosure of the GHG emissions and explanatory notes against the relevant requirements of the NZ CSs.
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 le
vel 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.
59

Document classification: KPMG Public.
SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2025
APPENDIXAPPENDIX III: GHG ASSURANCE
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 car
e, 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
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 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 tax compliance services, internal audit and cybersecurity review services to Summerset Group Holdings Ltd. Subject to certain restrictions, partners
and employees of our firm may also deal with Summerset Group Holdings Ltd on normal terms within the ordinary course of trading activities of the business of Summerset
Group Holdings Ltd. These matters have not impaired our independence as assurance providers of Summerset Group Holdings Ltd for this engagement. The firm has no other
relationship with, or interest in, Summerset Group Holdings Ltd.
As we are engaged to form an independent conclusion on the GHG disclosures prepared by Summerset Group Holdings Ltd, 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 David Gates.
KPMG
Wellington
26 February
2026
60

2025
A
g
e
d

C
a
r
e

&

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

V
i
l
l
a
g
e
s
A
g
e
d

C
a
r
e

&

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

V
i
l
l
a
g
e
s
AAA
ESG RATING (2025)
CARBON & ESG RATINGS
OF NZ COMPANIES (2025)
A+
BUSINESS NZ
CORPORATE ESG AWARD
C LI MATE ( 2 0 2 5)
A
Summerset by the Dunes, Pāpāmoa

NOTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR NOMINATION DATES Notice of Allotment of Securities

Data sourced from publicly available filings. Our datasets may not be complete. Automated analysis can produce errors. If you believe any data on this page is incorrect, please contact us at hello@nzxplorer.co.nz. For informational purposes only. Not investment advice.