FY25 Climate-Related Disclosures

1
Climate-Related
Disclosures FY25

Contents
Introduction ............................................3
Governance .............................................8
Strategy .................................................13
Risk Management....................................22
Metrics and Targets .................................24
Glossary and Appendix .............................32
Independent Assurance Report ..................37
Cover image: Te Pangu, Tory Channel/Kura Te Au
Ngāmahau, Tory Channel/Kura Te Au
2
New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — ContentsContents

Introduction
3New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — IntroductionContents

Introduction
New Zealand King Salmon Investment Limited’s
Climate-Related Disclosures
New Zealand King Salmon Investments Limited (NZKS) is pleased to present its
second Climate-Related Disclosure (CRD) in accordance with the Aotearoa New
Zealand Climate Standards. NZKS is a climate-reporting entity under the Financial
Markets Conduct Act 2013. This report covers the period from 1 February 2024 to 31
January 2025 (FY25).
NZKS introduced a new purpose statement in FY25; ‘Towards a Healthier
Tomorrow’. This broad and aspirational purpose acknowledges that health is at
the core of the company and our efforts focus on five key dimensions: healthy
environments, healthy economies, healthy communities, healthy relationships
and healthy kai. A focus on broader sustainability can be seen across all these
dimensions, including fish health projects, supporting community initiatives,
working on the optimisation of the whole fish in our operations and investment in
better understanding climate risks.
‘Healthy Environments’ as a key dimension illustrates NZKS’ continued focus on
its climate journey by understanding its carbon footprint and the current and
anticipated impact of the changing climate on operations. NZKS acknowledge
that climate-related disclosures are only one part of the sustainability journey, but
it is an important tool in communicating how NZKS is measuring its impact and
addressing climate risks and opportunities.
H
e
a
l
t
h
y

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
H
e
a
l
t
h
y

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
H
e
a
l
t
h
y

K
a
i
H
e
a
l
t
h
y

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
H
e
a
l
t
h
y

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
B
u
i
l
d

a

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

f
u
t
u
r
e
R
e
s
p
e
c
t

t
h
e

w
h
o
l
e


s
h
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e

i
n

r
i
s
k

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
F
o
c
u
s

o
n

o
u
r


s
h
N
u
r
t
u
r
e

h
e
a
l
t
h
y

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
V
a
l
u
e

o
u
r

p
e
o
p
l
e
B
u
i
l
d

a

s
t
r
o
n
g

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r

w
i
t
h

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
Towards
a Healthier
Tomorrow
4New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — IntroductionContents

As a primary sector organisation fundamentally reliant on
the natural environment, climate change can significantly
influence NZKS’ trajectory. As a business, NZKS takes
a proactive approach to identifying and addressing
climate-related risks, evidenced by the completion of the
hydrological mapping of freshwater sites to enable better
future asset planning. Additionally, the NZKS ensilage
plant has been fully implemented during FY25, reducing
landfill impact with the ensilage plant output subsequently
being processed by a third party into liquid fertiliser or
biogases that can be used to create electricity.
NZKS understands that being in the business of growing
a food source will always have an environmental impact
but do continuously seek to identify opportunities to
minimise the footprint of our operations. In saying this
though, NZKS acknowledges the opportunity it has as
the world’s largest King salmon farmer, producing a
premium, nutritious and low-carbon animal protein.
1
The
aquaculture sector in New Zealand has been identified by
the New Zealand Government as a growth sector and as
consumer demand grows for healthy, low-carbon protein
alternatives NZKS is focused on expanding to meet that
demand. NZKS maintains a commitment to responsible
and sustainable growth as it continues to expand, with
the Blue Endeavour pilot underway and planning work
to support a greenfields site ongoing with a view to
accommodate higher future production volumes.
1
thinkstep-anz. (2023). LCA Report – King Salmon from New Zealand. Wellington: thinkstep-anz.
This disclosure details NZKS’ strategic approach to
identifying risks and opportunities from climate change
and acknowledges that the maturity of our sustainability
reporting will continue to evolve as we deepen our
understanding of climate-related risks and opportunities.
During FY25, NZKS has looked at our operations with a
sustainability lens and sought to embed Environmental,
Social and Governance (ESG) principles throughout
the company strategy. Applying these principles and
strategically focusing on climate risk, ensures that NZKS
becomes a more resilient and sustainable business.
5New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — IntroductionContents

Statement of Compliance
These climate-related disclosures comply with the Aotearoa
New Zealand Climate Standards, and the November
2024 Amendment, issued by the XRB External Reporting
Board. In preparing NZKS’ Climate-Related Disclosures, the
Board and Management have elected to use the following
Adoption Provisions
2
:
Adoption provision 2: Anticipated financial impacts
This adoption provision exempts NZKS from disclosing its
anticipated financial impacts of climate-related risks and
opportunities in its first or second reporting period.
This adoption provision also includes exemption from:
a. Paragraph 15 (c) of NZ CS 1, where NZKS is
required to disclose a description of the time
horizons over which the anticipated financial
impacts of climate-related risks and
opportunities could reasonably occur.
b. Paragraph 15 (d) of NZ CS 1, where NZKS is
required to explain why it is unable to disclose
quantitative information for paragraph 15 (b)
of NZ CS 1.
Adoption provision 6: Comparatives for metrics
This adoption provision exempts NZKS from complying
with the disclosure requirement in Paragraph 40 of NZ CS
3. Paragraph 40 of NZ CS 3 requires that for each metric
disclosed in the current reporting period an entity must
disclose comparative information for the immediately
preceding two reporting periods. This adoption provision
allows for an entity in its second reporting period, to provide
one year of comparative information for each metric. NZKS
has disclosed comparative data for the preceding period
being FY24.
Adoption provision 7: Analysis of trends
This adoption provision exempts NZKS from disclosing an
analysis of the main trends evident from a comparison of
each metric from previous reporting periods to the current
reporting period, referenced in NZ CS 3, clause 42, in its first
or second reporting period.
2
Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standard 2 Adoption of Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CS 2). Incorporates amendments to 27 November 2024.
6New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — IntroductionContents

Disclaimer
NZKS has used reasonable efforts in the preparation of this
CRD to provide accurate information, but cautions reliance
being placed on representations that are necessarily
subject to significant risks, uncertainties or assumptions.
This report contains forward looking statements, including
climate-related metrics, climate scenarios, targets,
assumptions, estimated climate projections, forecasts,
statements of NZKS’ future intentions, estimates and
judgements that may not evolve as predicted. These
statements necessarily involve assumptions, forecasts and
projections about NZKS’ present and future strategies and
NZKS’ future operating environment. Such statements
are inherently uncertain and subject to limitations,
particularly as inputs, available data and information are
likely to change. NZKS has used its best efforts to provide
a reasonable basis for forward-looking statements and is
committed to progressing our response to climate-related
risks and opportunities over time but is constrained by
the novel and developing nature of this subject matter.
Climate-related risk management and reporting of metrics
and targets is an emerging area, and often uses data
and methodologies that are developing and uncertain.
Climate-related forward-looking statements may therefore
be less reliable than other statements NZKS may make in
its annual reporting.
We have based these statements on our current knowledge
as of May 2025. There are many factors that could cause
NZKS’ actual results, performance or achievement of
climate-related metrics (including targets) to differ
materially from that described, including economic and
technological viability, as well as climatic, government,
consumer, and market factors outside of NZKS’ control.
Nothing in this report should be interpreted as capital
growth, earnings or any other legal, financial, tax or other
advice or guidance.
Mark Dewdney
Chair
28 May 2025
Paul Munro
Chair - Audit, Finance & Risk Committee
28 May 2025
Ruakākā, Queen Charlotte Sound/Tōtaranui
7New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — IntroductionContents

Governance
8New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — GovernanceContents

Governance
Board oversight of climate-related risks
and opportunities
The NZKS Board of Directors (the Board) maintain direct
responsibility and oversight of risks and opportunities,
including those related to climate change. At each Board
meeting, Management reports on climate-related matters
to ensure the Board remains informed and can set the
direction of Management response to climate-related
risks and opportunities. Several Board Directors are also
members of Chapter Zero New Zealand, a global network
of board directors committed to acting on climate change.
This ensures that the Board is exposed to and aware of
external trends and best practice relating to climate
risk and governance. In FY25, several Directors have
completed further education to expand their knowledge
on sustainability. As NZKS enters its second year of climate
reporting the Board has maintained clear visibility of the
reporting process, and the subsequent management of
risks and opportunities.
To manage climate-related matters, the Board delegates
part of its responsibilities to the Audit, Finance and
Risk Committee (AFRC). For FY26 this Committee will
become the Audit, Finance, Risk and Project Development
Committee. The AFRC assumes the key responsibility for
overseeing the CRDs and reporting back to the Board.
The AFRC also supports the Board by performing reviews
of NZKS’ primary business risks and its risk management
policy. The AFRC meets on a quarterly basis and hold
additional meetings as required in response to new data,
analysis or risk identification.
To ensure appropriate risk management is in place and
relative to the level of risk that has been assessed, the
Board receives reports and briefings from the AFRC. In
FY25 the Board completed an internal risk appetite review,
which provides a risk reference framework for Management
and the AFRC to consider when forming risk management
responses. The Board has access to all reports presented
by Management for both Committee and Board meetings.
During Board meetings, Directors also have the opportunity
to discuss and understand Management’s response to
how risks, including climate-related matters, are being
addressed. This supports appropriate risk oversight by
the Board. During FY25 the Board received briefings
and updates on various climate-related matters, which
included:
• A review of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
inventory and trends across the period.
• Hydrological mapping for each freshwater site was
presented across two meetings. The meetings included
the external experts who prepared the reports, allowing
the Board to ask specific questions on these reports.
• An update on the sustainability risk review, led by
Management, outlining how risks changed — or
remained the same — following the formalisation of
climate risks in FY24.
• General updates on the consultations that related to
the climate-reporting disclosures and Management’s
view on the various proposed changes.
The Fish Farming Committee (FFC), also supports
the Board in its oversight of climate-related risks and
opportunities, through the identification of the risk and
opportunities specific to fish farming operations. This
approach supports the ongoing focus on improving fish
health and performance and farming strategies. Climate
change and the associated risk is a critical consideration of
this committee. Specific internal reporting delivered by the
FFC to the Board relates to:
• Consideration of water temperature on sea farms and
resultant interactions;
• Progress on the breeding programme and specifically
thermotolerance;
• Harvest progress during summer at NZKS sea farms;
and
• Fish welfare indicators.
9New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — GovernanceContents

Tools and mechanisms
The Board uses the following mechanisms to provide oversight of Management in relation to
climate-related risks and opportunities, and to set objectives for climate-related issues:
Risk Management Framework:
Annual reviews of the NZKS Risk Management
Framework are conducted to ensure alignment with
the climate-related considerations and stay up to
date with indicators and the latest climate science.
In FY25 risks have been reviewed and reassessed
and are referenced in the NZKS FY25 Annual Report
released in late March 2025.
Reporting:
Review of the Enterprise Performance Report, which
includes a section on sustainability, carbon emissions,
an overview of any significant movements in
emissions and other general sustainability matters.
Risk Matrix Tools:
Ensuring that key climate risks identified in risk
matrix reviews are reported to the Audit, Finance
and Risk Committee and addressed appropriately.
When GHG emission reduction targets are set, this
committee will also be responsible for overseeing the
reporting and progress on this. In FY25, the focus was
on continuing to work through understanding the
emissions profile including working with a third party
to identify any decarbonisation projects. External
assurance for GHG emissions was undertaken for
FY25 across Scope 1, 2 and 3.
Remuneration:
Specific sustainability remuneration metrics for the
Senior Leadership Team, under the existing Short-Term
Incentive (STI) scheme have been under consideration
by the People and Performance Committee (for FY26
this committee will become the People, Performance
and Safety Committee). Currently remuneration has
not been aligned specifically to climate-related risks
and opportunities or sustainability metrics, however,
as the commercial viability and performance of NZKS
is inherently linked to advancing the sustainability
agenda the existing incentive structure for the Senior
Leadership Team does by default reflect achievement
and progress in sustainability. As trends emerge from
multiple years of disclosure and analysis, STIs linking
to climate-related risks and opportunities and specific
metrics will be considered.
Policy:
Annual reviews are conducted of relevant policies.
Management is in the process of reviewing a specific
sustainability policy that will be delivered in FY26 and
which supports the new NZKS strategy.
NZKS Strategy:
The Board was involved in the establishment of a
company strategy refresh during FY24, that was
refined and finalised in FY25 to deliver the new
purpose statement, “Towards a Healthier Tomorrow”.
Sustainability is a central consideration in this whole
of company strategy. In FY25 the sustainability
team continued to ensure an ESG focus in the Board
approved work plan.
10New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — GovernanceContents

Management’s role in assessing and
managing climate-related risks and
opportunities
The Board delegates climate-related responsibilities to
the NZKS Executive and monitors this through specific
mechanisms such as a standing agenda item at Board
meetings and ensuring relevance of internal policies
outlined previously. The Executive comprises the Chief
Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and relevant
General Managers. This Executive group is assigned the
responsibility for advancing the company strategy, which
includes sustainability, and the oversight of climate-related
risks and opportunities in the business.
The Executive is supported by the sustainability team
who is tasked with overseeing the implementation of
sustainability-related parts of the strategy across the
business as well as regular reviews of the business’ climate-
related risks and opportunities. The sustainability team in
FY25 includes the:
• Head of Finance & Sustainability
• Sustainability Manager; and the
• Sustainability Finance Manager.
This core sustainability team work together closely and
meet frequently to specifically discuss the sustainability
work programme. This team also meets twice a year with
the Chief Financial Officer and the General Manager who
oversee the risk register to review and amend climate-
related risks and opportunities as required. This team
reports through to the Board on any key sustainability
developments and any newly identified risks, assisting the
Board in fulfilling its responsibilities related to identifying,
assessing, monitoring, and managing climate-risk. The
sustainability team provides updates to the Board and
AFRC at every Board meeting, involving various levels of
Management in the process (refer to Governance structure
on page 12).
The sustainability team also leads the internal Sustainability
Committee. This committee is made up of the Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, relevant General
Managers and other key team members across the
business, who join project discussions as required. This
often includes NZKS’ Research & Development Manager
and Head of New Product Development. The Sustainability
Committee meets multiple times a year and is responsible
for assessing internal sustainability projects and reporting
on any projects or sustainability initiatives delivered in
the business. The sustainability team is also responsible
for preparing the sustainability section of the Enterprise
Performance Report that is reported through to the
Board. During FY25, the sustainability team has brought
in an internal consultant to help evolve the reporting
and modelling of the climate risks to enhance the
understanding of key risks and related metrics, as well as
commencing work on establishing an appropriate internal
methodology to quantify the potential financial impact
from climate change. This is important to ensure focus is
placed on the most significant risks.
11New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — GovernanceContents

Audit, Finance &
Risk Committee
(meets at a minimum
quarterly)
• Ensures risks are managed in
accordance with NZKS risk
management framework.
This includes key climate
risks being brought to the
committee for detailed
review annually
• Oversees NZKS’ reporting
requirements including
climate-related disclosures
as well as the broader ESG
work programme
Fish Farming Committee
(meets as required)
• Responsible for the identification of the risks and opportunities specific
to the fish farming operations and review of the management of these
risks
• Focused on the ongoing improvement in fish health and farming
strategies
People & Performance Committee
(meets quarterly)
• Responsible for making recommendations to the Board as to its size
and composition to ensure that the Company has access to the
most appropriate balance of skills, qualifications, experience, and
background to effectively govern the Company
• Responsible for making recommendations with respect to executive
incentive remuneration plans having regard to financial and non-
financial goals and how these align with Company strategy and
performance objectives
Executive Team
(reports to all Board meetings and AFRC meetings)
Includes Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and relevant General
Managers
• Responsible for implementation of strategy across the business and
oversight of the climate risks and opportunities
Core Sustainability Team
Includes Head of Finance & Sustainability, Sustainability Manager,
Sustainability Finance Manager
• Responsible for preparation of carbon inventory and preparation of
climate-related disclosures
• Responsible for supporting the Executive in driving the sustainability
strategy in the business and reporting through to Executive and Board on
sustainability projects
• Supporting the Executive with the identification and review of NZKS’
climate-related risks and opportunities
Sustainability Committee
(meets ~6 times annually)
• Responsible for overseeing and reporting on sustainability projects and
initiatives across the business
Other
• Key team members across all aspects of the business, including finance,
aquaculture and strategy, provide practical and pragmatic support and
advice to the sustainability governance structure as required
• External independent advisers also provide support where required
Board Oversight
Management
Main Climate Reporting
Committee
Supporting Committees
• Approves NZKS strategy including supporting strategies e.g
Sustainability Strategy
• Ensures Board skills, size and composition are fit for purpose
• Reviews and supports management processes in relation to the
risks and opportunities of the business including climate risks
NZKS Board
(meets ~10 times annually)
• Supports the development and implementation of climate-
related metrics and targets to enable the Board to effectively
review and monitor the progress of the Company in future years
• Reviews remuneration policies and short term incentive schemes
of Senior Leadership
Key Management Roles reporting to
Executive Management
Governance structure for climate-related responsibilities
An outline of the Governance structure and the frequency of updates and
monitoring on key climate-related responsibilities is provided below.
12New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — GovernanceContents

Strategy
13New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

Strategy
NZKS has continued to use the same
climate-related risk assessment framework
and climate scenarios as the previous
reporting period (31 January 2024).
This internal framework and the scenarios used, support
NZKS’ understanding of the potential climate-related
risks and opportunities that may impact operations, and
how certain climate indicators may change under the
various scenarios. Risks determined not identified pre
FY24 were subsequently included in the enterprise risk
register to ensure appropriate Board and Management
review and consideration. The combination of internal
risk considerations, alongside climate scenarios allows for
proactive management of these risks.
The climate-related risk assessment framework established
in FY24 was based on workshops with various internal
stakeholders and ranked the risks using the NZKS risk matrix
to identify risks that were of a priority nature i.e., the risks
that may have a significant impact on NZKS’ operations. A
further workshop considered these risks and opportunities
over the NZKS risk assessment time horizons and how risk
and opportunities may differ under the various climate
scenarios. This assessment was considered again in FY25 by
Management. As there have been no significant operational
changes and no other significant impacts on the business in
relation to these risks, the identified risks and opportunities
have not changed.
The climate scenarios used for both FY24 and FY25 were
built on the foundation of The Aotearoa Circle’s ‘Climate-
related risk scenarios for the 2050s’, specific for the Marine/
Seafood Industry in addition to, a scenario from the
Network for Greening the Financial System. They have been
adapted by NZKS to make them more specific for the risks
and opportunities identified by the business. The scenario
frameworks used also align to the scenarios used
by other Climate Reporting Entities (CREs) in the
aquaculture industry.
In FY25, NZKS became a partner to The Aotearoa Circle. This
enabled the involvement and active collaboration with key
stakeholders in the seafood industry to help the development
of the Seafood Nature, Climate and Te Ao Māori Scenarios.
This is an ongoing project that will be finalised in FY26. The
process is facilitated by an external sustainability advisory
firm and involved multiple workshops and meetings. As this
scenario work is an ongoing project it has not been utilised in
the current reporting. The outcome of this work is expected
to be refined and tailored to NZKS, for use in future climate-
related disclosures. NZKS does not expect updated scenarios
to change how the business currently responds or assesses
climate-related risks or opportunities. Rather, the intent is
to ensure alignment with the wider industry and to consider
any new risks or opportunities that may not yet have
been identified. Based on the scenario work to date, NZKS
does not see the currently disclosed risks or opportunities
materially changing.
14New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

A description and specific characteristics of each
scenario considered are detailed in the table below.
Scenario
Kahawai 2050
“Orderly transition”
Disorderly
“Delayed transition”
Mako 2050
“Intense and severe outcomes”
DescriptionThis scenario describes a 2050 world that has succeeded
in implementing the Paris Agreement (net zero by 2050).
The NZ Government has implemented legislation that
has acted as key drivers in the country’s transformation.
By mid-century, New Zealand’s aquaculture and fisheries
sectors have become carbon-neutral, powered by new
technologies. New Zealand’s marine governance system
becomes more flexible and collaborative, enhancing
the resilience of aquaculture operators. Due to the
transparency, sustainability and social equity of our
marine governance and food production systems, New
Zealand enjoys a strong comparative advantage in the
global marketplace.
This scenario describes a world where annual emissions
have not started decreasing until 2030. The slow initial
response has required strong national and global policies
to limit warming to below 2°C. The commercialisation
of lower carbon technology is only emerging in response
to the later legislative changes, meaning a slower
decarbonisation pathway for business in New Zealand.
Actions taken by businesses affected by climate change
are reactive rather than proactive, which means solutions
are more expensive.
This scenario describes a 2050 world where change
moves rapidly through the marine domain, a failure to
curb emissions has meant significant climate disruption.
The consequences of climate change have increased
the stressors on the environment and in turn increased
economic pressures on businesses that rely on the
environment for survival. Government policies are slow to
change and the costs of adaptation to climate change is
prohibitive to some businesses and industries.
Policy Ambition1.5ºC (<2ºC) 2ºC>3ºC
RCP/SSP
Combination Used
RCP 2.6
SSP1
RCP 2.6
SSP2
RCP 8.5
SSP3
Physical Risk SeverityLow - ModerateModerateExtreme
Policy ReactionImmediate and smoothDelayed - strong policies once implementedLagging, minimal change from current policy
Technology ChangeFast ChangesSlow/ Fast ChangeSlow Changes
Global Population8.5b8.26b11b
Marine Bio-Physical
Impacts (To 2050)
+0.8ºC coastal sea surface temperature+0.8ºC coastal sea surface temperature+1.5ºC coastal sea surface temperature
+0.23 m sea level rise+0.23 m sea level rise+0.28 m sea level rise
8.0 pH ocean acidification8.0 pH ocean acidification7.94 pH ocean acidification
1% decline in dissolved oxygen1% decline in dissolved oxygen2% decline in dissolved oxygen
15New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

These scenarios enable a level of comparability to other
aquaculture businesses as they have been used by others in
the sector when assessing climate risks and opportunities.
For the purposes of the climate scenario analysis, the time
scale is longer term. For internal risk assessment, NZKS have
used nearer term, time horizons. However, NZKS climate
risks and opportunities have been informed by the above
climate scenarios. NZKS has used the time horizons as the
broader NZKS enterprise risks, to support the appropriate
prioritisation of climate-related risks by the Board and
Management. Under all scenarios the level of uncertainty
increases over the longer term, as the effects of climate
change become more evident, yet the outcomes are
increasingly uncertain.
Time Frames:
A comprehensive examination of the value chain from
hatchery to distribution was completed to determine the
potential physical and transition risks from changes to the
climate. The climate risk assessment included locations
and operations that are deemed important and material
to NZKS, including hatcheries in Takaka and Tentburn,
sea farms in Tory Channel, Queen Charlotte Sound, and
Pelorus Sound, as well as the Nelson-based processing site.
The climate risk assessment was predominantly limited to
New Zealand and focused on logistics operations under
NZKS’ control. Transitional risks considered the broader
supply chain in the context of export markets, consumer
preferences and government policies, as exports form a
significant part of the NZKS business.
The value chain was reassessed for FY25 and was
considered to remain appropriate. One operational
change for FY26 will be the Blue Endeavour pilot farms
becoming operational. In the value chain assessment, the
pilot farms will fall under the sea farm locations. There is
no expectation that the additional farm will change the
currently identified sea farm risks. However, the additional
water space may mitigate the risk of livestock being held
across only one channel in the warmer summer months.
This mitigation of risk cannot be fully assessed until the
pilot is completed.
The climate scenarios informed the assessment of
NZKS’ climate-related physical and transition risks and
opportunities. NZKS note that climate-related risks and
opportunities are dynamic and as such this section does
not (and does not purport to), set out all the climate-
related risks and opportunities that may affect NZKS. This
is due to the risks and opportunities either being unknown,
or currently assessed as lower priority based on internal risk
assessments. All risks have been reviewed to ensure they
have remained relevant for FY25. A key evolving risk which
has been highlighted in the NZKS FY25 Annual Report, is
access to suitable water space. This specific risk is noted
Scenario Analysis
Time Scale
Risk Assessment
Time Horizon
Short term2025 to 20301-3 years
Medium
term
2031 to 20504-10 years
Long term2051 to 2100>10 years
Risk/Opportunity LevelAction
High
Highest priority for
Management effort to
mitigate or eliminate
MediumMonitor closely
LowMaintain awareness
under the regulatory and legal section of the climate-
related risk/opportunity table on pages 17-19 and is a key
consideration in an uncertain regulatory environment.
The table outlines the material, current and anticipated
physical and transition climate-related risks and
opportunities, identified and agreed by the Board
and Management. NZKS has determined risks as material
if they have been identified as priority 1 or 2 on NZKS’ risk
matrix. The table also discloses the current financial impact
in relation to the identified physical and transition risks and
opportunities. NZKS has utilised the exemption available
and has not disclosed the anticipated financial impact of
the identified physical and transition risks.
16New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

Climate-Related
Risk/Opportunity
Current ImpactAnticipated Impact
Risk Assessment Time Horizon
Management Responses Identified to Date
1-3
years
4-10
years
>10
years
Marine heatwaves
cause more
persistent high
summer sea
temperatures
(Physical Risk)
There has been no physical
impact on the business during
FY25 from this risk.
There was no material
financial impact in FY25 in
relation to this risk.
Warming waters are expected
under all scenarios. Expectation on
increased capital expenditure for
additional water space requirements
and research and development
expenditure on thermotolerance.
Prolonged warming waters may
contribute to elevated mortality
by providing the environment for
additional stressors to impact
the livestock in the water, such as
bacteria, algae blooms etc.
Management is investing in thermotolerance, which is a long-term
breeding project to increase resilience of salmon in warmer water
temperatures.
Management is allocating significant capital to the Blue Endeavour open
ocean pilot to provide additional water space for NZKS to farm in the
medium/long-term.
More frequent
and longer dry
spells and drought
(Physical Risk)
There has been no physical
impact on the business during
FY25 from this risk.
There was no material
financial impact in FY25 in
relation to this risk.
There is an increased risk of drought
and water restrictions at multiple
production sites.
Management has conducted a hydrology mapping exercise on the two
freshwater sites to better understand the risks of drought. This enables better
planning and use of capital to mitigate risks in the medium/long-term.
Management has considered improvements around water recirculation
and is actively working on a Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS)
project in the short-term for the Tentburn site. Freshwater planning is also
being undertaken by the aquaculture team in determining the medium to
long term projects. Water use improvements at the current processing site
are being considered, however Management’s key focus is understanding
this risk on a greenfield site.
Coastal and
estuarine
flooding:
increasing
persistence,
frequency and
magnitude
(Physical Risk)
There has been no physical
impact on the business during
FY25 from this risk.
There was no material
financial impact in FY25 in
relation to this risk.
There is expected to be an increase
of flooding at freshwater sites,
which may cause damage to
infrastructure.
Management has conducted a hydrology mapping exercise on the two
freshwater sites to better understand the risk of floods. This enables better
planning and use of capital to mitigate risks in the medium/long-term.
Management has mitigated short-term flooding risk by improvements to
culverts at Tentburn. Management is also investigating other capital spend
options to decrease flood risk as part of resilience planning. All future
business cases for capital expenditure now take into account the hydrology
reports to ensure new projects are built at an appropriate level to mitigate
the impacts of a flood.
HighMediumLow
17New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

Climate-Related
Risk/Opportunity
Current ImpactAnticipated Impact
Risk Assessment Time Horizon
Management Responses Identified to Date
1-3
years
4-10
years
>10
years
Increased storm
and extreme
wind events
(Physical Risk)
There has been no physical impact on the business
during FY25 from this risk.
There was no material financial impact in FY25 in
relation to this risk.
As storms become more frequent
and severe, there is a potential
risk that sea farm assets, roading
networks, and potentially other key
infrastructure may be affected,
adversely impacting the NZKS supply
chain from harvest to distribution.
NZKS has alternate routes to get harvest from
seawater sites and domestic/export logistics has
experience in moving goods when routes are closed.
Regulatory and
legal
(Transition
Risk and
Opportunity)
The nature of this risk and opportunity is that there
is always a current impact on the business that must
be considered. In FY25 outside standard consent
processes and current compliance obligations, there
have been some additional opportunities identified.
There was the opportunity to mitigate future risks in
relation to offshore renewable energy infrastructure,
which was done via a submission to parliament on
the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. Depending on
Management’s next steps in relation to renewable
energy infrastructure, the ongoing consideration of
this risk area would fall under the ‘new and emerging
technology’ risk/opportunity section of this analysis.
There was no material financial impact in FY25 in
relation to this risk or opportunity.
Yet to be determined, future
regulatory requirements around
resource consents including
monitoring and reporting
obligations.
Alternatively, the regulatory
environment could be an
opportunity as salmon is a low
carbon protein, which may be seen
as an industry for the Government /
Councils to support via more flexible
resource consent conditions.
NZKS is actively involved in regional processes led
by industry groups including being a part of active
discussions on the Marlborough Environment Plan.
NZKS is also actively focussing on engaging with
wider stakeholders of the business such as iwi, NGOs,
central and local government.
The regulatory and legal environment is being
actively monitored by NZKS. Current management
focus is on the short-medium term, as – like
any transitional risk – it is an evolving space and
outcomes can be difficult to predict. Management
processes therefore need to remain flexible to adapt
quickly to new frameworks.
Financial
(Transition Risk)
There has been no impact on the business in relation
to this risk/opportunity during FY25.
There was no material financial impact in FY25 in
relation to this risk.
Potential increased costs to the
business, such as freight costs,
introduction of carbon taxes /
regulations, insurances and
reporting obligations. Increase in
the need for capital expenditure for
business resilience to mitigate the
effect of climate change.
Management is investigating options and
viability of moving air freight to sea freight to reduce
carbon emissions.
Management proactively manages NZKS’ risk-based
insurance programme.
Management understands that capital expenditure
is likely to be required to support the business
in adapting to a lower emission business, this is
currently being considered in future capital planning.
HighMediumLow
18New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

Climate-Related
Risk/Opportunity
Current ImpactAnticipated Impact
Risk Assessment Time Horizon
Management Responses Identified to Date
1-3
years
4-10
years
>10
years
New and
emerging
technology
(Transition Risk
and Opportunity)
There has been no impact on
the business in relation to this
risk or opportunity during FY25.
There was no material financial
impact in FY25 in relation to
this risk or opportunity.
NZKS expects improvements
in technology will provide the
opportunity to become more
efficient and therefore reduce
carbon intensity measures. NZKS
will continue to assess the risks and
opportunities of adopting emerging
technology as part of future capital
investment decisions.
Management is exploring potential projects, such as a greenfield
processing site to drive lower emissions and adoption of more efficient
technologies.
As part of the decarbonisation pathway work undertaken in FY25,
Management identified potential new and emerging technologies that
they will continue to monitor closely. This will enable NZKS to identify
opportunities early and mitigate the risk of being slow to adapt compared
to others in the industry.
Market access/
consumer
demands
(Transition Risk
and Opportunity)
There has been no impact on
the business in relation to this
risk or opportunity during FY25.
There was no material financial
impact in FY25 in relation to
this risk or opportunity.
There is potential risk around
increased regulation on packaging,
entry requirements and tariffs to
gain access to export markets.
Alternatively, this could be an
opportunity as salmon is a low
carbon protein, which may be seen
as a preferred import product.
Consumer preference may also
move to a lower carbon protein
choice.
This is currently monitored by Management to identify any market
access /consumer changes that may impact on operations. Management
utilise resources such as New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) to stay
informed on the changing regulatory environments overseas.
Reputational
(Transition Risk
and Opportunity)
There has been no impact on
the business in relation to this
risk or opportunity during FY25.
There was no material financial
impact in FY25 in relation to
this risk or opportunity.
An increased focus on the climate
space has the ability to be both a
risk and an opportunity for NZKS,
depending on how stakeholders
interpret climate-related disclosures
and other ESG actions.
NZKS has prepared this report which sets out its CRDs.
NZKS continues to achieve third-party certifications such as the Best
Aquaculture Practices (BAP) certification, which supports the company’s
commitment to responsible operational practices and therefore it’s
reputation as a trusted operator.
Management is committed to better understanding its GHG emissions
and how to practically implement carbon reduction projects identified
in FY25.
HighMediumLow
19New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

Financial Impacts
Management have assessed that there is no material
current financial impact in relation to any climate-related
risks disclosed in the previous table. In assessing and
quantifying the current financial impact attributable to
climate change, Management determine what component
of cost exceeding forecasts can be attributed directly to
climate-related risks or opportunities, and is therefore not
related to other seasonal, Management, or operational
decisions or challenges. This assessment can be difficult and
is often judgement-based. NZKS is working to improve the
tracking of these costs and the development of an internal
climate risk attribution methodology, to enable easier
reporting for years where climate-risks do have a material
impact on operations. Before climate-related disclosures
were required, NZKS experienced impacts that could have
been attributed partially to climate risks. Management
is using these impacts to support the formation of the
financial impact methodology. Examples of the impacts
include elevated mortality occurrences and increased
freight costs due to road closures.
NZKS has elected to not disclose the anticipated financial
impacts in relation to the physical and transition risks
identified. However, during FY25, Management commenced
work on developing systems and models that allow for this
to be carried out in future financial periods. It is important
to note that there is currently no prescribed methodology
available for this.
At a high level, NZKS will assess the anticipated financial
impact of an event based on two key considerations:
1. Financial magnitude of event, in terms of maximum
potential financial impact; and
2. Probability of event occurring on an annual basis.
The potential financial impact of a risk materialising is
based on first looking at actual historical data from an
event occurring and then adjusted for any mitigations or
business model changes that would make the data no
longer representative of that risk. Where the risk event
has not occurred previously, the financial cost has been
calculated from looking at the impact of the event on
current and future production, along with any other
financial impacts due to repair or remediation. Where there
is no ability to determine specific cost or financial impact
due to the range of variables, an estimate range has been
used to ensure each risk is considered appropriately. This
is a pragmatic and efficient approach to quantification of
financial risk and allows for focus on risks that are
more significant.
Probability is the second key consideration in calculating
anticipated financial impact. Where possible, as a first step,
specific data would be utilised to support this, however it
is often not possible to obtain a specific probability. The
second step is to look at frequency of event over the past
decade and consider whether this is likely to continue
at the same rate or increase under the different climate
scenarios. Again, research can provide some guidance, but
specific probabilities are inherently difficult to determine
with precision. Lastly, in assessing probability, a Management
thought discussion will be conducted with relevant key
stakeholders who have experience in the areas of risks to
look at the possible occurrence over the next 30 years and
this is then converted into an annual probability estimate.
The finalisation of this internal methodology to quantify
climate risks, will be a key focus of FY26. As with any
methodology that relies on historical data and significant
judgements in relation to the future, the expectation is that
the anticipated financial impact disclosure would be
disclosed as a financial range, and would be caveated with
the limitations that are inherent with judgments being made.
20New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

Transition Plan
The identified climate-related risks and opportunities
have been integrated into broader business planning and
capital allocation decisions, to ensure that NZKS is taking
proactive steps towards transitioning to a lower carbon
future and to mitigate potential risks to the business.
The current Management response to the identified risks
and opportunities do not differ significantly under the
various climate-related scenarios. This is due to the current
Management response either being the most commercially
viable option available to NZKS and/or limited optionality
available to mitigate the risk. Or further information is
required to fully form a Management response to the
climate-related risk or opportunity.
Due to the long term nature of the climate scenarios, it is
expected the Management response will change over time,
as the anticipated climate impacts become clearer and
definitive information is more readily available.
The climate risk assessment undertaken annually will
continue to utilise the scenarios to consider plausible future
risks and opportunities to ensure NZKS response is more
proactive than reactive, within the various limitations on
the business.
As noted in the Governance section, the current business
strategy supports an increased focus on sustainability and
risk management. When projects are presented to the
Board seeking approval of capital expenditure, there is a
deliberate focus on sustainability outcomes and emissions
reductions. As part of capital allocation decisions, ESG is
also considered as an input into a project’s hurdle rate (i.e
with all other variables being held consistent the better
the ESG outcome would generate a lower hurdle rate -
therefore improving the prioritisation of the project). This
embedding of sustainability has also created a focus on
making the business more resilient to climate and broader
ESG risks and allows for early identification of potential
opportunities for NZKS.
21New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — StrategyContents

Risk Management
22New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Risk ManagementContents

Risk Management
NZKS employs a structured risk
management approach that utilises
a 5x5 matrix of consequence severity
and likelihood.
The risk management framework enables the Board and
Management to assess various business and climate-related
risks, potentially impacting our operations, environment and
communities. This allows the business to take appropriate
steps to mitigate and manage these risks effectively.
NZKS utilises the risk assessment framework to rate and
compare climate-related risks against other business risks.
There is a bi-annual review of sustainability risks within the
NZKS risk framework by the sustainability team and risk
leaders. There is also an annual workshop with the Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, relevant senior
leaders, and the sustainability team, to reassess and update
the climate-related risks and opportunities, to ensure the full
defined value chain is considered. This also supports NZKS’
continued commitment to sustainability, transparency, and
responsible business practices.
The risk rating system used for wider business risks is also
employed for climate-related risks, considering the likelihood
and severity of their associated consequences. The risks
are prioritised based on their severity and categorised into
priorities 1-4. Those rated as priority 1 require immediate
action, where possible, to proactively manage risk and limit
exposure. The climate-related risks that have been rated
priority 1 or 2 from the climate-risk workshops have been
condensed and included in the Company’s overall enterprise
risk register. This ensures climate-related risks are considered
in the same way as other business risks.
Communication & FeedbackMonitoring & Risk Review
Scope and Boundaries Established
Risk Identification
Risk Assessment
Risk Management
Risk Management Process
23New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Risk ManagementContents

Metrics and Targets
24New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Metrics and TargetsContents

NZKS recognises the importance of
monitoring and mitigating GHG emissions.
In FY24, NZKS undertook a comprehensive assessment
and reporting exercise of its Scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG
emissions with reference to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol,
and set FY24 as the baseline for future target setting
and evaluation. FY25 GHG emissions build on this prior
foundation.
NZKS emissions profile
NZKS measures its GHG emissions in accordance with the
requirements of the ‘Greenhouse Gas Protocol – A Corporate
Accounting and Reporting Standard’. As reporting of
climate-related metrics and targets is an emerging area,
often the data and methodologies used are developing and
uncertain. NZKS reports its GHG emissions in tonnes of CO
2

equivalents (tCO
2
e), in compliance with the requirements
set by the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards. There
has also been guidance from the following sources:
•
Greenhouse Gas Protocol – Corporate Value Chain
(Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard
•Gre
enhouse Gas Protocol -Technical Guidance for
Calculating Scope 3 Emissions (version 1.0)
Metrics and Targets
Emission factors utilised in FY25 have been from the
following sources:
•Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 2024 ‘Measuring
Emissions: A guide for organisations’ (NZ)
•Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) 2024 ‘Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion
factors’ (UK)
•Department of Climate Change, Energy,
the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) -
Hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants – global warming
potential values and safety classifications (Australia,
202
4)
•Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) product
specific emission factors for similar items to products
purchased (2023)
•Motu Economic and Public Policy Research
‘Consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions input-
output model’ (2007)
•Supplier specific emission factors for feed (2023, 2024
&
2 025)
The emission factor sources are based on global warming
potentials (GWPs) varying from AR4-AR6.
NZKS boundary
NZKS applies the financial control approach when
calculating emissions. Determination of control follows the
same approach taken when consolidating New Ze
aland
King Salmon Investments Limited for financial statement
purposes. Organisational boundaries were applied with
reference to the methodology described by the GHG
Protocol. NZKS has financial control over all the entities
that comprise New Zealand King Salmon Investments
Limited Group. Emissions in NZKS control are Scope
1
and Scope 2 emissions and are identified from across the
entire NZKS operations - hatcheries, sea farms, processing
operations, distribution and offi
ce areas.
The current GHG Protocol guidance suggests leases that
have the characteristics of operating leases are reported as
Scope 3, ‘Category 8: Upstream leased assets’ for reporting
entities with a financial control approach. However,
consistent with the principles of NZ IFRS 16 Leases, NZKS
recognises lease assets in the statement of financial
position as a right of use asset and has determined that,
during the lease period, NZKS has the right to control the
use of the asset as well as the right to substantially all of
the related economic bene
fits and therefore have included
the related emissions in Scopes 1 and 2.
Emissions from sources over which NZKS does not have
financial control, but forms part of the NZKS value chain,
are included as Scope 3 indirect emissions.
25New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Metrics and TargetsContents

immaterial, and the uncertainty associated with this
estimation is high.
•Category 13 - Downstream leased assets: No specific
data available and NZKS does not lease out any
significant assets. Therefore the estimated impact is
immaterial.
•Category 14 - Franchises: Not applicable due to no
franchised business.
•Category 15 - Investments: Not applicable.
Metrics and Targets
NZKS’ total GHG emissions and GHG emission intensities
for FY25 are disclosed in the tables below. The emissions
are the total GHG emissions measured in accordance with
the Greenhouse Gas Protocol guidance. Methodologies,
assumptions, and estimation uncertainties in preparing the
GHG emissions are set out in the Appendix. Scope 1, Scope 2
and Scope 3 GHG emissions for FY25 are subject to limited
assurance by PwC. Refer to the PwC assurance report on
page 38 to 43 for further details.
Emissions sources excluded
The basis for exclusion of emissions from NZKS GHG
emissions calculations in FY25 are either that they are:
•
Not applicable to NZKS operations, or
•
Not material in the context of the GHG inventory (not
greater than 5% of a particular scope of emissions), or
•
Not technically feasible or cost effective to be
quantified with accuracy at present
Estimates and assumptions were applied in situations
where there was a lack of available data.
The below outlines the categories excluded and the
reasoning for this:
•
Category 7 - Employee commuting: Information is not
tracked, estimated impact is immaterial to overall
emissions based on estimates.
•
Cat
egory 10 - Processing of sold products: Partial
exclusion. Emissions from processing of sold offal into
fish meal are included in Category 10. Emissions from all
other types of further processing are excluded, due to
the unknown nature of these processes and insufficient
data, or the volumes being deemed insignificant.
Data quality challenges mean that the uncertainty
associated with this estimation is high.
•
Cat
egory 11 - Consumer use of sold product: As
no specific data is available, we have estimated
emissions based on assumed cooking techniques and
sold weights, however at present the emissions are
ScopeFY25 tCO
2
e
FY24 tCO
2
e
(restated)
A
Yo Y %
(decrease)/
increase
A
% of total
emissions
FY25
A
Scope 1
B
2,4082,434(1.1%)2.84%
Scope 25285250.6%0.62%
Total Scope
1 and 2
2,9362,959(0.8%)3.46%
Scope 3
B,C
81,99978,2574.8%96.54%
Total Scope
1, 2 and 3
84,93581,2164.6%100%
Absolute GHG emissions by Scope
A
No assurance by PwC is provided for the FY24 tCO
2
e, the YOY % (decrease)/
increase and the % of total emissions FY25.
B
For FY25 NZKS determined that fuel consumed by barging contractors previously
reported as Scope 1 was outside of its operational boundary. This has resulted in
a reclassification between Scope 1 and Scope 3 emissions of 1,185 tCO
2
e for the
previously disclosed balance in FY24.
C
Subsequent to the FY24 CRD being released a calculation error within the carbon
emissions software was identified by NZKS. The result of this error resulted in
FY24 Scope 3 disclosure being understated by 2,229 tCO
2
e and the FY24 Scope 2
disclosure being understated by 10 tCO
2
e.
The FY24 Scope 1 and Scope 3 emissions and Total Scope
1 and 2 and Total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions have been
restated to reflect the correction of the calculation error
and reclassification identified in footnote B and C.
26New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Metrics and TargetsContents

Intensity indicators
FY25 -
Liveweight
(tCO
2
e/t)
FY24 -
Liveweight
(tCO
2
e/t)
Yo Y %
(decrease)/
increase
FY25 - G&G
(tCO
2
e/t)
FY24 - G&G
(tCO
2
e/t)
Yo Y %
(decrease)/
increase
Scope 1,2 & 3 emissions per
tonne (tCO
2
e/t)
11.0311.46(3.75%)12.5313.03(3.84%)
Scope 1 & 2 emissions per
tonne (tCO
2
e/t)
0.380.42(9.52%)0.430.47(8.51%)
GHG emissions Intensity
In FY25 Scope 1 and 2 emissions comprised 3.46% of the
NZKS total GHG inventory. At an absolute level, Scope
1 and 2 GHG emissions stayed relatively flat from the
prior year, with a decrease in emissions of 0.8%. This was
achieved through operational efficiencies and improving
organisational awareness of emissions, rather than specific
decarbonisation projects. These emissions were generated
in the context of both harvest volumes and sales volumes
increasing by 9% and 12% respectively in FY25, as disclosed
in NZKS’ Annual Report.
The largest source of Scope 1 emissions is attributable to
fuel consumption across sea farm operations at 73%. Scope
2 emissions are mainly driven by electricity consumed at the
Tentburn hatchery and Nelson processing site.
Scope 3 emissions at 96.54% of total emissions, is made
up of primarily upstream freight emissions; driven by the
airfreight related to the sale of predominantly fresh product
to export markets (53% of Scope 3), and the purchased
goods and services emissions via the purchase of salmon
feed (26% of Scope 3). The increase in Scope 3 as a
percentage from prior year, is mainly attributable to the
increased airfreight emissions.
From an emissions intensity perspective, there has been
an improvement across all metrics for FY25, based on
emissions increasing at a smaller percentage than the
overall increase to biomass harvested (liveweight and G&G)
compared to the FY24 period.
NZKS, as an exporter of a low carbon protein has plans
to expand though increased harvest production in the
medium term via expansion into open ocean salmon
farming. Currently NZKS’ Blue Endeavour open ocean pilot
is in progress with the first harvest expected in FY27. If
the pilot phase goes well and harvest volumes grow, it is
expected that NZKS’ absolute emissions will increase. NZKS
intend to dedicate effort into understanding steps that can
be taken to improve NZKS’ emissions intensity indicators, so
that the business becomes more carbon efficient. Therefore,
to have a flat Scope 1 and 2 in FY25 with the increased
harvest is a positive for NZKS, and highlights that the
future growth of the business does not necessarily coincide
with a proportionate increase in Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
27New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Metrics and TargetsContents

Targets
For FY25, NZKS has not set absolute, or intensity GHG
emission reduction targets from the FY24 base year. The
limitations for NZKS around setting targets in a meaningful
way is outlined in more detail below. Overall, the decision to
not set targets, was primarily based on the inability to build
a robust, actionable reduction plan that Management could
accurately measure against. The decarbonisation options
considered either were already occurring and had minimal
impact, did not have enough GHG reduction potential to
make the time or cost to build a specific target appropriate
for external disclosure reasonable or the information required
to appropriately set a target were not available.
The decision to not set reduction targets was mainly driven
from the decarbonisation report commissioned in FY25, with
third party energy consultants. The focus for that report
was kept to Scope 1 and 2 emissions, as in general, Scope 1
and 2 are the emission sources generally considered easier
to quantify and control. This is because they are directly or
indirectly attributable to an entity’s operations.
In this report, various options were identified as having the
potential to create a decarbonisation pathway for NZKS.
The options ranged from smaller incremental changes such
as swapping out Halogen lighting for LED bulbs, through to
major changes and advances in renewable or sustainable
fuels. To assess the viability of the decarbonisation options
a marginal abatement cost calculation (MAC) was used to
determine whether a project should proceed.
Management assessed these opportunities and outside
some of the shorter-term projects, the options identified
were not reasonable to pursue at this time due to extremely
high MACs. This is reflective of the technology, or renewable
resource, not being commercially available at scale,
and as such the cost to implement and operationalise
these options sits well above the acceptable range for
commercial entities. Although the options identified did
not allow for immediate decarbonisation projects to be
implemented, they did provide other benefits. This included
broadening Management’s understanding of future
decarbonisation potential and put in place thinking that
could support these projects in the future.
The largest, longer-term opportunity identified in the
report related to the use of renewable diesel. This would
replace current diesel consumption, which is the largest
Scope 1 emission for NZKS. At present the MAC cost for
alternative diesel, combined with supply constraints, makes
this currently not a viable option. The decarbonisation
assessment highlighted renewable diesel as one of the
larger future opportunities for NZKS. This had not previously
been a major longer-term consideration for NZKS, however,
carrying out this work has enabled a new focus on key
alternative fuels and technologies in New Zealand. This will
allow these decarbonisation options to be realised as soon
as it’s a commercially viable option for NZKS.
A greenfield processing factory was also considered as
a key driver in GHG emission reductions. This project is
acknowledged as active, and the expectation is it will lead
28New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Metrics and TargetsContents

to a reduction in the intensity of emissions. This expectation
is based on the current site being old and close to end-
of-life, and due to the layout of the site, processes are
not optimised for emission related efficiencies. Due to the
availability of information based on the stage of the project,
and important considerations that need to be made that
would affect the emission reduction options available,
Management is not able to meaningfully determine a
reduction target for this project.
Despite the challenges of high abatement costs driven by a
lack of commercially available options for some of the larger
opportunities, NZKS is making practical decarbonisation
steps where possible. This includes the shorter-term LED
lighting opportunity identified. This option has already been
implemented prior to the receiving of the decarbonisation
report and is a significant way though completion and
is being done on a replacement basis. The other projects
that have been identified in relation to energy use around
aquaculture sites have limited GHG reduction potential
for the cost associated, but will continue to be reassessed
annually to ensure nothing has changed in the business, or
a change in the availability of commercially viable solutions
that could allow NZKS to deliver the GHG reductions in a
commercially reasonable way.
Where possible, NZKS is continuing to maintain awareness
of risks and opportunities that may affect future
decarbonisation projects. For example, when Management
aimed to better define the costs associated with a
renewable energy option for the sea farms, they consulted
with external legal counsel to assess potential consent-
related challenges. This identified the potential impact of
the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill on NZKS’ operations.
This resulted in NZKS making a submission to this Bill.
The submission was to highlight and attempt to prevent
unintended consequences that may have prevented NZKS
generating its own renewable energy on farm. The ability to
generate renewable energy on sea farm sites from offshore
solar and wind is a key decarbonisation option for NZKS.
Therefore, it is important to be aware of potential impacts
to operations, and be proactive where possible to reduce
possible future risks.
NZKS is committed to better understanding its
environmental impact and as part of this, Management
continues to better understand current operational
practices, which may identify further opportunities to
reduce NZKS’ emissions profile or other non GHG emission
reduction impacts. Positive sustainability projects that
have had an impact in FY25, include the ensilage facility
and kidney line project. The ensilage plant commissioning
is complete and is fully functional. This project removes
organic waste from landfill and in turn reduces NZKS
waste to landfill carbon emissions. The kidney line project,
identified in FY25, highlighted the opportunity to capture
the kidney line earlier in the processing of fish at the
factory. This was then put into further processing to
become a key ingredient in nutrient-rich fish meal for
non-salmon applications. This outcome is far more positive
compared to being captured at the end of the process in
the trade waste, which is an expensive and not optimised
use of this remaining raw material.
29New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Metrics and TargetsContents

In relation to Scope 3 emissions, NZKS do not intend to set
any immediate reduction targets. This is mainly due to the
reliance on third parties and the rapidly evolving external
landscape, where measurement benchmarks and standards
are continuing to evolve, making it difficult to meaningfully
report against targets. As Scope 3 emissions account
for over 95% of NZKS emissions, NZKS acknowledge
this provides the largest potential for overall emissions
reductions and will remain an ongoing focus in the short
term. In FY25 the NZKS’ focus has included engaging
with key freight suppliers to discuss the use of Sustainable
Aviation Fuel and working with feed companies to better
understand the emissions related to salmon feed. As this
space continues to mature a broader understanding of
various stakeholder requirements outside large suppliers
is continuing to be better considered, i.e. large customer
expectations and sustainability objectives. This ongoing
work will allow NZKS to plan future projects with a
sustainability lens in a more strategic, focussed way.
In terms of intensity targets, NZKS is still maturing in its
understanding of the drivers of emissions. This makes it
challenging to set an accurate intensity reduction target
that is based off a robust, documented reduction plan.
However, this year, NZKS managed to increase production
but keep Scope 1 and 2 emissions stable. Further work
is required by Management to better understand the
correlation between emissions and harvest and sales
volumes. To improve that understanding in FY26, the
carbon inventory will be split not just by category and
location but also by supplier, which may provide better
insights to support intensity target setting. Another
consideration for FY26, is the potential for the Blue
Endeavour pilot project to skew emission intensity metrics
as it will not be operated in an optimised way. This is due to
certain expenditure on the Blue Endeavour operations only
being commercially viable once the pilot is proved out and
operations are at commercial scale. To attempt to mitigate
this skewing of metrics, Management intends to try and
isolate Blue Endeavour related operations’ GHG emissions,
so intensity indicators can be disclosed from both a
business-as-usual production sites perspective, and with
the inclusion of Blue Endeavour operations. There have been
no Blue Endeavour related emissions in the FY25 period.
30New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Metrics and TargetsContents

Other Climate-Related Metrics
As required by Aotearoa Climate Reporting Standards, NZKS
has also considered other metrics outside the specific GHG
emission disclosure requirements in relation to Scope 1, 2,
and 3.
NZKS’ value chain extends from egg to plate, it is fully
interconnected. Management therefore considers that
business activities are combined. This is aligned with
Management’s assessment of the business as one cash-
generating unit for financial reporting purposes. Therefore,
like other aquaculture entities and given the nature of the
business and in the absence of mitigation, up to 100% of
business activities are vulnerable to the climate-related
physical risks identified above; and up to 100% of our
business activities are also vulnerable to the transition
risks identified. The same can be said for any opportunities
identified.
As noted in the transition plan section of this document,
the identified climate risks and opportunities have been
integrated into broader business planning and capital
allocation decisions. No specific financing has been
obtained in relation to climate risks and opportunities.
NZKS currently does not have a set internal carbon price,
instead considering each decarbonisation project on
broader benefits and risk mitigation as discussed earlier.
As NZKS continues on a decarbonisation assessment and
implementation pathway, setting an internal carbon price
is something that may be considered in the future.
As discussed in the Governance section, there is no
remuneration that has been aligned specifically to
climate-related risks and opportunities. The existing
incentive structure for the Senior Leadership Team is
cognisant of achievement and progress in sustainability
and as trends emerge from multiple years of disclosure and
analysis, STIs linking to specific climate-related risks and
metrics will be possible.
There are no other specific industry metrics or key
performance indicators identified or used in measuring or
managing climate-related risks and opportunities outside
those already disclosed.
31New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Metrics and TargetsContents

Glossary and Appendix
32New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Glossary and AppendixContents

Glossary
AFRC
Audit, Finance & Risk Committee
AR4
Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC
AR6
Sixth Assessment Report from the IPCC
BAP
Best Aquaculture Practices
CRD
Climate-related disclosures
ESG
Environmental, Social and Governance
EPD
Environmental Product Declarations
G&G
Gilled and gutted
GHG
Greenhouse gas
GWP
Global warming potential
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCA
Life Cycle Assessment
Liveweight
Weight of harvested
fish before gilling and
gutting, in tonnes
NGOs
Non-governmental organisations
NZ CS 1
Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standard 1
Climate-related Disclosures
NZ CS 2
Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standard 2
Climate-related Disclosures
NZ CS 3
Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standard 3
Climate-related Disclosures
NZKS
New Zealand King Salmon Investments Limited
NZTE
New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
RCP
Representative Concentration Pathway
SSP
Shared Socio-economic Pathways
STI
Senior Leadership Short
Term Incentive
tCO
2
e
Tonnes of CO
2
equivalents
W
TT
Well-to-tank
33New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Glossary and AppendixContents

ScopeCategory
GHG emissions
source
Data sourced
Calculation methodology, assumptions,
uncertainty (qualitative)
Source of emission
factors
Scope 1
Stationary /
mobile combustion
Fossil fuels used
across business
Supplier dataFuel-based method. Low uncertainty.MfE (2024)
Fugitive emissionsRefrigerant used in
refrigeration systems
Maintenance recordsTop-up method.
Considers top-ups on equipment (including leased assets) on NZKS sites.
Low uncertainty.
MfE (2024), DCCEEW
(2024)
Scope 2
ElectricityElectricity
consumption
Supplier dataLocation-based method. Low uncertainty. Picton usage estimated based on percentage of lease
outgoings applied to activity data (~7% of scope 2).
MfE (2024)
Scope 3
Category 1:
Purchased goods
and services
FeedEmission factors
provided by supplier.
General ledger used
for quantities.
Sup
plier-specific method. High uncertainty.
Supplier-specific feed emission factors reflect specific cradle-to-gate emissions and are specific
to the feed composition purchased by NZKS. The emission factors are developed by feed
suppliers and based on their life cycle assessments. NZKS have a lesser degree of knowledge
and influence on suppliers’ data source quality and collection processes. NZKS rely on suppliers’
methodologies which include complex models, assumptions, estimations. These data challenges
contribute to higher uncertainty. In preparing the LCA, suppliers use internationally recognised
standards and relevant product environmental footprint category rules. In applying the
standards, suppliers use primary and secondary data sources, including databases, to prepare
the calculations. Adjustments are made relevant to the circumstances of NZKS i.e. feed origin
and composition specific to NZKS feed, geographic validity and transport distances to NZKS
sites. Suppliers apply technical expertise in selecting critical methods, estimates, assumptions
and judgements in preparing the LCA models, such as the assessment of Life Cycle stages and
climate change impacts, the allocation method (economic allocation) and selection of GWPs .
Emissions factors are updated on an annual basis and due to changes in estimates and
assumptions in the calculation, this could lead to significant va riation in Scope 3 emissions
between feed suppliers and over time.
Feed suppliers (2023,
2024 & 2025)
Appendix: GHG methodologies, assumptions, and estimation uncertainties
GHG emission quantification is inherently uncertain because of incomplete scientific knowledge
used to determine emission factors and the values needed to combine emissions of different gases.
34New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Glossary and AppendixContents

ScopeCategory
GHG emissions
source
Data source
Calculation methodology, assumptions,
uncertainty (qualitative)
Source of emission factors
Scope 3
Category 1:
Purchased goods
and services
PackagingGeneral ledgerAverage-data method. Purchases based on general ledger reports. Low uncertainty.DEFRA (2024)
Purchased salmon
and petfood
ingredients
General ledgerAverage-data method. Purchases and third-party manufacturing based on general
ledger reports. Medium uncertainty due to generic nature of emission factors, due to
unavailability of relevant emission factors. In relation to purchased petfood inputs, a
generic food emission factor has been used.
Similar products environmental
product disclosure (EPD, 2023)
and DEFRA (2024) for third party
manufacturing.
All other
consumables, raw
materials and other
expenditure
General ledgerSpend-based method. High uncertainty as emission factors is applied to a broad
category of spend and not based on specific activity data or supplier specific
emission factors.
Motu (2007), with annual inflation
applied
Category 2: Capital
goods
Purchase or
construction of
capital items
General ledgerSpend-based method, emissions recognised when asset capitalised in general ledger.
High uncertainty as emission factors are applied to a broad category of spend and
not based on specific activity data or supplier specific emission factors.
Motu (2007), with annual inflation
applied
Category 3: Fuel-
and energy-related
activities not included
in Scope 1 or Scope 2
Electricity
transmission and
distribution losses
(T&D)
Supplier dataAverage-data method. Emissions from T&D losses estimated based on scope 2 data.
Low uncertainty.
MfE (2024)
Electricity and fuel
well-to-tank (WTT)
Supplier dataAverage-data method. Emissions from WTT losses are estimated based on scope 1 &
2 data. Low uncertainty.
DEFRA (2024)
Category 4:
Upstream transport
and distribution
Transport of items
between internal
locations by third
parties (road and
sea transport)
Transport of finished
goods to consumer
(air, road and sea
transport)
Supplier dataFuel-based method. Low uncertainty.
Distance-based method. Medium uncertainty as all distances were estimated,
assuming direct routes between origin and destination location for all modes of
transport. Distance information was sourced from a generic internet search. In
addition, mass data, was estimated where not provided by suppliers (road freight).
MfE (2024), DEFRA (2024)
Transport of
feed (sea)
Supplier dataSupplier-specific method. Suppliers provide freight emission factor, multiplied with
quantities purchased from general ledger. Low uncertainty.
Feed suppliers (2024)
35New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Glossary and AppendixContents

ScopeCategory
GHG emissions
source
Data source
Calculation methodology, assumptions,
uncertainty (qualitative)
Source of emission factors
Scope 3
Category 4:
Upstream transport
and distribution
Transport of
packaging
(air, road and sea)
Transport of
purchased
salmon (sea)
General ledger data with
distance assumptions based
on supplier location
Distance-based method. Medium uncertainty as all distances were
estimated, assuming direct routes between origin and destination location
for all modes of transport. Distance information was sourced from a
generic internet search. In addition, mass data, was estimated from internal
accounting system.
DEFRA (2024), MfE (2024)
Transport of all other
goods purchased
General ledgerSpend-based method for freight paid on all remaining purchased goods
that have not been identified separately above. High uncertainty as
emission factors are applied to a broad category of spend and not based on
specific activity data or supplier specific emission factors.
Motu (2007), with annual inflation
applied
Category 5: Waste
generated in
operations
Waste - landfillSupplier dataAverage-data method. Low uncertainty.MfE (2024)
Category 6: Business
travel
Air travel, car rentals
and hotels and
accommodation
Supplier dataDistance-based method used for air travel using emission factors with
radiative forcing factors and car rentals. Nights-stayed method was used
for hotels and accommodations. Low uncertainty.
MfE (2024), DEFRA (2024)
Category 8: Upstream
leased assets
Fuel & electricity
used in leased assets
N/ADue to the inability to split data these emissions have been captured in
Scope 1 and Scope 2.
Category 9:
Downstream
transportation and
distribution
Travel from retailer
to end consumer
AssumptionsDistance-based method. High uncertainty as a distance of five kilometres
by car was assumed for the transportation from the retailer to the end-
customer.
DEFRA (2024), MfE (2024)
Category 10:
Processing of sold
products
Processing of salmon
block into meal
Internal sales data,
assumptions
Average-data method. High uncertainty.Feed suppliers (2024)
Category 12: End of
life treatment of sold
products
LCA Report – King Salmon
from New Zealand
(thinkstep-anz. (2023)),
internal sales data
Waste-type specific method. High uncertainty as waste quantities were
estimated, assuming 0% flesh waste and 30% inedible overall waste from
whole fish, and 10% overall waste from all other products. Assumed all
waste goes to landfill without gas recovery.
MfE (2024)
36New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Glossary and AppendixContents

Independent Assurance Report
37New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Independent Assurance ReportContents

Independent Assurance Report
To the Directors of New Zealand King Salmon Investments Limited
Limited Assurance Report on New Zealand
King Salmon Investments Limited’s
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Disclosures
Our conclusion
We have undertaken a limited assurance engagement on
the gross GHG emissions, additional required disclosures of
gross GHG emissions, and gross GHG emissions methods,
assumptions and estimation uncertainty (the GHG
Disclosures), as outlined within the Scope of our Limited
Assurance Engagement section below, included in the
Climate-Related Disclosures report (the Climate Disclosures
report) of New Zealand King Salmon Investments Limited
(the Company) and its subsidiaries (the Group or NZKS) for
the year ended 31 January 2025.
Based on the procedures we have performed and
the evidence we have obtained, nothing has come to
our attention that causes us to believe that the GHG
Disclosures are not fairly presented and are not prepared, in
all material respects, in accordance with the Aotearoa New
Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CSs) issued by the External
Reporting Board (XRB), as explained on page 6 of the
Climate Disclosures report.
Scope of our limited assurance engagement
We have undertaken a limited assurance engagement over
the following GHG Disclosures on pages 25, 26 and 34 to
36 of the Climate Disclosures report for the year ended 31
January 2025:
•
gross GHG emissions:
— Scope 1 GHG Emissions on page 26;
— Scope 2 GHG Emissions (calculated using the
location-based method) on page 26; and
— Scope 3 GHG Emissions on page 26;
•
additional r
equired disclosures of gross GHG emissions
on pages 25, 26, and 34 to 36; and
•gr
oss GHG emissions methods, assumptions and
estimation uncertainty on pages 26, and 34-36.
Our assurance engagement does not extend to any
other information included, or referred to, in the Climate
Disclosures report on pages 4 to 24 and 27 to 33. The
comparative information for the year ended 31 January
2024 disclosed in the Group’s Climate Disclosures report is
not covered by the assurance conclusion expressed in this
report. We have not performed any procedures with respect
to the excluded information and, therefore, no conclusion is
expressed on it.
Key Matters to the GHG assurance engagement
In this section we present those matters that, in our
professional judgement, were most significant in
undertaking the assurance engagement over the GHG
Disclosures. These matters were addressed in the context of
our assurance engagement, and in forming our conclusion.
We did not reach a separate assurance conclusion on each
individual key matter.
38New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Independent Assurance ReportContents

Description of the key matterHow our assurance engagement addressed the key matter
Accuracy of Scope 3 feed emissions
GHG
emissions from feed (included in Scope 3 - Category 1: Purchased goods and services)
are 26% of the total Scope 3 GHG emissions for the year ended 31 January 2025.
The Group uses the supplier-specific method to measure emissions from feed as explained on
page 34. The Group relies on their suppliers’ Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) to provide cradle-
to-gate emission factors specific to their feed composition.
We
engaged directly with the suppliers to understand the methods, estimates and
assumptions made in the LCA models because:
•The Group has a lesser degree of knowledge and influence over information prepared by
their suppliers, not having visibility over controls or processes over information prepared by
their suppliers.
•The LCAs prepared by the suppliers and used in calculating the emission factors
are not publicly available.
The LCAs have not undergone independent assurance or
verification; and
•Critical selections and assumptions are used, which can vary significantly between feed
suppliers and over time, such as the choice of LCA framework, use of primary or secondary
data, and allocation methods.
Consequently, this required a significant level of attention in our assurance engagement.
To evaluate the emissions factors applied to feed, we enquired directly with the Group’s two
largest feed suppliers to understand:
•The selection of standards and product environmental footprint category rules and how
they determined they provided an appropriate basis for their methodology in preparing
their emissions factors.
•Our understanding confirmed that the suppliers had identified, and had access to,
primary and secondary data sources, including databases, to prepare the calculations
that were relevant to NZKS.
•
Through these enquiries, the feed suppliers demonstrated the basis upon which they
prepared their emissions factors in accordance with the standards and applied that
methodology to the circumstances of the Group.
•We also gained an understanding of the assumptions applied and considered the
differences in those adopted by the suppliers.
We considered whether disclosures by the Group in the Appendix fairly present the
complexities and uncertainties involved in the suppliers’ calculations.
39New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Independent Assurance ReportContents

Description of the key matterHow our assurance engagement addressed the key matter
C
ompleteness of excluded Scope 3 emission sources
T
he Group excluded emission sources that are not applicable, not material, or, where
insufficient data or the unknown nature of d ownstream processes meant that it was not
technically feasible or cost effective for emissions to be quantified with accuracy.
Determining that the emission sources excluded on page 26 were appropriately justified, and
that the reported emission sources were materially complete, required a significant level of
a
ttention in our assurance engagement due to:
•The scale of the business and different types of
activities included in the Group’s operational
boundary including hatcheries, sea farms, processing operations, distribution and office
areas, increased the extent of procedures we were required to perform.
•The Group’s use of estimates and assumptions, which were applied in situations where there
is a lack of available data.
•The estimation uncertainties arising from downstream activities where the nature of
processes and cooking techniques beyond the Group’s point of sale which are unknown
(Category 10 Processing of sold products and Category 11 Use of sold products).
To evaluate the estimates and assumptions made by the Group in excluding Scope 3
emissions, we:
•Enquired with management on their operational and organisation boundary and their
operating activities to gain an understanding of emission sources and management’s
assessment of materiality.
•Obtained management’s assessment of their boundary and value chain and assessed;
—
the approach the Group used to identify and quantify applicable and material
Scop
e 3 GHG emission sources was sufficient; and
—

assump
tions used in the excluded emission quantification process were appropriate
in the cir
cumstances.
•
Wher
e necessary, we developed an independent estimate of excluded emissions to
quantify the risk of material omission.
40New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Independent Assurance ReportContents

Emphasis of matter
We draw attention to the disclosure ‘NZKS boundary’ on page 25 which explains how
the Group has classified certain emissions from leased assets within the Scope 1 and
Scope 2 reported emissions. In our judgement, this disclosure is of such importance
that it is fundamental to the users’ understanding of the GHG Disclosures. Our
assurance conclusion is not modified in respect of this matter.
Other matter - comparative information
The comparative GHG Disclosures (that is, GHG Disclosures for the year ended 31
January 2024) have not been subject to assurance. As such, these disclosures are not
covered by our assurance conclusion.
Directors’ responsibilities
The Directors of the Company are responsible on behalf of the Company for the
preparation and fair presentation of the GHG Disclosures in accordance with NZ CSs.
This responsibility includes the design, implementation and maintenance of internal
controls relevant to the preparation of GHG Disclosures that are free from material
misstatement whether due to fraud or error.
Inherent Uncertainty in preparing GHG Disclosures
As discussed on page 34 of the Climate Disclosures report, the GHG quantification
is subject to inherent uncertainty because of incomplete scientific knowledge used
to determine emissions factors and the values needed to combine emissions of
different gases.
Our independence and quality management
This assurance engagement was undertaken in accordance with NZ SAE 1 New
Zealand Standard on Assurance Engagements 1 Assurance Engagements over
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Disclosures (NZ SAE 1), issued by the External Reporting
Board (XRB). NZ SAE 1 is founded on the fundamental principles of independence,
integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality and
professional behaviour.
We have also complied with the following professional and ethical standards and
accreditation body requirements:
•Professional and Ethical Standard 1: International Code of Ethics for Assurance
Practitioners (including International Independence Standards) (New Zealand);
•
Pr
ofessional and Ethical Standard 3: Quality Management for Firms that Perform
Audits or Reviews of Financial Statements, or Other Assurance or Related Services
Engagements; and
•
Professional and Ethical Standard 4: Engagement Quality Reviews.
In our capacity as auditor and assurance practitioner, our firm also provides audit
services. Our firm carries out other assignments in the areas of other services relating
to treasury advisory. The firm has no other relationship with, or interests in, the Group.
41New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Independent Assurance ReportContents

Assurance practitioner’s responsibilities
Our responsibility is to express a conclusion on the GHG Disclosures based on the
procedures we have performed and the evidence we have obtained. NZ SAE 1 requires
us to plan and perform the engagement to obtain the intended level of assurance
about whether anything has come to our attention that causes us to believe that
the GHG Disclosures are not fairly presented and are not prepared, in all material
respects, in accordance NZ CSs, whether due to fraud or error, and to report our
conclusion to the Directors of the Company.
As we are engaged to form an independent conclusion on the GHG Disclosures
prepared by management, we are not permitted to be involved in the preparation of
the GHG information as doing so may compromise our independence.
Summary of work performed
Our limited assurance engagement was performed in accordance with NZ SAE 1,
and ISAE (NZ) 3410 Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This
involves assessing the suitability in the circumstances of the Group’s use of NZ CSs as
the basis for the preparation of the GHG Disclosures, assessing the risks of material
misstatement of the GHG Disclosures whether due to fraud or error, responding
to the assessed risks as necessary in the circumstances, and evaluating the overall
presentation of the GHG Disclosures.
A limited assurance engagement is substantially less in scope than a reasonable
assurance engagement in relation to both the risk assessment procedures, including
an understanding of internal control, and the procedures performed in response to
the assessed risks.
The procedures we performed were based on our professional judgement and
included enquiries, 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
our limited assurance engagement on the GHG Disclosures, we:
•Obtained, through enquiries, an understanding of the Group’s control
environment, processes and information systems relevant to the preparation
of the GHG Disclosures. We did not evaluate the design of particular control
activities, or obtain evidence about their implementation;
•Evaluated the Group’s organisational and operational boundaries to assess
completeness of GHG sources;
•Evaluated whether the Group’s methods for developing estimates are appropriate
and had been consistently applied. Where we considered it to be appropriate, we

tested, on a limited sample basis, the data on which the estimates are based. In
some instances, we separately developed our own estimates against which to
evaluate the Group’s estimates;
•Undertook site visits at Group’s head office and fish processing site to assess the
completeness of the emissions sources and to inspect source data;
•Tested a limited number of items to, or from, supporting records, as appropriate;
42New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Independent Assurance ReportContents

• Assessed a limited number of emission factor sources and reperformed a limited
number of emissions calculations for mathematical accuracy;
• Performed analytical procedures on particular emission categories by
comparing the expected GHGs emitted to actual GHGs emitted and made
inquiries of management to obtain explanations for any significant differences
we identified; and
• Considered the presentation and disclosure of the GHG Disclosures.
The procedures performed in a limited assurance engagement vary in nature and
timing from, and are less in extent than for, a reasonable assurance engagement.
Consequently, the level of assurance obtained in a limited assurance engagement
is substantially lower than the assurance that would have been obtained had we
performed a reasonable assurance engagement and does not enable us to obtain
assurance that we would become aware of all significant matters that we otherwise
might identify. Accordingly, we do not express a reasonable assurance opinion on
these GHG Disclosures.
Inherent limitations
Because of the inherent limitations of an assurance engagement, together with the
internal control structure, it is possible that fraud, error or non-compliance may occur
and not be detected.
Who we report to
This report is made solely to the Company’s Directors, as a body. Our work has been
undertaken so that we might state those matters which we are required to state
to them in our assurance report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the
Company and the Company’s Directors, as a body, for our procedures, for this report,
or for the conclusions we have formed.
The engagement partner on the engagement resulting in this independent assurance
report is Victoria Ashplant.
For and on behalf of:
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Auckland
28 May 2025
43New Zealand King SalmonClimate-Related Disclosures FY25 — Independent Assurance ReportContents