BIF Climate Statements – 2025

Booster
Innovation
Scheme
Climate Statements 2025
Booster Investment Management Limited is the issuer and manager of the
Booster Innovation Scheme and its sole fund the Booster Innovation Fund

Booster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 20252
Opening remarks
Booster Investment Management Limited (Booster, we) as manager of the Booster Innovation Scheme is responsible for
preparing and lodging climate statements for the Fund under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. These climate
statements are split into four sections as outlined in the next page.
These climate statements constitute the second disclosures prepared by Booster for the Fund under the Aotearoa New Zealand
Climate Standards. Reflecting on the experience of preparing these climate statements, and in evolving business processes to
better support climate considerations, Booster realises that we are on a journey, as we believe is much of the broader industry.
Availability of data including for estimated greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions) for investee companies or underlying
investments is incomplete, and with New Zealand being among the first countries to have mandatory climate reporting, we
have found that the climate-data industry is not yet at a preferred level of maturity and continues to evolve. These climate
statements should be read with these challenges and limitations in mind.
In recognition of such constraints, challenges and ongoing work, Booster has elected to use the following adoption provisions
contained in NZ CS 2 Adoption of Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards which exempt Booster from disclosing:
1.
Adoption provision 2: Anticipated financial impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities
2.
Adoption provision 6: C
omparative information for metrics
3. Adoption provision 7: An analysis of the main trends for metrics
4. Adoption provision 8: Scope 3 GHG emissions assurance
The Directors present the climate statements for the Funds for the year ended 31 March 2025. These climate statements comply
with Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CS) issued by the External Reporting Board (XRB).
Signed for and on behalf of the Board on 24 July 2025.
Funds included within this
document
This document includes the climate statements for
the following fund within the Booster Innovation
Scheme:
•
Booster Innovation Fund (Fund)
John Selby
Director (Chairman)
Paul Foley
Executive Director
Introduction

Booster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 20253
The following disclosure objectives relating to the Aotearoa New Zealand
Climate Standard 1 (NZ CS 1) are covered within this climate-related disclosure:
Table of Contents
1.0 Governance
Enable existing and potential investors in
the Funds (Investors) to understand both
the role an entity’s governance body plays
in overseeing climate-related risks and
climate-related opportunities, and the
role management plays in assessing and
managing those climate-related risks and
opportunities.
PAGE 4
2.0 Strategy
Enable Investors to understand how climate
change is currently impacting an entity
and how it may do so in the future. This
includes the scenario analysis an entity has
undertaken, the climate-related risks and
opportunities an entity has identified, the
anticipated impacts and financial impacts
of these, and how an entity will position
itself as the global and domestic economy
transitions towards a low-emissions,
climate-resilient future.
PAGE 7
3.0 Risk
Management
Enable Investors to understand how an
entity’s climate-related risks are identified,
assessed, and managed and how those
processes are integrated into existing risk
management processes.
PAGE 13
4.0 Metrics
and Targets
Enable Investors to understand how
an entity measures and manages its
climate-related risks and opportunities.
Metrics and targets also provide a basis
upon which Investors can compare
entities within a sector or industry.
This section includes estimates of GHG
financed emissions for the Fund.
PAGE 14

1.0 GovernanceBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 20254
1.1 Who does what at Booster?
There are a number of roles and responsibilities within Booster
that are relevant to the oversight and management of climate-
related risks and opportunities in relation to the Funds.
The Board
The Board of Booster (the ‘Board’), which meets at least
quarterly, has ultimate responsibility for and oversight of
investment management. This includes oversight of how
climate-related risks and opportunities (and other risks and
opportunities) are considered as part of the management
of the assets of the Fund. Executive Management has
delegated key responsibilities related to investment
management to the Booster Investment Committee
(Investment Committee), and for the Fund the Booster
Innovation Fund Investment Committee (BIF Investment
Committee) has investment management responsibilities.
The Board, including Executive Management, receives
at least quarterly reporting to enable its oversight of
investment management, including with respect to the
Fund. The Board, including Executive Management, receives
reporting on climate-related risks and opportunities
including metrics and targets at least annually. See
also the Risk Management section which discusses
how the Booster Group Risk Management Framework
links in with climate-related risks and opportunities.
Booster Investment Committee
The Investment Committee usually meets quarterly,
or more frequently if required, and is responsible
for the oversight and monitoring of key aspects of
investment management at Booster. Most relevantly
with respect to the Fund, this includes:
• Approving certain Booster wide investment-related
policies, strategies and philosophies, including the
Approach to Responsible Investing Policy (RI Policy),
available at www.booster.co.nz/responsible-
investing-policy, which outlines Booster’s approach to
considering Environmental (including Climate-related)
risks, Social and Governance risks in portfolios, with
material changes subject to approval by the Board.
• Monitoring the Fund (and taking decisions as needed) for
other funds managed by Booster that invest in the Fund.
Booster Innovation Fund Investment Committee
The BIF Investment Committee generally meets monthly
and as required, to formally monitor and discuss the
Fund’s activities, risks and compliance. This includes
considering climate-related risks and opportunities,
which is conducted at least annually. BIF Investment
Committee’s responsibilities include (most relevantly):
• Approval of new or follow-on investments and approve
lead partners that the Fund can follow into investments.
• Review the overall performance, revaluation of
investments, management and compliance of the
Fund, including consideration of environmental, social
and governance (ESG) related matters as relevant.
• Consider changes to the strategy of the Fund
including mix by sector and stage and recommend
significant changes to the Investment Committee.
• Consider and approve (in consultation with
key stakeholders, and subject to Board
approval) any changes to the Statement of
Investment Policy and Objectives (SIPO).
• Report to the Investment Committee and
Board on agreed matters and as required.
The Portfolio Management Team is primarily responsible
for the preparation of material for the relevant committees.
Other Booster staff prepare material as required.
Portfolio Management Team
The Portfolio Management Team has responsibility for
the day-to- day management of investment matters
related to the Fund. Oversight is performed by the BIF
Investment Committee. Executive Management maintain
general oversight of the Portfolio Management Team.
This section discusses how Booster oversees, assesses and manages climate-
related risks and opportunities in relation to the Funds / the assets of the Funds.
1.0 Governance

1.0 GovernanceBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 20255
Note – Booster’s parent company Booster Financial Services Limited (BFSL) and Booster have entered into a services agreement
whereby BFSL provides services and support for Booster, including employing all Booster Group staff. For simplicity this has not been
included in the above diagram.
1.2 Skills and competencies
To ensure that the Board has the appropriate skills
and competencies to function as an effective board,
it has adopted a fitness analysis matrix which is
considered annually. Funds management, which
includes consideration of investment risks and
opportunities including in those relating to ESG
matters, is noted as one of the key skillsets. To
support the continued development of knowledge,
the Board participates in ‘deep dive’ sessions focusing
on a range of topics, with climate related disclosures
having been covered during 2024. Board members
also develop experience through their executive
roles, including for some on investment committees,
or their governance roles at other organisations.
The Executive Management is responsible for
investment committee appointments, which are
subject to consultation with the Board. When
considering appointments, the relevant skillsets of the
candidate(s) are considered. To ensure appropriate
skills and competencies are available to oversee,
manage and monitor climate risks and opportunities
in relation to investment management, the Portfolio
Management Team and the BIF Investment Committee
support the Executive Management and Board, by:
• Engaging with co-investors and investee
companies on investee industry practices
which may include consideration of relevant
climate related risks and opportunities;
• Encouraging the Portfolio Management Team
to undergo regular training / research to
support the performance of their roles;
• Reviewing detailed due diligence reports
completed by co-investors, engaging directly
with company management which may include
assessments of or information regarding climate-
related risks and opportunities when required.
Portfolio Management
Team
Booster Innovation Fund
Investment Committee
(BIF Investment Committee)
Booster Investment
Mangement Limited
(BIML) Board
Executive Management
Audit Risk and
Compliance Committee
Risk & Compliance
Booster Investment
Committee (BIC)

1.0 GovernanceBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 20256
1.3 Integrating climate into
investment strategy
The BIF Investment Committee has responsibility for
overseeing the implementation of the investment
management strategy for the Fund. Investment
management is multifaceted, with risk management
being a component. The BIF Investment Committee
considers ESG related matters where relevant to the
strategy. As a key environmental matter, climate-related
risks and opportunities are part of ESG considerations.
In addition to this, the Board has approved, key
approaches to investment strategy in relation to
climate matters. Key approaches of note include:
• Investment decisions take into account the range
of risk factors and particular climate related risks
are considered where relevant in the context
of this wider analysis - noting the significant
other execution and product development risks
associated with early stage investments.
• The nature and assessed level of key climate-related risks
are reported to the BIF Investment Committee and any
key concentrations are considered at a portfolio level.
• Opportunities to invest in companies developing
climate solutions are a notable feature of the Fund’s
investment universe. Decisions to invest in companies
that are developing climate solutions will consider
various factors (rather than only specific climate-related
factors). Allocations to these types of investments
may fluctuate significantly in size over time.
1.4 Metrics and targets
As part of considering and approving the key approaches
to investment strategy in relation to climate matters, the
type of targets that should be adopted to support the
implementation of the investment strategy in relation to
climate matters were considered. Taking into account the
structure of the portfolio and the nature of the underlying
investments, no targets have been adopted for the Fund.
The BIF Investment Committee is expected to
monitor climate-related metrics at least annually.
These will be reported to the Investment Committee
and the Board, where considered material.
Booster’s approach to overall staff remuneration takes
into account a range of factors, including contribution
to overall business objectives, customer and adviser
servicing, productivity, and contribution to the delivery
of solutions and portfolios for clients. Contribution to
responsible investing and ESG elements of strategy
(including climate-related matters) are part of the
overall consideration where relevant to the role.

2.0 StrategyBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 20257
2.1 Current climate-related
impacts on the Funds
Climate-related impacts on the Fund can arise from
two types of risks – physical risk and transitional
risk which are explained further down.
The Fund is diversified across a range of individual
investments, sectors and company stages (within the overall
early-stage company segment). This diversification helps
mitigate the risk of any single event or investment impacting
portfolios, including specific disproportionate climate- related
risks. Given the nature of the Fund’s underlying investments,
it is difficult to isolate and accurately quantify the current
climate-related physical and transition impacts on the Fund.
There are several factors that drive return outcomes for early
stage companies, of which climate-related risks is one factor.
As discussed below, physical and transition risks may impact
the underlying investments of the Fund. An important way
in which any such impact may then impact the Fund is
via impacts on the value of or return on those underlying
investments (which would then impact on the returns of the
Fund). However, the possibility and materiality of such an
impact varies including across different sectors and individual
investments. See 2.4 Anticipated impacts of climate-related
risks and opportunities for details of impacts that may
be affecting the underlying investments of the Fund.
Physical risk impacts on the Funds
Physical risks are risks related to the physical impacts of
climate change. Physical risks emanating from climate
change can be event-driven such as increased severity of
extreme weather events. They can also relate to longer-
term shifts in precipitation and temperature, increased
variability in weather patterns, and sea level rise.
Whilst there have been a number of occurrences of
weather events such as cyclones and floods in New
Zealand and globally, we have not identified and attributed
any specific material financial impact to the Fund from
such physical risks during the reporting period.
Transitional risk impacts on the Funds
Transitional risks are risks related to the transition to
a low-emissions, climate-resilient global and domestic
economy, such as policy, legal, technology, market and
reputation changes associated with the mitigation and
adaptation requirements relating to climate change.
Some of the underlying investments of the Fund are subject
to climate change policies introduced or to be passed
into legislation in various jurisdictions. We consider those
underlying investments that are pre-market launch are likely
to have faced minimal impact from such transitional risks
throughout the year to varying degrees. Those underlying
investments that are post-market launch appear to meet
the relevant legislations for their respective jurisdictions
and we therefore consider it likely they have faced minimal
impact from such matters during the period. We have not
identified and attributed any specific material financial
impact to the Fund from such risks during the reporting
period. However, we note there are a number of investments
within the Fund that are positioned to benefit from the
transition to a low carbon economy (see the Metrics section
for details) and investment in them can be classed as a
climate-related opportunity though on the flip side there
may be a potential transition risk to such companies where
for example transition occurs slower than expected.
2.2 Scenario analysis
To better understand the climate-related risks and
opportunities that might arise for the Funds over the short
(1-3 years), medium (5-10 years) and long-term (30 plus
years), a scenario analysis exercise has been previously
undertaken. Three different climate scenarios, each
representing an alternative potential future, were considered.
2.0 Strategy
Climate scenarios - summary
Represents collective action towards a low carbon
global economy resulting in an average global
temperature increase of approximately 1.5 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels by 2100
Orderly
Represents a misaligned and delayed transition to a
low carbon global economy, resulting in an average
global temperature increase of greater than 2 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels by 2100
Too little too late
Represents minimal action towards a low carbon
global transition, resulting in an average global
temperature increase of greater than 3 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels by 2100
Hothouse

2.0 StrategyBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 20258
Process undertaken – scenario construction
Booster has utilised the collation of climate scenario
narratives (Scenario Narratives) developed for Financial
Services Council of New Zealand (FSC) and Boutique
Investment Group (BIG) members in a process (see
below) supported by Ernst & Young (EY). The Scenario
Narratives were collated in a report titled ‘Climate
Scenario Narratives for the Financial Services Sector’
dated June 2023 (Scenario Narratives Report).
We have reviewed the scenarios, and whilst there are now
more up to date information sources for some inputs that
were used to inform the Scenario Narratives, we consider
that the scenarios are still sufficient for our purposes.
The Scenario Narratives were developed
following a process which included:
1. Stakeholder engagement: Workshops were held
including industry members to introduce topics
and discuss options. Working groups were used to
gain consensus on key decisions via vote. A steering
committee was formed to determine the direction of
the project and track project timelines, delivery outputs
and stakeholder satisfaction. External stakeholders
(FMA, XRB, NZBA, Insurance Council of New Zealand
etc) were engaged throughout the project.
2. Determination of scope: This included determining key
climate related risk categories and time-horizons.
3. Identification of driving forces: An analysis of key social,
technological, environmental, economic and policy
driving forces was undertaken. The most appropriate
scenarios that aligned with these drivers were identified.
4. Selection of scenarios & pathways: The scenarios were
presented to the working group and key climate-related
risks, impacts and opportunities were identified.
5. Drafting narratives & quality control including
incorporating feedback from stakeholders.
6. Use of credible sources: underlying assumptions used
to create the various scenarios based on credible
information produced by reputable sources such
as the New Zealand Climate Change Commission
(NZCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the Network for Greening the
Financial System (NGFS) and the National Institute
of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).
Data sources for the Scenario Narratives
External stakeholders that were involved in the development of the Scenario Narratives include:
Orderly 1.5 ̊C Too Little Too Late >2 ̊CHothouse >3 ̊C
• NGFS, 2023
• NIWA, 2023
• IPCC 2021, 2022
• NZCCC, 2021
• NGFS, 2023
• NIWA, 2023
• IPCC, 2021
• Nazarenko, 2022
• IPCC 2021
• NIWA, 2023
• MfE, 2017, 2018
• NASA, 2023
Orderly 1.5 ̊C Too Little Too Late >2 ̊CHothouse >3 ̊C
• Broadly representative of an
approximately 1.5°C increase
therefore meeting the NZ CS
scenario requirement
• Broadly aligns with the stated goal
of the Paris Agreement to pursue
efforts to limit temperature increase
to no more than 1.5°C above pre-
industrial levels.
• Is a commonly used scenario that will
help with comparability with other
funds managers in New Zealand.
• Meets the NZ CS requirement for a
third climate-related scenario.
• Balanced between the orderly and
hothouse scenarios, representing
imperfect efforts (misaligned and
delayed) to cut GHG emissions.
• Is potentially a commonly used
scenario that will help with
comparability with other funds
managers in New Zealand.
• Meets the NZ CS requirement
for a >3°C aligned scenario.
• Most likely to eventuate if
society does not make concerted
efforts to cut GHG emissions.
• Is a commonly used scenario that will
help with comparability with other
funds managers in New Zealand.
• Industry participants
• Financial Markets Authority
• Reserve Bank of New Zealand
• External Reporting Board
• Ministry for Environment
• New Zealand Bankers’ Association
• Insurance Council of New Zealand
• Responsible Investment Association of Australasia
• Corporate Trustees Association
• Investor Group on Climate Change
• United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment
• Centre for Sustainable Finance
In the prior year, Booster considered if the scenarios were appropriate to support our understanding of climate-related risks and
opportunities that might arise for the Funds and how that relates to Booster’s investment management approach. This process
included the matter being reported to the Investment Committee and Board (aspects of which occurred after balance date).
The scenarios have been reviewed and have not changed fr the current reporting period. Below are some of the reasons why
Booster considered that the scenarios presented are appropriate.

2.0 StrategyBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 20259
Scenarios in detail
The three scenarios consider short, medium and long term time horizons (defined in the Risk and Opportunities section below) and account for how relevant social, technological,
environmental, economic and policy related driving forces would drive plausible future impacts. In addition to considering the outcomes of the drivers, the drivers themselves have also been
something Booster has found helpful when considering how future climate related risks and opportunities could evolve.
Orderly: Approximately 1.5 ̊C Too Little Too Late: >2 ̊CHothouse: >3 ̊C
• The Orderly scenario represents coordinated and timely global
action to prevent the worst predicted impacts of climate change.
• Society puts pressure on entities to decarbonise.
• Progressive policy (such as emissions reduction requirements,
carbon taxes, etc.) are implemented globally.
• There is an increase in research and development, resulting in a
rapid uptake of existing low-emissions and emission abatement
technologies across all sectors.
• Emissions reduce steadily in a manner that is consistent with
achieving a net zero goal by 2050.
• Global average temperatures increase to 1.4°C (min 1, max 1.8)
above pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels.
• Transition risks initially increase in the short and medium term
before reducing as society shifts to a low carbon economy. Short
term transition risk is more pronounced for entities that are more
exposed to emission intensive sectors and slow to transition.
• The rate of physical risk remains relatively low in this scenario.
• Overall, the global economy benefits from the stable transition
to a low carbon economy.
• This scenario represents a misaligned and delayed transition
to a low carbon economy with only some countries actioning
the transition to net zero by 2050. Others delay, introducing
accelerated efforts to address climate change by mid-century.
• Societal pressure to decarbonise is varied across regions and
inequities will increase for the world’s more marginalised nations.
There is an increase in geopolitical tensions with increased
challenges in agriculture, food security and water availability.
• Most developed countries implement climate policy early while
other parts of the world align climate policy only from mid-
century. There is a more moderate level of carbon pricing.
• There is delayed development of low emissions and emissions
abatement technology.
• Emissions reduce gradually and are still significantly higher than
zero by 2050.
• Global average temperatures reach 2.7°C (min 2.1, max 3.5)
above pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels by 2100.
• Transition risk increases rapidly in the short term, plateau in
the medium term, and increase again in the long term due to
increased global action and the emergence of new technologies
facilitating decarbonisation.
• The rate of physical risk climbs steadily out to the long term.
• Overall, changes come too late to prevent wide ranging acute
and chronic physical climate impacts resulting in significant
financial impacts to the global economy.
• The Hothouse scenario represents minimal action towards
a low carbon global transition with little shift in social
and political traction towards a low emissions future.
• There is limited social pressure to drive decarbonisation.
Higher rates of economic inequality, increased political
instability and geopolitical tensions are observed.
• Climate policy settings are reversed, revoked or rolled back.
Carbon prices and investment in adaptation is minimal.
• There is an overall lack of technological change to support
emissions reduction and fossil fuels continue to be the
dominant source of primary energy through to 2050.
• Emissions reduce very gradually and fall well short of net zero.
• The global average temperature reaches 4.4°C (min 3.3,
max 5.7) above pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels by 2100.
• Environmental outcomes are more severe, coastal areas
worldwide face increased risk of storm surges, flooding and
sea level rise. Regions that are prone to water stress see
increased frequency and intensity of both droughts and floods.
• Transition risk is limited but there is a significant
materialisation of acute and chronic physical risks.
• The global economy is likely to see surmounting costs
from increasingly pervasive chronic physical impacts with
risk increasing exponentially out to the long term.
• Financial impacts are felt across all economies,
impacting individuals, businesses, and governments.
Source: Information in the table above is summarised from the Scenario Narratives report.
Process undertaken – analysis of scenarios
The Scenario Narratives include not only scenarios and assumptions, but also an impact assessment
on different sectors and asset classes. Booster has utilised the scenarios to consider the resilience of
its investment philosophy and strategy. This process included an analysis paper and reporting to the
Investment Committee. The analysis paper has been reviewed after the balance date of this reporting period
and presented to the Investment Committee for consideration without material modification.

2.0 StrategyBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202510
2.3 Risks and Opportunities
Climate-related risks and opportunities (both physical and transitional) for the Fund have been identified over the short,
medium, and long term. These are outlined below, along with how we define short, medium and long term and how those
periods align with the Booster’s investment management activities, and how the risks and opportunities will be considered in
investment management decisions.
Time horizons and investment management decision making
This timeframe aligns with Booster’s processes regarding
stress-testing, tactical investment decision-making, and
portfolio positioning reflecting ESG assessments. As part
of Booster’s stewardship activities, we also engage with
certain investee companies with the goal of driving better
environmental, social and governance (ESG) outcomes.
These engagements are typically carried out over a short-
term time horizon.
Short term: 1 to 3 years
A number of the activities outlined in the short and long-
term time horizons are also relevant for this timeframe, for
example, initial and follow-on investment decisions. Some
early-stage investments are expected to begin achieving
notable growth and development over the medium term
and Booster will make decisions around which investees it
continues to support. Investee companies that are aiming to
provide climate solutions, may be starting to have success
and make a greater impact on the wider world. In addition,
Booster’s key investment management documentation (for
example, SIPO) is generally reviewed within the short-term
horizon, but substantive change is infrequent and so it more
relevantly referenced in this timeframe.
Medium term: 5 to 10 years
This timeframe is most aligned with Booster’s Strategic
Asset Allocation approach which seeks to determine long-
term strategic portfolio settings and considers long-term
risk and return expectations for investment markets.
Long term: over 30 years

2.0 StrategyBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202511
Climate-related risks and opportunities
identified
It is worth considering climate matters by sector to inform
on climate-related risks and opportunities for the Fund. The
Fund’s underlying investments are diversified across various
sectors. Each of these sectors (and individual investments) will
be subject to opportunities (some of which may be climate-
related) which will become more apparent over time as a
particular scenario eventuates. Details on investments held at
a point in time within the Fund and their weight can be found
in the Product Disclosure Statement available at booster.
co.nz.
Opportunities
Unlike many other funds, the Fund has the opportunity to,
and does, invest in early-stage companies which are pursuing
climate-related opportunities which support the transition to
a low carbon economy. We
• define investee companies pursuing climate opportunities
as follows: An investee company that is substantially
focused on developing or somehow pursuing a Climate
Solution.
• define a Climate Solution as: A product or service that
meets a need in society, contributes to the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions and has significantly lower
emissions than business-as-usual options.
The climate solutions being developed by such companies
can support a number of different industries in transitioning
to lower emissions. As outlined section 4.3 – Metrics there
are a number of companies within the Fund’s portfolio which
are pursuing such climate solutions and the Fund may have
opportunity to further invest in these companies to support
continued development and growth. The Fund may also
have opportunities to invest in new companies which are
developing climate solutions. As with all investment decisions
potential follow on or new investments in companies
developing climate solutions will be considered on their full
range of merits.
Climate-related Risks by Sector
For early-stage companies, a key way that significant risks
may impact on such companies are around the viability of
raising finance, which is generally linked to the viability of
the product or service that companies are pursuing and the
financing requirements to pursue it.
Physical Risks
Given the Fund invests in early-stage companies, these
companies are generally subject to a number of significant
risks with large potential impacts. Climate-related physical
risks are usually not as significant relative to the other
business risks. Generally, such early-stage companies are
developing new intellectual property or are only producing
products at a relatively small scale and the greatest physical
risk is potentially often a disruption to operations. Disruption
to operations may slow development or place additional
financial strain on the company which could impact
survivability.
• For a majority of companies, this disruption is in the form
of access to research and development facilities as well
as production facilities depending on which stage of
development companies are in.
• Within the medical technology sectors any interruption
to clinical studies from climate related events presents a
physical risk.
• There are companies within the portfolio which have a
level of exposure to primary industries so there is a risk
from any disruptions or reductions in supply of the inputs
to production.
• Physical risks can also impact on insurance premiums
which can have an impact on early-stage companies.
Transition Risks
Taking a simple view of transition risk, as with physical risk,
most early-stage Intellectual Property (IP) focused companies
are likely to have significant other risks they are seeking to
manage. Transition risk is on a relative basis often not likely
to be more significant. When considered from the Fund’s
perspective the impact of portfolio diversification means
transition risk is likely to not be significant relative to other
risks.
However early-stage companies are largely focused on
developing / growing / proving / commercialising unique IP
and as such anything which may hinder that process is likely
to pose a notable risk and it is potentially difficult to predict
or assign impact from a particular risk source. Another lens to
consider this through is that where there is a climate-related
opportunity that an early-stage company is pursing there may
also be a significant transition risk present. With that lens in
mind, potential transition risks for the Fund include:
• Changes to the regulatory environment which impact the
viability of certain IP (or require further development to
meet new regulations), for example transition away from
certain materials or energy sources;
• Climate solution IP is not adopted/implemented into
the relevant industries which may be a result of a slow
transition by an industry or region, or an alternative
solution may be developed which is more widely
adopted, for example as a result of a faster industry
transition;
• Changes to preference of stakeholders which includes
both customers and investors who may pivot to
alternative options which are more sustainable or cost
effective.

2.0 StrategyBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202512
How we consider climate-related risks and
opportunities in investment management
The Fund focuses on early-stage company investments – a
type of investment which is inherently high risk. Maintaining
broad portfolio diversity is key to manage this on behalf of
clients. Investment decisions take into account a range of risk
factors and particular climate-related risks are considered
where relevant in the context of this wider analysis - noting
the significant other execution and product development risks
associated with early-stage investments. Climate-related risks
may be considered, or climate-related information included,
in due diligence reports where appropriate. Opportunities
to invest in companies developing climate solutions are a
notable feature of the Fund’s investment universe. These
opportunities are considered based on their particular
commercial prospects taking into account the risks and
associated mitigations.
• Relevant climate-related risks may be considered as part
of due diligence for new investments (alongside a range
of other factors), proportionate to the investment’s wider
risks and merits. Risks are further managed through the
diverse holdings across different business stages and
product sectors.
• Climate-related opportunities in the form of opportunities
to invest in early-stage companies developing climate
solutions are considered in the usual investment due
diligence processes.
2.4 Anticipated impacts of climate-
related risks and opportunities
1
Physical and transition risks are discussed by sector above,
along with possible impacts from those risks. How these risks
are expected to then impact the underlying investments in the
Fund depends on the specific holdings of the Fund at a point
in time, and how (or if) a particular holding is also impacted.
Details of the underlying investments in the Fund can be found
in the Product Disclosure Statement available at booster.
co.nz. The possible impacts outlined may not eventuate
due to the uncertainty of climate-related forecasting,
Booster’s management of the Fund, and mitigating actions
taken by the Fund, investee companies or on the Fund’s
behalf by operating entities or lessees. In addition, it is
important to note the Fund is broadly diversified across a
number of sectors and technologies and stages of growth
which helps to reduce exposure to idiosyncratic physical
and transition impacts in addition to other risk factors.
2.5 Booster’s investment management
approach and the climate-transition
Booster’s investment management approach for
the Fund
Booster was founded over 25 years ago by a handful of
industry experts who felt there was a better way to help New
Zealanders look after their money. We’ve grown a lot since
then, but our mission is still the same. Whatever your financial
goals, we want to help you achieve them - whether it’s helping
you get started towards your savings goals, financial planning
and advice, or growing an investment portfolio.
The Fund was set up to provide investors with an opportunity
to invest in a portfolio of early-stage companies founded on
intellectual property originated or developed in New Zealand.
The Fund looks to invest in early-stage companies which
have the potential to become commercially successful on
a global scale. The Fund will seek to invest in these early-
stage companies alongside other investors with expertise in
developing and commercialising intellectual property. The
Fund also looks to co-invest with those investors who have
experience in the field of the new venture whilst also opening
up new investment opportunities to the Fund. Given the
rate of failure for early-stage investments the Fund looks to
invest in many early-stage businesses across a diverse range
of sectors and sub-stages of development to increase the
likelihood of investing in ventures that ultimately succeed.
Transition planning
As a future scenario unfolds, it is expected the Fund
will consider climate related risks and opportunities
(including in capital deployment decisions) to a degree
that is proportional to their contribution to outcomes in
conjunction with all other risks and opportunities. The
opportunity to invest in early-stage companies that are
pursuing climate solutions is expected to continue.
1
Booster has elected to apply adoption provision 2 of NZ CS 2. This exempts it from disclosing in its second reporting period the
anticipated financial impacts of climate-related risks and opportunities, and the time-horizons over which these could reasonably be
expected to occur.

3.0 Risk ManagementBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202513
3.1 How we identify, assess and manage
climate-risk for the Funds
Section 2.3 Strategy – Risks and Opportunities outlines how
climate-related risks are managed. Here we provide some
additional information to help readers further understand
those processes.
The process involves:
• BIF Investment Committee – the Portfolio Management
Team reports to this committee on climate-related risks
as considered relevant, and this committee monitors how
they are considered and managed in the Fund.
• Section 1.0 – Governance outlines further details on the
different roles within Booster relevant to the management
and oversight of climate risk.
The BIF Investment Committee is reported to and meets on a
regularly basis, generally monthly and as required, to monitor
and consider key matters relevant to the management of risks
for the Fund. This may include a consideration of climate-
related risks, though it often does not specifically include
such risks as they are often not considered more material
given the nature of the investments of the Fund and the
other risks they are subject to. Reporting from co-investors,
engagement with co-investors and direct engagement
with investee companies may be taken into consideration
as and when required. Climate-related risks for underlying
investments are monitored at least annually, along with other
risks, by the BIF Investment Committee.
Short-term (1-3 years), medium-term (5-10 years) and long-
term (20-30+ years) time horizons are considered for aspects
of climate risk management – in particular for scenario
analysis (and see section 2.2 Strategy – Scenario Analysis for
more information).
Frequency of assessment
Climate-related risks are considered as required, at least
annually, by the BIF Investment Committee. Consideration
of any relevant climate-related risks or opportunities may
be included as part of investment recommendations where
considered relevant. Scenario analysis is expected to be
reviewed on a three to-five-year basis, or as required. This is
because the research inputs used in the scenario analysis are
updated at varying frequencies and there is a high degree of
uncertainty in predicted outcomes. It is therefore prudent
to wait for an accumulation of such information before
comprehensively reassessing scenarios.
Emissions profiles are monitored at least annually by the BIF
Investment Committee.
Tools and methods used
The tools and methods we may utilise to identify and assess
climate-risk include:
• Scenario analysis as outlined in section 2.2
• Reporting of metrics such as estimates of investee
company emissions and carbon intensity measures
• Information from ISS ESG and climate research from
external providers
• Engagement with co-investors and other investment
partners
• External due diligence reports for initial and follow-on
investment in underlying companies
• Information gathered from disclosures and via direct
engagement with underlying companies
Some of the above tools such as climate-related metrics could
be based on limited and highly uncertain data/information.
Because of this, our processes for identifying, assessing
and managing climate risk for the Fund does not fully cover
all aspects of the value-chain of the Fund, including for the
investments of the Fund. It is expected that the reliability and
availability of data will improve should climate risk reporting
become more mainstream.
3.2 How the above processes are
integrated with our overall risk
management processes
Integration with broader investment
management risk processes
Booster takes a holistic view of risks that are relevant to the
Fund and its underlying investments. All investments involve
some type of risk and risk management techniques can vary
across investments. Climate-related risks are an important
consideration but are considered alongside other risks.
Section 2.3 Strategy - Risks and Opportunities outlines how
climate-risks are considered within overall risk management
processes.
Integration with our Risk Management
Framework
Booster has an approved Risk Management Framework in
place with relevant risk registers to support the identification,
assessment and management of key risks at Booster. This
framework is broader than risk management relating to the
suite of Booster funds or investment management, however
there are a number of risks that are identified and monitored
in the investment management space – most relevantly
this includes Macro Environmental Risk - including ESG &
Climate Change Factors, which cover climate risk from a fund
management perspective. Another relevant risk is Regulatory
& Other External Reporting Management Risk – this includes
coverage of the regulatory and disclosure aspects of climate
risks.
The Risk and Assurance team at Booster monitors these risks
using relevant risk metrics and undertakes regular interactions
with relevant teams internally. Regular reporting to the
Board and/or ARCC highlights the assessed residual risk and
whether this is within risk tolerance or not, and trends in the
relevant underlying metrics.
3.0 Risk Management

4.0 Metrics and TargetsBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202514
Fund-specific metrics related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
emissions intensities, and climate related opportunities are
provided in the table in section 4.4. This is our second year
reporting such metrics under the Climate Related Disclosures
regime and we have endeavored to present useful information
including comparative figures of the previous year. There have
been a number of learnings throughout the preparation process
and there remain a number of challenges including in the data
space – measurement of emissions is not exact and is essentially a
best estimate based on methodologies and assumptions and with
significant limitations – please read the below information with
this in mind and with reference to Appendix A where information
about methodologies, assumptions and limitations can be found.
4.1 GHG emissions information – background
GHG emissions estimates generally cover six main gas types
and are usually reported as a carbon dioxide equivalent. GHG
emissions are reported across three scopes, based on the type
of activity and where in the climate reporting entity’s value chain
that activity took place. NZ CS1 defines the scopes as follows:
• Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions from sources owned
or controlled by the entity.
• Scope 2: Indirect GHG emissions from consumption
of purchased electricity, heat, or steam.
• Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emissions not covered
in scope 2 that occur in the value chain of
the reporting entity, including upstream
and downstream GHG emissions. Scope
3 categories are purchased goods and
services, capital goods, fuel-related and
energy-related activities, upstream
transportation and distribution, waste
generated in operations, business
travel, employee commuting, upstream
leased assets, downstream transportation
and distribution, processing of sold
products, use of sold products, end-of-life
treatment of sold products, downstream
leased assets, franchises, and investments.
Overview of GHG emissions by scope – from the GHG Protocol:
4.0 Metrics and Targets

4.0 Metrics and TargetsBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202515
GHG emissions for managed funds are conceptually
a little different to emissions for a corporate entity
such as Booster. The primary source of emissions for a
managed fund is usually financed emissions which are
scope 3 emissions. In this context, emissions for the
Fund can be categorised into two broad categories:
• Operational Emissions: Operational emissions
relate to a Fund’s Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3
(excluding financed emissions) emissions. Scope 1 and
2 greenhouse gas emissions do not pertain to MIS
Manager disclosures, such as Booster, because S461O
of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 defines MIS
Managers as climate reporting entities in respect of
the scheme they manage (rather than for the Manager
as a company), therefore no disclosures are required.
Booster has determined that the Financed Emissions
for the Fund are the only relevant / material source of
Scope 3 emissions. Therefore operational emissions
have been omitted from the GHG emissions presented
in section 4.4 which all relate to financed emissions.
• Financed Emissions: This relates to the emissions that
are financed by the Fund via the investments it holds.
The Fund is allocated a ‘share’ of the emissions of each
of the entities it is invested in based on how much of
that entity it has financed. Emissions are allocated based
on the total overall value of the underlying investments
which predominately includes equity. Therefore,
emissions are financed largely by equity (e.g. shares).
Not all investments have emissions data available so
we cannot include these in our inventories. Where
able to, emissions data has been estimated should the
investment not report emissions data (generally investee
companies of the Fund do not report emissions data).
Financed emissions are all Scope 3 emissions for the
Fund, but can be further categorised into Scope 1
(of Scope 3) representing emissions sources directly
controlled by the investee entity, Scope 2 (of Scope
3) representing emissions from the investee entity’s
purchased energy like electricity, and Scope 3
(of Scope 3) which encompasses other indirect
emissions across the investee entity’s supply chain
Other points to note about GHG emissions
estimates for the Funds
• Gross Emissions: These are the estimated financed
emissions of the Fund. All else equal, a larger fund will
have higher total gross emissions than a smaller fund,
so care should be taken when comparing funds with
different sizes. As required by NZ CS1, the estimates
are not intended to take into account any offsets.
• Emissions Intensity: This aims to address the issues of
comparability by normalising the Fund’s Gross Emissions
by the value of the investments that contributed to
those emissions. It is presented as tonnes of CO2
equivalent emissions per million New Zealand dollars
invested to better enable comparisons between funds
as well as track how a particular fund’s footprint has
changed over time. To enable as clear a comparison
as possible, we only include the value of investments
that we have emissions estimates for when making this
calculation so that the emissions intensity ratios are
not artificially lowered due to lack of available data.
• Estimate Quality Score: There are numerous ways that
a particular investment’s emissions could have been
derived, with varying degrees of associated confidence
in those estimates. The PCAF Standard gives a scoring
method for illustrating the degree of ‘quality’ associated
with the methods used in preparing our emissions.
These scores range from 1 (indicating the highest quality
estimate approach) to 5 (indicating the lowest quality
estimate approach). The scores associated with the
Fund’s emissions reflects the degree of uncertainty
of the emissions estimation approach used.
• Emissions Coverage: Not all investments are included in
our emissions inventories either due to a lack of required
information or because it has been determined that
there are no associated emissions with that investment.
The Investment Coverage shows the percentage of the
fund’s investments (by value) that have been included
in our emissions inventory. The appendix below outlines
the types of investments that are excluded from our
emissions inventories and the reason for their omission.
4.2 Climate related risks and
opportunities metrics
Metrics have not been provided for the level of exposure to
physical risks and transition risks – given the nature of the
investee companies in the Fund we’d expect the exposure
to physical and transition risks to be immaterial relative the
general risks present in early-stage investments. Refer to the
discussion below of transition risks and opportunities. Whilst
it is a consideration for the deployment of capital climate
related risks and opportunities are considered in proportion to
other risks and opportunities in the decision making process.
Climate Related Risks are generally categorised as
either physical risks or transition risks as outlined in
2.0 Strategy. We expect that all investments have
some exposure to these risks to varying degrees.
Physical & Transition risks: Whilst of the underlying
investments may be exposed to physical risks to varying
degrees, this is not expected to be material to the Fund
relative to other general risks present in early-stage
investments. Similarly transition risks are not expected to
be material for the Fund relative to other risks that apply to
early-stage companies. A possible exception for transition
risk is where pursuing a climate-related opportunity is
a significant part of an investee company’s focus – to
the extent that a transition risk is the risk of a climate-
related opportunity not coming to fruition because the
low-carbon transition does not play out as anticipated. If
that view is taken, the climate-related opportunity metric
noted below can also be an indication of transition risk.
Climate Related Opportunities: There are a number of
investee companies within the Fund which Booster has
assessed as having developed, or are developing or otherwise
pursuing, climate opportunities (climate solutions), including
but not limited to in the clean technology, food technology
and energy sectors. The extent to which the Fund is invested
in such companies is we feel a reasonable metric to give
an indication of the extent to which the Fund is exposed to
climate-related opportunities. We have therefore included a
metric of % of holdings (as of 31 March of the relevant year)
in investee companies pursuing climate opportunities. See
Appendix A for details of how we have arrived at this metric.

4.0 Metrics and TargetsBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202516
The investee companies included in this definition are in our view
pursuing exciting opportunities and readers of our regular Fund
communications may be familiar with some of their stories.
4.3 Targets
Taking into account the structure of the portfolio, the nature of the
underlying investments, and the need to consider investments on
their full range of merits, the Board and the Investment Committee,
has determined that no targets have been adopted for the Fund.
4.4 Metrics for the Fund
The below tables show select metrics for the Fund.
Note:
• Only Financed emissions have been deemed
to be material. Therefore scope 1, scope 2, and
other scope 3 categories are not included.
• All metrics are based on the holdings of the
Fund as at 31 March of the relevant year.
• Gross emissions are an estimate of GHG emissions for
the Fund for the year to 31 March of the relevant year.
Analysis of key trends
• The Fund’s Financed Emissions have increased since last year
primarily due to some of the new investments added during
the year and change in values for the existing holdings. Some
of the new investments are estimated to have relatively
higher emissions intensities due to the type of industry they
operate in and the emissions of peer companies in the same
industries. This is also the primary driver for the increase
in emissions intensity for the Fund. It is important to note
that our estimates do not take into account the specific
manufacturing processes of these investee companies, any
expected reduction in emissions throughout their value chains,
or anticipated benefits of replacing higher intensity products
• The proportion of the Fund’s holdings in investee companies
pursuing climate opportunities has increased over the year,
also due to new investments made during the year. Many
of these new investments aim to provide more sustainable
products than the existing solutions they aim to displace.
Unaudited
Primary data source:
Reporting period (years ending 31 March)
Booster Innovation
Fund
20252024
Financed Emissions
Gross Emissions (tCO
2
e)
Scope 1266150
Scope 2349262
Scope 35,6674,786
Total Gross Emissions6,2815,197
Emissions Intensity (tCO2e/$M)
Scope 1137.8
Scope 217.213.6
Scope 3279.2248.5
Overall Emissions Intensity309.5 269.9
Estimate Quality Scores (1–5)
Scope 15.05.0
Scope 25.05.0
Scope 35.05.0
Overall Estimate Quality Score5.05.0
Emissions Coverage97%97%
Climate Opportunities Exposure
Holdings in investee companies
pursuing climate opportunities
57%50%

4.0 Metrics and TargetsBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202517
A.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Financed Emissions Estimates - methodologies
(and assumptions)
We have prepared our GHG emissions estimates in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Corporate and Scope 3
(Value Chain) Standards. We have used the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) standard as a starting point
for preparing our Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventories. This standard aims to provide a comprehensive methodology for Asset
Managers like Booster to prepare their inventories in a consistent way. In taking this approach we have considered the Fair
Presentation Principles outlined in NZ CS3. More detail on these specific methodologies is provided below.
Apportioning emissions to the Fund
• Under the PCAF standard, financed emissions are generally calculated by attributing a reporting entity (e.g. a fund) its
‘share’ of the emissions from an investee entity (e.g. a company the fund is invested in) based on how much of the overall
investee entity it ‘owns’. This ownership portion is calculated by taking the investment value (equity and/or debt) as a
proportion of value (as outlined above) of the investee entity. Both equity and debt investments have emissions from the
issuing entity attributed them using this calculation and contribute to the relevant Fund’s overall financed emissions. See
the below table for more information on the allocation method used.
• As an example, a hypothetical company ACME Ltd reported total emissions of 250,000 tCO2e its financial year ended 31
March 2025, along with a market value of its equity of $600m, and debt levels of $400m. Its total EVIC was therefore $1b.
A fund holds $8m worth of ACME shares and $2m worth of ACME bonds as at 31 March 2025, for a combined investment
equivalent to 1% of ACME’s EVIC. It is therefore attributed 1% of ACME’s emissions, which is 2,500 tCO2e.
• For unlisted equities (such as the early-stage investments in the Fund) PCAF prescribes the use of historical or accounting
based values to apportion emissions. However, as a fund manager we have valuation / unit pricing policies, and for these
asset classes we use slightly different methods as outlined in the below table.
• We report all currency values in New Zealand dollars.
• Our GHG emissions consolidation approach used is ‘operational control’, noting that the Fund is not deemed to have
operational control over any of its ultimate underlying investments.
The following table lists the most significant asset classes that the Fund is invested in, and the methodology approach taken to
estimating emissions for those asset classes.
Metrics - Methodologies, limitations, assumptions
Appendix A

4.0 Metrics and TargetsBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202518
Asset TypeOur approachBasis for allocating emissions to our funds
Direct investments in
unlisted companies
We have estimated emissions using broad samples of comparable companies based on their
business activities. We determine an industry average emissions intensity factor which we then
use to estimate our direct investee-entities’ emissions based on their total investment value. PCAF
suggests using emissions-intensity factors from a different source, however, given the limited
availability of relevant industry specific emissions factor data, we consider our methodology is
a more reasonable approach. We note PCAF allows for alternative estimation approaches.
The value of the investment (as per our valuation / unit pricing
policies) as at 31 March of the reporting year as a proportion of
the Enterprise Value including Cash (EVIC) of the company.
The EVIC value is based on the equity value of the company as per
our valuation / unit pricing policies as at 31 March of the reporting
year, and the debt value provided by the company as at 31 March
of the reporting period or if not available as at that date, then
as at what we consider the most appropriate date available.
Asset types not coveredCertain asset classes and security types do not have clear emissions associated with them or we
lack sufficient data to calculate the associated emissions, so these asset classes are excluded from
our emissions inventories. This includes Cash and cash equivalents and companies which have
been written down to nil value but have not entered liquidation (e.g. companies in hibernation).
Not applicable.
A.2 GHG emissions – limitations and uncertainties (and assumptions)
Carbon footprinting refers to accounting for each fund’s ‘share’ of emissions from the various underlying investments that the
fund holds. It is important to remember that the measurement, reporting, and aggregating emissions for funds is inherently
uncertain and provides an estimate rather than an actual figure. When considering the likely effects of these limitations and
uncertainties, Booster notes that it considers that it will not prevent the climate statements including the GHG emissions
disclosures from being useful to Investors.
• Inventories are prepared using a ‘point in time’ snapshot of the Fund’s holdings, and there is the potential that these differ
throughout the reporting period as a result of changes in investment mix or holdings. The Fund is allocated its ‘share’ of
each investment’s yearly emissions, regardless of whether the investment has been held for an entire year or not. Likewise,
an investment sold prior to the reporting date would not contribute to the Fund’s emissions for the year.
• The primary method for attributing emissions from investments to the Fund depends on the value of the underlying
holdings as at 31 March of the relevant year. This means that changes in values of holdings can result in differences in
emissions inventories from year to year. The impact of this is potentially significant as valuations of individual investee
companies can change significantly.
• In attributing emissions from investments to the Fund, the valuation date (a point in time) of the Fund’s investment in
an entity (and of the entity it is invested in) differs from the period that emissions for that company is measured over
(generally a year). This highlights that attributing financed emissions is not an exact process and is inherently subject to
uncertainty.
• Emissions estimates for investee companies have been calculated using emissions intensity factors as outlined above –
which are an average of emissions intensity factors for other peer group companies in the relevant industry (the relevant
industry being determined by Booster). We have elected to use ISS as our primary third-party data provider to source this
peer group company emissions data. This data is for companies that are not invested in by the Fund, and these emissions
may be reported by those companies or estimated by ISS. We have then used those emissions estimates to calculate

4.0 Metrics and TargetsBooster Innovation Scheme – Climate Statements 202519
emissions intensity factors for the sample companies,
and then use that information to calculate an industry
average emissions intensity (after limiting the impact of
outliers on this calculation) which is then used to estimate
the emissions of our investee entity. They are therefore
subject to the limitations and uncertainties associated
with such emissions estimates, including:
• ISS collects most of the underlying entity data,
as well as providing their own estimations of a
company’s emissions when that company does not
report emissions or reported emissions that are
deemed to be low quality by ISS. We have evaluated
ISS’s methodologies against alternative providers
and concluded that ISS has a robust approach,
especially regarding their emissions estimates and
assessments. It is important to remember that there
are differences between the various providers as a
result of the inherently uncertain nature of carbon
footprinting and those differences may result in
material differences in emissions estimates.
• Based on our understanding, we consider ISS’s
methodologies and processes to be reasonable
and to generally provide a fair representation of
emissions of the underlying entities, whilst noting the
inherently uncertain nature of the space. Additionally,
the estimates ISS provides could be considered to
generally be more uncertain than if those entities
were to accurately estimate and report their own
emissions.
• While the emissions data we receive from ISS is
intended to be the gross emissions (excluding
offsets) of investee companies, there is the possibility
that some companies have reported net emissions
(including reductions from offsets). The Booster has
not purchased any offset credits to reduce any of
our financed emissions inventories. There is also the
possibility that Global Warming Potential rates differ
between investee companies.
• Due to data limitations, some of our investee entity
scope 2 emissions estimates included in our financed
emissions inventory may use the market-based
method instead of the location-based method.
• Our estimation approach is based on other entities’
emissions intensities and may incorporate different
underlying Global Warming Potential (GWP)
values. However, we expect that most entities
will have followed the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
requirement to use GWP values published by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
based on a 100-year time horizon.
• The methodology adopted for estimating investee
company emissions is based on the average emissions
intensities of a sample of companies deemed by Booster
to be in the same sector. Due to data limitations, it
does not reflect differences between entities that are
developing climate solutions and other entities without
a climate focus. It also does not reflect differences in
specific business activities, geographic locations, specific
product types, or business scale or stage of development.
Furthermore, our samples are limited to the entities
included in ISS’s dataset which may result in materially
different emissions estimations than if we had access
to data for a broader range of entities. This creates
considerable uncertainty in the estimates.
• Our estimation approach takes a sample of entities that
operate in a similar industry to our investee entity. We
use the Statistical classification of economic activities in
the European Community (NACE) for this determination,
based on information provided to us by ISS. These
classifications are more granular than other classification
schemes such as Global Industry Classification System
(GICS) so allows our samples to be based on entities
most similar to our investee entity (although noting the
limitations described above).
A.3 Holdings in investee companies
pursuing climate opportunities
metric – methodology, limitations and
uncertainties
• Booster has considered how best to provide a metric
related to climate-related opportunities. In producing this
metric, we have:
• defined investee companies pursuing climate
opportunities as follows: An investee company that
is substantially focused on developing or somehow
pursuing a Climate Solution.
• defined Climate Solution as: A product or service that
meets a need in society, contributes to the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions and has significantly lower
emissions than business-as-usual options.
• In making the above determination, we have relied on
information produced by investee companies and our
own assessment.
• We have then reviewed the Fund’s holdings as at 31
March of the relevant year, determined which of the
investee companies meet the above definition, and
expressed the value of holdings in those investee
companies as a percentage of the total Fund’s holdings.
• It is important to note that we expect that this metric will
be variable over time including because:
• It is heavily linked to the valuation of specific investee
companies which are individually subject to change
(including potentially being fully written off given
early-stage investing is subject to such a risk).
• In considering investment opportunities, Booster
does not focus specifically on climate-related
opportunities. The extent to which future investment
will be focused on such opportunities is therefore
unpredictable.
• We also note that just because an investee company is
pursuing a climate-related opportunity, that does not
mean that the specific opportunity they are pursuing will
have a climate-related impact. The Fund invests in early-
stage companies, a portion of which are likely to fail.

We’re here to help.
To find out more about the
Booster Innovation Scheme visit our
website, call us on 0800 336 338 or
talk to your financial advice provider.
Booster Investment Management
Limited, PO Box 11872, Manners Street,
Wellington 6142, New Zealand
booster.co.nz