Impacts, risks and opportunities

Further information on the approach is provided in the descriptions below:

A comprehensive reassessment of all ESRS topics most recently took place for the 2023 financial year. Interactive, topic-specific workshops with internal experts were held to first identify points of interaction with individual ESRS topics, sub-topics or sub-sub-topics and to identify and assess corresponding impacts, risks and opportunities. The workshops also included the identification of interdependencies between the individual IROs. The results of the materiality assessment are validated annually in order to incorporate any relevant events and developments into the evaluation and thereby ensure continuous monitoring of impacts, risks and opportunities.

External stakeholders were most recently involved during the stakeholder dialogue held in September 2024. Several group discussions were used to gather additional perspectives and opinions on selected topic aspects whose materiality had previously been subject to particular internal debate. The results obtained from the analysis up to that point were validated by identifying and discussing points of interaction, challenges, and opportunities related to the topics introduced. To this end, the internal assessments conducted up to that point were compared with the inputs provided by external stakeholders in order to distinguish between more and less relevant manifestations of the topics.

In line with ESRS requirements, all identified impacts are assessed in terms of their scale, scope, remediability and likelihood of occurrence. These parameters are evaluated using the following intensity rankings:

• Scale (1–5): The scale indicates the magnitude of the impact. The assessment considers the size of the group of people and/or environmental area affected by an impact. A high rating indicates that nearly all relevant stakeholders or environmental areas are affected by a significant impact.
• Scope (1–5): The scope indicates the geographical extent of the impact. The assessment considers whether impacts occur only locally (e.g. on a construction site), extend to the regional or national level, or occur across national borders. A high rating indicates that impacts extend over a wide area up to and including global effects.
• Remediability (1–5; for negative impacts): Remediability indicates the extent to which an impact can be reversed or mitigated. The assessment considers whether impacts are fully reversible without lasting damage or whether long-term or permanent damage remains. A high rating indicates that the impacts are predominantly or entirely irreversible.
• Likelihood of occurrence (for potential impacts): unlikely; likely; very likely

The assessment of impacts is calculated as the sum of the factors scale, scope and remediability multiplied by the likelihood of occurrence. The result is divided by the maximum achievable score in order to obtain a normalised rating. This value is then scaled to position it on a five-point scale. Where negative impacts on human rights are identified, their severity is given priority over likelihood of occurrence. A threshold value of 3 is applied for all types of impacts (negative / positive, potential / actual). This threshold allows the IROs to be prioritised.

Identified risks and opportunities for STRABAG are assessed based on their scale and likelihood of occurrence:

• Scale (1–5): The assessment of financial scale indicates the extent to which risks or opportunities may affect the company’s financial position. The assessment considers whether the effects are merely short-term and operational in nature or have strategic significance. A high financial scale rating indicates that significant financial losses or opportunities may arise and that key business processes, market positions or customer relationships may be substantially affected.
• Likelihood of occurrence: unlikely; likely; very likely

The rating of a risk or opportunity results from the product of scale and likelihood of occurrence. Dividing this by the maximum achievable score yields a normalised rating. This value is then scaled to position it on a five-point scale. The threshold value is likewise set at 3.

IROs that reach at least the threshold value of 3 are included in the reporting: they are presented both in aggregated tabular form and explained in greater detail in the respective thematic chapters. ESG risks are not prioritised over other identified risk categories (see Risk management).

The interpretation of the opportunities and risks described in the ESG area (environment, social, governance) requires a differentiated perspective. In order to identify environmental opportunities and risks, quantitative analyses are also used on the basis of internal experience – for example with regard to the expansion of the service portfolio or potential cost increases. Compared with the assessment of opportunities and risks in the environmental area, the approach for social topics is considerably more complex. Opportunities in the social area have a long-term effect and strengthen the company’s resilience but are difficult to translate into monetary terms. The assessment of such opportunities and risks therefore relies predominantly on external data sources such as scientific studies and industry analyses.

The materiality assessment has allowed STRABAG to identify and assess the impacts, risks and opportunities relating to the topics of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and energy. STRABAG SE’s business model was assessed with regard to its vulnerability to climate-related physical and transition risks for the first time in 2023.

The climate risk analysis carried out in 2024 provides a broader perspective by identifying specific risks and opportunities for STRABAG arising from climate change. Analysing physical risks (e.g. extreme weather events) and transition risks (e.g. legal requirements) helps to identify relevant climate-related factors that influence both the business strategy – which is regularly reviewed for short-, medium- and long-term risks – and long-term value creation.

To further develop the maturity of the climate risk analysis and to incorporate additional locations into the analysis, dedicated software was acquired in 2025. The integration of the existing results into the platform and the expansion of the site analyses will be carried out step by step. The insights gained will be disclosed in the coming years.

Physical climate risk analysis

As part of the project, material activities within the Group’s own operations as well as along the upstream and downstream value chain were evaluated in order to assess the climate-related physical risks. STRABAG’s actual and potential vulnerability was analysed based on its exposure across the short, medium and long term.

To carry out a meaningful analysis of the physical climate impacts on the company, a selective sample of relevant site locations was taken along the upstream and downstream value chains. The upstream value chain was covered by analysing suppliers and their site locations, as well as the risk exposure of relevant building materials. The analysed sites are predominantly located in Central and Eastern Europe, as a significant proportion of the project and construction materials production business and, consequently, the primary supply sites are located here. For STRABAG, the completed construction projects analysed as part of the physical climate risk analysis cover both its own business activities as well as the downstream value chain.

The first step was to identify objects of analysis belonging to the areas of business activities, own assets and value chain. These were then analysed based on factors such as the output generated per Group country, the expenditure volumes for externally sourced building materials and the Group’s own construction material production volumes. This analysis was supported by experts within the Group. The aim was to determine representative locations for the clusters that have strategic and financial relevance and which provide the broadest possible coverage of the Group’s activities. The site selection focused on values from the 2023 financial year, which were validated in workshops with internal expert groups. The first risk assessment was carried out in 2024, with key findings approved by the Management Board as the highest governance body.

In a second step, the selected site coordinates were transferred into climate analysis software in order to evaluate the exposure values for each defined climate-related hazard based on the chosen climate scenario from RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5. These mandatory climate scenarios describe global conditions in which emissions continue to rise at current rates without policy intervention, leading to global warming of around 4 °C by the year 2100.

As part of the initial analysis in 2024, the RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 climate scenario was deliberately chosen in order to test the resilience of the business model to physical climate risks. This made it possible to ensure a robust assessment of potential exposure. In the 2026 financial year, the analysis will be expanded to include additional climate scenarios in order to further improve the resilience test with regard to physical risks. The assumptions used for the climate scenario analysis are aligned with the climate-related estimates contained in the financial reports.

The software used for the climate risk analysis is based on climate projections that combine global and regional models derived from climate models provided by the CORDEX initiative. A few other indicators are drawn from external databases such as the Aqueduct global platform for water stress, coastal and riverine flooding or the CATNAT natural disasters platform. The damage functions are based on climate-related hazards or corresponding indicators derived from publicly available climate databases such as Copernicus, WIR, ESGF, CATNAT and Arup.

In the final step of the physical climate risk analysis, the sensitivity of the site locations examined was assessed together with subject-matter experts from selected divisions and central divisions taking into account likelihood, scale, duration and geospatial coordinates. The exposure of STRABAG’s activities and supply chains to these values was also analysed across three time horizons.

The risks and opportunities relevant for STRABAG (gross assessment) were qualitatively assessed by means of scenario analysis for short-term (up to 2030), medium-term (up to 2040) and long-term (up to 2085) time horizons in order to estimate their potential impacts on the entire value chain as well as their likelihood of occurrence. The short- and medium-term horizons are aligned with the Group Strategy 2030: People. Planet. Progress. and the 2040 climate neutrality target. Long-term impacts were derived with regard to asset lifespans. No material climate risks were excluded from the risk analysis.

The following table describes the identified material physical climate risks that entail potential risks for the company along the entire value chain.

Transition climate risk analysis

During the analysis of the climate-related impacts on the company, relevant events were identified that arise from the transition to a 1.5 °C-compliant economy, society and policy framework. These events impact the business activities and assets within STRABAG’s own operations as well as those along its upstream and downstream value chains. Their exposure to these impacts was then analysed, followed by an assessment of the resulting implications for short-, medium- and long-term time horizons. The upstream value chain was included through consideration of rising raw material and energy costs. The downstream value chain was analysed, among other aspects, by taking into account risks such as changes in consumer behaviour and uncertainty regarding market signals.

The first step was to apply the International Energy Agency’s NZE transition scenario (Net Zero Emissions by 2050), which describes how to achieve the 1.5 °C temperature target by 2050 and outlines the underlying assumptions. These include, for example, the rapid deployment of efficient technologies and sustainable energy supply systems, which STRABAG examined in order to assess the related impacts. Specifically, STRABAG analysed its business activities, assets and supply chain with regard to their exposure to the following transition events:

• CO₂e targets of key building material suppliers
• increased demand for renewable energy and the associated risks to supply security and costs
• price developments for fossil fuels
• rising CO₂e prices for emissions-intensive industries, as projected through the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CABM) and the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)

By combining an ambitious 1.5 °C scenario with a scenario characterised by significant physical risks, the analysis covers both transition and physical risks. These scenarios represent the range of global climate pathways currently considered plausible by scientific research and enable a robust assessment of the resilience of our business model. In the coming years, the analysis will be expanded to include additional transition climate scenarios in order to further improve the resilience test with regard to transition events.

In a second step, the relevance of these transition events was discussed together with subject-matter experts and a consulting firm in order to describe the Group’s vulnerability to the identified risks and opportunities. This included determining whether there was a touchpoint within the value chain and what impacts could be expected as a result. When assessing vulnerability to transition events, both operating and central specialist entities were specifically involved to ensure the broadest possible coverage of the affected value chain.

The table below presents an aggregated overview of the selected transition events, their impacts, the likelihood of occurrence, the duration of the events and the scale of the potential material risks across three time horizons (2030, 2040 and 2050). No material climate risks were excluded from the risk analysis. Likewise, no material embedded greenhouse gas emissions associated with the most important assets and products were identified that could jeopardise the achievement of the long-term emissions reduction target or exacerbate transition risks.

To identify and assess site-specific water risks, a Group-wide risk analysis was carried out for the first time using the Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas developed by the World Resources Institute. The analysis considered sites owned by STRABAG. The tool is based on a wide range of hydrological, climatic and socio-economic datasets and evaluates various dimensions of water risks. These include physical risks (e.g. water scarcity, flooding, changes in water availability and quality), regulatory risks (e.g. stricter abstraction limits, changes in water pricing or water rights) and reputational risks, which may arise, for example, from conflicts over water use with local communities.

The analysis was carried out using the Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas version 4.0. The assessment was conducted in November 2025 on the basis of the globally harmonised hydrological, climatic and socio-economic datasets provided by the tool. Aqueduct 4.0 integrates, among other sources, datasets from the FAO, NASA, GRDC, as well as modelled hydrological scenarios developed by the World Resources Institute.

The analysis enables a comparable assessment of risks at the location level and supports the prioritisation of action in water management. In the course of the evaluation, all physical, regulatory and reputational risk parameters available in the Aqueduct model were considered. For the purpose of site-specific prioritisation, particular emphasis was placed on the indicators for baseline water stress (BWS) generated by the tool. Only the values originally generated by the tool were used. No subsequent adjustment or weighting of the parameters was carried out.

The results are evaluated on a site-specific basis in order to prioritise sites according to the level of identified water risk. Sites with the BWS labels “High” (category 3) and “Extremely High” (category 4) were identified as sites with potentially material risk and assigned to a more detailed assessment so they can be evaluated in a targeted manner with management measures prioritised accordingly. For sites situated in areas with high water stress, water consumption is reported separately. In line with the methodology of the Aqueduct model, the site assessments were carried out at the level of river basins.

As part of the double materiality assessment, systemic risks relating to biodiversity that affect STRABAG at a higher level were also considered. These may have both direct and indirect impacts along the value chain. No consultations with potentially affected communities were carried out.

In addition to the Group-wide materiality assessment, STRABAG conducts a site-specific biodiversity risk analysis. Since 2025, risks have been assessed using a Nature Risk Score, which combines nature-related dependencies, potential impacts and ecological sensitivity. The methodology applied is aligned with the internationally recognised LEAP framework of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). This approach ensures that nature-related risks are systematically captured – from identifying relevant sites and assessing dependencies and potential impacts to evaluating the associated risks. The system combines site-specific data with global biodiversity information and enables a consistent assessment of ecological sensitivities. This ensures that both proximity to protected areas and the extent of nature-related risks are incorporated into the analysis.

To this end, all sites owned by STRABAG were integrated into a site-based analysis model that links geographical information with nature-related indicators. The site catalogue includes, among other things, extraction sites, production facilities, workshops, warehouses, landfills, office buildings and undeveloped land. Construction sites – including those with longer project durations – were not included in the scope of the analysis, as in previous assessments. For each site, a nature-related risk profile was derived that systematically captures potential impacts on biodiversity as well as site-specific dependencies on ecosystem services. Identification was carried out on the basis of site-specific activity profiles and globally available datasets on regulating, provisioning and supporting ecosystem services (e.g. water availability, soil stability, erosion control and local climate regulation). Dependencies along the upstream and downstream value chain are not taken into account.

The underlying assessment logic combines three elements:

• nature-related dependencies on ecosystem services (dependency risk)
• potential impacts of the location on ecosystems and biodiversity (impact risk)
• a consolidated risk value derived from these factors (Nature Risk Score) that reflects the relative significance of a location in terms of nature-related risks

The Nature Risk Score is calculated from a weighted aggregation of dependency risk and impact risk and differentiates between five rating levels. The two highest rating levels, “high” and “very high”, are defined as threshold values above which sites are considered potentially material and are subjected to more detailed analysis. Assessment criteria include the type of activities, use of ecosystem services, the potential scale of negative impacts on habitats and the ecological sensitivity of the surrounding area. For sites whose Nature Risk Score reaches these thresholds, a geographical sensitivity analysis is conducted using internationally recognised datasets on protected areas and areas of high biodiversity importance, including the World Database on Protected Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas.

To analyse human rights and environmental risks in our own operations and in the supply chain, a methodology was developed to identify potential negative impacts on people and their natural livelihoods based on country and sector risks. In 2025, the methodology for risk analysis within STRABAG’s own operations was applied across the Group for the first time. An extension of the methodology to suppliers is planned for the future. The risk analysis methodology is based on relevant sources and legal requirements (see the guidance issued by the German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control) and relies on internationally recognised risk assessments. Country risk analyses are used to identify risks that describe the political and cultural situation of a country in relation to human and environmental rights and to provide indications of possible violations within the company or among suppliers. Sector risk analyses are used to identify industry-specific human rights and environmental risks. The methodology is continuously developed centrally within the Corporate Responsibility Office, which also coordinates its implementation in cooperation with operational entities. Risks are specified and prioritised based on the criteria of likelihood of occurrence and severity. The results are subsequently validated using the expertise of operational areas, such as division management and purchasing, in order to ensure a realistic and robust analysis. The prioritised human rights and environmental risks are then compared with existing actions in the divisions of the STRABAG Group, which are then adjusted where necessary.

In the risk assessment, particular attention is given to especially vulnerable groups. The vulnerable groups identified include, for example, employees and workers at subcontractors, as well as workers performing manual and physically demanding tasks, particularly those facing language barriers. They also include low-income individuals who may not be aware of their rights, as well as children. The current risk analysis process does not provide for the structured involvement of potentially affected stakeholders. However, the perspectives of such stakeholders are incorporated into the risk assessment process through ongoing dialogue with stakeholders and/or their representatives. Reports received via the whistleblowing platform are also specifically taken into account when assessing risks.

In the construction industry, workers on construction sites are exposed to increased risks, for example when handling large and heavy machinery, working at height and below ground, and performing potentially physically demanding tasks. Construction activities that alter existing systems can also have potentially negative impacts on the natural foundations of local communities, for example through dust emissions during the construction phase. Unequal treatment in employment may occur in the recruitment of staff, in personnel development and in workplace interactions – for example on the basis of gender, disability or social or ethnic background. These risks exist in our core European markets as well as in our international markets. The prevalence of employment agencies and the unauthorised subcontracting of orders are factors that increase the risk of forced labour in STRABAG SE’s non-European areas of activity, both in construction and in the service sector. There are no STRABAG companies that show a significantly increased risk of child labour. Awareness of these possible risks, the actions derived, and the implemented policies should permanently minimise the likelihood of these risks occurring. Our Group directives do not include a definition of vulnerable groups, as the directives apply to all persons equally.

The risk assessment procedure is described in the Business Compliance Risk Analysis appendix as part of the overarching Business Compliance Management System. The definition of risk areas is based on STRABAG’s business activities as an internationally operating construction group and is confirmed by many years of experience and industry expertise. Specific risk areas were defined with the support of the operational management, the central staff divisions Internal Audit, Contract Management and Legal (CML) and Bau-, Rechen- und Verwaltungszentrum (BRVZ), along with the Business Compliance (BC) entity located within the Corporate Responsibility Office. In line with STRABAG’s international orientation and its organisation into business fields, the risk analysis focuses not on individual operating sites or locations but on organisational entities, which may be structured either geographically or by business field. The identification and assessment of corruption risks are based on the experience of the operational entities, central staff divisions and central divisions in order to enable responses to incidents at Group level.

As part of the risk analysis, all divisions, central divisions and central staff divisions are subject, among other aspects, to a review of corruption risks and are re-evaluated at regular intervals based on ongoing experience reports. At the procedural level, the risk analysis is based both on ongoing incident reports and on periodic surveys of the respective entities regarding risk developments within their field of activity. These surveys are conducted through the annual Management Business Compliance Reporting.