ForFarmers

Reference: pages 43-48, 50-54 (also 195, 216).

Executive Board. Three members: Pieter Wolleswinkel (CEO), Marloes Roetgerink (CFO) and Rob Kiers (COO) (p.43). The wider Executive Team adds the managing directors of the UK, Poland, Ruminants NL, Pigs & Poultry NL and Van Triest CirQlar, plus the directors of HR, Corporate Affairs and IT (p.50).

Supervisory Board. Six members until November 2025. Jan van Nieuwenhuizen stepped down after the April 17, 2025 AGM, Lieve Beyen joined at that AGM, and Erwin Wunnekink left on November 1, 2025. Marijke Folkers-in 't Hout became chair (p.45). Three core committees: Audit, Selection and Appointment, and Remuneration (p.48). The knowledge matrices show sustainability experience for every Executive Board and Supervisory Board member (pp.44, 47).

Diversity and independence. At the end of 2025, 60% of Supervisory Board members and 33.3% of Executive Board members were women (p.216). Vincent Hulshof and Roger Gerritzen, who are also directors of Coöperatie FromFarmers, are not considered independent (p.47).

Sustainability oversight. The Executive Board integrates the sustainability agenda into strategy and monitors performance. An ESG task force reports to the Board of Directors, and a Sustainability Advisory Board chaired by the CEO brings in external members (p.195).

Reference: pages 195, 58 (also 189).

Sustainability is regularly on the Supervisory Board agenda. The audit committee "is kept informed of developments in sustainability reporting and oversees the process of managing material impacts, risks and opportunities" (p.195).

Both boards took part in the double materiality analysis, so they know stakeholder interests and perspectives. Matters raised by stakeholders that need ad hoc attention go straight to management and the supervisory bodies (p.195).

In 2025 the boards were informed through the internal ESG working groups and the external ESG Advisory Board (retail, research and agri-food representatives). The working groups report to a steering group of one Board member and the Corporate Affairs Director. The steering group monitors progress and follows up gaps against the sustainability strategy and required reporting, and passes the results to the supervisory bodies (p.58).

The outcome of the double materiality analysis was reviewed internally and validated by the Board of Directors (p.189). The topics discussed in the year are set out in the Report of the Supervisory Board (p.195).

Reference: pages 74, 195-196 (also 76).

The remuneration policy links ESG targets to both short-term and long-term variable pay. The Supervisory Board links at least 50% of the non-financial targets to ESG (pp.74, 195).

Short term. For all Executive Board members, 60% of the 2025 targets are financial and 40% qualitative (p.76). The ESG criterion sits in the qualitative part: 11.0% of fixed salary at target for the CEO (13.8% awarded) and 9.0% for the CFO and COO (11.3% awarded) (p.76).

Long term. Pay is not tied to one specific sustainability target or impact. It depends on reaching at least two-thirds of the communicated goals, including reducing the CO2 footprint, minimizing the impact on biodiversity, and increasing circularity and diversity (p.195).

The report points to the Remuneration Report for the 2025 results on these criteria (p.195).

Reference: pages 195-197.

ForFarmers says it "has embedded due diligence on human rights and the environment into various aspects of its operations", and that the outcomes help it identify its material impacts, risks and opportunities (p.195).

A table maps the due diligence steps to ESRS disclosures (p.196):

• Embedding in governance, strategy and business model: GOV-2, GOV-3, topical SBM-3.
• Involving affected stakeholders: GOV-2, SBM-2, IRO-1, S1-2, S2-2, S4-2.
• Identifying adverse impacts: IRO-1, topical SBM-3.
• Taking action: E1-1, E1-3, E4-1, E4-3, E5-2, S1-4, S2-4, S4-4.
• Tracking and communicating effectiveness: E1-4, E4-4, E5-3, E1-5, E1-6, E5-4, S1-5, S2-5, S4-5, S1-9, S1-13, S1-14, S1-16, S1-17.

The human rights commitment follows the UN Guiding Principles, the ILO Declaration and the OECD Guidelines (p.196). Salient issues are health and safety, living wage, child and forced labor, work-life balance, equal opportunities and equal pay, the right to a healthy environment (communities) and non-discrimination (p.197). Environmental due diligence runs through regular processes, with a regular program of environmental audits (p.197).

Reference: pages 58, 197 (also 59).

Sustainability-related risks sit inside the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework. They are "assessed for risk profile and risk appetite" with the same methodology as other risks, and ranked against other risk categories by control effectiveness and possible consequences (p.197).

The tools named for assessing risks and periodically testing controls are ERM, the Internal Control Framework (ICF) and the Tax Control Framework (p.58). ICF reviews combine manager self-assessments with an assessment by the Internal Auditor (p.58). Managing directors and finance directors of the operating companies sign a Letter of Representation twice a year, declaring compliance with legislation, internal rules and the Code of Conduct (p.58).

In 2025 the Executive Board took further steps on sustainability reporting and the related internal controls, after 2024 was "dominated by the implementation" of the CSRD (p.58). The "Notes on the risks" tie each key risk to the material sustainability theme it relates to (p.59).

Reference: pages 12-18, 187.

ForFarmers N.V. is "an internationally operating feed company that mainly offers total feed solutions for (organic) livestock farming". It makes compound feed for ruminants (mainly dairy cows), pigs and poultry in 41 factories across the Netherlands, Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom (p.187). Net revenue was EUR 3,153.1 million and the company had 2,963 employees at year-end (pp.250, 221).

Value chain (p.12). Upstream: raw material suppliers and co-products. ForFarmers: feed milling, logistics and delivery, plus on-farm advice. Downstream: farmers, then dairy processors, slaughterhouses and egg packers, then food service, retail and consumers.

Strategy (p.14). Five pillars: close to the farmer; differentiate in products and markets; good feed at competitive prices; sustainable solutions; (virtual) chain integration. The sustainability pillars are cutting CO2 emissions, stimulating circularity and protecting biodiversity (p.188).

The report notes that most of its emissions arise outside its own operations, so "good and close cooperation with our chain partners is essential" (p.188).

Reference: pages 187-188, 248-249.

ForFarmers keeps "ongoing communication with our internal and external stakeholders" (p.188). Key groups in the value chain are customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, processors, retailers and NGOs (p.188).

The stakeholder table (pp.248-249) gives, per group, its type (affected stakeholder or user of the statements), how ForFarmers engages and what the group expects. Examples:

• Customers: daily contact, 3-4 magazines a year, monthly newsletters, advisory groups twice a year. Expectations include feed efficiency and safety, animal health and welfare, and antimicrobial resistance.
• Employees: daily contact, yearly culture research, works councils. Expectations include a safe working environment and fair compensation.
• Suppliers: audits, Code of Conduct, technical visits. Expectations include traceability and responsible sourcing.
• Shareholders: AGM, results publications, roadshows, six cooperative meetings a year.

For the double materiality analysis, representatives of customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, processors, retailers and NGOs validated and prioritized the impacts, risks and opportunities (p.248). The company has no direct consultation with consumers or end users and relies on retailers for their views (p.226).

Reference: pages 188, 190-193.

The double materiality matrix (p.190) lists 11 material topics: climate change; efficient and circular use of resources; biodiversity and ecosystems; access to safe feed and food; fair working conditions and employee health and safety; development and training of talent; data privacy and security; prevention of bribery and corruption; water use in the supply chain; organic feed, GMO and AMR management; and animal health and welfare.

The IRO table (pp.191-192) gives each impact, risk or opportunity with its time horizon and value chain position. Examples: a negative climate impact from emissions across the value chain; a negative biodiversity impact from raw materials linked to deforestation (upstream) and from nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands (downstream); a positive impact from using residual and co-products; and a negative impact on upstream agricultural workers from possible child and forced labor.

Sustainability-related impairments, liabilities and provisions were assessed and "considered not material", and no risk of material adjustment to carrying amounts in the next reporting period was identified (p.193). The material IROs are generally not tied to locations or sites; the exception is the nitrogen debate in the Netherlands (p.189).

Reference: pages 189-193.

A topic is material if it meets the impact or the financial materiality criteria (p.189). The "longlist" of topics was refined from sector publications, peer reviews, regular stakeholder dialogues, social and societal developments, internal risk management processes and management interviews. A shortlist followed from interviews with stakeholders or experts (p.189).

Impacts were rated on severity and likelihood; risks and opportunities on magnitude and likelihood, using risk assessment tools such as the ERM framework. For potential negative human rights impacts, severity takes precedence over likelihood (p.189). Threshold values were set and applied, then confirmed by the Board of Directors and by a completeness check with stakeholders (p.189). The outcome was reviewed internally and validated by the Board of Directors (p.189).

A full analysis is repeated every three years unless an event triggers an earlier reassessment. The last was done in 2023 and the next is planned for 2026. No trigger occurred in 2025: the activities added with the team agrar acquisition fit existing ones and changed no impacts, risks or opportunities (pp.189-190).

A mapping of the IROs to ESRS requirements is in the chapter "About ForFarmers' sustainability statement" (p.190). In 2025 a TCFD-based business resilience analysis was carried out for climate (p.239).

Reference: pages 189-190, 242-245.

The company prints an ESRS content index (pp.242-245) that lists each disclosure requirement with a page and a "Comments or reason for omitting" column. The material topics are shown in the matrix on p.190.

What the index says for the topical standards:

• "Omitted (transitional provision)": E1-9, E2-6, E3-5, E4-5 and E4-6.
• "Not applicable": E1-7, E1-8, E2-4 and E3-3.
• "Not material": E2-5, E3-4, E5-5, S1-12, all of S3, G1-2, G1-5 and G1-6.
• S1-13: no page, with the comment that average training hours per employee per gender are "omitted (phase-in provision)" (p.244).
• No page and no reason: E4-1 (p.243) and E5-6, whose comment cell carries the S1-13 wording (p.243).
• E2 (air pollution) is listed with a note that nitrogen emissions are reported under E4 (p.243).

The report adds that its statements "may not cover all impacts, risks and opportunities or additional sector-specific information" that a stakeholder may consider important (p.190). Datapoints derived from other EU legislation (ESRS 2 Appendix B) are tabulated on pp.246-247.

Reference: pages 198-200 (also 32, 177, 199, 201-205).

Targets. For 2030, ForFarmers has "set targets validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)" for cutting emissions "in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C". They split into FLAG (forest, land use and agriculture) and non-FLAG targets, all against a 2022 base year (p.198). The plan takes total emissions from 18,574 to 12,476 kton CO2e by 2030: upstream scope 3 from 10,335.3 to 6,751.6, own-operations scope 1 and 2 from 154.2 to 89.4, and downstream scope 3 from 8,084.8 to 5,635.1 (p.200; p.32).

Plan status. "To achieve our 2030 targets, we started drafting a climate transition plan in 2024." Key measures were identified in 2024 and key actions per measure set in 2025, per operating company, and followed in the internal progress report (p.199). The measures and estimated reductions are on pp.200-205 (see E1-3).

Base year. The 2022 base year was recalculated in 2025 for the Belgian divestment (2023) and the Piast, Van Triest, team agrar and HaBeMa acquisitions. Total market-based emissions moved from 16,047.2 to 18,574.3 kton (p.199).

Limits. "Climate adaptation is not explicitly addressed" (p.198). No company net-zero target year is stated in the statement; p.33 only mentions "our ambitions for 2050". The SBTi validation year reads 2024 on p.32 and 2025 on p.60.

Reference: pages 239-240 (also 189-190, 194).

Back-filled from the "Business resilience analysis in relation to climate change" section (pp.239-240) and ESRS 2 IRO-1 (pp.189-190), where this content is disclosed in the FY2025 report. This disclosure requirement did not exist under the 2023 ESRS the report was prepared against.

"This year, we conducted a business resilience analysis based on the TCFD risk assessment", identifying climate risks and opportunities (p.239).

Scenarios (p.239). Two: a Paris scenario with warming limited to 1.5 to 2°C, and a no-mitigation scenario with warming of 3.5 to 4.5°C. The report names no scenario provider or pathway (such as SSP or IEA). Under no mitigation, ForFarmers "is more likely to be exposed to physical risks, leading to an increase in operational and capital expenditures".

Scope (p.239). Upstream value chain, own operations and downstream value chain. The further downstream, the lower the company's influence.

Risk types (p.240). Four risks and one opportunity, each risk marked transition, policy or physical: supplier adaptation (transition); stricter regulation if on-farm emissions do not fall (policy); the cost of moving from fossil fuels to renewables (transition); and extreme weather such as low river levels (physical).

Time horizons: short term is 2026, medium term runs to December 31, 2030, long term is beyond 2030 (p.194). The statement does not set out the assumptions behind the scenarios.

Reference: pages 239-240.

Back-filled from the "Business resilience analysis in relation to climate change" section (pp.239-240), where this content is disclosed in the FY2025 report. This disclosure requirement did not exist under the 2023 ESRS the report was prepared against.

Result. The analysis table sets out the climate risks and opportunities and the mitigating actions for the short, medium and long term. The company says it is unable at this stage to give a dependable quantitative assessment of how climate change could affect future outcomes (p.239). Estimated future climate change "does not affect the 2025 financial statements", and there is no evidence that individual assets are at risk of impairment from it (p.239).

Strategy. The Executive Board "has considered this analysis when making strategic and capital investment decisions", adjusting them to whichever climate scenario is considered more likely. The scenarios will be reviewed and refined periodically (p.239).

Capacity to adapt (p.240). Procurement monitors low river levels and inventory continuously; the company will "periodically assess our risk exposure to acute climate events"; and it points to its financial strength and Center of Excellence for feed efficiency. Weekly water-level monitoring is described in the risk section (p.61).

Uncertainty. The analysis is qualitative, and in both scenarios the company's ability to mitigate falls the further downstream it looks (p.239).

Reference: pages 198-205 (also 195).

Scope and focus. The climate policy "focuses on climate mitigation given the identified material impacts, risks and opportunities, and applies to all activities of ForFarmers, including our upstream and downstream value chain. Climate adaptation is not explicitly addressed" (p.198).

Commitments that work as policy levers.

• Sourcing: ForFarmers aims to buy deforestation-free raw materials, follows the FEFAC and RSPO sourcing guidelines and works with suppliers on EUDR compliance (p.201).
• Formulation: "maximum greenhouse gas emission levels" are a requirement in feed formulations, and the GHG values of all raw materials sit in the formulation system so feed can be built with the lowest possible CO2 footprint (p.202).
• Energy: a goal of a 2% annual cut in energy consumption per country until 2030, "also achieved in previous years", and low-emission purchased electricity by 2030, backed by certificates of origin (p.203).
• Accountability: ESG targets, including CO2 reduction, count in Board remuneration (p.195).

Governance of the climate agenda runs through the ESG task force and the Sustainability Advisory Board (p.195).

Reference: pages 201-205 (also 33-34).

Actions are grouped by value chain position, each with an estimated 2030 reduction (pp.201-205).

Upstream scope 3.

• Sustainable feed solutions: 1,700-2,900 kton CO2e. Includes a 2025 Bunge agreement for nearly 100,000 tonnes of Brazilian soy from regenerative-agriculture farms, more circular raw materials, and formulating on low-CO2 materials and origins (pp.201-202).
• Fewer fossil fuels in the supply chain: 0-300 kton, mainly after 2030 (p.202).

Own operations (scope 1 and 2).

• Energy efficiency: 10-20 kton. Energy management systems in all countries and equipment replacement (p.203).
• Clean energy: 23-47 kton. Deventer replaced almost all fossil gas with biogas from customers' farms; Reudink Lochem expects biogas from the end of 2026; Poland moved from coal to gas (p.203).
• Fleet: 2-6 kton. Newer trucks in the UK and Netherlands, fully electric truck pilots in both (p.204), part of the UK fleet on HVO (p.33).

Downstream scope 3. Feed efficiency and conversion: 480-560 kton. Methane-reducing feed solutions: 640-800 kton. Manure management: 160-400 kton (p.205). 160 customers already use methane-reducing additives (p.34).

Resources. Equipment replacement is called "an important part of our investment program" (p.203). The statement gives no CapEx or OpEx amounts for these actions.

Reference: pages 198-200, 206-207 (also 177).

Targets, 2030 vs 2022. SBTi-validated and described as consistent with 1.5°C (p.198), split into FLAG (-30%) and non-FLAG (-42%) targets across upstream scope 3, own operations (scope 1 and 2) and downstream scope 3 (p.200). The auditor's climate note describes absolute scope 1, 2 and 3 targets of 30% (FLAG) and 42% (non-FLAG) by 2030 (p.177). Absolute 2030 values are 6,751.6 kton upstream, 89.4 kton own operations and 5,635.1 kton downstream (p.200). The 2030 market-based total is 12,476,151 tCO2e (p.206).

Progress to 2025 against the 2022 base year (p.207). Scope 1 and 2: -37.1%. Scope 3 upstream: -29.1%. Total: -15.4%. The company calls the first two "in line with the SBTi targets".

Where progress is weakest. Downstream scope 3 rose to 8,280.9 kton in 2025 from 8,084.8 in 2022 and 6,934.1 in 2024, driven by volume growth and more feed for ruminants. The company says cutting it depends on collaboration with chain partners (p.207).

A separate operating target is a 2% annual reduction in energy consumption per country to 2030 (p.203).

Reference: pages 232, 234-236, 241.

Total energy consumption was 528,847 MWh in 2025 (2024: 473,851) (p.241).

Mix (p.241).

• Fossil: 378,584 MWh, 71.6% of the total (2024: 78.6%). Natural gas 173,803; crude oil and petroleum products 123,539; purchased fossil electricity, heat, steam and cooling 78,078; coal 2,820; other fossil 342.
• Nuclear: 72,294 MWh, 13.7% (2024: 15.7%).
• Renewable: 77,969 MWh, 14.7% (2024: 5.7%). Purchased renewable electricity, heat, steam and cooling 57,437; fuels incl. biomass 19,522; self-generated non-fuel renewable 1,011.

Renewable energy production was 20,532 MWh (2024: 11,674, +75.9%). Non-renewable energy production is nil (p.241).

Intensity (p.241). 50 MWh per thousand tonnes of volume (2024: 53, -5.5%) and 168 MWh per million euro of net revenue (2024: 173, -2.8%). The company prefers volume as the denominator because net sales "depend on raw material prices" (p.232).

Conversion coefficients per energy type and country are in the table on p.234; if no consumption data exist, invoices, then meter readings, then the latest estimate are used (p.234).

Reference: pages 206-207, 234-236 (also 199, 232).

2025 gross emissions (p.206), tCO2e, with 2024 in brackets.

• Scope 1: 64,072 (57,809), +10.8%.
• Scope 2 location-based: 55,883 (67,728), -17.5%. Market-based: 32,783 (41,922), -21.8%.
• Scope 3: 15,608,633 (13,574,993), +15.0%. Purchased goods and services 6,644,695; upstream transport and distribution 683,071; use of sold products 8,280,867.
• Total market-based: 15,705,488 (13,674,724), +14.9%. Location-based: 15,728,588 (13,700,529).

Base year 2022 (recalculated) total market-based: 18,574,264 (p.206).

Intensity (p.206). Market-based: 1,475 tCO2e per thousand tonnes of volume (2024: 1,516, -2.7%) and 4,981 per million euro of net revenue (2024: 4,980).

Reading the movement (p.207). Scope 1 rose with organic growth and the Van Triest, team agrar and HaBeMa acquisitions. Scope 2 fell through cleaner energy purchases. Scope 3 upstream rose in absolute terms but fell per tonne of feed.

Method. Scope 3 covers three categories: purchased goods and services, upstream transport and distribution, and use of sold products, about 98% of scope 3 by the company's estimate (p.232). Upstream emissions use GFLI coefficients by country of origin; downstream emissions follow IPCC Tier 1 and 2 methods for enteric fermentation and manure (pp.194, 235).

Reference: pages 210-212 (ESRS content index entry, p.243).

The report has no separate pollution chapter. Its index lists E2 as "(Air) pollution", maps E2-1 to the biodiversity chapter on pp.210-212 and adds this comment: "Direct impact factors for biodiversity loss, such as nitrogen emissions, have been reported under ESRS E4", giving market use as the reason (p.243). The pollution content is therefore the nitrogen emissions material.

Policy position (p.212). ForFarmers "aims to contribute to minimising nitrogen emissions" and uses nitrogen efficiency "as a key indicator to monitor the environmental and ecological impact of livestock farming". Its approach is feed solutions: adjusting the crude protein content of the whole diet, with specialists advising customers on rations and advisors carrying individual goals in their performance reviews. It has committed to the Dutch covenant to cut the crude protein share in dairy rations (p.212).

Why it matters. The downstream nitrogen impact in the Netherlands is a material impact, and stricter nitrogen measures such as buy-out schemes are a material policy risk (p.191). No standalone pollution policy is described.

Reference: pages 210-212 (ESRS content index entry, p.243; also 34, 205).

As with E2-1, the nitrogen actions sit in the biodiversity chapter.

Actions.

• Feed solutions that keep animal performance strong at lower protein levels, backed by specialist advice on crude protein in rations (p.212).
• A 2025 pilot with biological acidification of manure in manure cellars. It "significantly reduces ammonia (nitrogen) and methane emissions" (p.205; also p.34).
• Support for manure management on farms: daily manure removal, biogas from manure, and Renure (recovered nitrogen from manure). FarmConsult specialists help farmers explore permits based on goal-based regulation. The ForFarmers Innovation Fund, set up in 2023, supports Dutch dairy farmers on manure management (p.205).

Resources. The report gives no amounts for these actions. It says the monitoring focus is the Netherlands because that is where data exist, and that it will look at extending data collection to Germany, the UK and Poland (p.212).

Reference: pages 210-212 (ESRS content index entry, p.243).

Target (p.212). Improve nitrogen efficiency in the Dutch operations by 1% a year until 2030. The company says this is in line with its commitment to the Dutch covenant on crude protein in dairy feed, and that progress depends on animal health and animal performance.

Results 2025 (p.212). Nitrogen efficiency is reported by species as a percentage with the number of farms in the sample. Poultry: regular broilers 63.3% across 188 farms (2024: 62.1%, 139 farms); broilers under animal welfare concepts 50.0% across 732 farms (2024: 50.7%, 811); regular layers 36.2% across 12 farms (2024: 36.9%, 5); layers under welfare concepts 34.2% across 7 farms (2024: 33.8%, 8). Dairy is shown at 31.0% (2024: 30.3%). Pig lines show results for only some years.

Method. Nitrogen efficiency is the nitrogen in milk, meat and eggs divided by the nitrogen in feed, calculated for Dutch customers only (pp.232, 237-238).

Reference: page 213 (also 192).

Impact. Water is "a very important and scarce resource, on which ForFarmers' value chain is highly dependent": withdrawn for growing feed crops upstream, and used downstream as drinking water and for livestock care. The company says it "can therefore negatively impact the state of water ecosystems", especially in water-stressed regions (p.213). The material impact is a negative effect on water systems from feed crop cultivation upstream and livestock feeding downstream (p.192).

Policy position (p.213). "At this moment, water consumption in the value chain is not part of our strategic sustainability ambitions." The chapter describes no standalone water policy. The company knows where raw materials come from by country but not their exact location, which limits any water-stress assessment.

Own operations. They "are not located in areas with water scarcity, and water consumption in our own operations is not material" (p.213).

Reference: pages 213, 238.

The chapter combines policies, actions and resources and states that "no targets or action plans have been developed and we do not intend to do so at this time" (p.213).

What it does describe:

• The company continues to aim for "the most efficient use of raw materials" in feed production, and to look for lower feed conversion rates, so less feed is needed per kilogram of meat, milk or eggs. It says this indirectly reduces water consumption in the value chain (p.213).
• Once the EUDR requires supplier data, it may be able to give better information on water use in the value chain and run a risk-based assessment of water scarcity in the upstream supply chain (p.213).
• Water consumption is measured with GFLI water coefficients for purchased raw materials and per-animal consumption on farms (p.238).

No monetary resources are stated.

Reference: pages 210-211 (also 237-238).

ForFarmers' biodiversity strategy "focuses on aspects where we have a material direct or indirect impact on the natural environment across both our upstream and downstream value chain" and prioritizes three themes: responsible sourcing, sustainable land use and nitrogen efficiency (p.210).

Responsible sourcing. Since 2024, 100% of the soy purchased has been certified under the FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines. ForFarmers signed the 2019 Responsible Soy Declaration and is a member of the Round Table on Responsible Soy (p.210). The certificates carry a statement that no land was deforested in the past 20 years, but they follow a "book & claim" method, so the physical soy is not traceable to deforestation-free farms (pp.210-211). Palm oil and derivatives follow RSPO certificates (p.211).

Sustainable land use. Dairy customers' take-up of the EU CAP-GAEC eco-scheme is the company's main indicator of land use in the downstream chain (p.211).

Scope. "Given the nature of our operations, the impact of our own activities on biodiversity has been deemed immaterial" (p.210).

Reference: pages 210-212, 237-238.

Soy. In 2025 ForFarmers signed a supply agreement with its main South American soy supplier, Bunge, which gives traceability and "insight into the amount of CO2 released during the cultivation of the soy". The company says this "does not yet mean that all our products contain only deforestation-free soy" (p.211). It works toward physically segregated supply, which it expects to remain a major challenge for three to five years (p.211).

Land use. FarmConsult advises dairy farmers on applying for CAP-GAEC eco-measures and implementing them. The company developed seed mixtures that stimulate biodiversity, such as herb-rich grassland and field-edge mixtures, and trains advisors (p.211).

Nitrogen. Advice and feed solutions on crude protein; advisors have individual goals in performance reviews (p.212). Monitoring is limited to the Netherlands for now (p.212).

Method notes. Certified soy and palm oil shares divide certificates by volume purchased (p.237). CAP-GAEC data come from the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) and are externally validated (p.238).

The report states no monetary resources.

Reference: pages 210-212, 224 (the content index labels this row "E3-4", p.243).

Targets and 2025 results.

• Responsible sourcing: 100% of raw material suppliers in the soy, palm or cocoa chain, or with annual spend above EUR 1 million, by 2030, with the 2025 position shown as 70% (p.210). Suppliers that have signed the Supplier Code of Conduct and joined Sedex stood at 69.6% in 2025 (2024: 71.2%) (p.224).
• Certified soy and palm oil: 100% of purchases in both 2025 and 2024 (p.211).
• CAP-GAEC: by 2030, 90% of dairy customers take part, of which 20% reach gold level in the Netherlands. In 2025, 78.6% took part (2024: 80.8%). Gold 9.7% (9.7%), silver 42.0% (47.2%), bronze 26.8% (23.9%) (pp.211-212).
• Nitrogen efficiency: +1% a year in Dutch operations until 2030 (p.212).

The company links CAP-GAEC participation to the policy backdrop: "In 2025, the criteria have become stricter and the subsidies per hectare were reduced" (p.212).

Reference: page 208.

Material topic. "As part of our materiality analysis, we concluded that resource inflows are a material topic for our entire organisation". The policy scope covers raw material purchases for all entities and countries (p.208).

Ambition. Raise the share of circular raw materials in the feed produced and supplied by a third by 2030 against 2022, measured as a share of the total volume of raw materials purchased. The company chose a share, not an absolute volume, because year-to-year volume changes would not reflect the change in its raw material use (p.208).

Definition. Circular raw materials are co- and rest products and former foodstuffs. A co- or rest product is one whose economic value is under 50% of the original main product. Examples: brewer's grain, malt residue, rapeseed meal (p.208). Former foodstuffs are food made for people that is no longer fit for consumption (pp.208, 232).

Link to sourcing. For responsible sourcing of soy and palm, the chapter refers to the biodiversity chapter (p.208).

Reference: pages 208-209 (also 34).

ForFarmers is "working on further developing the circular action plan" (p.209). Measures named:

• Use more co- and rest products. Understanding the origin and quality of circular raw materials helps it use more rapeseed meal, sunflower meal and wheat/corn yeast concentrate with suppliers (p.209).
• Buy more former foodstuffs, although availability may be limited and prices are rising with demand (p.209).
• Explore alternative proteins such as insects in feed; availability is expected to stay low for 3 to 5 years (p.209).
• Explore further acquisitions in residual flows after Van Triest (2024) (p.209).
• Factory investments in 2025: production lines at Lochem and Delden were adjusted to add liquid dairy streams and crisps to feed (p.209). The company joined the Coalition for Circular Pig Feed in 2025 (p.34).

Constraints. Competition from the feed and bioenergy sectors for circular raw materials, and above a certain share, "rapid cost increases and a potential negative impact on animal performance" (p.209). No monetary amounts are given.

Reference: pages 208-209.

Target (p.208). Increase the share of circular raw materials by a third by 2030 against 2022, equal to 55% of total volumes. The company calls the target "ambitious yet achievable" given market availability, animal welfare and animal performance.

Results (p.209), thousand tonnes.

• Total purchased volumes: 8,504 in 2025 (2024: 7,201).
• Co- and rest products and former foodstuffs purchased: 3,498 (2,689).
• Share of the total: 41.1% (37.3%), against a 2030 target of 55.0%.

The 2025 rise is "primarily the result of the strategic acquisition of Van Triest and a higher share of circular raw materials in our compound feed" (p.209). Elsewhere the company puts the 2025 share at "more than 41%", up 10% on the 2022 base year (p.33).

Method: all feed is converted to compound feed equivalents, and the share divides circular raw materials in compound feed and traded products by total volumes purchased and traded (p.237).

Reference: pages 232, 237 (also 208-209).

Scale. In 2025 ForFarmers purchased "around 10 million tonnes of raw materials from suppliers", used in its own feed production or traded, which is "more than 80% of our total costs" (p.208). The purchased-volume table on p.209 shows 8,504 thousand tonnes (2024: 7,201), so the two figures use different scopes and the report does not reconcile them.

Mix. Main raw materials by volume are wheat, maize, barley, soybean meal and rapeseed meal. Apart from a very small share of minerals, all raw materials are plant-based (p.208).

Circular inflow. Co- and rest products and former foodstuffs were 3,498 thousand tonnes, or 41.1% of purchased volume (2024: 37.3%) (p.209).

Method (pp.232, 237). Moist feed is converted to compound feed equivalents using dry matter shares (22% for ruminants, 17% for pigs) times 88%. The circular share is circular raw materials in compound feed and traded products over total purchased and traded volume. Soybean meal does not count as a co-product under the definition (p.232).

Reference: pages 214-219 (also 35).

Fair working conditions and employee health and safety, and talent development and training, are material topics for the whole value chain, including ForFarmers' own workforce of employees and non-employees (mostly contractors at production sites) (p.214).

Policies and commitments.

• Human rights: ForFarmers respects "internationally recognised human rights and labour standards, including Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Declaration" (p.214).
• Code of Conduct: no tolerance for discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, religion, nationality, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, physical abilities or other characteristics (p.214).
• Diversity and inclusion policy for own employees, owned by the Executive Board and the Group HR Director (p.215).
• Health and Safety Policy (management system) covering all (100%) employees and locations, with Health and Safety Officers in every country (p.217).
• Equal pay: steps in 2025 to gain job, level and pay data for equal pay (p.217).

In 2025 the company found no material impacts from climate transition plans, systemic health risks or risks to specific groups of employees, beyond higher exposure for staff outside office roles. It also found no significant child or forced labor risk given its Western European footprint (p.214).

Reference: pages 214-219 (also 35).

Diversity and inclusion (p.215). An action plan to review policies for systematic unconscious bias, build a diverse talent management approach with a diverse succession plan, review the employee journey including recruitment, and check policies on flexible working and parental leave. Stated hiring principles: recruit on capacity and competence regardless of gender, age, race or religion; and when candidates are equally qualified, aim to raise diversity.

Health and safety (pp.217-218). An overarching Health & Safety platform was set up in 2025. It meets every two months with all Health & Safety Officers, internal specialists and an Executive Board representative. A Safety Week ran in the Netherlands in November. Training covers forklifts, cranes, explosion safety and specialist equipment, and drivers assess safety risks on farms under the FarmRisk approach.

Talent (p.219). A simplified assessment cycle from January 1, 2025, manager training in "the right conversation", a new talent management process pairing young talent with experienced employees, and leadership training.

Follow-up. A pedestrian-sensor pilot in Poland after a forklift incident at the Zwolle factory (p.35).

Reference: pages 214-219.

Diversity targets (p.216).

• At least 35% men and 35% women in the Executive Team and the operating company management teams by 2030. At the end of 2025, women were 38% of the Executive Team and 21% of the operating company management teams.
• At least 30% of each gender on the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board. At the end of 2025 the split was 50/50 (60% women on the Supervisory Board, 33.3% on the Executive Board).

Safety. Preventing fatal accidents and lost-time injuries involving employees, non-employees and visitors is called the "highest priority" (p.217). The statement sets no numeric safety target; 2025 results are in S1-14.

Pay. The company is "committed to equal pay" and reports the gender pay gap each year (p.217).

Tracking. Diversity results are shown against the 2030 targets in the table on p.217. The Corporate Governance Statement carries further board diversity objectives (p.216).

Reference: pages 221-222 (also 106, 237).

Headcount at December 31, 2025: 2,963 employees (2024: 2,687). By country: Netherlands 1,038, UK 854, Poland 498, Germany 568 (306 in 2024), Belgium 5 (p.221). The financial statements say the rise in employee numbers results from acquisitions completed in the year (p.106).

Contract type (p.221). Permanent 2,710 (men 2,133, women 577); temporary 218 (men 141, women 77); non-guaranteed hours 35 (all men). Table by country on p.222.

Age (p.222). Under 30: 389; 30-50: 1,462; over 50: 1,112.

Turnover and retention (p.221). 459 leavers in the year; employee retention rate 84.1% (2024: 83.4%).

Non-employees (p.221). 103 (2024: 80), estimated because "no exact numbers can be reported". The method divides actual costs by total personnel costs per operational segment per employee (p.237).

Reference: pages 221, 237 (also 214).

ForFarmers' own workforce includes non-employees, "primarily contractors who work at our production sites" (p.214).

The count is 103 non-employees at December 31, 2025, up from 80 in 2024 (p.221). The statement does not split them by country or contract type.

The company says the figure is an estimate: "The number of non-employee workers is estimated as no exact numbers can be reported" (p.221). Its method counts people made available by employment agencies and other contractors, and estimates their number by dividing actual costs by the total personnel costs per operational segment per employee (p.237).

Non-employees are also part of the accident reporting (6 absence-causing accidents in 2025, the same as in 2024) (p.218).

Reference: page 220.

As of December 31, 2025, 53.3% of own employees were covered by a collective labor agreement (2024: 52.5%) and 61.2% were represented by employee representatives or works councils (2024: 49.9%) (p.220).

A table on p.220 shows coverage by country in bands from 0-19% to 80-100%, for collective bargaining and for social dialogue.

Beyond local works councils, ForFarmers has an overarching European Works Council (p.220). The company says it respects "individual rights to freedom of opinion and association, as well as the right to collective bargaining and all forms of social dialogue" (p.220).

Reference: pages 216-217, 222, 233.

All employees (p.216). 22% women and 78% men at the end of 2025, unchanged from 2024. Women were 25% of new hires (2024: 32%) and 24% of internal promotions (2024: 25%), of which 4% went to management positions (2024: 9%).

Top management (p.217).

• Executive Board and Supervisory Board: 8 members in 2025, 50% women (2024: 9 members, 33%).
• Executive Team: 8 members, 38% women (2024: 25%).
• Operating company management teams: 57 members, 21% women (2024: 53, 21%).
• All employees: 2,963, 22% women.

Age (p.222). Under 30: 389; 30-50: 1,462; over 50: 1,112.

Targets for 2030 are in S1-5. Top management is defined as the supervisory board, the board of directors, the executive team and the management teams (p.233). The company adds that the share of women is not rising as fast in senior management as in the rest of the organization (p.217).

Reference: pages 218, 233.

"All our employees receive an adequate wage." The benchmark for 2025 is the minimum wage per country (p.218).

Method (p.233): the check compares each employee's full-time-equivalent gross salary with the applicable benchmark, which is the minimum wage per country. It is verified through contractual agreements. Gross salary excludes variable components such as overtime, bonuses and allowances unless they are guaranteed.

The statement gives no figure for employees below the benchmark and does not use a living wage benchmark above the statutory minimum.

Reference: page 218 (the index lists "218-233").

"The working conditions of all our employees are safeguarded through social protection." The statement lists support for income loss from major life events: illness, unemployment, occupational accidents, maternity leave, family-related leave and retirement (p.218).

The report does not break social protection down by country or by type of employee, and gives no coverage percentage beyond "all our employees".

Reference: pages 217-218, 233, 237.

2025 vs 2024 (p.218). Work-related accidents with absence: employees 31 (20), non-employees 6 (6), total 37 (26). No work-related fatalities in 2025 (2024: 1).

By country, employees (p.218). Netherlands 8 accidents, frequency rate 4.14; Germany 11, 10.87; Poland 3, 2.80; UK 9, 5.06. Total frequency rate 5.35 (2024: 3.80). Days lost: Netherlands 277, Germany 452, Poland 269, UK 415, total 1,413 (2024: 1,036).

The company says the accidents are not concentrated in one country or operating company, and the increase in Germany relates to the 2025 acquisition (p.218). Absenteeism was 2.7% (2024: 3.0%) (p.218).

Method (p.233). Lost-time injuries per 1,000,000 hours worked, for employees. Days lost are registered for own employees only. Work-related health issues are defined as occupational diseases on the ILO list, but no figure for them appears.

Reference: page 218.

In 2025, 5% of male employees (2024: 5%) and 14% of female employees (2024: 9%) took family-related leave (p.218).

The definition counts maternity, paternity, parental and carer's leave, and states that all employees are entitled to family-related leave under national law or collective agreements (p.233).

Related practice: working independent of time and location is facilitated to improve work-life balance, with a good balance sought between office and home, and the latest culture survey reports that balance as good (p.218). Work-life balance is also one of the salient human rights issues (p.197).

Reference: pages 217, 237.

Gender pay gap (p.217). 9.4% in favor of men in 2025, down from 15.0% in 2024. The report gives the EU average as 12.0% (2023) and says the gap in each of the four countries where it operates is smaller than the average in those countries. It attributes the gap mainly to the gender mix across levels: women's share is not rising as quickly in senior management as elsewhere.

Pay ratio. For the total remuneration ratio on a median and average basis, the company refers to the Remuneration Report (p.217).

Method (p.237). The gap uses gross hourly wage per employee on a full-time-equivalent basis, built from annual total remuneration including cash and in-kind allowances. The annual median total compensation ratio includes base salary, cash benefits, in-kind benefits, short-term performance benefits and the fair value of long-term performance benefits, and excludes social security and pension contributions.

Reference: pages 214-215, 233.

Severe incidents. "In 2025, no severe human rights impacts or incidents such as forced labour, human trafficking or child labour were reported in our own operations" (p.215). No serious human rights violations were reported through the Speak-up Reporting Procedure for own employees or value chain employees (p.229).

Complaints (p.215). 17 complaints were recorded in 2025, covering discrimination including harassment, unsafe working conditions and other Code of Conduct reports. Six related to discrimination or harassment. Actions were taken where necessary. The company says the rise from the 2024 figure it gives (0) is in line with expectations given more internal attention to integrity and compliance. The risk section gives 17 reports against 2 in 2024 (p.54).

Definitions (p.233). An incident is a legal action or complaint formally registered with ForFarmers or authorities, or through internal procedures. Complaints are any formal written or verbal statements of suspected misconduct through any channel.

Reference: pages 223-225 (also 196).

Fair working conditions and health and safety are material for workers in the value chain. "The greatest risk lies in the upstream value chain, particularly among agricultural workers", for child and forced labor and occupational health and safety. The report points to soy, palm oil and cocoa supply chains, especially in South America (p.223).

Policies.

• Human rights: commitment to the UN Guiding Principles, the ILO Declaration and the OECD Guidelines, with a Human Rights Policy (p.196).
• Supplier Code of Conduct for raw material suppliers: based on the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines, with requirements on fundamental conventions, health and safety, environment and ethics. It is to be reviewed at least every 24 months (p.224).
• Suppliers must make ForFarmers' grievance mechanism known to their own employees and stakeholders, and are expected to set up remedy mechanisms and prevent retaliation (p.223).

Limits. Raw materials are bought mostly through international marketplaces, which makes farm-level traceability hard. ForFarmers has "limited insight into the actual impact on workers in our value chain" and treats adequate pay to producers as an uncertainty (p.223).

Reference: pages 223-225 (also 211).

Actions.

• Supplier due diligence: monitoring through self-assessment questionnaires, targeted measures and, where possible, site visits by trusted third parties or ForFarmers staff. Suppliers are expected to be members of Sedex or a similar platform (pp.223-224).
• Higher-risk raw materials (palm, soy, cocoa) and suppliers above a risk rating are being brought into a follow-up program that may include questionnaires, site visits and targeted contract measures (p.224).
• Traceability: the 2025 Bunge agreement gives full traceability and origin data for South American soy (p.211).
• Human rights roadmap (p.225): apply the Human Rights Policy across the organization, set tracking indicators for salient issues, build a due diligence roadmap, and manage impacts through the internal ESG task forces.

Incidents. In 2025 no serious human rights violations or incidents related to the value chain were reported to ForFarmers (2024: 0), and it knows of no related legal proceedings or rulings (p.225).

Effectiveness. The company says improving effectiveness "remains a challenge": not all suppliers join platforms or share information (p.224).

Reference: pages 223-225 (also 210).

Target (p.223). By 2030, all raw material suppliers in the soy, palm or cocoa supply chain, and all suppliers from which ForFarmers buys more than EUR 1 million a year, will have signed the Supplier Code of Conduct (or an equivalent) and be members of Sedex or another platform.

Result (p.224). 69.6% in 2025 against 71.2% in 2024. The decline comes from the German activities acquired in 2025; excluding them, the percentage rose. The company expects more suppliers of the acquired activities to sign and join Sedex during 2026.

Supporting aims. Better monitoring and follow-up of high-risk suppliers, and an evaluation of existing tracking metrics for salient issues in the raw material supply chain (p.224). The same 100% responsible sourcing aim appears under biodiversity (p.210).

Reference: pages 226-227.

With consumers and end users, ForFarmers identified access to safe feed and sustainably produced food, and compliance with regulations and voluntary codes, as the material themes (p.226).

Policy framework.

• A feed safety and quality management system built into local procedures, with an ambition of "zero feed safety incidents and minimal non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes" (p.226).
• Monitoring of raw materials and compound feed under EU legislation, GMP+ International, UFAS and QS Quality Standards, with the SecureFeed monitoring plan and own risk assessments. Compliance is checked through internal audits, third-party audits and authority controls (p.226).
• An incident and crisis management procedure, including withdrawal of unsafe feed and notifying authorities (p.226).
• Organic feed is produced in specialized factories and kept apart from conventional feed (p.227).
• No separate AMR policy: "we do not actively set specific targets and do not have a separate policy for AMR management" (p.227).

Reference: pages 226-227, 237.

Incident response (p.226). An incident and crisis management procedure. Reporting problems is every employee's responsibility. After an incident, the company recalls feed where needed, analyzes the cause, and dedicated local teams coordinate follow-up and improvements to prevent recurrence.

Cross-contamination (p.227). Organic feed is produced only in specialized factories, and the same feed safety and quality system applies to organic and non-GMO portfolios.

Antibiotics (p.227). Antibiotics in feed have been phased out in all countries. In the UK, they are added only when legally permitted and under veterinary prescription.

Results 2025 vs 2024 (p.227). Feed safety incidents: 5 (3). Non-compliance incidents (a fine, penalty or warning, or major non-compliance with voluntary codes not related to feed safety): 18 (7). For each, deficiencies were corrected and followed by an inspection, with improvements approved by authorities or agencies.

Definitions and severity rules are on p.237.

Reference: pages 226-227.

Ambition. "Zero feed safety incidents and minimal non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes" (p.226). The statement sets no dated numeric target.

Results (p.227).

• Feed safety incidents: 5 in 2025 (2024: 3).
• Incidents of non-compliance with regulations resulting in a fine, penalty or warning, or major non-compliance with voluntary codes not related to feed safety: 18 in 2025 (2024: 7).

The increase against the zero ambition is not explained beyond the statement that each incident was corrected, inspected and approved by authorities or agencies (p.227).

Other aims. The company says it has no AMR target and no separate AMR policy, because antibiotic use in feed is tightly regulated and no longer used preventively (p.227).

Reference: pages 228, 230, 238.

Anti-bribery and anti-corruption, data privacy and security, and animal health and welfare are material topics (p.228).

Code of Conduct. Sets out how the core values apply in daily decisions: bribery and corruption, conflicts of interest, competition law and human rights. It is on the intranet and the website in German, English, Dutch and Polish. ForFarmers has "a zero-tolerance policy with regard to violations" and requires third parties to follow a Third-Party Code of Conduct (p.228).

Training. Mandatory Code of Conduct training every year, and targeted courses for specific groups. Participation levels go to the Executive Board each quarter (p.228).

Speak-up Reporting Procedure. Lets employees and stakeholders raise concerns about possible violations (p.228).

Responsibility. The Head of Legal monitors business conduct and data privacy; the Group Security Officer oversees data security. An annual internal review checks policies and their effectiveness (p.228). Security and privacy incidents are reported to the Group Security Officer and the Group Legal Director (p.238).

Gaps. "Although we do not have a specific animal welfare policy ourselves", the company calls it a broad responsibility in its value chain (p.230).

Reference: pages 228-230.

Back-filled from the business conduct chapter (pp.228-230). G1-3 became a standalone disclosure requirement only in the 2025/2026 ESRS. The report was prepared under the 2023 ESRS, where business conduct targets fell under MDR-T.

ForFarmers states no measurable business conduct target. It tracks effectiveness in other ways:

• Participation in the mandatory annual Code of Conduct training is "reported to the Executive Board on a quarterly basis" (p.228).
• "an internal review of the policies and their effectiveness is carried out annually and recommendations for revision are made" (p.228).
• Results of Speak-up Reporting Procedure investigations are "periodically reported to the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board", and remedies are tested with the reporter to improve the complaints mechanism (p.229).
• Incident counts are published: no confirmed bribery or corruption incidents, convictions or fines in 2025 (p.229).

Zero tolerance for bribery and corruption is a standing commitment, not a dated target (p.229).

Reference: pages 229, 233.

2025 results (p.229). Confirmed incidents of bribery or corruption: 0 (2024: 1). Convictions for bribery or corruption offenses: 0 (2024: 0). Fines for violating anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws: EUR 0 (2024: 0).

Related reporting. Seventeen incident reports or suspected incidents were made in 2025, none classified as material, with "no reports of bribery or corruption or serious human rights violations" (p.54). No incidents on data privacy and information security occurred in 2025 (p.230).

Definition (p.233). Corruption and bribery follow the internal anti-bribery and corruption policy: bribery, extortion, fraud, deception, collusion, cartels, abuse of power, embezzlement, influence dealing, money laundering and similar activities. A confirmed incident is one that is well substantiated; incidents still under investigation are not counted.