Notes on methodology and sources

Total carbon footprint includes Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and is calculated based on the GHGProtocol by carbon accounting provider Normative. Read more about their methodology: https://normative.io/insight/normative-methodology/ Except for Olink, TBAuctions and Tibber, emissions are estimated by Normative. Most Summa companies use a spend based methodology for Scope 3, except for Milarex and NG Group, where a large part of the footprint is estimated based on activity. Milarex accounts for species of fish, countries of origin, mode of transportation and other factors. NG Group completed an LCA of their waste categories with the SimaPro software.

This scale shows the company's climate impact in relation to its topline revenue. For the purposes of this report, we use all available data to get the best estimate we can, aggregating emissions from Scopes 1–3 to calculate intensity. To give some context to the magnitude of this impact, we benchmark against a range of broad industry categories from financial services to metal work. Progress may be achieved through a material decrease in carbon intensity over time.

The IWA methodology for the environment enables a cost analysis by attributing a price to a range of clearly defined adverse impacts on nature and human health associated with emissions. Inputs to the analysis include a selection safeguard subjects to monetize the impact. The safeguard subjects refer to resources required to satisfy human needs.

• Working capacity: Effect on human value crea­tion from work, through Years of Life Lost (YLL)

• Crop production: Food production is affected by climate change and sea level rise

• Meat production: Food production is affected by climate change and sea level rise

• Fish production: Affected by ocean acidification

• Water production: Affected through climate change, by increased evaporation from waterways

• Biodiversity & wood production: Forests and other ecosystems/habitats affected due to climate change and other effects

The Employment IWA framework may have variable results due to differences in input data. Firms structure their employment data differently, leading to different outcomes. Any yearly differences in how firms structure their employment data can therefore also make it difficult to compare data from one year to another. Additionally, local benchmark data may be unavailable or unreliable, causing uncertainty, especially in underdeveloped countries. Varia­tions in how the framework is implemented can also affect outcomes. Therefore, Employment IWA figures should be viewed as guidance rather than absolute truth.

Our methodology is guided by Harvard Business School’s Impact-Weighted Accounts (“IWA”) methodology for capturing consumer impact. Key to this methodology are “impact pathways,” the logical connection between a business activity and the change in the wellbeing of a client or consumer which is then monetized. Impact pathways are generated for each company’s product and/ or service, with company data used wherever possible and assumptions used to triangulate data and estimate monetary values.

Assumptions driving this year’s Consumer IWAs for Milarex and Pagero are more granular than last year’s pilot. We also acknowledge that there is an inherent trade-off between the accuracy and scalability of impact monetization analysis and have therefore prioritized a moderate scope of impacts and stakeholders. As impact monetization is more widely adopted and quality industry data becomes more widely available, we and other practitioners will continue to refine assumptions to increase accuracy and generate insights for strategic decisions. Appendix 1a and 1b provide a simplified overview of the calculations underpinning the monetization of impacts for Milarex and Pagero.

Eight Summa portfolio companies were surveyed in H2 2022. Preparation included segmenting employees into groups to ensure the most granular results while ensuring the anonymity of individual responses. A high response rate averaging 89% provided a solid basis for analysis. Humatica presented the results including top strengths and improvement areas to portfolio leadership teams following the survey. Company executives were given access to Humatica’s online portal to review overall company results and plan improvement actions. In addition, every manager with a minimum of three responding direct reports got online access to their team’s feedback with identified improvement areas and corresponding leadership tips.

For the last three reporting cycles, we have in­creased the number of data points we collect to continue improving our insights and approach to managing social issues in the portfolio. We seek to be compliant with the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and the ESG Data Con vergence Project (EDCP). In accordance with the Principal Adverse. Impact (PAI) guid­ance of the SFDR, most statistics are presented as weighted averages of the AUM. With respect to aggregate sums, the amount attributed to each fund is our equity share of the enterprise value including cash (EVIC).

Impact

The total of values and costs to society and the environment of a company’s production activities and of its products and services

Sustainability

The environmental and social costs of a company’s production activity

ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance)

A set of criteria considering aspects such as climate change, biodiversity, employees, suppliers, customers, company leadership, shareholder rights, etc.

Measurement of the PAI indicators is based on the definitions published by the ESA in the Joint Consultation Paper Review of SFDR Delegated Regulation regarding PAI and financial product disclosures on 12 April 2023, presenting proposed amendments to the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1288 of 6 April 2022.