F&P Healthcare Climate Disclosure Evaluation (NZ CS 1)

ACCT702: ADVANCED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING

Climate-Related Disclosures

Assessment 2 – Group Report & Oral Presentation

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare (FPH)

Matthew Butterfield | Oliver Jackson | Shwe Yin Myint | Yanisa Srisomboon | Katie Streat | Linh Tran

Presentation Outline

Evaluation of Climate-Related Reporting

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare (FPH)

01

Governance

02

Climate Risks

03

Emissions Disclosure

04

Strengths & Overall Judgement

01

PART 3 — EVALUATION

Governance

Board Oversight

The Board of Directors holds ultimate responsibility for climate-related risks and opportunities. The Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) reports at least four times annually; executive management reports continuously.

Climate in Strategy

Climate risks and opportunities are integrated into FPH's long-term strategy and annual plans, with yearly Board review.

Areas for Improvement

Director climate competency is not disclosed in the Board competency matrix. Executive remuneration (DAVR) links only 20% to non-financial measures including environmental initiatives — the climate-specific proportion is not specified, limiting usefulness.

02

PART 3 — EVALUATION

Climate Risks

Classification

FPH classifies climate risks as physical and transitional, in line with NZ CS 1. Physical risks include both acute (extreme weather events) and chronic (long-term precipitation/temperature shifts, sea level rise).

Scenario Analysis

FPH conducted scenario analysis across three commonly modelled global temperature increases, detailing time horizons, potential risks, impacts, and response strategies for each.

Disclosure Quality

Methodology is provided in detail; each risk is clearly justified and tied to specific business areas. Disclosures exceed NZ CS 1 requirements and are understandable and comparable across industries.

PART 3 — EVALUATION

03

Emissions Disclosure

Scope 1, 2 & 3 Reported

FPH reports all three GHG emission scopes with notes on changes, restatements, and remeasurements. Consolidation method: operational control approach.

Emission Factors & Exclusions

Internally generated emission factors (EFs) used, incorporating global warming potentials (GWPs) from relevant reporting authorities. Excluded sources are clearly listed with scope and explanation.

Assurance by PwC

FPH meets NZ CS 1 Section 24 requirements. An independent limited assurance report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) covers group-wide GHG emissions. Methods, assumptions and uncertainties are disclosed per GHG Protocol standards.

Full compliance with NZ CS 1 GHG Emissions requirements confirmed.

PART 3 — EVALUATION

04

Strengths, Weaknesses & Overall Judgement

Strength ✓

FPH's biggest strength is its detailed climate change scenario analysis. Three global temperature scenarios are modelled, covering climate, population, economic conditions, regulatory changes, energy, technology, and geopolitical relationships. Each scenario identifies transition and physical risks with specific response strategies integrated into FPH's transition planning (e.g. Ecodesign in R&D, resilient supply network design).

Weakness ✗

Governance disclosures lack specificity. The Board competency matrix does not include climate-related skills criteria. Executive remuneration (DAVR) does not specify what proportion relates to climate targets — limiting the usefulness of incentive-related disclosures for investors.

Overall Judgement

"FPH's climate disclosures are largely meaningful and substantive — particularly in risk scenario analysis and emissions reporting. Some governance disclosures remain surface-level. Greater specificity on director competency and climate-linked remuneration would enhance decision-usefulness for investors."