We measure our material impacts using a mix of internal and external stakeholder engagement, together with consideration of:
- our operating context (e.g. current priorities within our business, or political or market forces which might be shaping our impacts)
- the sustainability context, including global best practice, significant reports on environmental impacts and societal expectations of responsible business conduct.
In 2024 we began alternating between what we call review years and reassessment years.
Review years involve an internal process which considers only those material impacts assessed and reported in the previous year. The focus is on reviewing and rescoring the significance of our existing impacts based on any changes in our operating or sustainability contexts. To do this we conduct a survey for each individual impact. These are completed by a range of internal subject matter, financial and risk experts.
We assess the significance of each impact by scoring its severity and likelihood. For severity, we consider the scale (how grave the impact is), scope (how widespread it is) and each impact’s irremediable character (how hard it is to put the harm right). Potential impacts are considered against the likelihood of the impact occurring. In addition, we consider the potential financial impact on Meridian over time.
Reassessment years involve the same internal process, together with external stakeholder engagement and consideration of new impacts. FY25 was our first reassessment year and exploration of new impacts involved a three-step approach.
We began by reviewing our business strategy and the Detailed Enterprise and Emerging Risk report to explore whether there were initiatives or risks, including those arising from grievance mechanisms, that might suggest additional impacts. We captured stakeholder feedback through our Stakeholder Research Project (delivered by Kantar), and also engaged a sustainability consultancy to conduct a desktop study of emerging trends and potential impacts in New Zealand business, the global electricity industry and materiality best practice.
We then held a facilitated workshop with internal subject matter experts to review the potential impacts gathered from the above steps, and to consider others, before agreeing which impacts should be carried forward into the impact assessment process.
One new impact was added as a result of this work – ‘supporting companies to increase renewable generation through partnerships and offtake agreements’ – reflecting recent innovations in our approach to securing new renewable energy.
Scoring of material impacts then involved two parallel processes: a survey of internal subject matter experts and use of the Stakeholder Research Project to capture the feedback of external stakeholder and mana whenua through 101 interviews and 98 survey responses.