Materiality for sustainability topics

Woodside conducts a materiality assessment process to inform our understanding of which sustainability topics are most relevant to our business activities and stakeholders. This considers potential risks, opportunities and impacts of sustainability topics upon our financial performance, as well as the potential impacts of our operations on stakeholders.

This process involves a study by internal subject matter experts drawing from a range of internal and external inputs, including from our Executive Leadership Team and Directors. We also continue to monitor developments, trends and stakeholder views throughout the year.

Our approach seeks to understand the topics relevant to our business activities and to our stakeholders. Potential risks, opportunities and impacts on the economy, environment and people, including impacts on human rights, are taken into account.

Engagements with stakeholders via online surveys and interviews help verify and prioritise relevant topics. We engage with stakeholders such as customers, employees, investors, banks and ratings agencies, joint venture participants, First Nations communities, local communities, local, state and national governments, non-government organisations, suppliers and contractors.

We classify the topics into three categories of material, significant or important. This is followed by an endorsement process with our Executive Leadership Team and the Board’s Sustainability Committee. Our 2023 material sustainability topics remain consistent with the previous year, including Climate, Health safety and wellbeing, Environment and biodiversity and First Nations cultural heritage and engagement.¹

1 For the purposes of Woodside’s sustainability disclosures we classify the topics into three categories of material, significant or important. For these purposes, ‘material topic’ means a 2023 sustainability topic described in this report, determined as part of the 2023 materiality assessment process undertaken by Woodside. Classification of any topic as material, significant or important should not be read as a determination of whether that topic may necessarily rise to the level of materiality of disclosures required by law, including the laws of Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.