Strategy, business model, value chain, interests and views of stakeholders, and material impacts, risks and opportunities (ESRS 2 SBM-1 to SBM-3)

We view sustainability and sustainable business practices above all as an opportunity that we recognize as a meaningful factor in differentiating ourselves from the competition. The long-term success of our company also depends on the degree to which we meet the needs of our key stakeholder groups, minimize the environmental impact of our business, offer a safe, secure and motivating work environment, act as trustworthy business partners and minimize the impact of our business activities on the climate and the environment.

Strategy, business model and value chain (ESRS 2 SBM⁠–⁠1)

With our Strategy 2030, “Accelerating Sustainable Growth”, we continue to pursue our strategic goals of being the “first choice for customers, employees, and investors” and “green logistics of choice.”

• Provider of Choice and Green Logistics of Choice: We offer GHG-reduced products and strive to reduce logistics-related GHG emissions.
• Employer of Choice: We provide a safe and motivating work environment.
• Investment of Choice: We ensure transparent and legally compliant business practices across the Group.

Strategy 2030 was adopted by the Board of Management and approved by the Supervisory Board in fiscal year 2024.

Steering-relevant key performance indicators

In fiscal year 2025, progress toward sustainability targets was steered using the following steering-relevant key performance indicators: logistics-related GHG emissions, Realized Decarbonization Effects, Employee Engagement, the share of women in middle and upper management, the accident rate (LTIFR) per million hours worked, valid certificates of compliance training in middle and upper management and cybersecurity rating. Additionally, Realized Decarbonization Effects, Employee Engagement and cybersecurity rating were relevant to remuneration in fiscal year 2025. We provide a detailed description of the bases for calculating these performance indicators and the outlook for fiscal year 2026 in our combined management report, steering metrics and expected developments.

Business model and value creation

Under the DHL and Deutsche Post brands, DHL Group provides a wide-ranging portfolio of services comprising international express shipping, freight transport, supply chain management, e-commerce, and post and parcel services. The Group is organized into five operating corporate divisions: Express; Global Forwarding, Freight; Supply Chain; eCommerce; and Post & Parcel Germany. In terms of management structure, each of the corporate divisions is managed by its own divisional headquarters and subdivided into functions, business areas and regions for reporting purposes. Group management functions are centralized in the Corporate Center. The internal services that support the entire Group are consolidated in our Global Business Services (GBS) unit. Customer Solutions & Innovation (CSI) is the Group’s cross-divisional account management and innovation unit. The Group parent is Deutsche Post AG, which operates as a holding company for all corporate divisions and also encompasses the majority of the Post & Parcel Germany division’s operating activities.

In the upstream value chain, transport services are rendered by subcontractors (suppliers). We also purchase goods and services from our suppliers that we need to provide our own services, including vehicles, aircraft, buildings, energy and fuel, or road transport.

Our business model is resilient thanks to its diversified nature and the global reach of our Group as well as our sustainable financing measures and careful use of resources and technologies. Global supply chains are nonetheless exposed to any number of risks and are often the target of criminal activity. Our security experts identify potential security risks for the Group worldwide, analyze them with regard to their potential impact and take appropriate steps to mitigate them. In our efforts to protect our employees and sites, and to secure business continuity, we utilize a risk-based security management system that is in compliance with all applicable national, international, legal and regulatory specifications as well as with ISO 28000. We also regularly assess our sites for physical climate risks as part of our risk management activities, climate related impacts, risks and opportunities.

In fiscal year 2025, the Group had 583,998 employees (2024: 601,723) and generated revenue of €82,855 million (2024: €84,186 million), combined management report, report on economic position.

We describe our products, services, markets and customers in Group Management Report, general information. The breakdown of total revenues is presented in the Segment Report, note 10.

We do not disclose the financial impact of the material impacts, risks and opportunities relating to our business model, our upstream value chain or our strategy (phase-in option).

Involvement of stakeholders (ESRS 2 SBM⁠–⁠2)

DHL Group places priority on exchanging views with stakeholders. Such exchanges take place on a regular basis, particularly with stakeholders such as customers, our employees/potential employees, trade union and works council representatives and investors, as laid out in our Stakeholder Engagement Guideline.

We take note of our stakeholders’ demands and take them into consideration when developing our strategy and organizing our business model. Stakeholder views and evaluations are also taken into account in the materiality assessment. Moreover, we employ a variety of interaction platforms in developing solutions to future societal and business challenges. In addition, our Sustainability Advisory Council regularly contributes its expertise and adds an external perspective. Eight experts from the sciences, business and civic society regularly advise the Board of Management and executives and thus play an important role in implementing sustainability in Strategy 2030.

We are involved in numerous initiatives of the United Nations (UN), supporting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our commitment is most closely aligned with the goals of Quality Education (SDG 4), Gender Equality (SDG 5), Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8), Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11), Climate Action (SDG 13) and Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17). In addition, we take part in various sustainability initiatives, for example to promote the development of sustainable fuels and technologies, and we are working with our transport partners on reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). In addition, we have been involved in committees of institutions such as EFRAG or the International Sustainability Standards Board with the objective of developing European and global sustainability reporting standards.

Material impacts, risks and opportunities (ESRS 2 SBM⁠–⁠3, IRO⁠–⁠1, IRO⁠–⁠2)

In carrying out the materiality assessment, we considered financial materiality as well as the materiality of impacts. We identified and assessed impacts, risks and opportunities (IROs) and their interaction with our strategy, business model and upstream value chain. Based on that we classified the ESRS topics of climate change, own workforce, workers in the value chain and business conduct as material along with the entity-specific topic of cybersecurity, materiality analysis process. The risks and opportunities identified in this process did not negatively impact our financial result in fiscal year 2025, nor were any impacts on the recoverable amounts of our assets identified. The aforementioned topics also served as the basis for our Strategy 2030, which was published in September 2024. The Board of Management and the Supervisory Board reviewed the strategic direction in fiscal year 2025.

We disclose our material IROs in the respective sections of this Sustainability Statement in order to establish a direct link to our policies and actions.

ESRS standards Pollution (ESRS E2), Water and Marine Resources (ESRS E3), Biodiversity and Ecosystems (ESRS E4), Affected Communities (ESRS S3) and Consumers and End Users (ESRS S4) were found to be immaterial; Resource Use and Circular Economy (ESRS E5) was in the threshold range and also deemed immaterial.

Materiality analysis process (ESRS 2 IRO⁠–⁠1, IRO⁠–⁠2)

In 2023, we designed and executed our first materiality analysis based on the ESRS requirements for materiality. This involved identifying and assessing IROs in internal meetings of experts and carrying out in-depth assessments. The findings were discussed with both internal and external stakeholders.

The results of this materiality analysis are validated annually. In fiscal year 2025, a previously identified negative impact on workers in the value chain was given greater weight in the validation process and was therefore classified as material. The results of the materiality assessment were reconfirmed in fiscal year 2025.

Identifying impacts, risks and opportunities

Our starting point was to gain an understanding of the correlations between the impacts and dependencies of our business activities, our business relationships, our stakeholders and the sustainability matters set out in the ESRS. We additionally considered findings from previous materiality analyses, the Risk Management Report and information from the risk management system, findings from analyses of the German Act on Corporate Due Diligence in Supply Chains (LkSG) and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), capital market requirements and voluntary sustainability reporting standards. We then identified actual and potential impacts along with financial risks and opportunities.

This involved arranging workshops with experts from a range of specialist functions and business areas to discuss the topics at hand and to establish links between regional circumstances and the unique features of various business models. Matters of business conduct were also discussed, including with respect to legal requirements and the requirements set forth in our internal policies. In addition, separate workshops were held with experts from Corporate Procurement (for the upstream value chain) and from Sales & Marketing (for the customer perspective). One key focus of the analysis was on business relationships with heightened potential for negative impacts and risks. We also undertook a comprehensive location-based analysis of biodiversity aspects. This was followed by a thorough comparison with the risk management system. Individual sustainability-related risks and opportunities contained therein were supplemented. In addition, we interviewed external and internal stakeholders to ascertain their expectations and then incorporated the results into our analysis, stakeholder engagement.

Assessing impacts, risks and opportunities

Sustainability experts from our corporate divisions assessed the materiality of the identified IROs using a standardized, additive, points-based scoring method. The divisional assessments were aggregated and taken into account based on the division’s share in Group revenue and subsequently evaluated in terms of quality. Where sufficient data was available at Group level, it was included in the assessment of the relevant material IROs. The assessment of the upstream value chain was conducted in collaboration with representatives from Corporate Procurement, taking into account findings from existing due diligence processes.

The results were then validated after considering stakeholder interviews and further analyses of environmental factors (“nature as a silent stakeholder”).

Identifying material topics, impacts, risks and opportunities

Following the assessment, normalization and validation of individual IROs based on the quantitative assessment, an additional qualitative assessment was performed – for example, to account for cumulative impacts or findings from stakeholder interviews.

The material sustainability matters to be included in this Sustainability Statement were selected in a two-step process: First, an assessment was conducted at the sustainability matter level using aggregated IROs. Next, we assessed the extent to which individual IROs (outside of the sustainability matters identified as material in the first step) are material in their own right.

The concept of double materiality means that a sustainability matter is considered material if it exceeds the materiality thresholds set by the Group from either a financial perspective or from an impact perspective. To account for the ordinal nature of the point scale applied, a threshold zone was introduced ranging around 50% of the maximum score on each axis. Specific IROs relating to non-material topics were assessed separately by the Board of Management; sustainability matters or IROs assessed as being above the threshold were generally deemed to be material.

The sustainability matters and specific IROs deemed material for reporting purposes were set after final validation and examination for completeness by the Board of Management. Although the assessment of impacts is fundamentally subject to discretion, our step-by-step methodology and the numerous validations accompanying the process largely rule out distortions based on subjective assessments while ensuring that uniform standards are applied.

Process-specific aspects relating to certain sustainability matters

The steps in the materiality analysis process described above were applied to all ESRS sustainability matters. The following ESRS matters were additionally assessed using the methods described below.

• Climate-related impacts, risks and opportunities (ESRS E1): To identify and assess climate-related impacts, risks and opportunities, we established a process that integrates the findings from our existing analysis of climate resilience. This analysis was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) while taking the ESRS and EU Taxonomy into account and using a scenario analysis. The following time horizons were used as per the ESRS and our medium- to long-term strategic targets: short term (one year), medium term (one to five years) and long term (more than five years). In fiscal year 2025, physical climate risks were analyzed; for transition risks and opportunities, the results of previous analyses were validated. Sustainability risks are incorporated into our standard risk management process. Significant changes compared with the previous year were discussed with the responsible Board of Management member as part of the risk management process and assessed by the Risk Committee. We moreover evaluated our current and planned activities to identify GHG emissions and factors leading to additional climate-related impacts at our sites and in the upstream value chain. Our internal reports of GHG emissions served as the data basis, environment.
  
  Physical climate risks were analyzed in fiscal year 2025 as part of the climate resilience analysis. We identified potential short-, medium- and long-term climate-related hazards for our own business activities and sites, which could, for example, result from rising sea levels. We also assessed our exposure and sensitivity based on the geospatial coordinates of our sites, taking into account the likelihood of occurrence, magnitude, and duration of the respective hazard. Physical climate risks were analyzed for all locations and assessed both at portfolio level and individually for strategically important locations, with the climate risk data for location-specific geospatial coordinates being used as input. No material physical climate risks were identified. Sites in the value chain were not considered in the analysis.
  
  The analysis of resilience to physical climate risks was performed using a scenario analysis involving a high-emission climate scenario. The scenarios selected were the SSP (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) scenarios 1⁠–⁠2.6, 2⁠–⁠4.5, and 5⁠–⁠8.5, as well as the RCP scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways) 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which involve different concentrations of atmospheric GHG. The SSP scenarios model global warming in intervals of approximately 1 to 2.4, 2.1 to 3.5, and 3.3 to 5.7 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, while the RCP scenarios reflect an average global warming of less than 2, more than 2 or more than 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. The scenarios were selected due to their scientific basis, which results from the CMIP5 and CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects – Phase 5 and 6) model comparison projects and their use in science and industry. The analysis covered both current risk exposure as well as projected exposure to climate risk for the years or periods up to 2050 and 2100. The scenario analysis includes future projections and is subject to uncertainty regarding the assumed climate effects.
  
  Transition risks and opportunities were analyzed first in fiscal year 2023 with a focus on climate resilience and validated in fiscal year 2025 as part of the materiality analysis review. Our analysis identified potential short-, medium- and long-term climate-related transition events relating to our business activities and value chain and assessed our exposure to those transition events, taking into account the likelihood of occurrence and magnitude. Transition risks were identified and assessed at divisional level in internal workshops and as part of the materiality analysis and then aggregated at Group level. Material transition risks were identified in the process, most of which related to GHG emissions. The material transition risks and impacts identified reflect the fact that DHL Group has to undertake decarbonization efforts operating in a high climate impact sector. However, we did not identify any assets or business activities that are incompatible with the transition to a climate-neutral economy. Our actions and additional expenditures for decarbonization act to counteract the main transition risks and demonstrate that not only assets such as vehicle fleets and buildings but also business activities can become climate-neutral. For more information on decarbonization expenditures and the results thereof, please refer to environment.
  
  One component of our climate resilience analysis for transition risks was a scenario analysis, which included a scenario limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. In performing the scenario analysis, we selected the Sustainable Development Scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which focuses on the development and deployment of innovative technologies for the transition to energy from renewable sources as well as emissions-restrictive policies. In the analysis, data regarding price developments for sustainable technologies or developments in regulation for the projection years 2025, 2030, 2040 or 2050 were used as input. It found that the aforementioned scenario could negatively impact the Group in terms of the availability and pricing of decarbonization technologies or in the form of an increase in external carbon pricing. The scenario’s technology focus and applicability to DHL Group’s decarbonization strategy were the reasons for selecting it. Because scenario analyses include future projections, they are subject to uncertainty regarding the assumed climate effects and socio-economic consequences. The climate scenarios selected are consistent with the assumptions made for the climate-related valuation of our assets, note 8.
• Pollution (ESRS E2), water and marine resources (ESRS E3) and circular economy (ESRS E5): The determination of impacts, risks and opportunities associated with additional environmental topics follows the same process as described for the materiality analysis. Due to our business model, there was no need to review individual sites for these three topics. We did not consult with affected communities given that no material topics affecting such communities were identified.
• Biodiversity (ESRS E4): As part of a comprehensive analysis, all the Group’s own sites with an area of more than 3,200 m² were examined for potential impacts on biodiversity in 2023 and 2024. We assessed any potential negative impacts on all of the biodiversity protected areas located within 5 kilometers of our sites. The only negative impacts identified were of a limited scope, and related primarily to noise and light pollution. Since fiscal year 2025, biodiversity aspects have been reviewed as part of the investment controlling process when deciding on locations. No direct dependencies on biodiversity, ecosystems and their functions (including ecosystem services) were identified for our business model. Therefore, there are no relevant physical, transition or systemic risks. No separate consultations with affected communities were held, as no material topics relating to such communities were identified.
• Workers in the value chain (ESRS S2): This aspect primarily covers workers who are contracted by our suppliers and are subject to their instructions, or perform outsourced services at our sites, e.g. tradespeople or external freight forwarders. Material impacts, risks and opportunities were identified using the findings from previous analyses by Corporate Procurement on the implementation of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the German Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains (LkSG). We are already obligated under those legal requirements to incorporate responsible action into our value chain, our business model and our strategy. Corporate Procurement has defined risk categories and allocated them to the respective procurement category, management of relationships with suppliers.