Climate Change

We are demonstrating leadership in the transition to a low-carbon economy within the industry and beyond.

Our approach

We are committed to facilitating the transition to a low-carbon economy by aligning our strategy and business model with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. We see two ways to make this happen: one, by directly ensuring the efficiency of our own operations; two, by indirectly helping to reduce the carbon footprint of the buildings and projects to which we supply our products.

The integration of the sustainability governance and risk management framework into the company’s overall Shape to Growth strategy and decision-making processes described in the Governance and Sustainability Risk Management sections of this Report (see: General Information) extends to climate-related risks and opportunities, metrics, and target setting.

We use the latest scientific knowledge to guide a sound management approach, and our emission reduction targets have been validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Both our operational (Scope 1+2) and value chain (Scope 3) targets were approved by the SBTi in 2021.

Our energy consumption and GHG emission reduction program is part of our global Environment Directive. Furthermore, our Environment, Health & Safety, and Sustainable Products Expert Groups — as well as local management teams and QHSE staff — are developing and implementing initiatives to achieve the related targets.

Climate scenario analysis

dormakaba is dedicated to integrating climate-related risks and opportunities into our company-wide strategic decision-making. This approach not only helps us to maintain our competitive edge and prepare for the future but also signals our commitment to meeting the needs and expectations of stakeholders and society. In short, doing the right thing for the planet benefits everyone.

As part of our broader risk management framework, we have identified material risks and opportunities, not least those related to climate change (see Sustainability Risk Management section).

Transition scenario analysis

A turning point in our efforts to reduce our carbon footprint came when we conducted an in-depth scenario analysis of our business with a focus on climate change mitigation. We mapped this analysis on to business decisions, financial plans and capital allocation as a means of identifying climate-related risks and feasible opportunities.

We can break down the scenario analysis into three primary activities related to transition risk:

1. Identifying current and future risks and opportunities relating to the transition to more environmentally friendly material flows (in alignment with our risk assessment framework)
2. Calculating the financial impact that these risks and opportunities could have and how they may influence dormakaba’s financial planning and operational strategy
3. Evaluating the main transition risks and opportunities based on two distinct emissions scenarios across three time frames: short-term (0–1 years), medium-term (1–3 years) and long-term (3–15 years). The long-term time frame currently deviates from our broader risk management process, which formally looks at short-term and medium-term time frames. The two scenarios mentioned are based on frameworks from the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS):

• Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) assumes that the conditional NDC commitments are implemented in full and that the energy and emissions targets will be reached in every country in 2025 and again in 2030, leading to a global warming rate of approximately 2.6°C.
• Divergent Net Zero assumes that the world will reach net-zero emissions by around 2050, albeit with higher costs due to divergent policies introduced across sectors, leading to a quicker phase-out of oil. Under this scenario, global warming will be limited to 1.5°C, in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

Physical climate scenario analysis

In FY 23/24 we conducted a first climate scenario analysis into the physical risk profile (whether acute or chronic) of our operations to identify both vulnerabilities and adaptation opportunities, and make strategic decisions to boost our resilience across all aspects of the business. The assessment was based on climate model projections presented by the following three Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs):

• RCP2.6: Aggressive mitigation assumes global annual GHG emissions will peak between 2010 and 2020, with emissions declining substantially after this point.
• RCP4.5: Strong mitigation assumes emissions will peak around 2040, after which they will decline.
• RCP8.5: Business-as-usual assumes emissions will continue to rise throughout the 21st century.

Each pathway predicts future greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human activities, with varying degrees of physical impact. Since the initial assessment, an annual review is conducted on the basis of RCP8.5.

The measures we have derived from our scenario analysis approach incorporate both the financial side of our business and our operational strategy. The idea is to integrate climate-related and risk management initiatives into all our solutions and processes, as this will allow us to become more resilient as a company in the long term — and help our customers become more sustainable, too.

Climate-related risks and opportunities

Transition risks and opportunities

As the world shifts towards a low-carbon, climate-friendly future, our business will need to overcome a range of societal and economic challenges. With this in mind, we conducted a literature review as well as several interviews and workshops with colleagues from our risk, strategy, operations and sustainability teams to identify key climate transition risks and opportunities. After drawing up a long-list of related risks, we settled on six transition risk clusters and assessed their individual impacts:

• Financial and investment: The transition to a low-carbon economy will require investments in research and development. Having sufficient access to financing and investment will likely accelerate the pace of this transition (with reduced financing having the opposite effect).
• Markets: Volatile energy and raw material prices projected based on both emissions scenarios are expected to have a tangible impact on dormakaba’s suppliers and our own production costs.
• Technology: Breakthrough technologies can help reduce company and downstream GHG emissions, improve the carbon performance and marketability of products, and deliver gains in cost efficiency, operational performance, energy efficiency, and reliability. However, rapid technological advancement also intensifies competition across the industry and may create risks for companies that fail to innovate or adapt quickly.
• Legal: dormakaba may face legal challenges from regulators or other parties alleging non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
• Reputation: Our reputation may suffer in the public eye (customers, investors, other stakeholders, etc.) if we fail to address climate change or meet our climate-related targets. This can lead to a loss of trust, credibility, and financial buoyancy.
• Regulatory: Some policy measures or uncertainty regarding how or when to implement them could have a negative impact on production costs and potentially affect our market growth.

Sixteen transition risks and three opportunities were identified in these six risk clusters:

Overall transition risks rating

Long-term risks tend to have a higher significance and likelihood that they will occur. This is especially the case under the Divergent Net Zero scenario, where climate-related transition challenges are expected to be more severe. The exception is the “insurance” risk, which refers to disaster and catastrophe insurance premiums; they may be lower in a world where global warming has increased by only 1.5°C.

To calculate the overall risk ratings across various time horizons, we applied the following weightings: 50% for short-term risks (0–1 years), 30% for medium-term risks (1–3 years), and 20% for long-term risks (3–15 years). These weightings reflect a lower level of certainty when it comes to long-term projections.

Of the 16 risks identified, six come with a high impact and likelihood of occurrence in either or both climate scenarios. The most significant is rising carbon prices due to national and international carbon schemes. This, combined with the increasing cost of globally sourced goods, could lead both to higher operating costs and a fall in demand due to escalating product prices. This is especially important to consider when looking at future mergers and acquisitions and the procurement of machinery (due to their energy consumption).

By the end of 2030, the annual carbon costs for our own Scope 1+2 emissions could range from USD 12 to 89 million (this would be lower under the NDCs scenario and higher under the Divergent Net Zero scenario).

Another factor to consider is the unquestionable increase in the price of raw materials. For instance, European enterprises importing aluminum and steel from outside the EU will face higher costs due to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and associated Scope 3 emissions.

Most significant transition risks and impacts

Most significant transition opportunities and impacts

Physical risks and impacts

We have adopted a data-driven approach to identify and analyze those physical climate-related risks likely to have the greatest impact on our global operations. We also used this approach to map how these risks may evolve under different trajectories according to the three emissions scenarios as mentioned above, known as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs).

We evaluated the following risk types based on Verisk Maplecroft’s risk indices: climate change exposure; coastal flooding hazard; cooling degree days; drought hazard; extra-tropical cyclone hazard; flood hazard; heat stress; heating degree days; sea level rise; severe storm hazard; tropical storm and cyclone hazard; and water stress and wildfire hazard.

We conduct an annual high-level climate risk assessment of all sites across our operational regions and follow this up with a comprehensive assessment of our most important locations. These locations were designated as “material sites”, with the categorization being awarded based on factors such as net sales, number of employees, and tangible asset value based on a relative ranking of all other locations.

Based on these results, we have developed site-specific scorecards and benchmarks for each site, geography, and business entity. In FY 25/26, these were shared with the respective local management teams, along with recommended mitigation measures tailored to each risk type. As part of these discussions, local teams were tasked with quantifying the anticipated financial effects on asset value and net revenue as per ESRS E1-11. In the upcoming financial year, additional hazard types such as extreme low/high temperature, extreme precipitation, chronic change in precipitation, etc. will be considered and a clearer differentiation on short-, medium- and long-term time horizons aligned to ESRS will be implemented.

Material sites at extreme or high risk are considered high-priority sites for climate adaptation. These sites will be tasked with defining and implementing climate adaptation actions by FY 27/28, while other sites are given additional time to develop and implement their adaptation plans.

While some hazards have a low risk of exposure for dormakaba, such as coastal flood and landslide, others, such as severe storm, heating degree days, heat stress, drought and water stress, have a higher risk across multiple locations. The table below shows the types of climate risks applying to our material sites:

Most significant physical risks

Geographical exposure to physical risks

Resilience of our company strategy

The overall conclusion of these analyses is that there are no indications of any risks that could significantly threaten dormakaba’s overall business continuity in the short, medium or long term. We remain committed to mitigating the risks identified, as this will allow us to safeguard our operations and maintain our competitive edge.

This includes:

• Increasing our investment in low-carbon technologies and in the course of capital allocation decisions through our climate transition plan.
• Developing quantification methodologies to gauge the potential financial implications of transition risks beyond carbon prices.
• Continuing to refine methodologies on the potential financial implications associated with the identified physical risks, along with the costs involved in implementing the mitigation measures.
• Continuing to evaluate the carbon emissions of potential acquisitions and apply carbon pricing into mergers and acquisitions decisions.
• Continuing to evaluate and promote the diversification of energy sources and sources of supply for key commodities.
• Continuing to develop more energy-efficient products to leverage green building market opportunities.

We also conducted a transition risk analysis, this time using two climate change scenarios as our basis. The analysis factored in three dimensions: likelihood, significance, and time frame (see previous sections).

Internal carbon pricing

To mitigate our highest-priority transition risk — increasing carbon prices — we apply shadow carbon pricing to all non-IT fixed asset investment decisions and M&A due diligence processes. A dynamic carbon price, ranging from CHF 43 to CHF 99 per tCO₂ depending on the year, is integrated into cashflow, EBITDA, and internal rate of return calculations. The average carbon price projections are calculated along the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) scenario based on an unweighted average across all dormakaba’s countries of operation, and an 8% discount rate is applied based on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) listed in our financial filings.

The investment application provides the user with transparency on the total cost of energy (electricity and/or heating fuels) and total cost of carbon for the entire lifetime of the machinery up until 2045. This ensures that both environmental and financial considerations are central to our investment strategies, supporting our commitment to sustainable growth.

Our climate transition plan

We are opening the doors wide to a low-carbon economy. We aim to be net zero by 2050 at the latest. Let’s look closer at our near-term Scope 1+2 targets.

Absolute emissions targets: Scope 1+2

As approved by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), our target is to reduce absolute Scope 1+2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 42% by 2030, in line with a 1.5°C future, without the use of carbon offsets (baseline 74,770 tCO₂e in FY 19/20*). This means total emissions savings of 31,403 tCO₂e versus the baseline. Any residual emissions will then be voluntarily compensated through Gold Standard offsets to achieve our target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030. In line with our science-based emission reduction targets, we aim to reduce the energy intensity of our operations by 25% by 2030 (baseline 100.5 MWh/mCHF in FY 19/20).

Our strategy

To achieve the 42% reduction (31,403 tCO₂e) of Scope 1 and 2 emissions, we have set must-have initiatives along six levers, which must be completed by 2030. These initiatives are executed at dormakaba sites, where we can have the largest impact on reducing our CO₂ emissions. The climate transition plan was approved by the Executive Committee and Board of Directors as part of our Sustainability Framework and target-setting approval process described here. We are on track with our Scope 1 and 2 climate action plan and have already achieved a 26% reduction since the baseline in FY 19/20.

Our levers and contributing locations

Absolute emissions targets: Scope 3 Category 1 and 11

We have also set a target to reduce our value chain emissions (Scope 3) from purchased goods and services, and the use of sold products by 25% by 2030 (baseline 734,850 tCO₂e in FY 19/20*).

Scope 3 emissions constitute around 90% of our combined Scope 1, 2, and 3 carbon emissions, highlighting the importance of Scope 3 emissions for our climate strategy. While setting our baselines, we carried out screening across all relevant Scope 3 emissions categories, which showed that the largest sources of Scope 3 emissions are Category 1: Purchased goods and services and Category 11: Use of sold products. This is why we have set our SBTi targets based on these two categories.

We do not yet have a granular climate transition plan for Scope 3 Category 1, primarily because emissions data is reported on spend or on a material type basis, rather than disaggregated to an individual supplier level. This means we have little leverage to encourage suppliers to decarbonize. To address this, in FY 25/26 we started to collect primary CO₂ data from our most carbon-intensive suppliers. In the meantime, we are working closely with metal suppliers to evaluate if they can deliver low-carbon goods with higher recycled content to build a preferred supplier database and evaluate potential switches. We plan to have the Scope 3 transition plan ready in FY 26/27.

* Base year determined based on SBTi submission

Innovation for a low-carbon economy

When it comes to primary energy consumption, the building sector is one of the world’s largest energy consumers, making its impact on climate change significant. As part of our Scope 3 Category 11 strategy, our new products have best-in-class energy efficiency. A key enabler has been our digital Product CO₂ Inventory Tool, which provides information on the carbon emissions of around 350 energy-consuming products during their use phase (the calculation method is in line with the GHG Protocol), including those that are battery-operated or connected to the electricity grid. This facilitates product development and optimization activities to create more energy-efficient products and also contributes to our target of decreasing Scope 3 emissions from the use phase of sold products.

We continue to include the top ten carbon-intensive products identified by the tool in our sustainability initiatives tracker, tasking product development teams with evaluating and implementing energy efficiency strategies for them.

We also offer sustainable solutions to help address Scope 4 (avoided) emissions, such as Motion IQ and the Door Efficiency Calculator. MotionIQ is an intelligent sensor system which ensures that automatic doors only open when they really need to and for no longer than necessary. This means the doors move less frequently, thus reducing air exchange and the energy needed for heating or cooling. Using the MotionIQ system together with swing door operators typically saves 50% of energy versus without. Additionally, the service life of the drive technology is extended, as unnecessary openings are avoided.

The Door Efficiency Calculator helps customers compare and analyze different automatic doors in terms of their impact on a building’s airflow, energy use, and CO₂ emissions, depending on factors such as building type, usage, and typical weather conditions for the site. This enables more informed decisions and supports the selection of the most energy-efficient entrance solution for each building.

Our performance

Scope 1 and 2 emissions

For further metrics on energy and  emissions, please see our ESG Performance Table.

ESG Performance Table

Greenhouse gas emissions by source (tCO₂e)

Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions (tCO₂e)¹

1Greenhouse gas inventory calculated in accordance with the WRI/WBCSD Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Main emission factor sources: UK Defra (2025), US EPA eGRID (2023), IEA (2025), AIB (2024), Intep (2024), ecoinvent v3.12, and Exiobase v3.8.2.

2The greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity consumption above are reported according to the “market-based approach”, as defined in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 2 Guidance. Please see our ESG Performance Table for further details.

3Market-based Scope 2 GHG emissions are calculated using contractual instruments where available, including renewable electricity supply contracts, green electricity products, and energy attribute certificates such as Guarantees of Origin, RECs, I-RECs, or equivalent instruments depending on the market. Where contractual instruments are not available or do not fully cover electricity consumption, residual mix factors, supplier-specific factors, or other applicable grid-average emission factors are used. Generation technologies vary by country, supplier, and instrument type and may include renewable technologies as well as broader grid or residual mixes where applicable. Further country-level details are disclosed in dormakaba’s CDP response.

In FY 25/26, our total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1+2) amounted to around 55,000 tCO₂e. Nearly half of these emissions are attributed to electricity consumption, followed by vehicle fuel use. Key decarbonization projects and initiatives launched during the year are expected to avoid approximately 2,300 tCO₂e. Among these, energy efficiency and heating fuels reduction measures will deliver annual energy savings of 3,331 MWh. Overall energy consumption increased by 1.3% to 247,618 MWh, and energy intensity remained relatively stable at 88.7 MWh/mCHF net sales vs. 85.1 MWh/mCHF in the previous year.

Key decarbonization activities

Scope 3 emissions: Category 1 and 11

Scope 3 emissions: purchased goods and services (tCO₂e)^{1, 2}

Scope 3 emissions: use phase of products (tCO₂e)³

Achieved GHG reductions

In alignment with our decarbonization strategy, GHG removals and/or financed GHG mitigation projects through carbon credits have not been utilized during this reporting period.

EU Taxonomy