Locations
60+ international
Employees
Over 13,000 in 30 countries
Production
3.1Mt annually
Markets
130 countries served
CSRD topics
E1, E3, E4, S1
Key outcomes
asset-linked decisions.
01
Asset-level physical climate risk analysis integrated into CSRD reporting (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) at individual site level, a capability that was previously absent
02
Biodiversity assessments of forest sites initiated using remote-sensing proxies adapted to managed forest ecosystems
03
Biodiversity and climate risk outputs fed directly into internal risk management and purchasing strategy
04
Regulatory coverage across EU Taxonomy and CSRD E1 (climate), E3 (water) and E4 (biodiversity)
05
Supplier engagement framework in development, grounded in pre-assessed biodiversity hotspot data rather than broad, unstructured data requests
The context
A global packaging group with forest ecosystems at its core.
MM Group is a global packaging company listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange, operating across 60+ international locations through three core divisions: Board & Paper, which produces cartonboard, and Packaging, two divisions which manufacture folding cartons. The company employs over 13,000 people in 30 countries and serves customers in 130 countries worldwide. In its Board & Paper division alone, MM produces approximately 3.1 million tonnes of cartonboard, paper and pulp annually, equivalent to roughly 8,600 tonnes per day.
Because the business depends on healthy forest ecosystems, biodiversity and ecosystem health are not peripheral ESG considerations but core strategic risks. MM Group is a CSRD-affected company and has reported CSRD, aligned since FY 2024, covering material topics including E1 (climate), E3 (water consumption — highly significant given the volumes required in paper manufacturing), E4 (biodiversity), and S1 (social).
Why this mattered
Healthy forests are not a CSR topic.
They’re a balance sheet input.
Two interconnected gaps existed before engaging refinq. The first was granularity. The company had implemented climate risk assessments, but these were predominantly long-horizon scenario analyses of what climate change could mean for the business as a whole. What was missing was an asset-based layer: a clear view of physical climate risks at specific operational sites. Without it, CSRD E1 disclosures and EU Taxonomy alignment rested on an incomplete foundation.
The second was scientific specificity in biodiversity measurement. The biodiversity data available on the market was either too aggregated to be actionable or not designed for the ecosystems MM Group actually depends on. A biodiversity score comparing listed companies does not answer the question that matters: what is the state of forest biodiversity in the specific woodlands that supply the mills? Answering that question requires not only remote sensing data, but the scientific expertise to select and interpret the right proxies for that particular ecosystem type, and the flexibility to adapt the methodology where no standard approach yet exists.
Without reliable, asset-linked data, key questions were nearly impossible to answer with confidence:
How exposed are individual operational sites to physical climate risks? What is the actual state of forest biodiversity in the specific woodlands that supply our mills? Where are the hotspots that should drive supplier engagement and target-setting?
Asset-level climate risk assessment
Providing the site-specific analytical layer the existing framework lacked, directly addressing the ESRS E1 requirement and strengthening EU Taxonomy disclosure by shifting climate risk from a narrative to a documented, site-specific assessment.
Biodiversity assessment adapted to forest ecosystems
Assessing the suppliers closest to the forest via remote-sensing proxies, with the methodology tailored to managed forest ecosystems (distinct in indicators, baselines, and interpretation from standard industrial or urban assessments). This adaptability and flexibility to tailor the methodology to a personal use case was central to MM Group’s decision to select refinq, particularly for assessing forest biodiversity at supply chain scale.
Enabling targeted, evidence-based supplier engagement
Building a pre-assessed view of supplier forest quality so conversations begin already knowing where biodiversity risk is elevated, replacing broad, unverifiable questionnaires with focused, evidence-based engagement.
Three building blocks of the MM Group implementation.
How this impacted MM Group
From aggregated scores to
asset-linked decisions.
The breakthrough came when biodiversity and climate risks stopped being aggregated index scores or long-horizon narratives and became measurable, asset-linked variables. The discussion shifted from: “What might an aggregated biodiversity score suggest about our company?” to “What is the actual state of biodiversity in the forests that supply our mills, and where should we act first?” That change allowed sustainability considerations to feed directly into internal risk management and purchasing strategy rather than remaining a standalone reporting exercise.
What refinq delivers
CSRD / ESRS E1, E3, E4 & S1 · EU Taxonomy (DNSH) · TNFD
What MM Group can do now.
01
Assess physical climate risks at individual site level in support of CSRD E1 and EU Taxonomy disclosure
02
Ground E4 biodiversity reporting in quantitative, proxy-based data rather than qualitative statements
03
Systematically assess biodiversity risks arising from its dependency on managed forests and feed them into internal risk management and purchasing strategy
04
Build a pre-assessed view of supplier biodiversity conditions, enabling targeted rather than broad, resource-intensive engagement
05
Anchor its biodiversity strategy in peer-reviewed scientific methodology and current remote-sensing research rather than composite indices
In Their Own Words
What MM Group says about working with refinq.
Bernhard Heneis
MM GROUP
Jakob Martin
MM Group
