Carbon Disclosure Project

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009

Australia & New Zealand
On behalf of 475 investors with assets of over $US55 trillion

CDP Partner CDP Sponsor CDP Sponsor CDP Sponsor

www.igcc.org.au www.gsjbw.com www.csf.com.au www.booz.com.au
Nathan Fabian Andrew Gray Robert Clancy Greg Lavery
+61 2 9255 0290 +61 3 9679 1435 +61 3 9648 4710 +61 2 9321 1900
secretariat@igcc.org.au andrewgray@gsjbw.com rclancy@csf.com.au greg.lavery@booz.com

print next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 CDP Members 2009 Generation Investment

Management  UK
This report and all of the public
responses from corporations are Grupo Santander Brasil Brazil
available to download free of charge
from www.cdproject.net. ING  Netherlands
ABRAPP - Associação KLP Insurance  Norway
Brasileira das Entidades
Fechadas de Previdência Legg Mason, Inc.  US
Complementar  Brazil Libra Fund, L.P.  US
Aegon N.V.  Netherlands London Pensions Fund
AIG Investments  US Authority  UK
APG Investments Mistra, Foundation for
Netherlands Strategic Environmental
Research  Sweden
ASN Bank  Netherlands
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial
ATP Group  Denmark Group (MUFG)  Japan
Aviva Investors  UK Morgan Stanley Investment
AXA Group  France Management  US
Bank of America Corporation National Australia Bank
US Limited  Australia
BBVA  Spain Neuberger Berman  US
BlackRock  US Newton Investment
BP Investment Management Limited  UK
Management Limited  UK Northwest and Ethical
Caisse de dépôt et Investments LP  Canada
placement du Québec Pictet Asset Management SA
Canada Switzerland
California Public Employees’ Rabobank  Netherlands
Retirement System  US Robeco  Netherlands
California State Teachers Russell Investments  UK
Retirement System  US
Schroders  UK
Calvert Group  US
Second Swedish National
Catholic Super  Australia Pension Fund (AP2)  Sweden
CCLA Investment Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.
Management Ltd  UK Japan
CIBC  Canada Standard Chartered PLC  UK
Daiwa Asset Sun Life Financial Inc.
Management Co. Ltd Japan Canada
Essex Investment Swiss Reinsurance Company
Management, LLC  US Switzerland
Ethos Foundation Switzerland The RBS Group  UK
Folksam  Sweden The Wellcome Trust  UK
Fortis Investments  Belgium Zurich Cantonal Bank
Switzerland

2

CDP Signatories 2009
475 institutional investors with assets
of over US$55 trillion were signatories
to the CDP 2009 information request
dated 1st February 2009, including:
Aachener Grundvermögen
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH  Germany
Aberdeen Asset Managers  UK
Acuity Funds  Canada
Addenda Capital Inc.  Canada
Advanced Investment Partners  US
Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd  South Africa
Aegon N.V.  Netherlands
Aeneas Capital Advisors  US
AGF Management Limited  Canada
AIG Investments  US
Alberta Investment Management Corporation
(AIMCo)  Canada
Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund  Canada
Alcyone Finance  France
Allianz Group  Germany
Altshuler Shacham LTD  Israel
AMP Capital Investors  Australia
AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH  Germany
APG Investments  Netherlands
ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance)
Australia
Arkitekternes Pensionskasse  Denmark
Artus Direct Invest AG  Germany
ASB Community Trust  New Zealand
ASN Bank  Netherlands
ATP Group  Denmark
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
Limited  Australia
Australian Ethical Investment Limited  Australia
AustralianSuper  Australia
Aviva Investors  UK
Aviva plc  UK
AXA Group  France
Baillie Gifford & Co.  UK
Bakers Investment Group  Australia
Banco  Sweden
Banco Bradesco S.A  Brazil
Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A.  Argentina
Banco do Brazil  Brazil
Banco Santander, S.A.  Spain
Banesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade
Social  Brazil
Bank of America Corporation  US
Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd  Switzerland
Bank Vontobel  Switzerland
BANKINTER S.A.  Spain
Barclays Group  UK
BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
Germany
BBC Pension Trust Ltd  UK
BBVA  Spain
Bedfordshire Pension Fund  UK
Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd  Canada

BlackRock  US DB Advisors Deutsche Asset Management
Germany
Blue Marble Capital Management Limited  Canada
DEFO – Deutsche Fonds für
BMO Financial Group  Canada
Immobilienvermögen GmbH  Germany
BNP Paribas Investment Partners  France
DEGI Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Boston Common Asset Management, LLC  US Immobilienfonds mbH  Germany
BP Investment Management Limited  UK Deka FundMaster Investmentgesellschaft mbH
Germany
Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A.  Brazil
Deka Investment GmbH  Germany
British Columbia Investment Management
Corporation (bcIMC)  Canada DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale  Germany
BT Financial Group  Australia Deutsche Bank  Germany
BT Investment Management  Australia Deutsche Postbank Privat Investment
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH  Germany
Busan Bank  South Korea
Development Bank of Japan  Japan
CAAT Pension Plan  Canada
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec  Canada
Philippines
Caisse des Dépôts  France
Dexia Asset Management  France
Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco
DnB NOR ASA  Norway
do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF)  Brazil
Domini Social Investments LLC  US
Caixa Econômica Federal  Brazil
DPG Deutsche Performancemessungs-
Caixa Geral de Depósitos  Portugal
Gesellschaft für Wertpapierportfolio mbh Germany
California Public Employees’
East Sussex Pension Fund  UK
Retirement System  US
Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social  Brazil
California State Teachers Retirement System  US
ELETRA – Fundação Celg de Seguros e
California State Treasurer  US
Previdência  Brazil
Calvert Group  US
Environment Agency Active Pension fund  UK
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board  Canada
Epworth Investment Management  UK
Canadian Friends Service Committee
Erste Group Bank AG  Austria
(Quakers)  Canada
Essex Investment Management, LLC  US
CAPESESP  Brazil
Ethos Foundation  Switzerland
Capital Innovations, LLC  US
Eureko B.V.  Netherlands
CARE Super Pty Ltd  Australia
Eurizon Capital SGR  Italy
Carlson Investment Management  Sweden
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension
Carmignac Gestion  France
Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers  Canada
Catherine Donnelly Foundation  Canada
Evli Bank Plc  Finland
Catholic Super  Australia
F&C Management Ltd  UK
Cbus Superannuation Fund  Australia
Faelba  Brazil
CCLA Investment Management Ltd  UK
FAELCE – Fundação Coelce de Seguridade Social
Central Finance Board of the Brazil
Methodist Church  UK
Fédéris Gestion d’Actifs  France
Ceres, Inc.  US
First Affirmative Financial Network  US
Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP  UK
First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Sweden
CI Mutual Funds’ Signature Advisors  Canada
FirstRand Ltd.  South Africa
CIBC  Canada
Fishman & Co.  Israel
Clean Yield Group, Inc.  US
Five Oceans Asset Management Pty Limited
ClearBridge Advisors, Socially Aware Investment Australia
US
Florida State Board of Administration (SBA)  US
Close Brothers Group plc  UK
Folksam  Sweden
Colonial First State Global Asset Management
Fondaction CSN  Canada
Australia
Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites – FRR France
Comite syndical national de retraite Bâtirente
Canada Fortis Bank Nederland  Netherlands
Commerzbank AG  Germany Fortis Investments  Belgium
CommInsure  Australia Forward Management, LLC  US
Companhia de Seguros Aliança do Brasil  Brazil Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4)
Sweden
Compton Foundation, Inc.  US
Frankfurter Service Kapitalanlagegesellschaft
Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds US
mbH  Germany
Co-operative Financial Services (CFS)  UK
FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft
Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. mbH  Germany
Bhd.  Malaysia
Franklin Templeton Investment Services Gmbh
Crédit Agricole Asset Management  France Germany
Credit Suisse  Switzerland Frater Asset Management  South Africa
Daegu Bank  South Korea Friends Provident  UK
Daiwa Securities Group Inc.  Japan Front Street Capital  Canada
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
Fukoku Capital Management Inc  Japan
Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social –
Brasiletros  Brazil
Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social  Brazil
Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social  Brazil
Fundação CEEE de Seguridade Social –
ELETROCEEE  Brazil
Fundação Codesc de Seguridade Social –
FUSESC  Brazil
Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do
BNDES – FAPES  Brazil
Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social –
FORLUZ  Brazil
Fundação Promon de Previdência Social  Brazil
Fundação São Francisco de Seguridade Social
Brazil
Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social
– VALIA  Brazil
FUNDIÁGUA - Fundação de Previdência da
Companhia de Saneamento e Ambiental do
Distrito Federal  Brazil
Gartmore Investment Management Ltd  UK
Generation Investment Management  UK
Genus Capital Management  Canada
Gjensidige Forsikring  Norway
GLG Partners LP  UK
Goldman Sachs & Co.  US
Governance for Owners  UK
Government Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”),
Republic of South Africa  South Africa
Green Cay Asset Management  Bahamas
Green Century Funds  US
Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc.  Canada
GROUPE OFI AM  France
GrowthWorks Capital Ltd.  Canada
Grupo Banco Popular  Spain
Grupo Santander Brasil  Brazil
Gruppo Monte Paschi  Italy
Guardian Ethical Management Inc  Canada
Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation  National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland Ireland
New Zealand
Hang Seng Bank  Hong Kong
HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbH
Germany
Harrington Investments  US
Hastings Funds Management Limited  Australia
Hazel Capital LLP  UK
Health Super Fund  Australia
Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
Germany
Henderson Global Investors  UK
Hermes Fund Managers  UK
HESTA Super  Australia
Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP)
Canada
HSBC Holdings plc  UK
Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co, Ltd  Nissay Asset Management Corporation  Japan
South Korea
IDBI Bank Limited  India
Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company
Finland
Impax Group plc  UK
Industrial Bank  China
Industry Funds Management  Australia
4
Infrastructure Development Finance Company
Ltd. (IDFC)  India
ING  Netherlands
Inhance Investment Management Inc  Canada
Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd  UK
Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e
Telégrafos- Postalis  Brazil
Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social –
INFRAPREV  Brazil
Insurance Australia Group  Australia
Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
Germany
Investec Asset Management  UK
Itaú Unibanco Banco Múltiplo S.A.  Brazil
J.P. Morgan Asset Management  US
Janus Capital Group Inc.  US
Jarislowsky Fraser Limited  Canada
Jubitz Family Foundation  US
Jupiter Asset Management  UK
K&H Investment Fund Management/K&H
Befektetési Alapkezelö Zrt  Hungary
KB Kookmin Bank  South Korea
KBC Asset Management NV  Belgium
KCPS and Company  Israel
KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd.  South Korea
Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, LP  US
KfW Bankengruppe  Germany
Kibo Technology Fund  South Korea
KLP Insurance  Norway
Korea Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd.
South Korea
KPA Pension  Sweden
Kyobo Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd.
South Korea
La Banque Postale Asset Management  France
La Financiere Responsable  France
LBBW – Landesbank Baden-Württemberg
Germany
LBBW Asset Management GmbH  Germany
LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond  Denmark
Legal & General Group plc  UK
Legg Mason, Inc.  US
Lend Lease Investment Management  Australia
Libra Fund, L.P.  US
Light Green Advisors, LLC  US
Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A.
Switzerland
Local Authority Pension Fund Forum  UK
Local Government Superannuation Scheme
Australia
Local Super SA-NT  Australia
Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie  Switzerland
London Pensions Fund Authority  UK
Lothian Pension Fund  UK
Macif Gestion  France
Macquarie Group Limited  Australia
Magnolia Charitable Trust  US
Maine State Treasurer  US
Man Group plc  UK
Maple-Brown Abbott Limited  Australia
Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc.  US
Maryland State Treasurer  US
McLean Budden  Canada
MEAG Munich Ergo Asset Management GmbH
Germany
MEAG Munich Ergo
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH  Germany
Meeschaert Gestion Privée  France
Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company  Japan
Merck Family Fund  US
Mergence Africa Investments (Pty) Limited 
South Africa
Meritas Mutual Funds  Canada
Metzler Investment Gmbh  Germany
Midas International Asset Management 
South Korea
Miller/Howard Investments  US
Mirae Investment Asset Management 
South Korea
Mistra, Foundation for Strategic
Environmental Research  Sweden
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)  Japan
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd.  Japan
Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.  Japan
Mn Services  Netherlands
Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH  Germany
Morgan Stanley Investment Management  US
Motor Trades Association of Australia
Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd  Australia
MP Pension – Pensionskassen for Magistre
og Psykologer  Denmark
Munich Re Group  Germany
Mutual Insurance Company
Pension-Fennia  Finland
Natcan Investment Management  Canada
Nathan Cummings Foundation, The  US
National Australia Bank Limited  Australia
National Bank of Canada  Canada
National Bank of Kuwait  Kuwait
National Grid Electricity Group of the
Electricity Supply Pension Scheme  UK
National Grid UK Pension Scheme  UK
Natixis  France
Needmor Fund  US
Nest Sammelstiftung  Switzerland
Neuberger Berman  US
New Alternatives Fund Inc.  US
New Jersey Division of Investment  US
New Mexico State Treasurer  US
New York City Employees Retirement System  US
New York City Teachers Retirement System  US
New York State Common Retirement Fund
(NYSCRF)  US
Newton Investment Management Limited  UK
NFU Mutual Insurance Society  UK
NH-CA Asset Management  South Korea
Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd.  Japan
Nordea Investment Management  Sweden
Norfolk Pension Fund  UK
Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)
Norway
Norinchukin Zenkyouren Asset
Management Co., Ltd  Japan
North Carolina State Treasurer  US
Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’
Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC)  UK

Northern Trust  US
Northwest and Ethical Investments LP  Canada
Oddo & Cie  France
Old Mutual plc  UK
OMERS Administration Corporation  Canada
Ontario Teachers Pension Plan  Canada
Opplysningsvesenets fond
(The Norwegian Church Endowment)  Norway
Oregon State Treasurer  US
Orion Asset Management LLC  US
Pax World Funds  US
PBU – Pension Fund of Early Childhood Teachers
Denmark
Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists
Denmark
Pension Protection Fund  UK
Pensionskassen for Jordbrugsakademikere
og Dyrlæger  Denmark
PETROS – The Fundação Petrobras
de Seguridade Social  Brazil
PFA Pension  Denmark
PGGM  Netherlands
Phillips, Hager & North Investment
Management Ltd.  Canada
PhiTrust Active Investors  France
Pictet Asset Management SA  Switzerland
Pioneer Alapkezelö Zrt.  Hungary
Pioneer Investments
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH  Germany
PKA  Denmark
Portfolio 21 Investments  US
Portfolio Partners  Australia
Porto Seguro S.A.  Brazil
PPM Premiepensionsmyndigheten  Sweden
PRECE Previdência Complementar  Brazil
PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários
do Banco do Brasil  Brazil
Principle Capital Partners Limited  UK
PSP Investments  Canada
QBE Insurance Group Limited  Australia
Q Capital Partners  South Korea
Railpen Investments  UK
Rathbones/Rathbone Greenbank Investments  UK
Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e
Assistência Social  Brazil
Rei Super  Australia
Rhode Island General Treasurer  US
RLAM  UK
Robeco  Netherlands
Rose Foundation for Communities and
the Environment  US
Royal Bank of Canada  Canada
RREEF Investment GmbH  Germany
Russell Investments  UK
SAM Group  Switzerland
Sanlam Investment Management  South Africa
Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda  Brazil
Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen  Germany
Savings & Loans Credit Union (S.A.) Limited.
Australia
Schroders  UK
Scotiabank  Canada
Scottish Widows Investment Partnership  UK
SEB  Sweden
SEB Asset Management AG  Germany
Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2)
Sweden
Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc  Finland
Sentinel Funds  US
SERPROS Fundo Multipatrocinado  Brazil
Service Employees International Union
Benefit Funds  US
Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7)
Sweden
Shinhan Bank  South Korea
Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust
Management Co., Ltd  South Korea
Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd  Japan
Shinsei Bank Limited  Japan
Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Germany
Signet Capital Management Ltd  Switzerland
Skandia Nordic Division  Sweden
SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD  Japan
Smith Pierce, LLC  US
SNS Asset Management  Netherlands
Social(k)  US
Société Générale  France
Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.  Japan
Souls Funds Management Limited  Australia
SPF Beheer bv  Netherlands
Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Canada
Standard Chartered PLC  UK
Standard Life Investments  UK
State Street Corporation  US
Statewide Superannuation Trust  Australia
Storebrand ASA  Norway
Strathclyde Pension Fund  UK
Stratus Group  Brazil
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation  Japan
Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited  Japan
Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., Ltd
Japan
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group  Japan
Sumitomo Trust & Banking  Japan
Sun Life Financial Inc.  Canada
Superfund Asset Management GmbH  Germany
Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden  Sweden
Swedbank  Sweden
Swiss Reinsurance Company  Switzerland
Swisscanto Holding AG  Switzerland
Syntrus Achmea Asset Management  Netherlands
TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc.
Canada
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association –
College Retirement Equities Fund
(TIAA-CREF)  US
Tempis Capital Management  South Korea
Terra Forvaltning AS  Norway
TfL Pension Fund  UK
The Bullitt Foundation  US
The Central Church Fund of Finland  Finland
The Collins Foundation  US
The Co-operators Group Ltd  Canada
The Daly Foundation  Canada
The Dreyfus Corporation  US
The Japan Research Institute, Limited  Japan

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust  UK
The Local Government Pensions Insitution (LGPI)
(keva)  Finland
The Presbyterian Church in Canada  Canada
The RBS Group  UK
The Russell Family Foundation  US
The Shiga Bank, Ltd.  Japan
The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited 
South Africa
The Sustainability Group at the Loring,
Wolcott & Coolidge Office  US
The Travelers Companies, Inc.  US
The United Church of Canada – General Council
Canada
The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund UK
The Wellcome Trust  UK
Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)
Sweden
Threadneedle Asset Management  UK
Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.
Japan
Toronto Atmospheric Fund  Canada
Trillium Asset Management Corporation  US
Triodos Bank  Netherlands
TrygVesta  Denmark
UBS AG  Switzerland
Unibanco Asset Management  Brazil
UniCredit Group  Italy
Union Asset Management Holding AG  Germany
Union Investment Institutional GmbH  Germany
Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH  Germany
Union Investment Service Bank AG  Germany
Union PanAgora Asset Management GmbH
Germany
UniSuper  Australia
Unitarian Universalist Association  US
United Methodist Church General Board of
Pension and Health Benefits  US
United Nations Foundation  US
Universal Investment Gesellschaft mbH  Germany
Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS)  UK
Vancity Group of Companies  Canada
VERITAS SG INVESTMENT TRUST GmbH Germany
Vermont State Treasurer  US
VicSuper Pty Ltd  Australia
Victorian Funds Management Corporation
Australia
Visão Prev Sociedade de Previdencia
Complementar  Brazil
Waikato Community Trust Inc  New Zealand
Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston
Trust and Investment Management Company  US
Warburg-Henderson Kapitalanlagegesellschaft
für Immobilien mbH  Germany
West Yorkshire Pension Fund  UK
WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM)
Germany
Westpac Investment Management  Australia
Winslow Management Company  US
WOORI BANK  South Korea
YES BANK Limited  India
York University Pension Fund  Canada
Youville Provident Fund Inc.  Canada
Zurich Cantonal Bank  Switzerland
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Message from the CDP Australia

and New Zealand Partner and
Sponsors
Investor Group on Climate
Thank you! Change
IGCC, Goldman Sachs JBWere, Catholic Super and Booz & Company recognise Economies around the world are now
the time and effort it takes for companies to respond to the CDP questionnaire responding to the threat of climate change.
and would like to thank everyone that has done so this year. This information is As more information about the need to
important to investors as it assists them to understand how companies in which address climate change becomes available,
they invest will be impacted by climate change and by the government and accurate reporting on the corporate carbon
community response to climate change. It also assists investors to understand footprint has already become the minimum
how companies are managing and mitigating the risks associated with climate expectation of institutional investors.
change and harnessing the opportunities. Institutional investors also want the
corporations they own to address the risks
We would particularly like to thank those companies that have allowed their and opportunities arising from a price on
responses to be made publicly available. CDP responses that are publicly available emissions over time and from a changing
can be can be downloaded from www.cdproject.net. physical environment. Ultimately investors
need to assess the future prospects for
Although the formal response period has lapsed we strongly encourage
their investments as they transition their
ASX200 and NZX50 companies that have not submitted a response to the CDP
portfolios to a low-emissions and climate
questionnaire to do so. We would also encourage other listed companies, of
change-resilient footing.
any size, to volunteer a response to the CDP questionnaire. We look forward to
receiving many more responses in future years. Analysis of the Carbon Disclosure Project
(CDP) questionnaire responses provides
investors with a unique understanding
of how Australian and New Zealand
companies are responding to climate
change and preparing their operations
for a low emissions economy. Responses
by companies to the CDP in 2009 have
generally strengthened compared to 2008
but much more detail is needed in future.
As global greenhouse gas emissions
continue to grow and scientific indicators
increasingly point towards outcomes
that are beyond predicted worst case
scenarios, institutional investors and the
companies they own have a significant part
to play in avoiding catastrophic climate
change impacts.

IGCC endorses the important ongoing

role of the CDP as a vehicle to provide
investors with the information they need to
prepare for a low-carbon future. We thank
all organisations that have responded in the
CDP this year

Nathan Fabian
Chief Executive Officer

6

Goldman Sachs JBWere
Goldman Sachs JBWere (GSJBW) is
proud to continue its support of the
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) in
Australia and New Zealand, as part of our
broader commitment to ESG issues and
understanding their impact on investments.
The CDP is the pre-eminent mechanism for
promoting the necessary dialogue between
companies and investors on climate-
change and carbon-exposure issues.
2009 marks the fourth year that the CDP
has partnered with the Investor Group on
Climate Change (IGCC) to survey Australian
and New Zealand listed companies on
their strategic and operational response
to climate change and carbon exposure
issues. As the Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme moves toward implementation in
Australia, disclosure on carbon emissions,
in particular, will be fundamental so that
companies can maintain transparency with
their investors and wider stakeholders.
We would like to thank those organisations
that have taken the time to respond.
Stephen Fitzgerald, Co-Chief Executive
Officer, GSJBW
Simon Rothery, Co-Chief Executive
Officer, GSJBW
Message from the CDP Australia and New Zealand Partner and Sponsors
Catholic Super Booz & Company
Catholic Super has recognised the A rapidly warming climate is one of the
significant risk a changing global climate greatest challenges of this decade.
poses to its members’ investments.
Booz & Company is assisting clients to
That’s why it was the first Australian
respond to this challenge in a number
financial institution to sign up to the
of ways: by assisting governments in
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and
Australia and around the world to design
remains a foundation member of this vital
and implement ground-breaking policy
international initiative and the Investor
to internalise the cost of carbon into
Group on Climate Change.
their economies; and through helping
The CDP provides the world’s largest businesses to manage the risks and seize
institutional investor collaboration on the the opportunities presented by changes
business implications of climate change. in the physical environment, community
The Project represents an efficient process attitudes and regulatory landscape.
whereby many institutional investors
The CDP serves as a valuable tool to
collectively sign a single global request for
measure the progress of the business
disclosure of information on greenhouse
sector towards embracing the low carbon
gas emissions.
future and rightly engages key shareholders
The CDP has now developed as in this important journey.
an important longitudinal study into
Through our work with megacommunities
greenhouse gas emissions over 1900
around the world, we have seen the
companies globally at a time when
power of collaboration in addressing big
emission trading is about to be introduced
challenges. The CDP is an outstanding
in Australia and New Zealand.
example of how to stimulate direct
Catholic Super remains as determined collaboration between the business
as ever to foster and promote the CDP and investment sectors on climate
in an effort to gather as much relevant change, whilst providing a scorecard for
information as is possible for quantifying government and community sectors to
and assessing the level of risk facing us understand the corporate perspective.
over the medium and long term.
Our thanks to all those who have taken the
It is heartening to see the number of time to respond to this important survey.
companies responding to the CDP
Tim Jackson
questionnaire rising each year and we
Managing Director, Australia,
thank those who have taken the time and
New Zealand and South East Asia
care in returning this critically important
information to the CDP and the investors
behind it.
Frank Pegan
Chief Executive Officer
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Contents
Message from the CDP Australia and New Zealand Partner and Sponsors 7

Executive Summary 9

1: Overview of CDP 13
1.1 The Global Context 13
1.2 The Australian & New Zealand Context 15
1.3 CDP in Australia and New Zealand 17

2: Response to CDP 2009 20

2.1 The Global Response 20
2.2 The Australian Response 21
2.3 The New Zealand Response 23

3: Climate Disclosure Leadership Index 24

4: Key Trends 27
4.1 Key Trends Globally 27
4.2 GFC: Stimulus to climate change opportunities 28
4.3 Making Sense of Physical Risks 32
4.4 Emissions Reporting – transition and improvement 34
4.5 Changing the Business Climate: Investment in Climate Change Opportunities 41

Appendices 44
Appendix A CDP 2009 Questionnaire 45
Appendix B Australian and New Zealand Response Rate 56
Appendix C Company Listing & Breakdown for Analysis 57
Contacts Rear cover

8

Executive
Summary
Overview of CDP 2009
In 2009 the Carbon
Disclosure Project (CDP) 2009 saw a new disclosure trend emerge.
For the first time companies identified
information request was significant opportunities, rather than
once again sent to the risks from climate change regulation. The
largest 200 companies opportunities include improved business
listed on the Australian efficiencies and development of new
products and services. This is a striking
Stock Exchange and the result and likely to be driven by two
largest 50 companies broader trends; companies are starting to
listed on the New Zealand understand their likely obligations under
proposed climate change regulation and
Stock Exchange. While
secondly are seeing broader business
company response rates benefits in reducing their energy use and
increased only marginally emissions and developing new products
over 2008, the numbers of and services. Investors are encouraged by
the increased awareness and reporting of
local investors supporting
opportunities in 2009 disclosures.
the CDP increased by
almost 50%, indicating the On the risk management side however,
company responses are telling for what
importance local investors they don’t include - particularly clear
are placing on CDP analysis on business supply chain impacts
information. from climate change and specific plans
and targets on how the variety and
magnitude of potential climate change
exposures will be managed. While
increased awareness of opportunities is
a positive for investors, the possibility that
some businesses are not considering,
or at best not disclosing, second order
supply chain and longer term value
impacts and plans to address them is still
of concern.
More than in any other country, Australian
and New Zealand CDP respondents are
recognising their susceptibility to the
physical impacts from climate change.
The focus of respondents is clearly
shifting from catastrophic events with the
potential to occur sometime in the distant
future to near term, albeit potentially
smaller scale impacts that are already
impacting companies. However, it remains
a significant challenge for companies to
adequately manage and adapt to the many
and varied physical impacts of climate
change across the full range of company
operations up and down the supply chain.
Investors understand this challenge but
believe companies must ultimately perform
more analysis and disclosure in this area.
Executive Summary
While mandatory reporting obligations in
Australia and New Zealand will provide
greater consistency and accuracy of
reported emissions data for investors and
is a positive move, mandatory reporting
will not provide all the information investors
need. Investors will continue to seek
emissions data based on equity share,
broken down by facility and type and will
continue to do so through the CDP in the
foreseeable future.
There was a clear indication in responses
this year that emissions reduction is
underway in Australian and New Zealand
companies. However, for investors to be
able to offset potential emissions liabilities
in their investment analysis investors will
need to see more credible mitigation
strategies including clearer commitments
to targets and investment in emissions
reduction, particularly from emissions
intensive companies.
Improved response rate
despite the Global Financial
Crisis (GFC)
The most impressive response rate
across the various segments of the
Australian and New Zealand market was
for the ASX50. The response rate for
the ASX50 increased from 82% to 96%
indicating the significant engagement
of large Australian companies. The
response rate for the ASX100 was
comparable to last year at 73%.
While the number of ‘greenhouse
intensive’ companies responding to
CDP 2009 increased slightly the overall
response rate for ASX100 companies
categorised as ‘greenhouse-intensive’
declined from 86% to 76% which is
of concern to investors as they seek
to incorporate potential emissions
liabilities into their investment analysis.
The number of ASX200 ex100
companies completing the CDP 2009
information request increased, although
the response rate remained relatively
low with just less than one third of
companies responding. While the
response rate indicates a lower level of
9
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

engagement with investors on climate sector and within this sector the real 7 companies in the Australia and New
change by smaller companies in the estate industry sector has the highest Zealand CDLI were also on the Global
ASX200, a further contributing factor is representation with 7 included on the CDLI (listed here in alphabetical order):
the fact that a quarter of the ASX200 CDLI. This is not surprising given the
 Australia and New Zealand Banking
ex100 companies were new to the number of companies in this sector
Group
ASX200 in CDP 2009. listed on the ASX200 and NZX50
and the competitive approach that  BHP Billiton
The response rate for the NZX50 saw a
companies in these sectors are taking
modest increase this year, clearing the  Commonwealth Bank
to prepare and position for transition to
50% threshold for the first time.
a low-carbon economy.  National Australia Bank
Less than a third of New Zealand Companies in the Australia and
companies categorised as emissions  Rio Tinto
the New Zealand CDLI performed
intensive responded to CDP 2009. The comparably with companies in the  Westpac
response rate for NZX50 companies Global CDLI.
categorised as exposed to other  Woolworths
climate change risks was high at 82%.
Table i: Australia and New Zealand CDLI Constituent Listing
Compared with their counterparts
globally, the ASX100 response rate was Sector Company
higher than the average overall response Consumer Discretionary Billabong International
rate across all the geographic and sector InvoCare
samples (55%). The NZX50 response News Corporation
rate was on par with the average overall Ten Network Holdings
response rate while the ASX200 ex100 Consumer Staples Coca-Cola Amatil
response rate fell below average. Lion Nathan
Sanford
New Carbon Disclosure Woolworths
Leadership Index for 2009 Energy Boral
Contact Energy
The Carbon Disclosure Leadership
Origin Energy
Index (CDLI) recognises those
Santos
companies that provided the most
Financials Australand Property Group
comprehensive disclosure of their
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
emissions and climate change
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
exposures in 2009.
Commonwealth Property Office Fund
The CDLI is useful to investors as it Insurance Australia Group
identifies leading CDP disclosures Kiwi Income Property Trust
which will assist investors understand Lend Lease Corporation
the potential implications from climate Mirvac Group
change and how these catalyse into National Australia Bank
financial outcomes. Perpetual
Stockland
For the first year CDP Australia and
Westpac Banking
New Zealand used the global CDLI
Westfield Group
Scoring Methodology to provide
Health Care CSL
consistency and comparability between
Industrials Auckland International Airport
scoring for Australian and New Zealand
Corporate Express Australia
companies and their global peers.
Downer EDI
The CDLI comprises the top scoring Transurban Group
third of the ASX200 and NZX50 Materials Amcor
respondents: 38 CDLI constituents BHP Billiton
in total. Fletcher Building
Macarthur Coal
Companies from all sectors are
Rio Tinto
included in the CDLI excepting the
Telecommunication Services Optus (SingTel)
Information Technology Sector. Telstra Corporation
The greatest number of CDLI Utilities AGL Energy
companies is found in the financials
10

Impact of the GFC on
regulatory risks and
opportunities from climate
change
In spite of, or possibly in response to,
the challenging economic environment,
the large majority of Australian and New
Zealand respondents identified a range
of opportunities stemming from climate
change regulation. This was particularly
true for ASX100 respondents with over
90% identifying opportunities from
climate change regulation.
Respondents were focussed on
opportunities to develop new products
or services or to increase demand
for existing products or services that
provide market advantages in light of
the emerging regulatory environment.
The combined influence of the GFC
and climate change regulation has
resulted in respondents identifying
opportunities to enhance business
processes, improve efficiency and save
costs. Over 50% of ASX100 and over
a third of ASX200 ex100 and NZX50
respondents identified opportunities in
this area.
The GFC did not seem to exacerbate
perceived risks from climate change.
As in previous years, the majority of
respondents, 87% of ASX100, 69%
of NZX50 and 66% of ASX200 ex100
respondents identified risks from
climate change regulation, however,
the percentage identifying risks
declined slightly.
The percentage of ASX100
respondents identifying regulatory
risks and opportunities from climate
change was substantially above the
global average while the percentage
of ASX200 ex100 and NZX50
respondents identifying regulatory risks
and opportunities from climate change
was generally consistent with the global
average.
Emissions trading continued to be the
key regulatory risk identified in both the
Australian and New Zealand markets.
In the Australian market this was closely
followed by mandatory greenhouse gas
and energy reporting.
Executive Summary
As part of their strategy to identify and Disclosure of emissions data
manage climate change regulation,
over 80% of ASX100 companies were There was significant improvement in
the disclosure of emissions data this
engaging with policy makers.
year. 94% of ASX100 respondents
Making sense of physical risks disclosed Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions for global operations
This year responses on the physical
compared to 78% last year while 65%
risks from climate change have
of NZX50 respondents disclosed
continued to shift from a focus on
Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for
catastrophic events with the potential to
global operations compared with 56%
occur sometime in the distant future to
last year.
near term, albeit potentially smaller scale
impacts already impacting companies. The number of respondents reporting
emissions generated in Australia
A range of climate change related
increased by 47% while the number
events has contributed to a substantial
of companies reporting emissions
majority considering their company
generated in New Zealand increased
to be exposed to physical risks from
39%.
climate change.
Largely as a result of the increased
It is notable that the 90% of ASX100
number of respondents disclosing
respondents considering their company
emissions, reported Australian
to be exposed to physical risks from
emissions increased by approximately
climate change is one of the highest of
18 million tonnes or close to 17% while
any other CDP geographic or sector
reported New Zealand emissions
sample globally, slightly higher than the
increased by approximately 200,000
South Africa 100 at 89%.
tonnes or 3%.
Consistent with responses last year the
most common impacts from climate
change identified by respondents
were property damage, interruption
to business operations and reduced
access to water.
CDP 2009 was the first year in which
a number of companies identified
potential threats to employee health
and safety, particularly from the
increased prevalence of diseases such
as malaria.
11
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

National Greenhouse and Energy

Chart i: Reported emissions in Australia and New Zealand CDP 2009
Reporting has clearly been a driver in
compared with CDP 2007 and CDP 2008
the increased disclosure of emissions
data and has the potential to improve 93,262,927
CDP 2009
the consistency and accuracy of 7,170,893
emissions data reporting.
Scope 1 78,062,033
For the first time this year CDP (tonnes CO2-e) CDP 2008 7,160,157
requested respondents to report
Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data 79,210,290
broken down by business divisions CDP 2007
6,452,232
and facilities. While a relatively small
number of respondents provided this
33,672,794
data (approximately 40% of ASX100 CDP 2009
respondents provided a breakdown of 662,046
emissions data by business division),
Scope 2 30,294,244
increased disclosure of disaggregated (tonnes CO2-e) CDP 2008
475,012
emissions data is important in
assisting investors to more accurately 25,547,555
estimate the potential exposure of CDP 2007
471,415
investee companies. This is an area
that investors will be seeking greater
Australia New Zealand
disclosure in future years.

A substantial proportion of Australian
and New Zealand respondents - 65%
of ASX100 respondents, 68% of
ASX200 ex100 respondents and 82%
of NZX50 respondents provided some
Scope 3 emissions data.
However, companies still don’t report
equity based exposure of emissions
which is a significant problem for
investors.
Changing the business
climate: Investment in
climate change opportunities
Despite the GFC and residual
regulatory uncertainty companies
continued to identify risks and
opportunities and to take actions to
mitigate or adapt to risks and to exploit
opportunities.
Emissions reduction was the most noted
strategy to reduce risk and take the
opportunity to reduce business costs.
There was a significant increase in the
percentage of ASX100 respondents
(60% to 76%) who had emissions
reduction plans. This percentage was
above the global average for emissions
reduction plans but the ASX200 ex100
and the NZX50 recorded percentages
below the global average.
There was a significant increase in the
ASX100 respondents (46% to 66%)
and the NZX50 companies (44% to
58%) with emission reduction targets
however there remains a large number
of companies which are yet to develop
targets. This is clearly an area where
investors expect to see improvements
in CDP 2010.
The lack of emission reduction targets
may be of concern to investors as it
may indicate that emission reduction
actions are not being strategically
planned. Targets provide evidence of
an emission reduction commitment by
a company and indicate to investors
the possible extent of mitigation of
emissions liabilities.
Only a small number of companies
were able to report specific investment
in emissions reduction, which is also of
concern to investors.

12
 1
1.1 The Global Context
The turmoil in the financial markets
and the global economy over the last
year has highlighted the importance of
effective disclosure and high-quality
risk management. The financial crisis
of 2008 suggests we need to better
understand systemic risks that can cause
significant de-stabilizing impacts in the
global economy. Climate change has the
potential to cause disruption in the form of
unforeseen, high-impact events (such as
extreme weather) as well as a longer term
re assignment of value across countries,
industries and corporations.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) predicts that ‘future climate
impacts show that the consequences could
vary from disruptive to catastrophic’1. So
it is vital that policymakers, companies
and investors have a full understanding
of the associated risks and opportunities.
According to HSBC research2, governments
around the world have allocated US$430
billion in fiscal stimulus to key climate
change themes. Those providing the low
carbon solutions are very well positioned
to benefit, while those who ignore the risks
gamble on being left behind.
By convening the collective power of the
investment community, represented in 2009
by more than 475 investors, with US$55
trillion in assets under management, CDP
motivates more than 1800 companies
globally to report their climate change
strategies and greenhouse gas emissions.
This global system provides the market,
investors, policymakers and procurement
directors with a clear understanding of
how companies are positioned as we
move towards a low carbon economy
and ensures corporations provide full
transparency on climate change.
Overview of CDP
This year has seen considerable growth in
responses from emerging economies such
as China, South Africa and Korea, and
CDP expanded in Russia in 2009 where
major companies such as Gazprom and
Novatek reported. CDP’s reach continues
to grow with the launch of the first CDP
Europe report, covering the largest 300
European listed companies, as well as
expansion into countries within Central
and Eastern Europe. We have also
opened new offices in Germany and Brazil,
both key economies in the fight against
climate change.
While the quantity and quality of data
available has increased significantly, so
has the use of the data, which is acting as
a catalyst for changing business behavior.
CDP data is increasingly being integrated
into mainstream financial analysis, is
available through Bloomberg Professional
Services, and used to provide sector based
analysis to CDP signatory members. A
recent report produced by Mercer supports
this view.
Some CDP signatories, such as CalSTRS
are going a step further, using shareholder
resolutions to encourage companies
to report through CDP and implement
climate change management strategies.
We are also working with the Principles
of Responsible Investment (PRI) to drive
awareness and improve climate change
reporting. CDP has recently entered a
new partnership with financial information
services company Markit to build a suite
of indices based on the Carbon Disclosure
Leadership Index, which will be licensed to
exchange-traded fund (ETF) and structured
product providers.
Executive Summary
CDP now works with more than 55
organizations including Dell, Unilever,
Wal-Mart Stores and departments of
the British Government to measure and
assess climate change risk and opportunity
through the supply chain. More than 800
companies report their climate change
strategies through the CDP system to their
customers and as a result we have seen
a significant increase in the use of CDP
data in procurement operations. Now
procurement professionals can understand
how their supply chains may be impacted
and as a result begin to future-proof their
procurement systems against climate
change.
The process of measuring emissions is
central to emissions management and
reduction. As regulatory frameworks
develop to mandate emission reductions,
CDP’s role will expand. We will continue
to work with corporations, policymakers
and information users to produce practical
and robust results that complement the
development of mandatory reporting rules.
In order to continue to provide the global
hub for carbon reporting, CDP is currently
undergoing a significant systems upgrade,
designed to improve data comparability,
facilitate benchmarking services and
ultimately deliver data that is appropriate
for investment analysis and regulatory
submissions. In countries like the US and
UK, where mandatory carbon reporting
is on the horizon, CDP’s systems will help
companies prepare for such requirements
and will eventually integrate with existing
national registries to enable corporations
to disclose more detailed and standardized
data. Climate change is a global problem,
which requires a global solution and
by bridging the gaps between national
governments and international businesses
across the globe, CDP will help to connect
the national and international climate
change ecosystem.
1 http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/
items/2905.php
2 HSBC Global Research: A Climate for Recovery The colour
of stimulus goes green.
13
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
Highlights in carbon
regulation and outlook
for Copenhagen
2009 has witnessed significant progress
in the global approach to climate change.
The Obama administration has introduced
a new era in climate change policy in
the US and, as a result, a global deal in
Copenhagen this December appears
more tangible. China, so integral to the
success of Copenhagen, is set to meet
ambitious renewable energy and energy
efficiency targets and hosts some of
the world’s largest renewable energy
companies. Brazil entered the new year
with a new National Plan on Climate
Change and national governments in
industrialized countries including Japan
and Australia are introducing new
legislation to reduce emissions.
Whilst the July G8 meeting agreed to
prevent global temperatures rising beyond
2º Celsius (3º-4º Fahrenheit) against pre-
industrial levels, and agreed on aims to cut
greenhouse gas emissions by between 50
and 80% by mid-century they disappointed
many by ducking the issue of medium
term targets. Although the multilateral
architecture still needs work, there is much
to report on at a regional level.
In Europe, the Energy and Climate Change
package was approved in December
2008 which sets out the policy framework
and accompanying measures to reduce
emissions through the continuation (and
expansion) of the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (EU ETS); targets for non-ETS
sectors and new targets for the promotion
of renewable energy.
In the US, the Obama administration
moved early to set out its ambitions around
climate change mitigation:
“We will harness the sun and the
winds and the soil to fuel our cars
and run our factories.7”
The Waxman-Markey bill was finally put
before the House of Representatives in
June and passed by a narrow margin. The
proposed legislation would commit the US
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
17% below 2005 levels by 2020 through a
cap-and-trade
7 (Obama inauguration speech, January 21st, 2009)
14
system beginning in 2012. The bill will pass
through various Senate Committees where
amendments will be debated, before being
put to a vote; most likely in October.
In Australia, further work has progressed
on the detail of the Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme (CPRS) despite political
challenges over possible competitive
impacts in the face of the economic
downturn. The Scheme, which would cover
around 75% of total Australian emissions, is
due to face a key vote later this year.
Given the multinational nature of many
companies, the evolution of these policies
is likely to have significant implications on
strategic direction and operations and
many of the world’s largest companies
want to seize early mover advantage.
Of course, the role of government
is crucial in providing the regulatory
frameworks. But investors and businesses
will also play an essential role by driving
capital flows towards the technologies
which will allow economies to flourish and
innovation to thrive as we transition to a
low carbon economy.
Already these same investors and
businesses are being directly affected by
climate change. Many companies report
to CDP the material impacts of climate
change on their operations, through
increased flooding, water shortage, spread
of disease and changing local weather
patterns. Within the public sector, cities
reporting through CDP also explain how
they are planning to adapt to changes in
weather patterns such as extreme heat and
extreme precipitation.
Investors, policymakers, procurement
directors and other stakeholders need
to build up the necessary comparable
datasets in order to monitor and analyze
changes; both in terms of the response
to mitigation measures (such as carbon
regulation) and adaptation policies and
programmes. Integral to the success
of the deal in Copenhagen will be the
availability of this accurate reported data:
if businesses don’t measure current
emissions now, it will be impossible for
them to manage and reduce them in the
future. This is where CDP’s role is crucial.
Progress on reporting
standards
While CDP has set the tone on matters of
disclosure over the years and, for the first
time this year, is now widening its approach
to encompass performance, there are other
valuable and complementary initiatives
underway to address the clear requirement
for the creation of a global carbon
measurement and reporting system.
While the financial accounting system has
taken several hundred years to develop,
carbon accounting is in its infancy. In order
to achieve a coherent global system CDP is
leading the work of the Climate Disclosure
Standards Board (CDSB), working with
Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and
PricewaterhouseCoopers to develop
robust accounting standards to enable
carbon reporting through annual financial
reports. CDP and CDSB will also work with
the World Economic Forum to advise the
G20 group of nations on climate change
accounting in 2010.
The CDP process demonstrates that
corporations can lead the way in taking
action that can be Measured, Reported
& Verified (MRV). It also shows how
international companies can reduce
their emissions across the entirety of
their operations on a global basis, even
when subject to a range of different
regulatory requirements. As more and
more countries introduce climate change
regulation, the CDP system supports
companies by bridging the gap between
international business and national
reporting requirements and helps reduce
the reporting burden on companies.
The CDP Global Forum is part of the
inaugural Climate Week NYC, when
business leaders, heads of state and the
world’s major investors congregate in New
York to prepare for negotiations at COP15.
An agreement there will be a vital step
towards success, but it is just as important
to look beyond Copenhagen and to build
the global systems required to combat
dangerous climate change. CDP remains
focused on and dedicated to this work and
thanks all of the organizations that
work with us to help realize this goal.

1.2 The Australian & New Zealand Context
Emissions Trading and
Renewable Energy
Regulation
Consistent with the development
of regulation globally, Australian
and New Zealand governments are
progressing carbon regulation and
reporting requirements.
Australia
The regulatory response by the Australian
Government, key elements of which are
an emissions trading scheme and an
expanded renewable energy target, is
driving company action on climate change.
The Australian Federal Government has
outlined an emissions trading scheme
known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction
Scheme (CPRS) which will cover
approximately 75% of total Australian
emissions with obligations placed on
approximately 1,000 entities. Most sectors,
including stationary energy and industrial
processes will be included within the CPRS
at the commencement date. Sectors to be
included within the Scheme at a later date
include agriculture.
Originally intended to commence on
1 July 2010, the Federal Government
announced in May 2009 that
commencement of the CPRS would be
delayed until 1 July 2011 in response to
the impact of the Global Financial Crisis.
Also, included in the announcement was
a cap on permit price of $10 per tonne
CO2–e for the first year of the CPRS and
further financial assistance to emissions
intensive trade-exposed industries.
Amidst considerable debate regarding
key features of the CPRS, the proposed
legislation was rejected by the Senate
during its recent August sitting. However,
the Government has committed to
reintroduce the legislation to Parliament
later in 2009.
Over the past year there has been much
policy debate over the future of the Federal
Government’s Mandatory Renewable
Energy Target (MRET) and the various
State based targets. Originally established
to require an additional 9,500 GigaWatt
hours of electricity from renewable energy
sources, MRET was due to expire in 2010.
To deliver on the Government’s goal of
20% renewable energy in Australia’s by
2020, a national Renewable Energy Target
(RET) scheme was passed into law in
August 2009 which will expand Australia’s
renewable energy target over four times to
achieve a target of 45,000 GigaWatt in 2020.
New Zealand
The regulatory response in New Zealand
was uncertain for much of 2009 and
resulted in a ‘wait and see’ approach by
many companies.
In September 2008 the Climate Change
(Emissions Trading and Renewable
Preferences) Bill 2007 was passed. The
Bill outlined the details of the New Zealand
Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS).
The NZ ETS is to be phased in across the
various sectors of the economy between
2008 and 2013. Forestry is the first sector
included within the NZ ETS with stationary
energy and industrial processes to be
included within the Scheme in 2010.
The NZ ETS remains in place, but the
new National Government elected in New
Zealand in late 2008 initiated a review of
the NZ ETS. The review of the NZ ETS
was conducted by a special Parliamentary
Select Committee in the first half of 2009.
As a result of the review and subsequent
discussions in the NZ parliament at the
time of printing, a substantially modified
NZ ETS is expected to be in place by late
2009 to become effective from 2010.
The Labour Government also released the
New Zealand Energy Strategy (NZES) and
adopted a target for renewable electricity
generation of 90% of New Zealand’s
electricity generation by 2025. The Climate
Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable
Preferences) Bill created a preference
for renewable electricity generation by
providing for a 10-year restriction on new
fossil-fuelled thermal generation, except to
the extent required to ensure the security
of New Zealand’s electricity supply. This
restriction was subsequently lifted by the
National Government.
Executive Summary
New Zealand’s Unique Emissions Profile
The response to climate change by
companies in New Zealand is strongly
influenced by New Zealand’s emissions
profile which is unique for an industrialised
country1. In the majority of industrialised
countries, CO2 from energy generation and
transport accounts for more than 75% of
total emissions. In contrast New Zealand’s
emissions of CO2 from these sources
accounts for only approximately 28% of
total emissions.
This profile is due partly to the large
quantity of total emissions (48.5 %) which
come from methane emissions from
sheep and cattle and nitrogen emissions
from agriculture soils. In comparison,
for the European Union, emissions from
these sources account for approximately
12% of total emissions and for Australia,
approximately 16% of total emissions.
It is also influenced by the significant
contribution of renewable energy in New
Zealand’s energy generation sector. In
2005 hydro, geothermal and wind made up
about 64% of total electricity generation2.
Emissions Reporting
More imminent for many Australian
companies responding to CDP this year
is the obligation for corporations emitting
more than 125,000 tonnes CO2e per
annum to report energy and greenhouse
gas emissions under the National
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act
and subordinate legislation (referred to
throughout this Report as the National
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme
or ‘NGERS’). The first reports under
NGERS are due to be submitted to the
Government in October 2009. Reports are
for the financial year ending 30 June 2009.
At this stage there is no equivalent
mandatory reporting legislation in place
in New Zealand. Mandatory reporting
of greenhouse gas emissions for the
stationary energy and industrial processes
is scheduled to commence in 2010 with
1 Defined as Annex I countries under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
2 www.mfe.govt.nz
15
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
the first reports to be submitted to the
Government in March 2011. Reports
will be for the calendar year ending 31
December 2010.
Notwithstanding mandatory reporting
requirements, many companies in Australia
and New Zealand are choosing to disclose
climate change information and emissions
data voluntarily to the market. Whether
through other reporting mechanisms such
as Annual or Sustainability Reporting or
through company websites, companies are
making a range of information available to
investors and consumers alike.
CDP in Australia and New
Zealand post mandatory
reporting
Some stakeholders, including companies
in the CDP Australia and New Zealand
sample, have questioned the need for
CDP following the public disclosure of
mandatory greenhouse gas reporting (in
February 2010 in the case of NGERS).
The Investor Group on Climate Change
(IGCC), the Australian and New Zealand
CDP Partner, acknowledges the time and
effort involved in responding to the CDP
and supports the streamlining of company
reporting on greenhouse and energy
and as such has carefully considered the
questions raised by stakeholders. However,
representing the interests of the investment
community in Australia and New Zealand,
IGCC will continue to support CDP in
Australia for the following reasons:
Being a single questionnaire supported
by 475 investors CDP reduces
duplicative requests from investors
CDP provides a consistent set of
information and data to investors with
global investment strategies.
CDP focuses on the investment
relevance of climate change risks,
management, mitigation strategies and
opportunities.
Emissions and energy data reported
under NGERS can be used in response
to the CDP request (for Australian
operations) so as to avoid duplication.
16
The purpose of mandatory reporting
requirements is to collect emissions
and energy data to underpin the CPRS
and the NZ ETS and as such will not
provide investors with:
 the requisite level of detail for
analysis, including equity-based
exposure
 contextual and qualitative
information on company strategy,
risk management and mitigation
action
 information on companies that do
not trigger the reporting threshold
 information on operations of
companies outside Australia and
New Zealand
 information on overseas or
international companies
 timely disclosure of information to
the market.
Information and data on an equity basis
is particularly critical to investors as is
the only basis that aligns with investment
boundaries and provides an accurate
indication of risk exposure through
investments.
As such, NGERS and mandatory reporting
in New Zealand will not provide adequate
disclosure to investors. For this reason CDP
still plays an important role.
Non-regulatory responses to
climate change
In addition to the Government’s regulatory
response to climate change, the market
is also responding to climate change in
a variety of ways. In particular, changes
to consumer demand as a result of
concerns over climate change are
prompting companies to enhance their
environmental reputation and improve
their environmental performance.
As mentioned in previous years,
New Zealand companies in key sectors
such as the food and beverage sector
continue to benefit from and reinforce the
positioning that New Zealand has a pristine
natural environment.
 Executive Summary

1.3 CDP in Australia and New Zealand

The CDP Partners
IGCC is the CDP Partner in Australia and
New Zealand. As the CDP Partner, IGCC is
responsible for the inclusion of Australian
and New Zealand companies in the CDP
information request.

The IGCC represents investors with total

funds under management of over AUD500
billion and others in the investment
community interested in the impact of
climate change on investments. The
Environment Protection Authority of
Victoria is also a proud supporter of
IGCC. As at 31 July 2009, membership
of IGCC comprised:

australianethical
R

investment Citi Investment Research is also an IGCC member.

17

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
CDP Sponsors in Australia
and New Zealand
To facilitate the continued inclusion of
ASX200 and NZX50 companies in the CDP,
IGCC is supported by sponsors Goldman
Sachs JBWere, Catholic Super and Booz
& Company.
Goldman Sachs JBWere
Goldman Sachs JBWere has supported
the IGCC to expand the CDP information
request to Australian and New Zealand
companies over the last four years.
Goldman Sachs JBWere recognises
the importance of a dialogue between
investors and companies on the issues
of climate change and emissions trading
so that investment considerations around
these issues can be fully understood. As
such, Goldman Sachs JBWere welcomes
the participation of Australian and New
Zealand companies in the CDP.
18
Catholic Super Booz & Company
For the second year running Catholic Super Booz & Company are delighted to be
has also directly supported the expansion supporting the Carbon Disclosure Project.
of the CDP to Australian and New Assisting capital markets to avoid the
Zealand companies. Catholic Super has risks and capture the opportunities in the
recognised that climate change poses a transition to a low carbon economy is an
significant long term risk to their members’ urgent and vital need - made all the more
retirement savings. Catholic Super actively important by the potential impacts on our
supports CDP to ensure information climate of human induced greenhouse
flows to investors are sufficient to facilitate gas emissions. Booz & Company actively
assessment and quantification of the risks supports the CDP as a valuable tool
and opportunities associated with climate to measure the progress of business
change facing investors and their members towards embracing the low carbon future.
over the medium and long term.
Australian and New Zealand Signatories to CDP 2009
Investor support for CDP in Australia and New Zealand extends beyond the members
of IGCC. Broad investor support for the CDP 2009 information request is indicated by
the number of CDP Signatories. Globally over 475 investors have become signatories
to CDP.
In Australia and New Zealand the number of investors becoming CDP signatories has
grown by almost 50% this year.
Chart 1: Number of Australian and New Zealand signatories to CDP
2009 40
2008 27
2007 17
2006 11

The Australian and New Zealand
signatories to CDP 2009 include:
ASB Community Trust
AMP Capital Investors
ARIA (Australian Reward Investment
Alliance)
Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group
Australian Ethical Investment
AustralianSuper
Aviva
Bakers Investment Group
BT Financial Group
BT Investment Management
CARE Super
Catholic Super
Cbus Superannuation Fund
Christian Super
Colonial First State Global Asset
Management
CommInsure
Five Oceans Asset Management
Guardians of New Zealand
Superannuation
Hastings Funds Management
Health Super Fund
HESTA Super
Industry Funds Management
Executive Summary
Insurance Australia Group
Lend Lease Investment Management
Local Government Superannuation
Scheme
Local Super SA-NT
Macquarie Group
Maple-Brown Abbott Limited
Motor Trades Association of Australia
Superannuation Fund
National Australia Bank
QBE Insurance Group
Rei Super
Savings & Loans Credit Union (S.A.).
Souls Funds Management
Statewide Superannuation Trust
UniSuper
VicSuper
Victorian Funds Management
Corporation
Waikato Community Trust
Westpac Investment Management
Australian and New Zealand signatories to
CDP represent assets under management
of over $800 billion Australian dollars or
over $1 trillion New  Zealand dollars as at
30 June 20091.
1 B
 ased on the average exchange rate between Australia
and New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2009
(1.2462), sourced from Australian Taxation Office.
19
<< back contents next >> exit
 2
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Response to CDP
2009

2.1 The Global Response

In February 2009 the CDP information Chart 2: Response rate by geographic and industry sample –
request was sent to 4700 companies comparison between CDP 2009 and CDP 20081
globally. Over 2500 companies answered
the questionnaire – an overall response rate 95
UK FTSE 100
90
of 55%. The response rate for the different
Europe 300 82
geographic and industry samples ranged
81
from 81% for the Global 500 to 8% for the Global 500
77
Central & Eastern Europe 100. 76
Brazil 80* 83
The ASX100 response rate was higher 73
Australia 100
than the overall response rate across 72
all the CDP geographical and industry 68
South Africa 100 58
samples (55%). This places the ASX100
companies answering the questionnaire 67
Global Transport 100 58
5th out of 29 geographic and industry
US S&P 500 66
samples (up from 12th last year). While 64
lower than the response rate for the Global 65
Nordic 200*
500 and some key European samples, the 58
ASX100 response rate was higher than the 62
Netherlands 50 52
response rate for the US S&P500 (66%).
58
France 120
63
The percentage of NZX50 companies
answering the questionnaire (52%) this 57
UK FTSE 250
58
year is consistent with the overall response
56
rate across all the CDP geographical Switzerland 100
57
and industry samples (55%). This 52
New Zealand 50 50
places the NZX50 companies answering
the questionnaire 13th out of the 29 51
Germany 200 55
geographical and industry samples.
50
Korea 100*
32
50
Latin America 50*
52
49
Global Electric Utility 250
52
49
Canada 200
55
41
Spain 85*
71
Portugal 20 38
37
Japan 500*
72
35
Italy 60*
46
Ireland 45 33
31
Asia-ex JICK 100*
35
31 * The size of these samples increased between
Australia 200 ex100 CDP 2008 and CDP 2009 e.g.: sample size in
23 Brazil increased from 75 to 80 companies; and the
18 sample size in Japan increased from 150 to 500.
India 200
19 ** New samples launched in 2009 include Ireland,
Portugal, Europe, Russia and Central & Eastern
Russia 50 13 Europe.
10
China 100
5 % of sample answering CDP 2009
1 Response rates for CDP 2008 are as of 31 July 2008 Central & Eastern Europe 100 8 % of sample answering CDP 2008
20

2.2 The Australian Response
Chart 3: ASX100 and ASX200 ex100 response rates – CDP 2006-2009
CDP 2009
ASX100
CDP 2008
CDP 2007
CDP 2006
CDP 2009
ASX200 ex100
CDP 2008 23%
CDP 2007 Not included in CDP 2007
CDP 2006 Not included in CDP 2006
Chart 4: ASX50 response rates – CDP 2006-2009
CDP 2009
CDP 2008
ASX50
CDP 2007
CDP 2006 Not reported
ASX100 Companies
Since the inclusion of Australian companies
in the CDP information request, there has
been a steady increase in the response
rate each year. However, this year the
response rate from ASX100 companies
was comparable to last year at 73%.
The 73% response rate for ASX100
companies is positive in light of the GFC
and the tough economic environment in
which companies are currently operating
and provides some indication that
climate change is embedded within many
companies’ business management and
operational practices.
In contrast to commentary suggesting that
companies could not afford to focus on
climate change during harsh economic
times, the response from companies
indicates that mitigating risks, minimising
costs and exploiting opportunities to deliver
new markets, products and services
associated with climate change is part of
a core strategy for thriving during tough
economic times.
73%
72%
58%
55%
31%
96%
82%
74%
ASX200 ex100 Companies
The response rate from the ASX200 ex100
companies showed some improvement,
increasing from 23% to 31%. However, the
response rate for the ASX200 ex100 does
indicate a lower level of engagement with
investors on climate change by smaller
companies in the ASX200.
Nearly 25% of ASX200 ex100 companies
were new to the ASX200 and hence
were first time participants in the CDP
information request. Recasting the
response rate to include only companies
that have been in the ASX200 for at least
two years, the response rate improves
further to 41%.
ASX50 Companies
The most impressive response rate for any
subsection of the Australian sample was
from the top 50 companies listed on the
Australian Stock Exchange, the ASX50. The
response rate from the ASX50 increased
17% from 82% to 96% this year.
Response to CDP 2009
This year the response rate from ASX50
companies was higher than for any of the
subsections of companies categorised
as exposed to climate change – whether
through their greenhouse intensity or
potential physical impacts. This indicates
that company size has been a stronger
determinant as to whether or not a
company responds to the CDP information
request than a company’s potential
exposure to climate change.
Companies Exposed to
Climate Change
Responses have also been analysed
according to whether or not a company is
exposed to either emissions risk or other
climate change risks such as physical
impacts. More specifically, responses were
analysed according to the following climate
change exposure categories:
Greenhouse intensive sectors
– primarily companies operating in
sectors with relatively high greenhouse
gas emissions, including Utilities,
Chemicals, Construction Materials,
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels, Metals
& Mining and Transportation (not
including Infrastructure).
Other climate change exposed
sectors – primarily companies operating
in sectors that are exposed to physical
risks of climate change including
Property and Food & Beverage or are
vulnerable to greenhouse or physical
risks through their customer base
including Mining contractors, Finance
and Food and Beverage.
Less exposed sectors – the remaining
sectors.
In CDP 2008 the highest response rate for
any subsection of the Australian sample
was from ASX100 companies categorised
as ‘greenhouse intensive’ and therefore
exposed to regulatory requirements
relating to greenhouse emissions. While
the number of ‘greenhouse intensive’
companies responding to CDP 2009
increased slightly the overall response rate
for ASX100 companies categorised as
‘greenhouse intensive’ declined from 86%
to 76% due to an increase in the number of
companies in this category.
21
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
That almost a quarter of ‘greenhouse
intensive’ companies are not responding
to CDP is a major concern to investors
as they seek to incorporate potential
emissions liabilities into their investment
analysis. Investors also expect that
resource exploration companies are
actively considering their future emissions
profile and the consequences of
managing potential obligations over the
medium to long term.
The response rate from companies
categorised as exposed to ‘other climate
change risk’ such as physical risks or risks
through their supply chain or customer
base increased from 73% to 85%.
Only 50% of ASX100 companies with
‘less exposure’ to greenhouse gas or
other climate change risks completed the
questionnaire compared with 58% last year.
The lack of response from companies
categorised as ‘greenhouse intensive’ or
exposed to ‘other climate change risk’
such as physical risks or risks through their
supply chain or customer base is likely to
be of concern to investors as they seek
information to undertake appropriate risk
analysis on their investee companies.
22
Chart 5: ASX100 response rate by different climate change risk exposure
Greenhouse
intensive
Other climate
change exposed
Less exposed
CDP 2009 CDP 2008
Companies not completing
the information request
While the response rate for ASX100
companies was positive in light of the
Global Financial Crisis, it is of concern
to investors that 27% of potential
investee companies in the ASX100 did
not answer the CDP questionnaire. Of
those companies that did not answer
the questionnaire, 10 acknowledged the
information request with many providing
reasons for declining to participate.
The number of ASX100 companies not
responding to the CDP 2009 in any manner
increased from 13% to 16% this year.
However, the majority of these companies
are categorised as ‘less exposed’ to
greenhouse gas or other climate change
risks (56%).
76%
86%
85%
73%
50%
58%
This year there was a decrease in the
number of ASX200 ex100 companies
notifying CDP that they declined to
participate in the CDP 2009 information
request – 8% compared with 16% last
year. There was also a slight increase in
the number of ASX200 ex100 companies
that did not respond to CDP in any manner.
The number of ASX200 ex100 companies
not responding was significant at almost
60% of the sample (up from 57% in 2008).
Although, as mentioned previously, 24% of
companies in the ASX200 ex100 received
the CDP information request for the first
time in 2009. 88% of companies receiving
the CDP information request for the first
time did not respond to CDP in any manner.
The details of the ASX100 and ASX200
ex100 response rate for CDP 2009 are
provided in Appendix B. The response
status of individual companies is provided
in Appendix C.
 Response to CDP 2009

2.3 The New Zealand Response

NZX50 Companies
Following the relatively large increase in the
response rate to CDP 2008, the growth in
the response rate from NZX50 companies
was more modest this year – up from 50%
to 52%.
The relatively low response rate is no
doubt influenced by New Zealand unique
emissions profile which is dominated by
methane emissions from sheep and cattle
and nitrogen emissions from agriculture
soils and is influenced by the significant
contribution of renewable energy in New
Zealand’s energy generation sector.
30% of NZX50 companies responding
to the CDP information request this year
are also listed on the Australian Stock
Exchange. The details of the NZX50
response rate for CDP 2009 are provided
in Appendix B. The response status
of individual companies is provided in
Appendix C.
NZX10 Companies
This year there was no increase in the
response rate from the largest companies
on the New Zealand stock exchange,
the NZX10.
Companies Exposed to
Climate Change
Consistent with CDP 2008, the highest
response rate for any subsection of the
New Zealand sample was from NZX50
companies categorised as exposed to
‘other climate change risks’. 82% of NZX50
companies identified as exposed to ‘other
climate change risks’, such as physical
risks or risks through their supply chain or
customer base answered the CDP 2009
questionnaire, a slight decline from the
88% response rate in 2008.
The high response rate for the NZX50
companies exposed to ‘other climate
change risks’ which includes banks,
insurance companies, real estate
investment trusts, food and beverage
companies, may be a product of New
Zealand’s continued strong commitment to
a clean and green brand and image.
The response rate from New Zealand
companies identified as ‘greenhouse
intensive’ and therefore exposed to
regulatory requirements relating to
greenhouse emissions fell from 45% to
27% this year. The decline in the response
rate was due to two companies (of a
total of 11) that responded to the CDP
information request in previous years not
responding in 2009.
This low response rate for NZX50
companies identified as greenhouse gas
emissions intensive and therefore exposed
to regulatory requirements relating to
greenhouse gas emissions is of serious
concern to investors. Despite the fact
that the NZ ETS was under Parliamentary
review at the time, investors do not
consider non-disclosure acceptable for
greenhouse intensive companies.

Chart 6: NZX50 response rates – CDP 2006-2009 Companies not completing

the information request
CDP 2009 52%
This year the number of NZX50 companies
CDP 2008 50% that declined to participate in the CDP
NZX50

information request decreased from four

CDP 2007 38%
to three.
CDP 2006 23%
The number of New Zealand companies
not responding in any manner to the
Chart 7: NZX10 response rates – CDP 2006-2009 CDP information request remains high,
particularly given that most (90%) of
CDP 2009 70% those not responding have received the
CDP information request for at least
CDP 2008 70% two years (and 65% have received the
NZX10

CDP information request each year for

CDP 2007 50%
the last four years). While the majority of
CDP 2006 Not reported companies not responding to CDP in any
manner were in sectors that are classified
as less exposed (55%), there was still
Chart 8: NZX50 response rate by different climate change risk exposure
a significant number of not responding
Greenhouse 27% companies that were categorised as
intensive exposed to greenhouse gas emissions risk
45%
or ‘other climate change risks’ (30%).
Other climate 82% The details of the NZX50 response rate
change exposed 88% for CDP 2009 are provided in Appendix
B. The response status of individual
41%
Less exposed companies is provided in Appendix C.
23%

CDP 2009 CDP 2008

23

<< back contents next >> exit

 3
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
Climate Disclosure
Leadership Index
An introduction to this
Goldman Sachs JBWere year’s Climate Disclosure
sponsors the CDLI in Australia Leadership Index (CDLI)
and New Zealand because
Goldman Sachs JBWere sponsors the
investors increasingly require CDLI in Australia and New Zealand
investment insights from because investors increasingly require
company disclosures on investment insights from company
disclosures on carbon issues as financial
carbon issues as financial
implications of climate change emerge.
implications of climate change
emerge. The CDLI is valuable for investors as it
identifies leading CDP disclosures which
will assist investors understand the potential
implications from climate change and how
these catalyse into financial outcomes.
CDLI 2009 Methodology
All companies in the ASX200 & NZX50
that responded to CDP in 2009 have been
scored on the quality of their disclosure
using a standardised methodology. For the
first time in 2009, the CDP Australia and
New Zealand has adopted the global CDP
CDLI scoring methodology. This provides
benefits to investors and also to companies
responding to CDP by providing:
Greater transparency in the scoring
process. An overview of the scoring
methodology is available on the
CDP website: www.cdproject.
net/2009CDLImethodology.asp
Consistency in scoring between the
Australia and New Zealand CDLI and
the Global CDLI.
The CDLI scoring is based entirely on the
information disclosed in the company’s
CDP response. It does not consider other
efforts undertaken by companies to provide
carbon or wider sustainability disclosure
such as corporate responsibility reporting,
environmental statements in annual reports,
or through meetings and engagement with
stakeholders and policymakers.
24
Furthermore, the CDLI scoring only takes
account of the quality of disclosure in the
company’s CDP response. While this year’s
CDLI methodology introduced a pilot for
performance scores, these performance
scores were not included in the compilation
of the CDLI. However, performance scores
are likely to play an increasingly important
role in CDP’s disclosure ratings.
As such, while inclusion in the CDLI
indicates good internal data management
and comprehensive disclosure, it is
not a complete metric of a company’s
performance in relation to climate change
management, as it does not currently
make any judgement over absolute
levels of emissions, emission reduction
achievements, or carbon intensity.
Eligibility for inclusion in the CDLI in 2009
depended on the following conditions
being satisfied:
The response must be publicly available;
and
The response must have been
submitted using CDP’s Online
Response System.
The CDLI scoring methodology uses
a ‘parity of sectors’ approach. The
rationale behind this approach is that, as
the wide-ranging implications of climate
change become clearer for companies
and all sectors develop a response,
there is a less clear distinction between
disclosure expectations of companies
in different sectors. Hence questions
are scored on the same basis for all
companies and all sectors.
However, the scoring methodology
takes into account that some questions
apply to all companies, whereas the
applicability of other questions depends
on the responding company’s individual
business circumstances. The CDLI
scoring methodology is designed not to
penalize companies who are unable to
respond to a question if it is not relevant
to their business.
 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index

Table 1: Australia and New Zealand CDLI Constituent Listing CDLI 2009 Constituents
Sector Company The CDLI includes the companies
Consumer Discretionary (12) Billabong International with the highest disclosure scores and
InvoCare provides a valuable perspective on the
News Corporation range and quality of responses to CDP’s
Ten Network Holdings questionnaire. This year’s CDLI includes the
Consumer Staples (7) Coca-Cola Amatil
top scoring third of the ASX200 & NZX50
responses: 38 CDLI constituents in total.
Lion Nathan
Sanford The CDLI includes companies from
Woolworths all sectors excepting the Information
Energy Boral Technology Sector. The Information
Contact Energy
Technology Sector is the smallest sector
in the combined ASX200 and NZX50 with
Origin Energy
only 3 companies in total.
Santos
Financials Australand Property Group The greatest number of CDLI companies
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group is found in the Financials Sector and
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
within this sector the Real Estate Industry
Sector has the highest representation
Commonwealth Property Office Fund
with 7 included on the CDLI. This is not
Insurance Australia Group
surprising given the Financials Sector is
Kiwi Income Property Trust the largest sector in the combined ASX200
Lend Lease Corporation and NZX50 with 56 companies in total
Mirvac Group (including 30 companies in the Real Estate
National Australia Bank Industry Sector). However, the Financials
Perpetual Sector and the Real Estate Industry
Stockland Sector are also distinctive in terms of the
size of the companies and the level of
Westpac Banking
competition between companies in relation
Westfield Group
to reputation and leadership on climate
Health Care CSL
change and other environmental issues.
Industrials Auckland International Airport
Corporate Express Australia
Downer EDI
Transurban Group
Materials Amcor
BHP Billiton
Fletcher Building
Macarthur Coal
Rio Tinto
Telecommunication Services Optus (SingTel)
Telstra Corporation
Utilities AGL Energy

25

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Performance history of
the CDLI
Climate change may catalyse into financial
outcomes for investors in a range of ways,
and CDLI companies have provided
leading CDP responses for investors. Such
disclosures are increasingly relevant to help
investors understand the following potential
implications from climate change.
Emissions trading
Companies will be required to pay to
emit greenhouse gas emissions (that
is, the internalisation of carbon cost)
and therefore the price of carbon
will become embedded in company
valuations. This will typically be a cost,
but may also be a revenue opportunity
Chart 9 plots the performance of the The performance history of the CDLI
constituents of the CDLI since inception is based on the CDLI constituents as
in CDP in 2006. As noted above, it is reported in each of the CDP reports since
important to remember that this year the inception of the CDP Australia and New
the CDP Australia and New Zealand Zealand in 2006.
has adopted the Global CDLI scoring
The CDLI should be interpreted with care
methodology for the first time, representing
given that the CDP responses on which
a break in index methodology from this
it is based are self-reported and non-
year. However, the objective of the index
verified. The composition of the CDLI
remains constant to track companies
should not be construed as investment
providing leading carbon disclosures via
the CDP.
advice. Results presented should not and
cannot be viewed as an indicator of future
performance.
Chart 9: Performance of the CDLI vs ASX100
Index
Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index ASX 100
140

for some companies; and

130
the emission trading scheme will create
120
permits for carbon as a commodity
which investors can invest in or trade in 110
the same way as any other commodity.
100
Operational impacts
90
Operational impacts will arise as companies
are exposed to the risks and opportunities 80

of constraints on greenhouse gas emissions 70

as well as the physical impacts of climate
change arising from changing weather and 60
environmental conditions. The companies
Jun-06

Dec-06

Mar-07

Jun-07

Sep-07

Dec-07

Mar-08

Jun-08

Dec-08

Mar-09

Jun-09
Sep-06

Sep-08

that are likely to present the best investment

opportunities are those that:
Source: IRESS, GSJBW Research estimates, CDP.
have a full understanding of the climate
change issue;
are able to relate these to risks and
opportunities to their business;
find opportunities that are integral to
their business strategy and enhance
their competitive positioning;
have the appropriate governance
structures in place to manage the
issue; and
are able to successfully communicate
the above to a broad range of
stakeholders (employees, community
and customers as well as shareholders).

26
 4
Key Trends

Key Trends

4.1 Key Trends Globally

The response rate of geographic and sector samples to key questions in CDP 2009 are outlined in table 2 below. Throughout the
remainder of this section the response rate of the Australian and New Zealand samples to these key questions is compared and
contrasted to the response rate from other geographic and sector samples1.

Table 2: Key trends snapshot23

responsibility for climate change+

% of responders with Board level
% of responders seeing physical

% of responders seeing physical

verifying emissions disclosures+

with policy makers on climate

emissions reduction / energy
% of responders disclosing

% of responders disclosing

% of responders engaged /
considering participation in
% of responders externally

% of responders engaging
regulatory opportunities+

% of responders with an
% of responders seeing

% of responders seeing

Scope 1 emissions+

Scope 2 emissions+

emissions trading+
regulatory risks+%

reduction plan+
opportunities +

change+
Geographic or sector
risk+

sample / number of
companies
Asia-ex JICK 1004 55 76 66 55 66 69 31 17 59 76 62
Australia 100 87 91 90 61 94 94 45 59 76 84 86
Australia 200 ex100 66 59 66 41 76 69 36 24 48 76 48
Brazil 80 61 73 73 53 61 55 22 25 61 49 49
Canada 200 57 68 56 46 81 76 27 34 49 70 61
Central & Eastern Europe
100 50 50 75 25 75 25 75 50 100 75 50
China 100 67 78 67 44 22 22 22 11 67 56 44
Europe 300 80 90 75 63 91 85 77 58 89 85 79
France 120 69 84 66 61 79 77 63 47 81 77 66
Germany 200 58 70 44 47 63 57 45 33 63 65 55
Global 500 78 84 78 63 85 80 63 54 80 80 74
Global Electric Utility 250 79 84 75 62 81 50 61 57 60 71 77
Global Transport 100 81 84 79 50 79 68 50 43 72 84 74
India 200 14 66 62 48 48 48 17 17 55 52 38
Ireland 40 71 71 64 43 71 50 50 43 57 71 43
Italy 60 67 86 67 48 81 62 71 33 67 52 57
Japan 500 87 83 80 64 77 72 33 90 49 85 49
Korea 100 67 76 69 57 55 55 33 35 63 61 55
Latin America 50 79 79 58 47 79 68 37 26 47 58 58
Netherlands 50 74 90 65 61 90 90 58 42 81 97 71
New Zealand 50 69 77 65 65 65 65 47 19 58 62 42
Nordic 200 76 81 63 54 83 77 46 33 78 77 59
Portugal 20 88 75 88 63 100 88 88 25 63 75 75
Russia 50 0 33 33 33 33 33 0 33 33 33 33
South Africa 100 73 86 89 68 81 84 38 33 68 86 65
Spain 85 66 77 63 54 91 83 86 34 80 80 74
Switzerland 100 44 72 48 48 72 67 35 19 65 74 43
UK FTSE 100 89 91 83 66 98 95 73 77 88 83 79
UK FTSE 250 78 76 72 53 81 80 36 43 61 79 49
US S&P 500 70 77 70 52 77 74 41 31 65 68 61

1 A
 ll analysis of response rates to key questions is based on a sample size of 70 rather than 73 companies for the ASX100 and 29 rather than 31 companies for the ASX200 ex100 as 5
responses were not included in the CDP Online Response System.
2 The data used to complete this table was based on analysis of responses included in CDP’s Online Response System on 10 July 2009.
3 In some cases the number of responses analysed is slightly less than the number answering CDP 2009 due to takeovers, mergers and acquisitions.
4 Asia excluding Japan, India,China and Korea (JICK).
27

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
4.2 GFC: stimulus to climate change opportunities
Over the past year what has become
known as the ‘Global Financial Crisis’
or GFC, which began in mid-2007 has
deepened. Since the worldwide stock
market crash in September 2008 a
considerable number of businesses have
failed, consumer wealth has declined (by
an amount estimated in trillions of US
dollars), and there has been a significant
reduction in economic activity.
Various media and business commentaries
have suggested that in such a difficult
economic climate companies cannot afford
to address climate change. This view is
reflected in the decision of the Australian
Federal Government in May 2009 to delay
the commencement of the CPRS.
However, it is not apparent from the
response to CDP 2009 that the GFC has
reduced the extent to which companies
are responding to climate change. This is
evidenced through the slightly improved
response rate from Australia and New
Zealand companies. It is also evidenced
through the very limited reference to the
GFC or the downturn in the economy within
responses from companies. Only 6% of
companies made reference to the impact
of the GFC or the economic downturn
and only 5% indicated that the GFC would
make their response to climate change
more difficult.
28
Regulatory Opportunities
In spite of, or possibly in response to
the challenging economic environment,
the large majority of Australian and
New Zealand respondents to CDP
2009 identified a range of opportunities
stemming from climate change regulation.
The percentage of ASX100 respondents
identifying opportunities from climate
change regulation was as high as other
CDP geographic or sector samples.
The percentage of NZX50 respondents
identifying opportunities from climate
change regulation was equal to the global
average of 77% while the percentage of
ASX200 ex100 respondents identifying
opportunities from climate change
regulation was below average.
More ASX100 and NZX50 respondents
identified opportunities than they did risks
from climate change regulation.
One of the key opportunities identified
by respondents to CDP 2009 was the
potential for increased demand for existing
products or services (where those products
or services will benefit from climate change
regulation) or the potential to offer new
products or services that take advantage of
the regulatory environment.
Chart 10: Respondents presented with opportunities from climate
change regulatory requirements
Regulatory requirements
present opportunities
7%
Regulatory requirements do
not present opportunities
19%
1%
Don't know the answer 0%
4%
ASX100
Regulatory requirements do present
opportunities for APA’s business because
it is generally expected that these
requirements will increase demand for
natural gas and related infrastructure which
will directly benefit APA. APA
The US government will introduce
mandatory fuel consumption rates for
vehicles and trucks and manufacturers
have indicated that making lighter vehicles
is a strategy they will pursue. Transport
manufacturers are increasing the content
of aluminium in their products to lightweight
their products leading to an increased
demand for aluminium. Alumina
We are currently investigating potential
new business opportunities to provide
infrastructure (registry services) to Emissions
Trading markets. Computershare
Opportunities in this area were particularly
prevalent for larger Australian listed
companies with close to 60% of ASX100
respondents identifying opportunities of this
nature. This potential for increased demand
for existing products or services or for the
development of new product or services
lines is timely given the dampening affect of
the GFC on global demand.
91%
59%
77%
41%
ASX200 ex100 NZX50

Chart 11: Key opportunities from climate change regulation identified
by respondents
New products or services or increased
demand for products or services
Improved business processes
and efficiencies
Generation of renewable energy or carbon
credits/ participation in credit market
Better investment environment/
generation of investment value or returns
Improved reputation or
stakeholder relationships
While potentially dampening demand, the
GFC has also impelled companies to focus
on improving business efficiencies and
reducing costs across business operations
over the past year.
Responses to CDP 2009 indicate
that regulation on climate change has
provided an added stimulus in this area.
An unprecedented number of companies
(over half of ASX100 respondents and
over a third of NZX50 and ASX200
ex100 respondents) identified efficiency
gains, cost savings and other business
improvements as opportunities resulting
from climate change regulation. For
Australian companies the enhanced
business management and efficiencies
was being driven in particular by the
commencement of NGERS as well as
mandatory emissions or energy efficiency
programs (EEO (Federal), EREPs (VIC) and
ESAPs (NSW)).
In order to comply with the NGERS,
Crown has implemented an accurate
and comprehensive data tracking system
allowing the monitoring of energy usage
and greenhouse gas emissions. This close
tracking of energy usage will allow Crown
to drive further improvement in plant design
going forward. Crown
59%
24%
23%
54%
34%
35%
24%
10%
8%
16%
3%
15%
9%
3%
19%
ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZX50
Macarthur Coal considers that mandatory
reporting of energy and emissions data and
the introduction of the CPRS will act as a
driver for change in coal mining operations
by promoting an increased understanding
and awareness of energy use across the
company’s operations which will lead
to operational improvements and cost
reductions. Macarthur Coal
Most of the opportunities associated with
climate change regulation, which have
resulted in enhanced risk management
processes, improved efficiencies and
reduced costs have been harnessed by
respondents within their own operations.
However, enhanced risk management
processes, improved efficiencies and
reduced costs in companies down the
supply chain are also being recognised as
beneficial by a range of respondents. In
particular, respondents from the Financials
Sector identified improvements in client’s
risk management systems and practices
flowing from climate change regulation
translating to opportunities in the
respondent’s companies e.g. reduced
defaults on credit, reduced payouts
on insurance.
Key Trends
In addition to opportunities from regulation,
several respondents identified opportunities
to access government grants. While
some of the grants have been specifically
designed to promote energy and emissions
reduction, others are a direct result of the
stimulus packages provided in response to
the GFC. In this way the GFC has been a
direct driver rather than any potential barrier
to opportunities related to climate change.
As regulators move to incentivise
the property sector to improve its
environmental performance, there are
also new potential sources of funding
for CPA’s activities. CPA has already
applied for grants from the Australian
Federal Governments Green Building
Fund, for building retrofits, and has
received dollar for dollar grants for seven
properties in the amount of AUD$4.6
million. CPA sees further opportunities
from regulatory stimulus, to assist it in
implementing additional energy efficiency
and water efficiency measures in the Fund.
Commonwealth Property Office Fund
Regulatory Risks
The GFC did not materially impact the
extent to which respondents to CDP
2009 considered their company to
be exposed to regulatory risks. The
percentage of respondents considering
their company to be exposed to
regulatory risks declined slightly from
91% to 87% for ASX100 respondents and
from 72% to 69% for NZX50 respondents
compared with CDP 2008.
The percentage of ASX100 respondents
identifying opportunities from climate
change regulation was higher than the
Global 500 (78%) and higher than the
global average (67%). The percentage of
NZX50 and ASX200 ex100 respondents
identifying opportunities from climate
change regulation was consistent with the
global average of 68%.
29
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

The decline in the percentage of

respondents considering their company Chart 12: Respondents exposed to risks from climate change
to be exposed to regulatory risks this year regulatory requirements
appears to be partly due to the increased
detail in relation to emissions trading 87%
Exposed to
schemes and greenhouse and energy regulatory risks 66%
reporting allowing for a more definitive 69%
assessment of exposure and partly due to
the announced or anticipated delay to the 13%
Not exposed to
CPRS and the NZ ETS. regulatory risks 34%

On 4 May 2009, the Federal Government 23%

announced a series of amendments 0%
to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Don't know the 0%
Scheme, principally a delay in the planned answer
commencement of one year until 1 July 8%
2011, a cap on permit price of $10 per ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZX50
tonne CO2–e for the first year of the CPRS
operation and even further financial
assistance to emissions intensive trade Chart 13: Key sources of regulatory risks identified by respondents
exposed industries. This will delay the
impact and reduce the size of forecast
70%
energy cost increases. Mirvac Group Emissions Trading
48%
Schemes
Respondents to CDP 2009 identified a 50%
range of regulatory risks to which their
companies were exposed. However, 54%
emissions trading schemes were still seen Greenhouse and 34%
Energy Reporting
to be the key regulatory risk for companies 23%
in both Australia and New Zealand.
41%
While greenhouse and energy reporting Mandatory Energy
Efficiency Programs 17%
was seen as a risk for Australian
e.g EEO, EREPs, ESAPs
companies with the introduction of NGERS, 31%
mandatory energy efficiency or energy
29%
reduction programs were seen as a risk More stringent standards
in both markets. Approximately 40% of e.g MRETS, green 10%
ASX100 respondents and 30% of NZX50 building requirements 12%
respondents identified these programs ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZX50
as a source of risk (slightly less than the
combined figure of 45% in CDP 2008). However, there was a clear indication that Although there has been some discussion
Interestingly only a handful of companies companies were continuing to monitor around mandated energy efficiency
mentioned the global climate change and identify emerging regulatory risks. targets in the built environment, to date
negotiations at the UN Climate Change Some emerging regulatory risks identified the main regulatory shift has been towards
Conference in Copenhagen later this by Australian companies in CDP 2009 are mandatory disclosure of energy and
year. While most of the companies that contained within the following: carbon efficiency. DEXUS
mentioned the global climate change National Energy Efficiency Strategy The ACCC guidance on green marketing
negotiations did not identify specific risks, including the Mandatory Disclosure of and carbon claims …. highlights regulatory
general implications included uncertainty
Commercial Building Energy Efficiency. risk associated with Trade Practices and
around a post-Kyoto framework, changes
Fair Trading regulatory requirements in
to regulatory drivers resulting from a Draft National Carbon Offset Standard
respect to our communications about
global target and possible changes to (December 2008).
our climate strategy, carbon neutral
rules for instruments such as the Clean
Australian Competition and Consumer commitment, performance, activities and
Development Mechanism. This would
Commission ‘Carbon claims and the any future products and services. National
suggest that most Australian and New
Trade Practices Act’ (June 2008). Australia Bank
Zealand respondents do not anticipate
the outcome of these negotiations will
significantly alter the risks (or opportunities)
facing their company.
30

Chart 14: Key exposures identified by respondents
Increased energy
and other resource
costs (inputs)
Increased compliance
costs (administration
and penalties)
Regulatory
3%
uncertainty/duplication
12%
Direct carbon costs 10%
8%
Competitive disadvantage/
reduced demand for 7%
products or services
0%
ASX100
Chart 15: Respondents engaging with policy makers
ASX 100
ASX200 ex100
NZX50
Consistent with response to CDP 2008, the
most common exposure to climate change
regulation identified by respondents was
the increase in indirect costs through the
increase in costs of energy and energy
intensive inputs.
A smaller percentage of respondents
continued to identify direct exposure
to regulatory risks such as the cost
of purchasing emissions allowances
under the CPRS or NZ ETS. This is not
surprising given that a relatively small
number of companies will face direct
obligations under emissions trading,
particularly as details of assistance to
Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed
Sectors under the CPRS become known.
While many companies noted the delay in
the commencement of the CPRS or the
current review of the NZ ETS there was
a decline in the number of companies
(27% to 20%) that highlighted regulatory
uncertainty as a risk for their company.
43%
34%
35%
23%
17%
15%
20%
19%
14%
ASX200 ex100 NZX50
86%
48%
42%
While many companies are likely to have
experienced some reduction in sales
revenue as a result of the GFC, some
respondents indicate that this will be
compounded by climate change legislation.
This year a number of respondents
indicated that climate change regulation,
including emissions trading but also
increased stringency of standards such as
building codes, have the potential to lead
to competitive disadvantage or reduce
demand for their products and services.
Not surprisingly respondents identifying this
potential area of exposure were largely in
the Metals and Mining, Energy, Oil & Gas,
Construction Materials, and Construction
and Engineering sectors.
‘The way in which energy demand changes
and potentially reduces as a result of the
CPRS will directly impact our operations and
revenue from energy sales’ Origin Energy
Key Trends
‘As the largest contract miner in Australia,
any subsequent reduction in the demand
for coal as a consequence of any price
increase may have an impact on the
demand for contract mining services.’
Leighton Holdings
While the majority of respondents to
CDP indicated they were taking action to
mitigate and manage risks from climate
change regulation, most actions related
to direct short-term impacts such as
energy price rises. It is not clear that
respondents are strategically managing the
extent and variety of exposures to climate
change regulation that will be experienced
through their supply chains over time. For
example the need to seek low emissions
inputs for the future; assessing supply
chain inputs not currently covered by the
proposed emissions trading scheme;
addressing possible substitution effects for
respondents’ own products and services.
Engaging with policy makers
to mitigate risk and exploit
opportunities from climate
change regulation
One action that many respondents were
taking was to engage with policy makers.
While not exclusively the domain of large
companies, engagement with policy
makers on climate change regulations was
particularly prevalent amongst ASX100
respondents.
In summary, rather than discourage action
on climate change the GFC has stimulated
companies to seek out opportunities
from climate change regulation, leading to
more companies identifying opportunities
than risks from climate change regulation.
However, it is clear that respondents
will continue to be exposed to climate
change impacts, particularly through their
supply chain and it is not apparent that
respondents are adequately prepared for
or are effectively managing the extent and
variety of potential exposures through their
supply chain.
31
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
86%
4.3 Making Sense of Physical Risks
Notwithstanding the focus on regulatory
risks in the Australian and New Zealand
markets, there has been a shift in the
way in which companies are interpreting
physical risks from climate change.
Evident in responses on the physical risks
from climate change over the past several
years is a progressive shift in focus from
catastrophic events with the potential
to occur sometime in the distant future
to near term, albeit potentially smaller
scale impacts that are already impacting
companies. Events continuing to drive this
shift in focus include:
Higher temperatures in south eastern
Australia
Droughts in south eastern Queensland
and south eastern Australia
Heat waves in Victoria
Floods in central Queensland
Snow storms in the United Kingdom
Wild fires in Victoria
Hurricanes in south east USA
32
Chart 16: Respondents exposed to risks from physical impacts from
climate change
90%
Exposed to
66%
physical risks
65%
10%
Not exposed to
34%
physical risks
27%
0%
Don't know the
answer 0%
8%
ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZX50
These events may provide some At the present time the physical impacts
explanation as to why a substantial majority from climate change present more risks
of Australian and New Zealand companies, than opportunities in all markets. In every
and particularly ASX100 companies, CDP geographic or sector sample the
consider their company to be exposed to percentage of respondents identifying risks
physical risks from climate change. from physical impacts of climate change is
equal to or higher than the percentage of
As indicated in Table 2, the percentage
respondents identifying opportunities from
of ASX100 respondents considering their
physical impacts of climate change. This is
company to be exposed to physical risks
in stark contrast to the response for risks
from climate change is higher than for any
and opportunities from climate change
other CDP geographic or sector sample,
regulation where almost the exact opposite
slightly higher than the South Africa 100 at
is true.
89%. The percentage of ASX200 ex100
and NZX50 respondents considering their Respondents identified a wide range of
company to be exposed to physical risks potential exposure to the physical risks
from climate change is just below the of climate change. The most common
global average of 68%. impacts were related to property damage
from severe weather events, access to
water in key sectors where water is a
major input and maintaining business
continuity in the face of various physical
risks from climate change.

Chart 17: Key exposures identified by respondents
Property damage
(including internal
infrastructure e.g. IT systems)
Reduced access to water
Resource shortages
(inputs)
Business continuity
risks/interuption
12%
Increased costs
(ex insurance or
regulatory costs)
12%
Disruption to supply chain 10%
8%
Impacts on clients
0%
or customers
8%
Infrastructure damage
4%
Increased price or
reduced availablity 10%
of insurance 4%
Threats to employee
7%
health & safety
4%
ASX100
In CDP 2009 an increased number of
respondents identified property damage
and interruptions to business as a
potential risk from the physical impacts of
climate change.
Respondents also continued to indicate
that reduced access to water was a
key risk stemming from the physical
impacts of climate change. This view
was particularly prevalent amongst
respondents from the Energy and
Utilities, Steel, Metals and Mining, Food &
Beverages and Property sectors.
Key Trends
prevalence of vector borne disease,
particular malaria, in areas of operation.
64%
Caltex staff may be affected by changes to
52%
geographical boundaries for some diseases,
42% such as malaria. Caltex
39% Respondents that identified threats to
14% employee health and safety were largely
23% from the Metals and Mining, oil and gas and
construction sectors (including contract
13% services supporting these sectors). In
some cases respondents indicated that
14%
15%
the potential threats would not only impact
existing staff but also the ability of the
40% company to attract staff in future.
28%
Extent and timing of impacts
The shift in focus from catastrophic events
20% to near term and more permanent impacts
17% were evident in a number of responses.
Focus on these current impacts is providing
an impetus to companies to consider climate
31% change beyond emissions generation.
The key impact in the short term from
the physical impacts of climate change is
16% the impact of extreme weather events on
transport corridors. In 2008 - 2009 floods,
storms, a heat wave and fires, blocked
key transport corridors, and damaged
transport infrastructure. These impacts
26%
caused direct damage through contributing
21% to the derailment of trains and lost revenue
through a decrease in operational intensity.
Asciano
20%
Recently, the UK experienced such severe
snow storms that for the first time in years
there were significant numbers of UK staff
23% that were not able to attend work as they
could not physically get there. IAG
It remains a significant challenge for
companies to adequately manage and
ASX200 ex100 NZX50
adapt to the many and varied physical
impacts of climate change across the full
Water availability directly affects electricity
range of company operations and down
supply through both hydro-electricity
the supply chain. This is none-the-less
production and as a coolant in thermal
an area that investors will seek additional
power stations. Consequently, in times
disclosure in future.
of drought the wholesale electricity price
increases due to a reduction in capacity
of coal fired generation and peaking hydro
stations. Arrow
CDP 2009 was the first year in which a
number of companies identified potential
threats to employee health and safety.
The most common threat to employees
identified by respondents was the increased
33
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
4.4 Emissions Reporting: transition and improvement
Emissions reporting by
Australian CDP respondents
The percentage of ASX100 respondents
disclosing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
for global operations increased significantly
from 78% last year to 94% this year while
the percentage disclosing Scope 1 and
Scope 2 broken down by country or region
remained consistent with last year (78%).
The percentage of ASX200 ex100
respondents disclosing Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions for global operations
or broken down by country or region was
significantly lower than for the ASX100
respondents. The percentage of ASX200
ex100 respondents disclosing Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions for global operations
was 69% and 76% respectively while the
percentage disclosing Scope 1 and Scope
2 broken down by country or region was
48% and 52% respectively.
The percentage of ASX100 respondents
disclosing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
for global operations was significantly
higher than for Global 500 respondents,
while the percentage of ASX200 ex100
respondents disclosing Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions for global operations
was significantly lower.
It would appear that some of the difference
in the level of disclosure of global emissions
compared to emissions broken down by
country or region may be partly due to the
fact that where respondents operate only
in Australia, and therefore global emissions
equal country emissions, they do not
necessarily specify emissions by country.
This year all ASX100 respondents
categorised as ‘greenhouse intensive’
provided global Scope 1 or Scope 2
emissions and/or Scope 1 or Scope 2
emissions broken down by country or
region. The small number of ASX100
companies not reporting global Scope
1 or Scope 2 emissions and/or Scope 1
or Scope 2 emissions broken down by
country or region were predominantly
categorised as exposed to ‘other climate
change risks’ (75%).
34
Note: all subsequent percentages in For FY08 data, we have reported emissions
this section are based on the number where financial control exercised. This
of Australian respondents reporting boundary reflects the past federal
emissions data (not total number of government reporting boundary as set
Australian respondents). out in the Energy Efficiency Opportunities
Act. We are currently shifting our reporting
The commencement of NGERS has clearly
boundary to operation control, however, in
provided an impetus for emissions reporting
order to comply with the Australian federal
for many of Australia’s larger companies.
government National Greenhouse and
While NGERS was seen as a risk by the
Energy Reporting System (NGERS). We
majority of ASX100 respondents (see Chart
anticipate that future CDP submissions
13 above), it is apparent from responses
will report on emissions where we have
that the commencement of the Scheme
operational control. Stockland
has resulted in some practical benefits.
The streamlining for reporting is likely
As outlined earlier, many companies
to be simplified with the September
described the way in which NGERS
2009 amendments to NGERS which
was leading to enhanced business and
allow for reporting of emissions on the
process management and by extension to
basis of financial control as well as
improved efficiencies and cost savings. In
operational control.
addition to this, responses indicated that
NGERS was also facilitating: It has already been noted in Section 1.2
that from an investor perspective NGERS,
Greater certainty in consistent reporting
in its current form, will not be sufficient
requirements
to provide the range and level of detail of
Enhanced guidance and capacity climate change and emissions information
building required for investment analysis. However,
it is apparent that NGERS will lead
Potential streamlining of emissions to greater consistency and improved
reporting across government programs accuracy in emissions data reporting under
the Scheme.
In particular, a number of companies
noted the streamlining of requirements
between NGERS and EEO. While
generally seen as a positive outcome the
streamlining was nevertheless creating
challenges for some companies.
Chart 18: Reporting of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by Australian
respondents
94%
Scope 1 - Global
69%
78%
Scope 1 - By country
or region 48%
94%
Scope 2- Global
76%
Scope 2 - By country 77%
or region 52%
ASX100 ASX200 ex100
 Key Trends

Chart 19: Sources for methodology and emissions factors identified by While the most common Australian source
Australian respondents of methodology for measuring greenhouse
gas emissions and emission factors used by
21% Australian respondents is still the National
NGERS
36% Greenhouse Accounts, a growing number
Methodology

of companies are using NGERS, specifically

National 36%
the National Greenhouse and Energy
Greenhouse 41% Reporting Act 2007 and the supporting
20%
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting
Other (Measurement) Determination 2008 and the
18%
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting
(Measurement) Technical Guidelines.
27%
NGERS A number of companies identified other
Emission factors

23%
sources of methodology for measuring
National 50% greenhouse gas emissions and emission
Greenhouse 27% factors including guidance documents
supporting the Australian Greenhouse
20% Challenge Plus, EEO and industry
Other
5% specific programs.

Reporting period and boundaries

ASX100 ASX200 ex 100
Australian respondents indicated that in
Chart 20: Reporting year for Australian respondents preparation for reporting in accordance
with NGERS, they were in the process of
CDP 2009 64% 30% 6% changing reporting period and boundaries
ASX100

to conform with the NGERS requirements.

CDP 2008 50% 37% 13% This was evident in the increased number
of Australian respondents reporting
emissions data for a financial year.
ASX200 ex

CDP 2009 68% 18% 14% This year the percentage of ASX100
100

respondents that reported emissions data

Financial year Calendar year Alternate year for a financial year increased from 50% to
64%. The percentage of ASX200 ex100
respondents reporting emissions data for a
Chart 21: Reporting boundary for Australian respondents financial year was slightly higher at 68%.
CDP 2009 44% 42% 6% 8%
ASX100

While the percentage of ASX100

respondents that reported emissions
CDP 2008 40% 45% 2% 13%
data on the basis of operational control,
as required by NGERS, increased only
ASX200 ex

marginally, from 40% to 44% this year, as

CDP 2009 36% 64%
100

mentioned above a number of companies

Operational control
Consistency of emissions data
methodology
There was an increased degree of
consistency in the methodology for
measuring greenhouse gas emissions
and emission factors identified by
Australian respondents. This consistency is
particularly evident when compared to the
methodology for measuring greenhouse
gas emissions and emission factors
identified by New Zealand respondents.
Financial control Equity share Other
As was the case in CDP 2008, the majority
(64%) of ASX100 respondents identified
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol as the
methodology on which their greenhouse
gas emissions inventories were based. The
same percentage (64%) of ASX200 ex100
respondents identified The Greenhouse
Gas Protocol for their greenhouse gas
emissions inventories. 6% of ASX100
respondents also used ISO16064.
stated they were transitioning to reporting
on the basis of operational control.
The 2007/08 emissions data (i.e. the
data presented in this submission) are
based on the emissions over which
Goodman Fielder is deemed to have
“Financial Control”, which is inline with
the original requirements of the Australian
federal government’s Energy Efficiency
Opportunities (EEO) Program. The
government’s National Greenhouse and
Energy Reporting (NGER) system which
commenced on 1 July 2008, however,
requires energy and emissions data to
be based on the principal of “Operational
35

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
Control”.… Given this shift in government
policy, Goodman Fielder amended the
boundaries of our energy and emission
data collection system on 1 July 2008 to
commence the collection of data on the
basis of “Operational Control” (which will be
relevant to the data presented in next year’s
CDP). Goodman Fielder
However, the impact of recent amendments
to NGERS which allow for reporting of
emissions on the basis of financial control
as well as operational control on future
disclosure under CDP is unclear.
The large majority of ASX200 ex100
respondents reported emissions data
on the basis of financial rather than
operational control.
Any transition of reporting boundaries to
operational control and the subsequent
changes to NGERS allowing reporting under
either operational or financial control will not
assist investors obtain investment relevant
emissions data. Investors are still seeking
emissions data on the basis of equity
share to align with investment boundaries
and provide an accurate indication of risk
exposure through investments.
Further, while the overall transition in
reporting methodology may be challenging
for companies, it also creates additional
complications for investors and highlights
the extent to which they need to take care
when using the data in investment analysis
during this time of transition (and as
reporting requirements continue to evolve
and change).
Data accuracy
The CDP seeks to provide investors
which information on the accuracy of data
disclosed by respondents through questions
on accuracy assessments and audit.
At present, very few companies are
performing any sort of accuracy
assessment on their emissions data. Only
43% of ASX100 respondents and 24% of
ASX200 ex100 respondents provided any
accuracy measure. Further, it was apparent
that only a portion of the accuracy
measures provided were based on a formal
accuracy assessment. Going forward,
companies reporting under NGERS will be
required to assess ‘statistical uncertainty’
such that emissions data reported are
within a 95% confidence level.
36
Close to half of ASX100 respondents had
the data externally verified or audited in
part or in whole (45%). Of this number
24% had the data verified or audited to
a ‘reasonable’ level, 49% had the data
verified or audited to a ‘limited’ level and
27% did not specify the level. 36% of
ASX200 ex100 had the data externally
verified or audited in part or in whole.
Emissions reporting by New
Zealand CDP respondents
The percentage of NZX50 respondents
disclosing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
for global operations increased from
56% last year to 65% this year. However,
the percentage of NZX50 respondents
disclosing Scope 1 and Scope 2 broken
down by country or region fell from 64%
to 50%.
The percentage of NZX50 respondents
disclosing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
for global operations was lower than the
percentage of Global 500 respondents
disclosing emissions for global operations
(85% and 80% respectively).
As mentioned in relation to the Australian
emissions disclosure, it would appear
that some of the difference in the level of
disclosure of global emissions compared
to emissions broken down by country
or region is due to the fact that where
respondents operate only in New Zealand,
and therefore global emissions equal
country emissions, they do not necessarily
specify emissions by country.
This year all NZX50 respondents
categorised as ‘greenhouse intensive’
provided global Scope 1 or Scope 2
Chart 22: Reporting of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by New Zealand
respondents
Scope 1 - Global
Scope 1 - By country
or region
Scope 2- Global
Scope 2 - By country
or region
NZX50
emissions and/or Scope 1 or Scope 2
emissions broken down by country or
region. Of the approximate one third of
NZX50 respondents that did not report
global Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions and/
or Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions broken
down by country or region 55% were
categorised as exposed to ‘other climate
change risks’ and 45% were categorised
as less exposed to climate change risk.
Note: all subsequent percentages in
this section are based on the number
of New Zealand respondents reporting
emissions data (not total number of
New Zealand respondents).
As mentioned in Section 1.2 above
while the timeline for commencement of
mandatory emissions reporting has been
established, there is currently no legislation
in place. Therefore the regulatory driver for
emissions reporting has not been as strong
for New Zealand companies as for their
Australian counterparts.
The New Zealand Government has
provided guidance to companies for
voluntary greenhouse reporting. The
guidance references The Greenhouse Gas
Protocol as the best-practice methodology
in measuring greenhouse gas emissions
and the ‘Guidance for Voluntary, Corporate
Greenhouse Gas Reporting’ which has
been developed by the New Zealand
Ministry for the Environment to provide
New Zealand-specific guidance on
measuring greenhouse gas emissions,
including emissions factors.
65%
48%
65%
52%
 Key Trends

Chart 23: Sources for methodology and emissions factors identified by Due to the large proportion of NZX50
New Zealand respondents respondents that are also listed on the
Australian Stock Exchange (47%) Australian
NGERS 12% specific sources of methodology for
National
measuring greenhouse gas emissions were
Greenhouse 18% also identified.
Methodology

Mfe 12%
Guidelines A number of companies identified other
sources for methodology, including
NZBCSD 18%
guidance from the New Zealand
Landcare Department of Economic Development.
12%
Research
Other 6% Reporting period and boundaries

Despite the fact that the proposed

Mfe
Emission factors

Guidelines 41% mandatory emissions reporting in New

Zealand is to be based on a calendar year,
NZBCSD 24%
there is still a broad divergence in terms
Landcare
Research 18% of the reporting year for New Zealand
respondents to CDP 2009. This divergence
Other 35%
is no doubt compounded by the significant
NZX50 number of NZX50 respondents that
are also listed on the Australian Stock
Exchange, many of which will have an
Chart 24: Reporting year for New Zealand respondents reporting
obligation to report emissions for a financial
emissions data
year in accordance with NGERS.
CDP 2009 47% 18% 29% An increased number of New Zealand
NZX50

respondents reported emissions data on

CDP 2008 50% 13% 37%
the basis of financial control. All except one
Financial year Calendar year Alternate year of the companies reporting emissions data
on the basis of operational control were also
listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
Chart 25: Reporting boundary for New Zealand respondents reporting
emissions data Increased reporting along the boundary of
operational control will not assist investors
CDP 2009 24% 59% 12% 6%
NZX50

obtain investment relevant emissions

CDP 2008 31%
Operational control
Voluntary emissions reporting is also
being driven and guided by non-
government programs such as the New
Zealand Business Council for Sustainable
Developments, Calculate and Cut
Emissions, and Lift Profits Guide and the
Landcare Research Certified Emissions
Measurement and Reduction Scheme
(CEMRS) and e-Manage.
Consistency of emissions data
methodology
Similarly to CDP 2008 and their Australian
counterparts in CDP 2009, the majority
(59%) of NZX50 respondents identified
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol as the
methodology on which their greenhouse
45% 13%
Financial control Equity share Other
gas emissions inventories were based. In
addition, 18% of NZX50 respondents used
ISO16064.
Not surprisingly, due to the absence of
a mandatory framework for emissions
reporting in New Zealand there was a lack
of consistency without any New Zealand
specific source of methodology and
emission factors. Several respondents
identified the NZBCSD Guide while a
small number of companies specifically
identified the ‘Guidance for Voluntary,
Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reporting’ and
the Landcare programs as the source of
methodology for measuring greenhouse
gas emissions and emission factors.
data. Investors are seeking emissions
13%
data on the basis of equity share to align
with investment boundaries and provide
an accurate indication of risk exposure
through investments.
Data accuracy
53% of NZX50 respondents provided
some accuracy measure. However, it
was apparent that only a portion of the
accuracy measures provided were based
on a formal accuracy assessment.
The percentage of NZX50 respondents that
had their emissions data externally verified
or audited in part or in whole was slightly
higher than their Australian counterparts
(47% compared with 45%). However,
75% of the NZX50 respondents that had
their emissions data externally verified
or audited in part or in whole were also
listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
Of the 47% that had their emissions data
37

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
externally verified or audited in part or in
whole 25% had the data verified or audited
to a ‘reasonable’ level, 50% had the data
verified or audited to a ‘limited’ level and
25% did not specify the level.
Disclosure of emissions
beyond mandatory reporting
requirements
Global emissions and emissions
breakdown by country
As mentioned in Section 1.2 above,
the purpose of mandatory reporting
requirements is to collect emissions and
energy data to underpin the Emissions
Trading Schemes in Australia and New
Zealand and as such it will not provide
investors with information on operations
of companies outside Australia and
New Zealand.
The inclusion of global emissions and the
breakdown for countries and regions in
CDP is useful for investors to understand
the overall exposure of companies to
emissions regulations in countries outside
Australia and New Zealand.
Emissions breakdown by business
division or facility
During development of NGERS, IGCC
on behalf of investors called for greater
disaggregation of emissions data and in
particular the disclosure of emissions data
at the facility level. As outlined by IGCC in
their various submissions this information
is important for investors in a number of
instances. Whether or not a company is
liable for emissions from a particular facility
(which may not always be clear based on
a determination of ‘operational control’)
or the amount of emissions at a particular
facility may impact investment decisions.
For example, a company may have one or
more facilities responsible for the majority
of emissions. Any proposal to purchase
or divest such a facility or to substantially
alter production or technology at the facility
would substantially affect the greenhouse
liability of the investment.
For the first time this year CDP requested
respondents to report Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions data broken down by
business divisions and facilities. 39% of
ASX100 respondents, 23% of ASX200
ex100 respondents and 18% of NZX50
respondents reporting emissions data
provided a breakdown for business
38
divisions. The number of business divisions As such, the disclosure of greenhouse
included in the breakdown ranged from 1 emissions by type assists investors
to close to 20 divisions. The percentage to accurately calculate the potential
of respondents reporting emissions data greenhouse liability of investee companies.
that provided a breakdown for facilities
For the first time CDP 2009 requested
was somewhat lower. 20% of ASX100
respondents and 9% of ASX200 ex100
respondents to report Scope 1 emissions
respondents and NZX50 respondents
data broken down by emissions type. 50%
reporting emissions data provided a
of Australian respondents and 36% of
NZX50 respondents reporting emissions
breakdown for facilities. The number of
data provided a breakdown for emissions
facilities included in the breakdown ranged
type. Investors will be seeking disclosure
from 1 to 40 facilities.
of emissions broken down by type from a
The disclosure by CDP 2009 respondents greater number of companies in CDP 2010.
of facility level emissions data assists
Scope 3 emissions
investors to more accurately estimate the
possible exposure of potential investee Investors are also interested in a potential
companies. Investors will be seeking investee companies’ Scope 3 emissions.
greater disclosure of emissions data broken While companies will not be directly liable for
down by business divisions and facilities in these emissions under an Emissions Trading
future years. Scheme, they may be exposed to risks from
these emissions through increased cost or
Emissions breakdown by emissions type
other supply chain impacts.
IGCC also called for disclosure of
As in past years the CDP 2009 requested
emissions by emissions type as emissions
respondents to report Scope 3 emissions
type can potentially be a significant factor
and in particular emissions from
for investors to take into consideration in
making their investment decisions. For Employee business travel
example, while greenhouse gas emissions External distribution/logistics
from gas networks occurring due to
Use/disposal of company’s products
gas leakage may not be substantial, the
and services
emissions are of methane which has a
Company supply chain
global warming potential 21 times that of
carbon dioxide. Other
Chart 26: Percentage of Australian and New Zealand respondents
reporting of Scope 3 emissions
56%
Employee 59%
business travel
76%
17%
External
distribution/logistics 23%
18%
26%
Use/disposal of
company's products 27%
and services
18%
15%
Company 18%
supply chain
0%
24%
Other 14%
35%
ASX100 ASX200 ex 100 NZX50
 Key Trends

65% of ASX100 respondents, 68% of

Chart 27: Scope 3 emissions by category (tonnes CO2-e)
ASX200 ex100 respondents and 82% of
NZX50 respondents provided Scope 3
310,904
emissions data for at least one of these
Employee business travel 30,587
categories of Scope 3 emissions. The
category of Scope 3 emissions for which the 42,330
highest percentage of companies provided
7,785,706
data was for employee business travel.
External distribution/logistics 115,923
The quantity of Scope 3 emissions 33,761
reported in each category is provided in
Chart 27. There is a small amount of double 1,114,839,472
Use/disposal of company's
counting between Australian and New products and services 10,523
Zealand companies as emissions for the 8 9,599
dual listed companies appear twice.
113,050,929
Scope 1 and Scope 2 Company supply chain 3,525,443
emissions in Australia and
0
New Zealand
1,710,937
The number of Australian and New Zealand
Other 50,617
companies providing Scope 1 and/or 2
emissions for Australia and New Zealand 210,284
increased significantly this year. The
NZX50 ASX200 ex 100 ASX100
number of respondents providing data for
emissions generated in Australia increased
49% from 59 to 88 and the number of
companies providing data emissions
generated in New Zealand increased 43%
from 28 to 40.

Table 3 shows the total Scope 1 emissions

generated by Australian and New Zealand
respondents to CDP in Australia are 93.26
million tonnes or 21% of Australia’s total
emissions (excluding agricultural emissions)
and in New Zealand are 7.17 million tonnes
or 18% of New Zealand’s total emissions
(excluding agricultural emissions).

Table 3: Australian and New Zealand emissions as reported by respondents

Scope 1 Scope 2 Total Reported Total Country Scope 1
(tonnes CO2-e) (tonnes CO2-e) (tonnes CO2-e) (tonnes CO2-e)2 % of Total Country
Australia 92,695,705 33,640,848 126,336,553 453,100,0003 21%
New Zealand 7,170,893 665,275 7,836,168 39,140,0004 18%
Total 99,866,598 34,306,123 134,172,721

39

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Reported Australian emissions increased

Chart 28: Reported emissions in Australia and New Zealand CDP 2009
by approximately 18 million tonnes or
compared with CDP 2007 and CDP 2008
close to 17% this year while reported
New Zealand emissions increased by
approximately 200,000 tonnes or 3%. 93,262,927
CDP 2009
7,170,893
The change in reported Australian
emissions was due to the following: Scope 1 78,062,033
(tonnes CO2-e) CDP 2008 7,160,157
Reduction in emissions due to
companies not reporting emissions this 79,210,290
year or not included in the sample this CDP 2007
6,452,232
year (accounting for less than 1% of the
change or approximately 50,000 tonnes
33,672,794
of CO2-e) CDP 2009
662,046
Increase in emissions reported from
companies reporting in CDP 2008 and Scope 2 30,294,244
CDP 2009 (accounting for 15% of the (tonnes CO2-e) CDP 2008
475,012
change or approximately 2.5 million
tonnes of CO2-e) 25,547,555
CDP 2007
471,415
Increase in emissions due to new
companies reporting in CDP
Australia New Zealand
2009(accounting for 85% of the change
or approximately 15 million tonnes of
CO2-e)

The change in reported New Zealand Chart 29: Total Scope 1 and 2 emissions and number of companies
emissions was due to the following: reporting emissions

Reduction in emissions due to 140 140

companies not reporting emissions this Number of companies providing emissions data
year or not included in the sample this 126
New Zealand 120
year (accounting for 5% of the change 130
or approximately 50,000 tonnes of Australia
CO2-e) 100
Million t CO2-e’

120
Reduction in emissions reported from
companies reporting in CDP 2008 87 80
and CDP 2009 (accounting for 33% of 110
the change or approximately 300,000
60
tonnes of CO2-e)
55
100
Increase in emissions due to new
40
companies reporting in CDP
2009(accounting for 62% of the change
90
or approximately 500,000 tonnes of 20
CO2-e)

While mandatory reporting will provide 80 0

CDP 2007 CDP 2008 CDP 2009
some benefits for investors, such as greater
consistency and accuracy of reported
emissions data it will not meet the needs
of investors. Mandatory reporting will not
provide key information and data and not in
the form required for investment analysis.
Investors will continue to see emissions data
based on equity share, broken down by
facility and type and will continue to do so
through the CDP in the foreseeable future.

40
 Key Trends

4.5 Changing the Business Climate: Investment in Climate Change

Opportunities

Chart 30: Respondents taking actions to mitigate risks or exploit Mitigating risks or exploiting
identified opportunities opportunities
75% As evident from earlier discussion the GFC
Actions addressing and the residual regulatory uncertainty
68%
regulatory risks around emissions trading did not deter
61% companies in Australia and New Zealand
from identifying risks and opportunities
Actions addressing 75%
from climate change or from developing
regulatory 47%
opportunities
and reporting their emissions inventory.
45%
Neither have they delayed companies
79% from taking actions to mitigate the risks or
Actions addressing
68% exploit many of the opportunities they had
physical risks
71% identified. The percentage of respondents
describing actions mitigating risks or
53% exploiting opportunities ranged from 45%
Actions addressing
58% to 79% across the various categories of
physical opportunities
47% risk and opportunity.

Conversely, across the various categories

68%
Actions addressing of risk and opportunity a minimum of 21%
63%
other risks and a maximum of 55% of respondents
50% identified risks or opportunities but did not
describe any actions mitigating those risks
66%
Actions addressing or exploiting the opportunities. Investors
65%
other opportunities will expect to see additional information
61% here in future.
ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZX50
There is no doubt, given the focus of
responses on regulatory risk and the
Chart 31: Respondents taking action to reduce emissions opportunity to reduce costs through
increased efficiency, that actions to reduce
86% emissions or energy use were most
ASX100
prevalent. However, other actions that were
71%
described to mitigate or adapt to the risks
38% or to exploit the opportunities were many
ASX200 ex100 and varied, including:
Not reported
Technological developments
58%
NZX50
62% Geographic diversification

CDP 2009 CDP 2008 Development of new products and

services

Research and development

Collaboration within sectors and with

broader stakeholders

Supply chain management

41

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand
BHP Billiton’s operational facilities are
also exploring the application of innovative
technology to improve energy efficiency,
low carbon alternative technologies and
renewable energy technologies, in order
to address these intensity targets. Energy
efficiency and low emission technologies
provide significant opportunities to reduce
our operating costs globally, and decrease
liability for emissions in Europe and
Australia. BHP Billiton
Goodman Fielder also regularly investigates
alternative suppliers of many of our raw
ingredients, which can be used as a
contingency measure if there is a disruption
to the supply of one of our key ingredients.
Goodman Fielder
As water is the main ingredient in most
of Lion Nathan products, we strive to be
innovative in using and reducing water
usage. In 2008, Lion Nathan installed a
water recycling plant in one of its breweries
in a region severely affected by drought.
This initiative reduced water usage by 46%.
Lion Nathan
Our priority focus is on resource efficiency
and we have a broad range of innovations
and technologies currently underway.
Woolworths
Emissions reduction
When specifically requested to disclose
actions being undertaken or planned
to reduce emissions, 86% of ASX100
respondents and 64% of NZX50
respondents did so. This represents a
significant increase in the percentage
of ASX100 respondents describing
actions being undertaken or planned to
reduce emissions and a slight decline in
the percentage of NZX50 respondents.
Only 38% of ASX200 ex100 companies
described actions being undertaken or
planned to reduce emissions.
42
Chart 32: Respondents with emissions reduction plans
76%
ASX100
60%
48%
ASX200 ex100
Not reported
58%
NZX50
56%
CDP 2009 CDP 2008
Chart 33: Why respondents did not have an emissions reduction plan
ASX100 82% 6% 6% 6%
ASX200 ex
100 67% 27% 7%
NZX50 36% 36% 9% 18%
Process of being developed
Not considered necessary
Developing emissions inventory
No response
There was a significant increase in the The large majority of ASX100 and ASX200
percentage of ASX100 companies with ex100 companies without an emissions
emissions reduction plans. The percentage reduction plan were in the process of
of ASX100 companies with emissions developing one. While only a small number
reduction plans increased from 60% in of Australian respondents did not consider
CDP 2008 to 76% this year. The increase an emission reduction plan necessary,
in the percentage of NZX50 companies over a third of NZX50 respondents that did
with emissions reduction plans was more not have a plan did not consider that one
modest, up from 56% to 58%. was necessary.
The percentage of ASX100 respondents
with an emissions reduction plan was
above the global average of 66% but
below that of the Global 500 (80%).
The percentage of NZX50 and ASX200
respondents with an emissions reduction
plan was below the global average.
 Key Trends

Chart 34: Respondents with emissions reduction targets Therefore the lack of targets may be an
indicator that companies are undertaking
64% actions in an ad hoc manner without
ASX100
46% prioritising actions, understanding whether
the actions will actually reduce emissions
38% or by how much. The establishment of
ASX200 ex100
Not reported quantitative emissions reduction targets
signifies a degree of commitment by
58%
NZX50 companies and provides an important
44% indication to investors of the possible extent
of mitigation against existing or potential
CDP 2009 CDP 2008
emissions liabilities.

Chart 35: Respondents reporting previous or future investment in Investment

emissions reduction
ASX100
ASX200 ex100
14%
NZX50
12%
Future investment
In addition to an increased percentage
of respondents with an emissions
reduction plan, an increased percentage
of respondents had an emissions
reduction target. While there was a
significant increase in the percentage of
ASX100 and NZX50 respondents with
an emissions reduction target there
were still a large number of respondents
that are yet to establish targets. 42% of
NZX50 respondents and 36% of ASX100
respondents have not yet developed
quantitative emissions reduction targets
for their company. This is an area where
investors expect to see improvements in
CDP 2010.
24%
17%
21%
35%
Previous investment
The gap between the percentage of
companies undertaking actions and the
percentage of companies committing to
emissions reduction targets is likely to be
somewhat concerning to investors. It is
widely recognised that successful business
improvement is based on a model of
continuous improvement incorporating
objectives and targets. Emissions reduction
is no exception.
In the face of economic challenges and
residual regulatory uncertainty it is not
clear to what extent companies actually
undertook action or committed investment
to mitigate or adapt to exploit opportunities.
While only a small number of respondents
from Australia and New Zealand specified
investment that had been committed
to deliver existing or future emissions
reductions targets or activities, a number
of companies stated that they had made
investment in emissions reduction but
that it was not disaggregated from
broader business investment or was not
separately tracked.
While accepting that disclosure of details
on specific abatement investments may
give away information to competitors
and that this deters companies from
making detailed disclosures, investors are
concerned about the lack of clarity and
commitment by companies to specific
emissions abatement targets and projects.
In order to offset potential emissions
liabilities in their investment analysis
investors will need to see a credible
mitigation strategy including clearer
commitments to targets and investment
in emissions reduction, particularly from
emissions intensive companies.

43

<< back contents next >> exit

 5
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Appendices

CDP 2009 Questionnaire

Appendix A – CDP 2009 Questionnaire

Appendix B – Australia and New Zealand Response Rate

Appendix C – Company Listing & Breakdown for Analysis

44

Appendix A
Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Information Request
February 2009
Risks and Opportunities
1. Regulatory Risks: (CDP6 1(a)(i))
1.1. Is your company exposed to regulatory risks
related to climate change?
2. Physical Risks: (CDP6 1(a)(ii))
2.1. Is your company exposed to physical risks
from climate change?
3. Other Risks: (CDP6 1(a)(iii))
3.1. Is your company exposed to other risks
as a result of climate change?
4. Regulatory Opportunities: (CDP6 1(b)(i))
4.1. Do regulatory requirements on climate change
present opportunities for your company?
5. Physical Opportunities: (CDP6 1(b)(ii))
5.1. Do physical changes resulting from climate
change present opportunities for your company?
6. Other Opportunities: (CDP6 1(b)(iii))
6.1. Does climate change present other opportunities
for your company?
© Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Appendix A
Where the answer to any of the questions in the risks
and opportunities section (see left hand column) is
yes, please provide the following information if
relevant:
• Describe the company’s process for identifying
risks/opportunities and assessing the degree
to which they could affect the business, including
the financial implications.
• Describe current and/or anticipated
risks/opportunities.
• Explain the way in which the risks/opportunities
could affect your business and your value chain,
including the financial implications.
• What geographical areas are affected by the
risks/opportunities you have identified.
• Outline the timescales over which the
risks/opportunities are expected to materialise.
• Explain any actions the company has taken
or plans to take to manage, adapt to and/or exploit
the risks/opportunities that have been identified
including the financial implications of those actions.
• Comment on whether your views on
risks/opportunities have changed in the past
twelve months.
Where the answer to any of the questions is no, please:
• Explain why you do not consider your
company to be exposed to risks/presented
with opportunities.
• Explain the company process for identifying
risks/opportunities and assessing the degree to
which they could affect the business.
• Comment on whether your views have changed
in the past twelve months.
45
<< back contents next >> exit
Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Accounting,

Emissions Intensity, Energy and Trading

Information about how to respond to this section may be found in “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting
and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition)” developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council
for Sustainable Development (“the GHG Protocol”), see www.ghgprotocol.org. ISO 14064-1 is compatible with the GHG
Protocol as are a number of regional/national programme protocols. For more information see www.ghgprotocol.org
and the CDP 2009 Reporting Guidance.

7. Reporting Year: (CDP6 Q2(a)(ii))

Please also provide CDP with responses to questions 7, 8, 9, 10.1, 10.2, 11.1 and 11.2 for the three years
prior to the current reporting year if you have not done so before or if this is the first time you have answered
a CDP information request.

7.1. Please state the start date and end date of the year for which you are reporting GHG emissions.

8. Reporting Boundary: (CDP6 Q2(a)(i))

8.1. Please indicate the category that describes the company, entities, or group for which Scope 1 and Scope 2
GHG emissions are reported.

• Companies over which financial control is exercised – per consolidated audited financial statements;
• Companies over which operational control is exercised;
• Companies in which equity share is held;
• Other (please provide details).

8.2. Please state whether any parts of your business or sources of GHG emissions are excluded from
your reporting boundary.

9. Methodology: (CDP6 Q2(a)(iii))

9.1. Please describe the process used by your company to calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions
including the name of the standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect activity data and
calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions.

Please also provide:

9.2. Details of any assumptions made.

9.3. The names of and links to any calculation tools used.

9.4. The global warming potentials you have applied and their origin.

9.5. The emission factors you have applied and their origin.

Note about questions 10, 11 and 13

When providing answers to questions 10, 11 and 13, please do not deduct offset credits, Renewable Energy Certificates
etc, or net off any estimated avoided emissions from the export of renewable energy, carbon sequestration (including
enhanced oil recovery) or from the use of goods and services. Opportunities to provide details of activities that reduce
or avoid emissions are provided elsewhere in the information request.

Carbon dioxide emissions from biologically sequestered carbon e.g. carbon dioxide from burning biomass/biofuels should be
reported separately from emissions Scopes 1, 2 and 3. If relevant, please report these emissions in question 15. However, please
do include any nitrous oxide or methane emissions from biomass/biofuel combustion in your emissions under the three scopes.
46 © Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
 Appendix A

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Accounting,

Emissions Intensity, Energy and Trading

10. Scope 1 Direct GHG Emissions: (CDP6 Q2(b)(i))

Electric utilities should report emissions by country/region using the table in question EU3.

Please provide:

10.1. Total gross global Scope 1 GHG emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e

Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by:

10.2. Country or region

Where it will facilitate a better understanding of your business, please also break down your total global
Scope 1 emissions by:

10.3. Business division

and/or

10.4. Facility

10.5. Please break down your total global Scope 1 GHG emissions in metric tonnes of the gas and metric tonnes
of CO2-e by GHG type.

10.6. If you have not provided any information about Scope 1 emissions in response to the questions above, please
explain your reasons and describe any plans you have for collecting Scope 1 GHG emissions information in future.

11. Scope 2 Indirect GHG Emissions: (CDP6 Q2(b)(i))

Important note about emission factors where zero or low carbon electricity is purchased:
The emissions factor you should use for calculating Scope 2 emissions depends upon whether the electricity you purchase is
counted in calculating the grid average emissions factor or not – see below. You can find this out from your supplier.

Electricity that IS counted in calculating the grid average emissions factor:

Where electricity is sourced from the grid and that electricity has been counted in calculating the grid average emissions factor,
Scope 2 emissions must be calculated using the grid average emissions factor, even if your company purchases electricity under
a zero or low carbon electricity tariff.

Electricity that is NOT counted in calculating the grid average emissions factor:
Where zero or low carbon electricity is sourced from the grid or otherwise transmitted to the company and that electricity
is not counted in calculating the grid average, the emissions factor specific to that method of generation can be used, provided
that any certificates quantifying GHG-related environmental benefits claimed for the electricity are not sold or passed on
separately from the electricity purchased.

Please provide:

11.1. Total gross global Scope 2 GHG emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e

Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by:

11.2. Country or region

© Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 47

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Accounting,

Emissions Intensity, Energy and Trading

Where it will facilitate a better understanding of your business, please also break down your total global
Scope 2 emissions by:

11.3. Business division

and/or

11.4. Facility

11.5. If you have not provided any information about Scope 2 emissions in response to the questions above, please
explain your reasons and describe any plans you have for collecting Scope 2 GHG emissions information in future.

12. Contractual Arrangements Supporting Particular Types of Electricity Generation:

(CDP6 Q2(b)(i) – Guidance)

12.1. If you consider that the grid average factor used to report Scope 2 emissions in question 11 above does not reflect
the contractual arrangements you have with electricity suppliers, (for example, because you purchase electricity
using a zero or low carbon electricity tariff), you may calculate and report a contractual Scope 2 figure in response
to this question, showing the origin of the alternative emission factors and information about the tariff.

12.2. If you retire any certificates (eg: Renewable Energy Certificates) associated with zero or low carbon electricity,
please provide details.

13. Scope 3 Other Indirect GHG Emissions: (CDP6 Q2(c))

For each of the following categories, please:

• Describe the main sources of emissions,

• Report emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e,
• State the methodology, assumptions, calculation tools, databases, emission factors (including sources)
and global warming potentials (including sources) you have used for calculating emissions.

13.1. Employee business travel

13.2. External distribution/logistics

13.3. Use/disposal of company’s products and services

For auto manufacture and auto component companies – please refer to the additional questions for these sectors
before completing question 13.3.

13.4. Company supply chain

13.5. Other

13.6. If you have not provided information about one or more of the categories of Scope 3 GHG emissions in response
to the questions above, please explain your reasons and describe any plans you have for collecting Scope 3
indirect emissions information in future.

48 © Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

 Appendix A

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Accounting,

Emissions Intensity, Energy and Trading

14. Emissions Avoided Through use of Goods and Services: (New for CDP 2009)

14.1. If your goods and/or services enable GHG emissions to be avoided by a third party, please provide details
including the estimated avoided emissions, the anticipated timescale over which the emissions are avoided and
the methodology, assumptions, emission factors (including sources), and global warming potentials (including
sources) used for your estimations.

15. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Biologically Sequestered Carbon: (New for CDP 2009)

An example would be carbon dioxide from burning biomass/biofuels.

15.1. Please provide the total global carbon dioxide emissions in metric tonnes CO2 from biologically sequestered carbon.

16. Emissions Intensity: (CDP6 Q3(b))

16.1. Please supply a financial emissions intensity measurement for the reporting year for your combined Scope 1 and 2
emissions, including a description of the measurement,

16.1.1. The units, and

16.1.2. The resulting figure.

16.2. Please supply an activity related intensity measurement for the reporting year for your combined
Scope 1 and 2 emissions, including a description of the measurement,

16.2.1. The units, and

16.2.2. The resulting figure.

17. Emissions History: (CDP6 Q2(f))

17.1. Do emissions for the reporting year vary significantly compared to previous years?

If so, please explain why, and:

17.1.1. Estimate the percentage by which emissions vary compared with the previous reporting year.

18. External Verification/Assurance: (CDP6 Q2(d))

18.1. Has any of the information reported in response to questions 10 – 15 been externally verified/assured in whole or in part?

If so, please:

18.2. State the scope/boundary of emissions included within the verification/assurance exercise.

18.3. State what level of assurance, (eg: reasonable or limited) has been given.

18.4. Provide a copy of the verification/assurance statement.

18.5. Specify the standard against which the information has been verified/assured.

18.6. If not, please state whether you have plans for GHG emissions accounting information to be externally
verified/assured in future.
© Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 49

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Accounting,

Emissions Intensity, Energy and Trading

19. Data Accuracy: (CDP6 Q2(e) – New wording for CDP 2009)

19.1. What are the main sources of uncertainty in your data gathering, handling and calculations
e.g.: data gaps, assumptions, extrapolation, metering/measurement inaccuracies etc?

19.2. How do these uncertainties affect the accuracy of the reported data in percentage terms or an estimated
standard deviation?

19.3. Does your company report GHG emissions under any mandatory or voluntary scheme (other than CDP)
that requires an accuracy assessment?

If so, please provide:

19.3.1. The name of the scheme.

19.3.2. The accuracy assessment for GHG emissions reported under that scheme for the last report delivered.

20. Energy and Fuel Requirements and Costs: (New for CDP 2009)

Please provide the following information for the reporting year:

Cost of purchased energy

20.1. The total cost of electricity, heat, steam and cooling purchased by your company.

20.1.1. Please break down the costs by individual energy type.

Cost of purchased fuel

20.2. The total cost of fuel purchased by your company for mobile and stationary combustion.

20.2.1. Please break down the costs by individual fuel type.

Energy and fuel inputs

The following questions are designed to establish your company’s requirements for energy and fuel (inputs). Please note
that MWh is our preferred unit for answers as this helps with comparability and analysis. Although it is usually associated
with electricity, it can equally be used to represent the energy content of fuels (see CDP 2009 Reporting Guidance for
further information on conversions to MWh).

Purchased energy input

20.3. Your company’s total consumption of purchased energy in MWh.

Purchased and self produced fuel input

20.4. Your company’s total consumption in MWh of fuels for stationary combustion only. This includes purchased fuels,
as well as biomass and self-produced fuels where relevant.

20.4.1. Please break down the total consumption of fuels reported in answer to question 20.4 by individual fuel type in MWh.

50 © Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

 Appendix A

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Accounting,

Emissions Intensity, Energy and Trading

Energy output

In this question we ask for information about the energy in MWh generated by your company from the fuel that it uses.
Comparing the energy contained in the fuel before combustion (question 20.4) with the energy available for use after
combustion will give an indication of the efficiency of your combustion processes, taking your industry sector into account.

20.5. What is the total amount of energy generated in MWh from the fuels reported in question 20.4?

20.6. What is the total amount in MWh of renewable energy, excluding biomass, that is self-generated by your company?

Energy exports

This question is for companies that export energy that is surplus to their requirements. For example, a company may use
electricity from a combined heat and power plant but export the heat to another organisation.

20.7. What percentage of the energy reported in response to question 20.5 is exported/sold by your company to the grid
or to third parties?

20.8. What percentage of the renewable energy reported in response to question 20.6 is exported/sold by your company
to the grid or to third parties?

21. EU Emissions Trading Scheme: (CDP6 Q2(g)(i) – New wording for CDP 2009)

Electric utilities should report allowances and emissions using the table in question EU5.

21.1. Does your company operate or have ownership of facilities covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)?

If not, please proceed to question 22.

If yes, please give details of:

21.2. The allowances allocated for free for each year of Phase II for facilities which you operate or own.
(Even if you do not wholly own facilities, please give the full number of allowances.)

21.3. The total allowances purchased through national auctioning processes for the period 1 January 2008 to 31
December 2008 for facilities that you operate or own. (Even if you do not wholly own facilities, please give the
total allowances purchased through auctions by the facilities for this period.)

21.4. The total CO2 emissions for 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 for facilities which you operate or own.
(Even if you do not wholly own facilities, please give the total emissions for this period.)

22. Emissions Trading: (CDP6 Q2(g)(ii) – New wording for CDP 2009)

Electric utilities should read EU6 before answering these questions.

22.1. Please provide details of any emissions trading schemes, other than the EU ETS, in which your company already
participates or is likely to participate within the next two years.

22.2. What is your overall strategy for complying with any schemes in which you are required or have elected to
participate, including the EU ETS?

© Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 51

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Accounting,

Emissions Intensity, Energy and Trading

22.3. Have you purchased any project-based carbon credits?

If so, please indicate whether the credits are to meet one or more of the following commitments:

• Primarily for compliance purposes,

• Primarily for voluntary offsetting of your own emissions,
• Other (please describe).

Please also:

22.4. Provide details including the type of unit, volume and vintage purchased and the standard/scheme against
which the credits have been verified, issued and retired (where applicable).

22.5. Have you been involved in the origination of project-based carbon credits?

If so:

22.6. Please provide details including:

• Your role in the project(s),

• The locations and technologies involved,
• The standard/scheme under which the projects are being/have been developed,
• Whether emissions reductions have been validated or verified,
• The annual volumes of generated/projected carbon credits,
• Retirement method if used for own compliance or offsetting.

22.7. Are you involved in the trading of allowances under the EU ETS and/or project-based carbon credits
as a separate business activity, or in direct support of a business activity such as investment fund management
or the provision of offsetting services?

If so:

22.8. Please provide details of the role performed.

52 © Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

 Appendix A

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Performance

23. Reduction Plans: (CDP6 Q3(a))

23.1. Does your company have a GHG emissions and/or energy reduction plan in place?

If not:

23.2. Please explain why and answer question 23.8 if possible.

If your company does have a plan, please provide the following information:

Goal setting

23.3. Do you have an emissions and/or energy reduction target(s)?

23.4. What is the baseline year for the target(s)?

23.5. What is the emissions and/or energy reduction target(s)?

23.6. What are the sources or activities to which the target(s) applies?

23.7. Over what period/timescale does the target(s) extend?

GHG emissions and energy reduction activities

23.8. What activities are you undertaking or planning to undertake to reduce your emissions/energy use?

Goal evaluation

23.9. What benchmarks or key performance indicators do you use to assess progress against the emissions/energy
reduction goals you have set?

Goal achievement

23.10. What emissions reductions, energy savings and associated cost savings have been achieved to date
as a result of the plan and/or the activities described above? Please state the methodology and data sources
you have used for calculating these reductions and savings.

23.11. What investment has been required to achieve the emissions reductions and energy savings targets or to carry
out the activities listed in response to question 23.8 above and over what period was that investment made?

© Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 53

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Performance

Goal planning and investment

Electric utilities should read the table in question EU3 for giving details of forecasted emissions.

23.12. What investment will be required to achieve the future targets set out in your reduction plan or to carry
out the activities listed in response to question 23.8 above and over what period do you expect payback
of that investment?

23.13. Please estimate your company’s future Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for the next five years for each
of the main territories or regions in which you operate or provide a qualitative explanation for expected changes
that could impact future GHG emissions.

23.14. Please estimate your company’s future energy use for the next five years for each of the main territories
or regions in which you operate or provide a qualitative explanation for expected changes that could impact
future GHG emissions.

23.15. Please explain the methodology used for your estimations and any assumptions made.

24. Planning: (CDP6 Q3(c))

24.1. How do you factor the cost of future emissions into capital expenditures and what impact have those estimated
costs had on your investment decisions?

54 © Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

 Appendix A

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

Information Request
February 2009

Governance

25. Responsibility: (CDP6 Q4(a))

25.1. Does a Board Committee or other executive body have overall responsibility for climate change?

If not:

25.2. Please state how overall responsibility for climate change is managed and indicate the highest level within your
company with responsibility for climate change.

If so, please provide the following information:

25.3. Which Board Committee or executive body has overall responsibility for climate change?

25.4. What is the mechanism by which the Board or other executive body reviews the company’s progress and status
regarding climate change?

26. Individual Performance: (CDP6 Q4(b))

26.1. Do you provide incentives for individual management of climate change issues including attainment
of GHG targets?

If so:

26.2. Are those incentives linked to monetary rewards?

26.3. Who is entitled to benefit from those incentives?

27. Communications: (CDP6 Q4(c))

27.1. Do you publish information about the risks and opportunities presented to your company by climate change,
details of your emissions and plans to reduce emissions?

If so, please indicate which of the following apply and provide details and/or a link to the documents
or a copy of the relevant excerpt:

27.2. The company’s Annual Report or other mainstream filings.

27.3. Voluntary communications (other than to CDP) such as Corporate Social Responsibility reporting.

28. Public Policy: (CDP6 Q4(d))

28.1. Do you engage with policymakers on possible responses to climate change including taxation, regulation and
carbon trading? If so, please provide details.

© Copyright Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 55

<< back contents next >> exit

 Appendix B

Australian and New Zealand Response Rate

Table 4 – CDP 2009 Australia & New Zealand Response Rate

ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZX50
No. of No. of No. of
companies % of companies companies % of companies companies % of companies
Answered Questionnaire (AQ) 73 73% 31 31% 26 52%
Provided information (IN) 1 1% 2 2% 1 2%
Subtotal 74 74% 33 33% 27 54%
Declined to participate (DP) 10 10% 8 8% 3 6%
No response (NR) 16 16% 59 59% 20 40%
Subtotal 26 26% 67 67% 23 46%
Total 100 100% 100 100% 50 100%

Table 5 – CDP 2008 Australia & New Zealand Response Rate

ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZX50
No. of companies % of companies No. of companies % of companies No. of companies % of companies
Answered Questionnaire (AQ) 73 72% 23 23% 25 50%
Provided information (IN) 3 3% 4 4% 2 4%
Subtotal 76 75% 27 27% 27 54%
Declined to participate (DP) 12 12% 16 16% 4 8%
No response (NR) 13 13% 57 57% 19 38%
Subtotal 25 25% 73 73 23 46%
Total 1011 100% 100 100% 50 100%

Table 6 – CDP 2007 Australia & New Zealand Response Rate

ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZX50
No. of % of companies No. of % of companies No. of % of companies
companies companies companies
Answered Questionnaire (AQ) 58 58% 18 38%
Provided information (IN) 6 6% 0 0%
Subtotal 64 64% Not included in CDP 2007 18 38%
Declined to participate (DP) 13 13% 5 8%
No response (NR) 23 23% 27 54%
Subtotal 36 36% 32 62%
Total 992 100% 50 100%

Table 7 – CDP 2006 Australia & New Zealand Response Rate

ASX100 ASX200 ex100 NZ50 3
No. of No. of No. of
companies % of companies companies % of companies companies % of companies
Answered Questionnaire (AQ) 55 55% 11 27%
Provided information (IN) 6 6% 1 3%
Subtotal 61 61% 12 30%
Not included in CDP 2006
Declined to participate (DP) 20 20% 10 24%
Did not respond (NR) 19 19% 19 46%
Subtotal 39 43% 29 70%
Total 100 100% 41 100%

1 Prior to the date the ASX100 was selected i.e. 20 December 2007, Publishing and Broadcasting Limited demerged to form Crown Limited and Consolidated Media Holdings Limited. Hence
the number of companies in the ASX100 sample is 101.
2 One company listed on the ASX100 as at 1 January was subsequently de-listed. Hence the number of companies in the ASX100 sample is 99.
3 Due to errors discovered in the sample the NZX50 response rate figures have had to be recast for this report.
4 Provided Information means a partial description of the emissions and climate change policies of the company, without reference to specific CDP questions

56
 Appendix C
Company Listing & Breakdown for Analysis

AQ = Answered Questionnaire Exposure Ranking

IN = Provided Information G = Greenhouse intensive sectors – primarily companies operating in sectors with
relatively high greenhouse gas emissions, including utilities, chemicals, construction
DP = Declined to Participate
materials, oil, gas & consumable fuels, metals & mining, transportation (not including
NR = No Response infrastructure).

C = Other climate change exposed sectors – primarily companies operating in

sectors that are exposed to physical risks of climate change including property and food
& beverage or are vulnerable to greenhouse or physical risks through their customer base
including finance and mining contractors.

L = Less exposed sectors – the remaining sectors.

ASX200
Industry Group – Sub Sector

Listing as at 1/1/2009

Exposure Rating
Company name

CDP 2009

CDP 2006
CDP 2008

CDP 2007

Access
Abacus Property Group Real Estate NR ASX200 C N/A
ABB Grain Food Products AQ DP ASX200 C Not public
Adelaide Brighton Construction Materials AQ AQ * ASX200 G Not public
AGL Energy Utilities AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
Alesco Corporation Intermed & Durables NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Alumina Metals & Mining AQ AQ * AQ * DP ASX50 G Public
Amcor Containers & Packaging AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
AMP* Financial services AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 L Public
Ansell Health Care Equipment & NR NR NR NR ASX100 L N/A
Supplies
APA Group Gas Distribution AQ NR ASX200 C Not public
APN News & Media* Publishing AQ DP NR NR ASX200 L Not public
Aquarius Platinum Metals & Mining AQ AQ * AQ * IN ASX200 G Public
Aquila Resources Limited Energy NR ASX200 G N/A
Aristocrat Leisure Leisure Equipment & NR NR NR NR ASX100 L N/A
Products
Arrow Energy Oil & Gas Exploration & AQ AQ * ASX100 G Public
Production
Asciano Group Transportation AQ IN ASX100 C Not public
ASX Diversified Financials AQ AQ * DP NR ASX50 L Public
Atlas Iron Limited Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
Ausenco Limited Industrial Products & NR ASX200 C N/A
Services
Austar United Telecommunication Services NR NR ASX200 L N/A
Communications
Australand Property Group Property AQ AQ * ASX200 C Not public
Australia and New Zealand Banks - Asia AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
Banking Group*
Australian Agricultural Food Products NR ASX200 C N/A
Company Limited.

57

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Industry Group – Sub Sector

Listing as at 1/1/2009

Exposure Rating
Company name

CDP 2009

CDP 2006
CDP 2008

CDP 2007

Access
Australian Infrastructure Transportation NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Fund
Australian Wealth Diversified Financials NR NR ASX200 L N/A
Management
Australian Worldwide Oil & Gas Exploration & AQ NR ASX100 G Not public
Exploration Production
Avoca Resources Limited Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
AWB Diversified Financials DP NR NR ASX200 C Not public
AXA Asia Pacific Holdings Diversified Financials AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
Babcock & Brown Diversified Financials IN AQ * NR AQ ASX100 C N/A
Babcock & Brown Capital Diversified Financials NR DP ASX200 C Not public
Babcock & Brown Utilities AQ AQ * NR ASX100 C N/A
Infrastructure Group
Babcock & Brown Japan Property NR DP ASX200 C Public
Property Trust
Babcock & Brown Power Utilities DP IN ASX200 G Not public
Bank of Queensland Diversified Financials NR NR ASX100 C N/A
Beach Petroleum Oil & Gas Exploration DP NR ASX200 G Not public
& Production
Bendigo Bank and Adelaide Diversified Financials DP NR ASX100 C Not public
Bank
BHP Billiton Materials AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
Billabong International Textiles, Apparel & Luxury AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 L Public
Goods
BlueScope Steel Steel AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
Boart Longyear Industrial Products DP NR ASX100 C Not public
& Services
Boral Construction Materials AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 G Public
Bradken Industrial Products NR NR ASX200 G N/A
& Services
Brambles Support Services AQ NR DP IN ASX50 L Public
Bunnings Warehouse Property NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Property Trust
Cabcharge Australia Services DP NR ASX200 L Not public
Caltex Australia Oil & Gas Refining AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 G Public
& Marketing
Centennial Coal Company Coal NR DP ASX100 G N/A
Centro Retail Group Property NR DP ASX200 C N/A
CFS Retail Property Trust Property AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
Challenger Financial Services Diversified Financials NR DP AQ * NR * ASX200 L N/A
Group
Coca-Cola Amatil Food Products AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
Cochlear Health Care Equipment NR AQ * AQ * DP ASX100 L N/A
& Supplies
Commonwealth Bank of Banks - Asia AQ AQ * DP DP ASX50 C Public
Australia
Commonwealth Property Property AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
Office Fund
Computershare Software & Computer AQ AQ * DP AQ ASX100 L Public
Services
ConnectEast Group Transportation DP IN ASX100 C Not public

58
 Appendix C

Industry Group – Sub Sector

Listing as at 1/1/2009

Exposure Rating
Company name

CDP 2009

CDP 2006
CDP 2008

CDP 2007

Access
Consolidated Media Holdings Publishing NR DP ASX100 L N/A
Corporate Express Australia Commercial Services AQ DP ASX200 L Public
& Supplies
Crane Group Diversified Industrial NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Crown Leisure Entertainment AQ NR ASX50 L Not public
& Hotels
CSL Pharmaceuticals AQ AQ * IN DP ASX50 L Public
CSR Diversified Industrial AQ AQ * AQ * IN ASX100 G Not public
David Jones Multiline Retail DP NR ASX100 L Public
DEXUS Property Group Property AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
Downer EDI Construction & Engineering AQ AQ * DP DP ASX100 C Public
DUET Group Utilities AQ AQ * ASX200 G Public
Emeco Holdings Construction & Farm AQ NR ASX200 L Public
Machinery & Heavy Trucks
Energy Resources of Metals & Mining AQ AQ* ASX200 G Public
Australia
Energy World Corporation Utilities NR ASX200 G N/A
Ltd
Envestra Gas Distribution AQ NR ASX200 C Not public
Equinox Minerals Limited Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
Fairfax Media Advertising NR NR NR NR* ASX50 L N/A
Felix Resources Limited Energy NR ASX200 G N/A
FKP Property Group Property NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Flight Centre Leisure Entertainment NR NR ASX200 L N/A
& Hotels
Fortescue Metals Group Metals & Mining DP DP ASX50 G Not public
Fosters Group Beverages & Tobacco AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
Futuris Corporation Commercial Services NR NR AQ * IN ASX100 C N/A
& Supplies
Gindalbie Metals Ltd Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
Gloucester Coal Limited Energy NR ASX200 G N/A
Goodman Fielder* Food Products AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
Goodman Group Real Estate Management AQ AQ * ASX50 C Public
& Development
GPT Group Property AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
GUD Holdings Industrial Products IN NR ASX200 L Public
& Services
Gunns Paper & Forest Products NR NR ASX200 G N/A
GWA International Household & Personal NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Products
Harvey Norman Holdings Property DP DP NR DP ASX100 L Not public
Hastings Diversified Utilities Utilities AQ NR ASX200 C Public
Fund
Healthscope Health Care Providers & DP NR ASX200 L Not public
Services
Henderson Group Diversified Financials - UK AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX200 L Public
& Ireland
HFA Holdings Limited Diversified Financials NR ASX200 L N/A
Hills Industries Building NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Iluka Resources Metals & Mining AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 G Public

59

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Industry Group – Sub Sector

Listing as at 1/1/2009

Exposure Rating
Company name

CDP 2009

CDP 2006
CDP 2008

CDP 2007

Access
Incitec Pivot Speciality Chemicals AQ DP ASX50 G Not public
Independence Group Metals & Mining AQ NR ASX200 C Public
Infigen Energy Energy AQ ASX200 G Public
ING Industrial Fund - Property AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
see ING Group
ING Office Fund - Real Estate AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
see ING Group
Insurance Australia Group Insurance - Asia AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
InvoCare Services AQ AQ * ASX200 L Not public
IOOF Holdings Diversified Financials NR NR ASX200 L N/A
IRESS Market Technology Internet Software & Services AQ AQ * ASX200 L Not public
James Hardie Industries Construction Materials NR NR DP DP ASX100 G N/A
JB Hi-Fi Speciality Retail AQ DP ASX200 L Not public
Kagara Metals & Mining NR NR ASX200 G N/A
Karoon Gas Australia Limited Energy NR ASX200 G N/A
Kingsgate Consolidated Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
Limited
Leighton Holdings Construction & Engineering AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
Lend Lease Corporation Property AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
Lihir Gold Metals & Mining AQ AQ * DP AQ ASX50 G Public
Linc Energy Ltd Energy NR ASX200 G N/A
Lion Nathan* Beverages & Tobacco AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
Lynas Corporation Energy NR DP ASX200 G N/A
Macarthur Coal Coal AQ AQ * ASX200 G Public
MacMahon Holdings Metals & Mining NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Macquarie Airports Airports AQ AQ * IN AQ ASX50 C Public
Macquarie Communications Broadcasting & Cable TV DP AQ * IN AQ ASX100 L Not public
Infrastructure Group
Macquarie CountryWide Real Estate Investment AQ AQ * NR NR ASX200 C Public
Trust Trusts
Macquarie DDR Trust Real Estate Investment AQ NR ASX200 C Public
Trusts
Macquarie Group Diversified Financials AQ AQ * DP DP ASX50 C Public
Macquarie Infrastructure Transportation AQ AQ * IN AQ ASX50 C Public
Group
Macquarie Media Group Media & Photography AQ AQ * ASX200 L Public
Macquarie Office Trust Real Estate Investment AQ AQ * NR AQ ASX100 C Public
Trusts
Metcash Food Products DP AQ * NR NR * ASX100 L Not public
Minara Resources Metals & Mining NR NR ASX200 G N/A
Mincor Resources Containers & Packaging NR NR ASX200 G N/A
Mirvac Group Real Estate AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 C Public
Monadelphous Group Construction & Engineering NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Mount Gibson Iron Metals & Mining NR NR ASX100 G N/A
Murchison Metals Metals & Mining DP NR ASX200 G Not public
National Australia Bank Banks - Asia AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
Newcrest Mining Metals & Mining AQ AQ * AQ * NR ASX50 G Public
News Corporation Movies & Entertainment AQ AQ * AQ * IN ASX50 L Public

60
 Appendix C

Industry Group – Sub Sector

Listing as at 1/1/2009

Exposure Rating
Company name

CDP 2009

CDP 2006
CDP 2008

CDP 2007

Access
Nexus Energy Oil & Gas Exploration NR NR ASX200 G N/A
& Production
NRW Holdings Limited Industrial Products NR ASX200 G N/A
& Services
Nufarm Speciality Chemicals DP NR ASX100 G Not public
Oil Search Oil & Gas Exploration NR NR DP DP ASX100 G N/A
& Production
OM Holdings Limited Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
OneSteel Steel AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Not public
Optus (SingTel) Integrated AQ DP NR AQ ASX200 L Public
Telecommunication Services
Orica Chemicals AQ AQ * AQ * DP ASX50 G Public
Origin Energy Energy AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
OZ Minerals Limited Metals & Mining AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Not public
Pacific Brands Multiline Retail AQ AQ * ASX200 L Not public
Paladin Energy Materials DP NR IN ASX100 G Public
Pan Australian Resources Metals & Mining NR NR ASX200 G N/A
Panoramic Resources Materials IN ASX200 G Public
Limited
PaperlinX Paper & Forest Products AQ AQ * AQ * DP ASX200 G Public
Perpetual Diversified Financials AQ AQ * AQ * DP ASX100 L Public
Platinum Asset Management Diversified Financials NR ASX200 L N/A
Limited
Platinum Australia Limited Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
PMP Commercial Services AQ AQ * ASX200 C Not public
& Supplies
Primary Health Care Limited Health Care Providers NR ASX100 L N/A
& Services
Qantas Airways Airlines AQ AQ * AQ * IN ASX50 G Public
QBE Insurance Group Insurance - Asia AQ AQ * AQ * DP ASX50 C Public
Ramsay Health Care Health Care Providers NR NR ASX200 L N/A
& Services
ResMed Health Care Equipment NR NR NR NR ASX200 L N/A
& Supplies
Rio Tinto Metals & Mining AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
Riversdale Mining Limited Energy NR ASX100 G N/A
Roc Oil Company Oil & Gas AQ IN ASX200 G Not public
Santos Oil & Gas Exploration AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
& Production
SEEK Human Resource & NR NR ASX200 L N/A
Employment Services
Seven Network [The] Media & Photography NR IN ASX200 L N/A
Sigma Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX200 L Public
Sims Metal Management Metals & Mining AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 G Public
Limited
Sino Gold Mining Metals & Mining NR NR ASX200 G N/A
Sonic Healthcare Health Care Providers NR AQ * AQ * AQ ASX100 L N/A
& Services
SP AusNet Utilities NR AQ * ASX200 G N/A
Spark Infrastructure Group Utilities NR NR ASX200 G N/A

61

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Industry Group – Sub Sector

Listing as at 1/1/2009

Exposure Rating
Company name

CDP 2009

CDP 2006
CDP 2008

CDP 2007

Access
Spotless Group Support Services AQ IN ASX200 C Not public
St Barbara Limited Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
Stockland Property AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
Straits Resources Metals & Mining DP DP ASX200 G Not public
Suncorp-Metway Financial services AQ DP NR NR ASX50 C Not public
Sundance Resources Limited Materials NR ASX200 G N/A
Sunland Group Property NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Tabcorp Holdings Leisure Entertainment AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 L Not public
& Hotels
Tatts Group Consumer NR DP NR NR ASX100 L N/A
Telecom Corporation of New Integrated AQ AQ * AQ * NR * ASX50 L Public
Zealand* Telecommunication Services
Telstra Corporation* Telecommunications AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 L Public
Ten Network Holdings Media & Photography AQ AQ * ASX200 L Public
Tishman Speyer Office Fund Real Estate NR NR ASX200 C N/A
Toll Holdings Surface Transport AQ AQ * DP AQ ASX50 G Not public
Tower Australia Group Diversified Financials AQ AQ * ASX200 C Public
Transfield Services Commercial Services AQ AQ * ASX100 C Public
& Supplies
Transpacific Industries Group Commercial Services NR NR ASX200 G N/A
& Supplies
Transurban Group Industrial AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
United Group Construction & Engineering AQ NR ASX100 C Public
Valad Property Group Diversified Financials NR AQ * ASX200 C N/A
Virgin Blue Holdings Limited Airlines DP ASX200 G Not public
Wesfarmers Diversified Financials AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 G Public
West Australian Newspapers Media & Photography NR DP NR NR ASX100 L N/A
Holdings
Western Areas Metals & Mining NR NR ASX200 G N/A
Westfield Group Real Estate Investment AQ AQ * IN DP ASX50 C Public
Trusts
Westpac Banking Banks - Asia AQ AQ * AQ * AQ ASX50 C Public
Corporation*
Woodside Petroleum Oil & Gas Exploration AQ AQ * AQ * IN ASX50 G Not public
& Production
Woolworths Food & Drug Retailing AQ AQ * AQ * DP ASX50 L Public
WorleyParsons Commercial Services AQ IN NR ASX50 C Not public
& Supplies
Wotif.com Holdings Leisure Entertainment NR NR ASX200 L N/A
& Hotels

62
 Appendix C

NZX50

Industry Group – Sub Sector

Listing as at 1/1/2009

Exposure Rating
Company name

CDP 2009

CDP 2006
CDP 2008

CDP 2007

Access
Air New Zealand Airlines NR DP NR NR NZX50 G N/A
AMP NZ Office Trust Real Estate Investment AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 C Public
Trusts
AMP* Financial services AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 L Not public
APN News & Media* Publishing AQ DP NR NR NZX50 L Not public
Auckland International Airports AQ AQ * AQ * NR NZX10 C Public
Airport
Australia and New Zealand Banks - Asia AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 C Public
Banking Group*
Cavalier Corporation Textiles, Apparel & Luxury NR NR NR NR NZX50 L N/A
Goods
Contact Energy Energy AQ AQ * AQ * NR * NZX10 G Public
EBOS Health Care Equipment AQ IN NR NZX50 L Not public
& Supplies
Fisher & Paykel Appliances Household durables/ NR NR NR DP NZX50 L N/A
Holdings Electrical Equipment
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Health Care Equipment AQ AQ * NR NR NZX10 L Public
Corporation & Supplies
Fletcher Building Building Products AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX10 G Public
Freightways Services AQ AQ * AQ * NZX50 G Not public
Goodman Fielder* Food Products AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 C Public
Goodman Property Trust Property AQ AQ * AQ * NR NZX50 C Public
Guinness Peat Group Diversified Financials NR NR NR NR NZX50 L N/A
Hallenstein Glasson Holdings Textiles, Apparel & Luxury NR NR NR NZX50 L N/A
Goods
Infratil Utilities NR AQ * NR NR NZX10 G N/A
ING Medical Properties Trust Property AQ AQ * NZX50 C Not public
ING Property Trust Real Estate Investment AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 C Public
Trusts
Kiwi Income Property Trust Real Estate Investment AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX10 C Not public
Trusts
Lion Nathan* Beverages & Tobacco AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 C Public
Mainfreight Air Freight & Logistics AQ AQ * DP NZX50 C Public
Methven Personal Care & Household NR NR NZX50 L N/A
Michael Hill International Textiles, Apparel & Luxury NR DP NR NZX50 L N/A
Goods
New Zealand Exchange Diversified Financials AQ NR NZX50 L Public
New Zealand Oil & Gas Oil & Gas DP NR NR NR NZX50 G Not public
Nuplex Industries Commodity Chemicals DP NR NR NR * NZX50 G N/A
NZ Farming Systems   NR NZX50 C Not public
Uruguay
PGG Wrightson Commercial Services DP NR AQ * AQ NZX50 L N/A
& Supplies
Pike River Coal Energy NR NZX50 G Not public
Port Of Tauranga Transportation IN DP DP DP NZX50 L N/A
Property For Industry Property NR NR NR NR NZX50 C Public
Pumpkin Patch Textiles, Apparel & Luxury NR NR AQ * NR NZX50 L N/A
Goods
Rakon Electrical Equipment NR NR NZX50 L N/A

63

<< back contents next >> exit

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

Industry Group – Sub Sector

Listing as at 1/1/2009

Exposure Rating
Company name

CDP 2009

CDP 2006
CDP 2008

CDP 2007

Access
Ryman Healthcare Health Care Providers AQ AQ * DP NR NZX10 L N/A
& Services
Sanford Food & Drug Retailing AQ AQ * NR NR * NZX50 C Not public
Skellerup Holdings Commercial Services AQ AQ * NR NZX50 C Not public
& Supplies
Sky City Entertainment Leisure Entertainment NR NR NR NR NZX10 L Public
Group & Hotels
Sky Network Television Broadcasting & Cable TV NR NR NR NR NZX10 L N/A
Steel & Tube Holdings Steel AQ AQ * DP NZX50 C N/A
Telecom Corporation of New Integrated AQ AQ * AQ * NR * NZX10 L Not public
Zealand* Telecommunication Services
Telstra Corporation* Telecommunications AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 L Public
The New Zealand Refining Oil & Gas Refining NR NR NR NZX50 G Public
Company & Marketing
Tourism Holdings Leisure Entertainment NR NR NR NR NZX50 L N/A
& Hotels
Tower Diversified Financials NR NR AQ * NR NZX50 C N/A
Trustpower Electric Utilities - NR IN NR IN NZX50 G N/A
International
Vector Utilities NR AQ * NR NR NZX50 G N/A
Warehouse Group Multiline Retail AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 L Not public
Westpac Banking* Banks - Asia AQ AQ * AQ * AQ NZX50 C Public
* Duel listed companies

64

Report preparation
This report has been prepared by
Contact details:
Joanne Saleeba, Director
joanne.saleeba@thrive.net.au
Report preparation
This report is based on submissions from
Australian and New Zealand companies
(listed on the Standard & Poor’s ASX200
and/or New Zealand Stock Exchange
NZX50 indices as at 1 January 2009) in
response to the Carbon Disclosure Project
(CDP) request for information sent by
the CDP and Investor Group on Climate
Change Australia/New Zealand (IGCC),
known as CDP 2009.
This report has been prepared by
Thrive Sustainability Services under
direction from the CDP Australia & New
Zealand Steering Committee comprising
representatives from IGCC including AMP
Capital Investors, CBus, Colonial First
State Global Asset Management, FINSIA,
New Zealand Super, and project sponsors
Goldman Sachs JBWere, Catholic Super
and Booz & Company.
Goldman Sachs JBWere has been
responsible for the construction and
determination of the Climate Disclosure
Leadership Index (CDLI).
ME310_132441_200908
The Carbon Disclosure 2009 report is a Climate Neutral publication. The greenhouse
emissions from paper, production and distribution have been neutralised through
investing in premium quality, Kyoto compliant renewable energy credits via Climate
Friendly. For more information on Climate Friendly see www.climatefriendly.com.
Report disclaimer Issues of independence and
potential conflicts of interest
The information contained herein is of
a general nature and is not intended In preparing this report care has been
to address the circumstances of any taken to ensure independence and
particular individual or entity. There can to manage any potential conflicts of
be no guarantee that information provided interest. Members of the IGCC and the
in submissions from Australian and New CDP Australia & New Zealand Steering
Zealand companies is accurate as of the Committee that received the CDP
date it is received or that it will continue information request have not been able
to be accurate in the future. No one to contribute to the report in any way that
should act on such information without could lead to a conflict of interest and
appropriate professional advice after a have had no influence over the actual
thorough examination of the particular assessment of responses or determination
situation. The information herein has been of the companies comprising the CDLI.
obtained from sources which are believed
to be reliable however no guarantee is Copyright © Investor Group on Climate
made as to its accuracy or completeness. Change Australia/New Zealand
Further, no representation or warranty, (IGCC) 2009
express or implied, is made concerning the
fairness, accuracy or completeness of the
information and opinions contained herein.
All opinions expressed herein are based on
judgement made at the time of this report
being prepared and may be subject to
change without notice due to economic,
political, industry and firm-specific factors.
Thrive Sustainability Services has prepared
this report for the IGCC. To the extent
permitted by law, Thrive Sustainability
Services does not accept or assume
responsibility to anyone other than
IGCC for this report and the information
contained within the report.
65
<< back contents next >> exit
Contacts
Carbon Disclosure Project
www.cdproject.net
MEMBER
The Carbon Disclosure Project2009
(CDP) is an independent not-for-profit organisation aiming
Paul Dickinson to create a lasting relationship between shareholders and corporations regarding the
+44 7958 772864 implications for shareholder value and commercial operations presented by climate
paul@cdproject.net change. Its goal is to facilitate a dialogue, supported by quality information, from which a
Sue Howells rational response to climate change will emerge.
Head of Global Partnerships
sue.howells@cdproject.net

Carbon Disclosure Project

www.cdproject.net
info@cdproject.net

Investor Group on Climate

Change
www.igcc.org.au

Nathan Fabian
+61 2 9255 0291
nathan.fabian@igcc.org.au
The IGCC aims to ensure that the risks and opportunities associated with climate change
are incorporated into investment decisions for the ultimate benefit of individual investors.
To assist in achieving this aim the IGCC partnered with the Carbon Disclosure Project to
improve the availability of investment relevant information on climate change from the top
250 Australian and New Zealand companies.

Goldman Sachs JBWere

www.gsjbw.com

Andrew Gray
+61 3 9679 1435
andrew.gray@gsjbw.com
Goldman Sachs JBWere is a pre-eminent financial services organisation that provides
investment, advisory, financing, securities, execution and asset and wealth management
services to private, corporate and institutional clients. We are proud to support the
participation of Australian and New Zealand companies in the Carbon Disclosure Project
as part of our commitment to raising the awareness of climate change and its associated
investment considerations.

Catholic Super
www.csf.com.au

Robert Clancy
+61 3 9648 4710
RClancy@csf.com.au
Catholic Super is a high-performing industry superannuation fund that has played a
leading role in advancing the concept of Responsible Investment and in raising awareness
of the risks associated with climate change. Catholic Super was the first Australian
financial organisation to sign the UN Principals for Responsible Investment and is a
foundation member of both the Carbon Disclosure Project and IGCC.

Booz & Company

www.booz.com

Greg Lavery
+61 2 9321 1900
greg.lavery@booz.com
Booz & Company is a leading global consulting firm helping the world’s top businesses,
governments and organisations to create and deliver essential advantage. Booz &
Company’s specialist Carbon & Climate Change practice assists government and industry
to transition to the low carbon future.