You are on page 1of 72

Carbon Disclosure Project 2010

Europe 300

On behalf of 534 investors with assets of US$64 trillion

Report written for the Carbon Disclosure Project by: Report sponsored by: Carbon Disclosure Project
info@cdproject.net
+44 (0) 20 7970 5660
www.cdproject.net
Carbon Disclosure Project

Carbon Disclosure Project 2010

This report and all of the public


responses from corporations are
available to download free of charge
from www.cdproject.net.
ABRAPP - Associação KLP Insurance
Brasileira das Entidades Legg Mason, Inc.
Fechadas de Previdência
The London Pensions
Complementar
Fund Authority
Aegon N.V.
Mergence Africa Investments
Akbank T.A. . (Pty) Limited
Allianz Global Investors AG Mitsubishi UFJ Financial
ATP Group Group (MUFG)
Aviva Investors Morgan Stanley
AXA Group National Australia Bank Limited
Banco Bradesco S.A. Neuberger Berman
Bank of America Merrill Lynch Newton Investment
BBVA Management Limited
BlackRock Nordea Investment
Management
BP Investment Management
Limited Northwest and Ethical
Investments LP
California Public Employees’
Retirement System PFA Pension
California State Teachers’ Raiffeisen Schweiz
Retirement System RBS Group
Calvert Group Robeco
Catholic Super Rockefeller & Co. SRI Group
CCLA Investment Russell Investments
Management Ltd Schroders
Co-operative Asset Second Swedish National
Management Pension Fund (AP2)
Essex Investment Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.
Management, LLC
Standard Chartered PLC
Ethos Foundation
Sun Life Financial Inc.
Generation Investment
TD Asset Management Inc.
Management
TDAM USA Inc.
HSBC Holdings plc
The Wellcome Trust
ING
Zurich Cantonal Bank

2
CDP Signatories 2010

Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 Bank Vontobel Climate Change Capital Group Ltd
Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Close Brothers Group plc
534 financial institutions with assets Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H. The Collins Foundation
of over US$64 trillion were signatories BANKINTER S.A. Colonial First State Global Asset Management
to the CDP 2010 information request BankInvest Comite syndical national de retraite Bâtirente
dated February 1st, 2010, including: Banque Degroof Commerzbank AG
Barclays Group CommInsure
BBC Pension Trust Ltd Companhia de Seguros Aliança do Brasil
Aberdeen Asset Managers
BBVA Compton Foundation, Inc.
Aberdeen Immobilien KAG
Bedfordshire Pension Fund Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds
Active Earth Investment Management
Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd Co-operative Asset Management
Acuity Investment Management
BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Co-operative Financial Services (CFS)
Addenda Capital Inc. Terceiros Ltda
Advanced Investment Partners The Co-operators Group Ltd
BlackRock
Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. Bhd.
Blue Marble Capital Management Limited
AEGON Magyarország Befektetési Alapkezelo ´´ Zrt. Crédit Agricole S.A.
Blue Shield of California Group
Aegon N.V. Credit Suisse
Blumenthal Foundation
AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd Daegu Bank
BMO Financial Group
Aeneas Capital Advisors Daiwa Securities Group Inc.
BNP Paribas Investment Partners
AGF Management Limited The Daly Foundation
BNY Mellon
AIG Asset Management de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A.
Boston Common Asset Management, LLC
Akbank T.A.S. DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale
BP Investment Management Limited
Alberta Investment Management Corporation Deutsche Asset Management
Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A.
(AIMCo) Deutsche Bank AG
British Columbia Investment Management
Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Corporation (bcIMC) Deutsche Postbank Vermögensmanagement S.A.,
Alcyone Finance Luxemburg
BT Investment Management
Allianz Global Investors AG Development Bank of Japan Inc.
The Bullitt Foundation
Allianz Group Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)
Busan Bank
Altshuler Shaham Dexia Asset Management
CAAT Pension Plan
AMP Capital Investors DnB NOR ASA
Cadiz Holdings Limited
AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Domini Social Investments LLC
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
Amundi Asset Management Dongbu Insurance Co., Ltd.
Caisse des Dépôts
ANBIMA - Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets DWS Investment GmbH
Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco
Association do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Earth Capital Partners LLP
APG Asset Management Caixa Econômica Federal East Sussex Pension Fund
Aprionis Caixa Geral de Depósitos Ecclesiastical Investment Management
ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance) Caja de Ahorros de Valencia, Castellón y Valencia, Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social
Arma Portföy Yönetimi A.S. BANCAJA The Edward W. Hazen Foundation
ASB Community Trust Caja Navarra EEA Group Ltd
ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. California Public Employees’ Retirement System Element Investment Managers
ASN Bank California State Teachers’ Retirement System ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e
Assicurazioni Generali Spa California State Treasurer Previdência
ATP Group Calvert Group Environment Agency Active Pension Fund
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Epworth Investment Management Ltd
Australian Central Credit Union incorporating Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Equilibrium Capital Group
Savings & Loans Credit Union CAPESESP Erste Group Bank AG
Australian Ethical Investment Limited Capital Innovations, LLC Essex Investment Management, LLC
AustralianSuper CARE Super Pty Ltd Ethos Foundation
AVANA Invest GmbH Carlson Investment Management Eureko B.V.
Aviva Investors Carmignac Gestion Eurizon Capital SGR
Aviva plc Catherine Donnelly Foundation Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension
AvivaSA Emeklilik ve Hayat A.S. Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers
Catholic Super
AXA Group Evli Bank Plc
Cbus Superannuation Fund
Baillie Gifford & Co. F&C Management Ltd
CCLA Investment Management Ltd
Bakers Investment Group FAELCE - Fundação Coelce de Seguridade Social
Celeste Funds Management Limited
Banco Bradesco S.A. FASERN Fundação Cosern de Previdência
The Central Church Fund of Finland Complementar
Banco de Crédito del Perú BCP Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Fédéris Gestion d’Actifs
Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Ceres, Inc. FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH
Banco do Brazil Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP FIM Asset Management Ltd
Banco Santander Christian Super Financière de Champlain
Banco Santander (Brasil) Christopher Reynolds Foundation FIRA. - Banco de Mexico
Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social CI Mutual Funds’ Signature Advisors First Affirmative Financial Network
Banesto (Banco Español de Crédito S.A.) CIBC First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1)
Bank of America Merrill Lynch Clean Yield Group, Inc. FirstRand Ltd.
Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd ClearBridge Advisors
3
Carbon Disclosure Project

Five Oceans Asset Management Hermes Fund Managers Local Government Super
Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) HESTA Super Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie
Folketrygdfondet Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) The London Pensions Fund Authority
Folksam HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) Lothian Pension Fund
Fondaction CSN GmbH Macif Gestion
Fondation de Luxembourg HSBC Holdings plc Macquarie Group Limited
Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites – FRR HSBC INKA Internationale Magnolia Charitable Trust
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
Forward Management, LLC Maine State Treasurer
Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance
Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) Man Group plc
IDBI Bank Limited
Frankfurter Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft Maple-Brown Abbott Limited
mbH Illinois State Treasurer
Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc.
FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company
Maryland State Treasurer
mbH Impax Asset Management Ltd
Matrix Asset Management
Friends Provident Holdings (UK) Limited Industrial Bank
McLean Budden
Front Street Capital Industrial Bank of Korea
MEAG Munich Ergo Asset Management GmbH
Fukoku Capital Management, Inc. Industry Funds Management
Meeschaert Gestion Privée
Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Infrastructure Development Finance Company
Brasiletros Ltd. (IDFC) Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company
Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social ING Merck Family Fund
Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Mergence Africa Investments (Pty) Limited
Fundação Codesc de Seguridade Social - Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Meritas Mutual Funds
FUSESC Telégrafos - Postalis MetallRente GmbH
Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - Metzler Investment GmbH
BNDES - FAPES INFRAPREV
MFS Investment Management
Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social Insurance Australia Group
Midas International Asset Management
Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Investec Asset Management
Miller/Howard Investments
Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Irish Life Investment Managers
Mirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd.
Fundação São Francisco de Seguridade Social Itaú Unibanco Banco Múltiplo S.A.
Mistra, The Swedish Foundation for Strategic
Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social J.P. Morgan Asset Management Environmental Research
- VALIA Janus Capital Group Inc. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)
FUNDIÁGUA - Fundação de Previdência da The Japan Research Institute, Limited Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd
Companhia de Saneamento e Ambiental do
Distrito Federal Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.
Futuregrowth Asset Management The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Mn Services
Gartmore Investment Management Limited Jubitz Family Foundation Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH
Generali Deutschland Holding AG Jupiter Asset Management Morgan Stanley
Generation Investment Management K&H Investment Fund Management / K&H Motor Trades Association of Australia
Befektetési Alapkezelo Zrt Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd
Genus Capital Management
KB Asset Management Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia
Gjensidige Forsikring
KB Financial Group Natcan Investment Management
GLG Partners LP
KB Kookmin Bank The Nathan Cummings Foundation
GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG, Germany
KBC Asset Management ´´ NV National Australia Bank Limited
Goldman Sachs & Co.
KCPS and Company National Bank of Canada
GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale
Vermögensentwicklung mbH KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. National Bank of Kuwait
Governance for Owners LLP Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, LP National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity
KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H. Supply Pension Scheme
Government Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”),
Republic of South Africa KfW Bankengruppe National Grid UK Pension Scheme
Green Cay Asset Management KLP Insurance National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland
Green Century Funds Korea Investment & Trust Management National Union of Public and General Employees
(NUPGE)
Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. Korea Technology Finance Corporation
Natixis
GROUPE OFI AM KPA Pension
Nedbank Limited
Grupo Banco Popular Kyobo AXA Investment Managers
Needmor Fund
Gruppo Monte Paschi La Banque Postale Asset Management
Nelson Capital Management, LLC
Guardian Ethical Management Inc La Financière Responsable
Nest Sammelstiftung
Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Landsorganisationen i Sverige
Neuberger Berman
Guosen Securities Co., LTD. LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg
New Amsterdam Partners LLC
Hang Seng Bank LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft
mbH New Jersey Division of Investment
HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbH
LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond New Mexico State Treasurer
Harbourmaster Capital
Legal & General Group plc New York City Employees Retirement System
Harrington Investments, Inc
Legg Mason, Inc. New York City Teachers Retirement System
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
Lend Lease Investment Management New York State Common Retirement Fund
Hastings Funds Management Limited
(NYSCRF)
Hazel Capital LLP HDFC Bank Ltd Light Green Advisors, LLC
Newton Investment Management Limited
Health Super Fund Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A.
NFU Mutual Insurance Society
Henderson Global Investors Local Authority Pension Fund Forum
NGS Super
The Local Government Pensions Institution
NH-CA Asset Management
4
CDP Signatories 2010

Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Rei Super Sun Life Financial Inc.
Nissay Asset Management Corporation Resona Bank, Limited Superfund Asset Management GmbH
NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG Reynders McVeigh Capital Management Sustainable Capital
Nordea Investment Management Rhode Island General Treasurer Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden
Norfolk Pension Fund RLAM Swedbank Ab (publ)
Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Robeco Swiss Reinsurance Company
Norinchukin Zenkyouren Asset Management Co., Robert Brooke Zevin Associates, Inc Swisscanto Holding AG
Ltd Rockefeller & Co. SRI Group Syntrus Achmea Asset Management
North Carolina State Treasurer Rose Foundation for Communities and the TD Asset Management Inc. TDAM USA Inc.
Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Environment Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association –
Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) Royal Bank of Canada College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF)
Northern Trust RREEF Investment GmbH Tempis Capital Management Co., Ltd.
Northwest and Ethical Investments LP The Russell Family Foundation Terra Forvaltning AS
Oddo & Cie Russell Investments TfL Pension Fund
Old Mutual plc SAM Group The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund
OMERS Administration Corporation Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)
Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Threadneedle Asset Management
OP Fund Management Company Ltd Samsung Life Insurance Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.
Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH Sanlam Investment Management Toronto Atmospheric Fund
Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda The Travelers Companies, Inc.
Church Endowment)
Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG Trillium Asset Management Corporation
OPSEU Pension Trust
Schroders TRIODOS BANK
Oregon State Treasurer
Scotiabank TrygVesta
Orion Asset Management LLC
Scottish Widows Investment Partnership UBS AG
OTP Fund Management Plc.
SEB Unibanco Asset Management
Pax World Funds
SEB Asset Management AG UniCredit Group
Pensioenfonds Vervoer
Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) Union Asset Management Holding AG
Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists
Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Unipension
The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public
Service Alliance of Canada Sentinel Investments UNISON staff pension scheme
Pension Protection Fund SERPROS Fundo Multipatrocinado UniSuper
Pensionsmyndigheten Service Employees International Union Benefit Unitarian Universalist Association
Funds The United Church of Canada - General Council
PETROS - The Fundação Petrobras de
Seguridade Social Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) United Methodist Church General Board of
PFA Pension The Shiga Bank, Ltd. Pension and Health Benefits
PGGM Shinhan Bank United Nations Foundation
Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS)
Ltd. Management Co., Ltd Vancity Group of Companies
PhiTrust Active Investors Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Veritas Investment Trust GmbH
Pictet Asset Management SA Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Vermont State Treasurer
The Pinch Group Signet Capital Management Ltd VicSuper Pty Ltd
Pioneer Alapkezelo´´ Zrt. SIRA Asset Management Victorian Funds Management Corporation
PKA SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD VietNam Holding Ltd.
Pluris Sustainable Investments SA Smith Pierce, LLC Visão Prev Sociedade de Previdência
Pohjola Asset Management Ltd SNS Asset Management Complementar
Portfolio 21 Investments Social(k) Waikato Community Trust Inc
Portfolio Partners Sociedade Ibgeana de Assistência e Seguridade Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston
(SIAS) Trust and Investment Management Company
Porto Seguro S.A.
Solaris Investment Management Limited WARBURG - HENDERSON
PRECE Previdência Complementar Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbH
Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.
The Presbyterian Church in Canada WARBURG INVEST
Sopher Investment Management
PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH
Banco do Brasil SPF Beheer bv
The Wellcome Trust
PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd
Wells Fargo
Principle Capital Partners Standard Bank Group
West Yorkshire Pension Fund
Psagot Investment House Ltd Standard Chartered PLC
WestLB Mellon Asset Management
PSP Investments Standard Life Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH (WMAM)
Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd State Street Corporation The Westpac Group
QBE Insurance Group Limited Storebrand ASA Winslow Management Company
Rabobank Strathclyde Pension Fund Woori Bank
Raiffeisen Schweiz Stratus Group YES BANK Limited
Railpen Investments Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation York University Pension Fund
Rathbones / Rathbone Greenbank Investments Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited Youville Provident Fund Inc.
RBS Group Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., Ltd Zegora Investment Management
Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Zurich Cantonal Bank
Assistência Social Sumitomo Trust & Banking
5
Foreword
Connie Hedegaard,
European Commissioner for Climate Action

Climate change constitutes a massive These measures promise ‘greener’


threat, as the extreme weather events economic growth, new jobs and
of mid-2010 have tragically reminded greater energy security. It is perhaps
us. But it also offers a huge opportunity little surprise that a high proportion of
for those businesses which act to European companies – almost nine
succeed in mainstreaming low-carbon out of ten, according to this report -
solutions to avert dangerous global see business opportunities in the fight
warming. against climate change.

The Carbon Disclosure Project is But Europe cannot afford to rest


helping provide the transparency on its laurels – on the contrary. The
that investors and other stakeholders US, China, Korea and other major
require to evaluate how companies economies are investing heavily in low-
are positioned to cope with these risks carbon technologies and infrastructure
and opportunities. It also encourages to counter the economic crisis.
companies to take steps towards
managing their carbon emissions. The Ensuring Europe maintains its
project thus provides an important leadership position and reaps the full
complement to the EU Emissions economic benefits of the low-carbon
Trading System, since more than 60% revolution requires a continued strong
of European companies participating in push from the policy side. This is one
CDP are not covered by the EU ETS. reason the European Commission
has put decarbonising the economy
This year’s Europe 300 report shows at the heart of our vision for Europe’s
that European companies continue to development up to 2020 and beyond.
lead the world in carbon disclosure and
climate change strategy. Compared The EU’s long-term goal is to cut
to other regions, more than twice emissions by 80-95% by 2050. This
as many European firms had their process will eventually impact on
emissions data independently verified. companies big and small across all
These encouraging trends are, I sectors. Joining the Carbon Disclosure
firmly believe, due in large part to the Project is a way for businesses to
proactive policy approach that the prepare themselves for this transition -
European Union has taken to tackling and maximise their chances of profiting
climate change. from it.

The climate and energy goals the EU


is implementing for the medium term
have given us a head start on the road
to building a low-carbon economy. We
will cut our greenhouse gas emissions
to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020,
and are ready to scale up the reduction
to 30% provided the conditions are
right. A decade from now, 20% of the
EU’s energy will come from renewable
sources. We also aim to reduce energy
consumption by 20% of projected
levels.

6
Insurers and investors at a strategic crossroad
Henri de Castries,
Chairman and CEO, AXA

Climate change, growing energy Last but not least, insurers support the
demand, resources depletion and entire economy through their broad
population growth are straining global investment portfolios. Large “universal
economies and ecosystems. Although owners” such as AXA in effect own
the 2009 Copenhagen Summit failed to a slice of the world economy - with
provide clear guidelines for businesses, both upsides and downsides linked
there is a general consensus that the to long term societal transformations.
cost of inaction outweighs the cost of Investment strategies can impact these
action, and that a pro-active approach transformations, as well as reduce
to environmental issues is sound risk exposure to certain risks.
management for governments and
businesses alike. AXA is committed to making a
difference in these areas. This is
In particular, climate instability can have not just “being good”, it is good
a significant impact on the insurance management, reflecting an in-depth
business through growing risks and analysis of the situation and rising
liabilities, evolving investment trends expectations from employees,
and changing customer lifestyles, investors, customers and civil society.
hence coverage needs. Indeed, Tangible proofs of this commitment
insurers and investors such as AXA include a range of initiatives such
stand at a strategic crossroads and are as “green” insurance products,
key actors in a position to provide both responsible investment funds, actions
“adaptation” and “mitigation” solutions to reduce our own environmental
to society. They are in the only footprint, the funding and sharing of
economic sector that has the data and research (notably via the AXA Research
modelling expertise necessary to help Fund), and contributing to collaborative
analyse the risks, across all economic initiatives such as the UNEP FI or the
sectors and regions. They have a CDP.
critical role in influencing individual
choices through insurance and can AXA has been a CDP partner since
also make innovation possible. 2006, and we have supported the
publication and presentation of the
French (2006-2008) and European
(2009) survey results. This year again,
AXA is proud to support the Europe
300 report, highlighting where risks
and opportunities lie to help investors
to better navigate the path towards a
low-carbon economy.

7
CA Cheuvreux and the Carbon Disclosure Project
Jean-Claude Bassien,
Chairman and CEO, Crédit Agricole Cheuvreux

Writing the CDP Europe 300 report Nor is CA Cheuvreux an ordinary


for the second year in a row means brokerage and research house. It
several things to CA Cheuvreux. is the most “European” in its nature
and outlook, with presence in all
Firstly, it means we must not allow major European financial centres and
ourselves to be distracted by the loss a coverage of 700 listed European
of momentum on climate change companies. CA Cheuvreux was the
policies and by reduced media first broker worldwide (and is still
coverage over the past year. It also the only one to date) to become a
means that the Carbon Disclosure signatory to the UN-backed Principles
Project (CDP) initiative now has an for Responsible Investment, in 2008.
even greater role to play, in order Climate change is an integral part of
to partly make up for the lack of our research and investment services,
regulatory pressure. It means we as we have recognised that financial
must cast an even stronger light on indicators should be supplemented
companies’ responses to climate with carbon-related equivalents (and of
change, so that investors can assess course other environmental, social and
and reward their performance at a time governance criteria) in order to capture
when the media is less focussed on the complexity of market risk and
this issue, and the excitement leading opportunities.
up to the Copenhagen Summit has
faded. Last but not least, it means We therefore take it as our
the lack of visibility and the increasing responsibility to work alongside the
uncertainty surrounding climate initiatives with the greatest legitimacy,
change policies heighten the risks and such as the Carbon Disclosure Project,
opportunities involved in investing in in order to raise the standards and
European companies. improve the accuracy and pertinence
of climate change-related information
The CDP is no ordinary initiative. In provided by companies. I hope this
our view, it is equally important as report will benefit the investment
the International Panel on Climate community, as well as the 300
Change (IPCC) and the Stern Review companies under review, as they
on the Economics of Climate Change pursue their strategies to achieve share
as it represents the business sector’s performance in a low-carbon economy.
response to both scientific knowledge
about climate change, and the resulting
threat to the economy. It paves the way
for a low-carbon economy and gives
investors and other stakeholders the
tools to assess whether or not we are
on track to meet this challenge.

8
Executive Summary

Introduction However, renewable energies remain 2010 Highlights


well presented in the sample:
2009 marked a trough in the economic There are several positive highlights
crisis in Europe. Uncertainties persist • EDP Renováveis and Iberdrola from this year’s report:
both on the economic recovery and Renovables – the renewable energy
the future of climate change policies, subsidiaries of electricity utilities • The Europe 300 index maintained
as the Copenhagen Summit failed to companies EDP and Iberdrola – its place as the leader in terms
provide certainty on any post-Kyoto have entered the ranks of the of disclosure, with 84% of
international framework for regulating largest 300 European companies companies responding to the
greenhouse gas emissions. by capitalisation. CDP questionnaire (versus 70%
for the US S&P 500 and 41% for
Despite this, European companies the Japan 500). This is up 2%
continue to respond to investor
• In addition, large industrial
from 2009 and even reaches 86%
companies, such as Siemens,
requests (through the CDP after restating the sample from
Alstom or Saint-Gobain, also have
questionnaire) with increased companies acquired during the year
developed renewable energy
disclosure on climate change-related (e.g. the Cadbury take-over by Kraft
technologies in their product
risks and opportunities. The response Foods).
portfolios. Siemens indicates that
rate for the Europe 300 report is at its
the revenues of its Renewable
highest: 84%.
Energy Division grew by 39% in
• Disclosure of Scope 1 and Scope
2 emissions improved respectively
2009.
It is interesting to analyse the evolution to 92% and 91% of companies.
of the Europe 300 index, which Around 50% of companies
This is an important indicator that
represents the 300 largest European independently verify more than
some of the largest European
companies by market capitalisation. 80% of their Scope 1 and Scope
companies have built significant
The market capitalisation of wind and 2 emissions data. The Europe 300
capacities in low-carbon technologies
solar companies has not proved any index also demonstrates by far the
and have been seizing opportunities
more resilient than other companies in highest assurance level compared
to participate in the transition to a low-
traditional sectors. As a result the wind to other geographies. This should
carbon economy.
turbines manufacturer Gamesa and help investors to use emissions
solar energy companies Q-Cells and data with increased confidence,
REC have left the Europe 300 sample although there is still room for
in 2010. improvement.

• Direct carbon emissions fell sharply


in 2009 (by 7%), largely as a result
of the economic crisis. By way of
comparison, EU-27 GHG emissions
dropped by 17.3% in 2009. It
is certainly interesting to note
that most of the largest emitters
managed to improve their carbon-
intensity (relative to production
volumes) in this tough economic
environment (see the Materials and
Utilities sector specific analysis).

9
Executive Summary

• Apart from the Health Care sector, • It is not possible to achieve a true Scope 3 emissions remain the
at least 83% of companies in every comparison between targets set weakest part of the picture
sector see regulatory opportunities by the Europe 300 companies • Although 74% of respondents
emerging from climate change and EU-wide GHG reduction disclose at least one source of
policies. This rate hits 100% for targets because the Europe 300 Scope 3 emissions, these are not
the IT, Telecommunication Services index does not fully capture many always the most material from a
and Utilities sectors. This positive areas of the economy, which are risk perspective. For instance, ca.
outlook is often correlated to considerable sources of GHG 70% disclose carbon emissions
market opportunities for companies emissions, such as buildings, due to business travel while only
selling products and services that transportation and agriculture. 20% (11% less than last year)
help clients to reduce their own provide an estimate of the
emissions (71% of companies). • The scope of direct emissions of emissions related to the use of their
the Europe 300 index is closer in products and services at the use or
• For instance, new generations of scope to the EU Emissions Trading disposal phase.
products developed by capital System (EU ETS) because of its
goods companies are 12% to 50% constituents. Disclosed carbon • Financials still disclose widely on
more energy-efficient, and have reduction commitments within the business travel but fail to provide
applications in the transportation, Europe 300 companies appear too quantitative information on the
building, power and industry low to reach the EU ETS cap set carbon risks lying in their clients’
markets. for 2020. The targets of Europe portfolios, which can certainly be of
300 utilities, materials and energy higher interest for investors.
However, there remain areas of companies aggregated at sector
concern that need to be addressed: level will deliver an average annual • The lack of a harmonised
cut in emission intensity of 2.1%, methodology for calculating Scope
Reduction targets and investments 0.8% and 0.4% respectively. 3 emissions also continues to
fall short These cuts fall short of the planned hamper intra sector comparisons,
• 79% of responding companies have decrease in the absolute emission such as in the Oil & Gas sector, for
set an emission reduction target, cap under the EU ETS: 1.9% each instance.
but the majority will expire by 2012. year on average over 2013-2020,
and up to 4.1% if the EU should
• Companies reported just €31bn decide to embrace the 30% EU-
in anticipated investments for wide GHG reduction target.
alternative energy and energy
efficiency projects. This figure
is significantly lower than the
equivalent in 2009 of ca. €100bn.
This investment gap is largely
attributable to companies which no
longer disclose, or to companies
which are no longer in the Europe
300 index, rather than to lower
ambitions.

• Overall, the aggregation of all


reported targets show that the
Europe 300 companies could
deliver an average emissions
reduction of just 1.5% per annum if
they achieve their targets.

10
Conclusion Scoring Highlights • Siemens achieved the highest
Scores are generally higher than last disclosure score of the index (98)
From a market opportunity year (average disclosure score is 68 and took the CDLI crown from
perspective, businesses generally versus 60 in 2009). This is partly due to Bayer. Siemens notably stands out
call for a clear and stable regulatory changes in the scoring methodology, by having defined an Environmental
framework providing long-term visibility, but some companies have made Portfolio since 2008, which now
which policymakers failed to deliver at impressive improvements. Deutsche comprises 30% of Siemens’ entire
Copenhagen. Post, Nestlé and Telefonica have portfolio (25% in 2008) and whose
increased their score by more than products and solutions installed in
More than ever, at a time when budget 30 points compared to last year’s 2009 are cutting customers’ annual
constraints challenge the ambitions results and are ranked in the Carbon CO2 emissions by some 50mt CO2
of EU Member States to support Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) of emissions (+47% versus 2008).1
the development of low-carbon the Europe 300.
technologies and services, further • The Utilities sector continues to
collaboration and understanding • A performance score, which outperform on average in terms of
between economic players and recognises and rewards the disclosure, whereas the Financials
policymakers is absolutely essential integration of climate change issues sector underperforms both in
if the right signals are to be sent to into the business strategy and disclosure and in performance
allow more investments in low-carbon the evidence of forward action, aspects. Every sector is
technologies. complements disclosure scores this represented in the CDLI.
year. Most of the time, disclosure
This ranges from the final decision leaders are also performance
expected on CO2 efficiency leaders, with a few exceptions
benchmarks, which will set the carbon (Saint-Gobain, UPM Kymmene,
allocations post-2012 in the EU SCA, Rio Tinto, Centrica, EDP)
carbon market, to the implementation where perhaps the ambition to
of additional supporting policies to integrate policy has not quite
foster investments in costly low- matched the actual evidence of
carbon technologies (e.g. a floor price forward action.
for carbon, a harmonised regulatory
framework for Carbon Capture and
Storage, higher visibility on post-2020
EU climate ambitions).

Table 1: Companies with the highest CDLI and CPLI scores

Sector CDLI (Score) CPLI (Band A)

Consumer Discretionary Philips Electronics (94), Philips Electronics, Renault, BMW,


Renault (93) Kingfisher

Consumer Staples Reckitt Benckiser (93), Reckitt Benckiser, Tesco, Nestlé


Tesco (92), Nestlé (92)

Energy Royal Dutch Shell (89) Royal Dutch Shell, Eni, Repsol YPF

Financials Royal Bank of Scotland (93), Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC,


HSBC (92) Barclays, Munich Re, Swiss Re, UBS

Health Care Novo Nordisk (89) Novo Nordisk

Industrials Siemens (98), Deutsche Post (97), Siemens, Deutsche Post,


Ferrovial (89), Ferrovial, Rolls-Royce
Saint-Gobain (89)

Information Technology Nokia (91) Nokia

Materials BASF (96), Bayer (95), BASF, Bayer, Lafarge


Lafarge (94),
UPM-Kymmene (90), SCA (90),
Rio Tinto (89)

Telecommunication Services Telefonica (89) Telefonica, BT Group, Deutsche


BT Group (89) Telekom, Royal KPN
1 Please note that, for the purposes of this report,
Utilities Centrica (92) Scottish & Southern Energy, E.ON, mtCO2e = 1 000 000 metric tonnes CO2.
Scottish & Southern Energy (90) Iberdrola, National Grid Emissions figures have been rounded. For unrounded
figures please see company responses at
EDP (90) www.cdproject.net.
11
Executive Summary

Figure 1: Disclosure level

Europe 300 sample 300 100%

Responding companies 253 84%


Disclosing Scope 2 emissions 230 77% Disclosing Scope 1 emissions 233 78%

Having emissions reduction target 200 67%


Disclosing any Scope 3 emissions 187 62%
Any portion of Scope 1 emissions independently verified 172 57%

Disclosing Scope 3 related to use/disposal of products 51 17%

12
Contents

CDP Signatories 2

Foreword: 6
Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action

Commentary: 7
Henri de Castries, Chairman and CEO, AXA

Commentary: 8
Jean-Claude Bassien, Chairman and CEO, CA Cheuvreux

Executive summary 9

1. Overview of CDP 14

2. Overview of the Europe 300 16

3. Political Context 18

4. The 2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores 25

5. The 2010 Carbon Performance Scores 29

6. Analysis by Sector 33

7. Sector Specific Analysis 39

Consumer Discretionary 39

Consumer Staples 41

Energy 43

Financials 47

Health Care 49

Industrials 50

Information Technology 52

Materials 53

Telecommunication Services 57

Utilities 59

Appendix 1: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company 62

Appendix 2: Composition of GICS sectors at three different segmentation levels 69

13
1 Overview of CDP

The Carbon Disclosure Project Message from Paul key focus is on globalising all programs
(CDP) is an independent not-for- Dickinson, Executive in the major economies in the coming
profit organisation holding the largest Chairman, CDP years. Beyond CDP’s Investor
database of primary corporate climate program, which sits at the heart of
change information in the world. CDP Carbon management continues the initiative, CDP intends to grow its
was launched in 2000 to accelerate to rise as a strategic priority for Supply Chain and Public Procurement
solutions to climate change by putting many businesses. This is fuelled by programs, as well as CDP Water
relevant information at the heart of opportunities to reduce energy costs; Disclosure, in order to maximise the
business, policy and investment secure energy supply; protect the fulfilment of CDP’s mission.
decisions. CDP furthers this mission business from climate change risk
by harnessing the collective power of and damaged reputation; as well as The third key focus is mitigation and
corporations, investors and political generating revenue and remaining emissions reduction. The number of
leaders to accelerate unified action on competitive. Companies globally companies within the Global 500 index
climate change. are seizing commercial carbon (FTSE Global Equity Series) reporting
opportunities, often acting ahead of reduction targets has already increased
In 2009, 2,500 organisations in any policy requirements. fourfold since CDP’s first reporting
some 60 countries around the year. But this is just the first step. CDP
world measured and disclosed their The demand for primary corporate remains committed to help advance
greenhouse gas emissions and climate climate change data is growing – it emissions reductions and works with
change strategies through CDP, in is now accessed through Bloomberg investors and industry to achieve this.
order to set reduction targets and and Google Finance. It is also used by
make performance improvements. an increasing number of investment Looking ahead
In 2010, even more companies than research providers and sell-side It is through partnerships that we
ever before are reporting through CDP brokers to generate new insights into can achieve the largest impact.
and managing their emissions. This the impacts of climate change on the CDP is delighted to be working
data is made available for use by a global industry and to highlight the with the Europe 300 report sponsor
wide audience including institutional associated opportunities. CDP has AXA; the Europe 300 report writer
investors, corporations, policymakers also launched two index products CA Cheuvreux; its global advisor
and their advisors, public sector based on CDP data – the FTSE CDP PricewaterhouseCoopers; its global
organisations, government bodies, Carbon Strategy Index series and the sponsor Bank of America; its local
academics and the public. Markit Carbon Disclosure Leadership partners; as well as Accenture,
Index. These products give investors Microsoft and SAP to accelerate
Climate change is not a problem that exposure to companies better its mission and highlight the huge
exists within national boundaries. positioned in the transition to a low opportunities for business to capitalise
This is why CDP harmonises climate carbon economy. on the transition to a low carbon
change data from organisations around economy.
the world and develops international Key focus areas
carbon reporting standards. CDP CDP has set three key focus areas for These are exciting times for business,
operates the only global climate the immediate future. One is to work with significant changes coming to the
change reporting system on behalf with companies and the users of its way we produce and consume energy.
of 534 institutional investors (holding data to continue improving quality New power from low or zero emissions
US$64 trillion in assets under and comparability. Data that supports sources is an urgent priority for climate
management) and some 60 purchasing action is central to fulfilling CDP’s change policy that simultaneously
organisations, such as Dell, EADS, mission. As part of this process, CDP helps deliver energy security. New
PepsiCo and Walmart. is launching a new package, Reporter technologies, such as smart grids,
Services, exclusively for responding electric vehicles, alternative fuel
companies, to help them develop sources and advanced telepresence
their carbon management strategies videoconferencing are showing a clear
through increased data quality, deeper case for business growth with reduced
analysis and the sharing of best emissions. The opportunities for
practice. business are enormous. It is through
the intelligent investment of capital
Never forget that climate change is a into the right solutions, identified by
global problem and requires a global the business community that we will
solution. That is why CDP’s second achieve the low carbon future we need.
14
Table 2: Global Key Trends Summary – 2010
This table outlines some of the key findings from CDP 2010 by geography or industry data-set.

% of responders taking actions to reduce

company’s response to climate change in


% of responders engaging policymakers

% of responders independently verifying

% of responders independently verifying


% of responders seeing regulatory risks
executive level responsibility for climate

mainstream annual filings / CSR reports


products and services help third parties

any portion of Scope 1 emissions data

any portion of Scope 2 emissions data


% of responders indicating that their
% of responders with Board or other

% of responders with management

% of responders seeing regulatory


% of sample answering CDP 20103

% of responders with emissions

on climate issues to encourage

% of responders reporting the


to avoid GHG emissions

mitigation or adaptation
reduction targets

opportunities
incentives

emissions
change

Sample: geography /
number of companies

Asia ex-JICK 1354 32 80 46 56 73 41 65 70 60 80 48 40

Australia 200 47 83 46 40 73 55 69 76 73 88 43 43

US Bonds 180 82 78 62 70 87 55 60 71 88 91 54 46

Brazil 80 72 68 29 23 57 55 61 78 66 74 28 28

Canada 200 46 72 41 32 63 47 51 65 64 73 28 21

Central & Eastern Europe 100 12 85 57 57 71 43 71 100 85 57 57 57

China 100 11 57 57 57 57 43 71 71 57 86 43 29

Emerging Markets 800 29 77 50 47 74 49 70 84 68 78 39 37

Europe 300 84 94 62 79 87 71 74 87 77 97 68 60

FTSE All-World 800 74 83 61 70 77 65 69 78 85 92 57 49

France 250 30 89 48 69 79 60 72 86 62 93 57 46

Germany 200 61 70 33 47 50 57 43 68 42 66 35 23

Global 500 82 84 63 70 87 66 66 77 80 93 59 52

Global Electric Utilities 250 48 86 47 60 72 75 85 90 88 92 58 31

Global Transport 100 25 88 60 89 72 52 88 72 64 84 44 36

India 200 21 88 33 33 69 39 39 90 63 64 25 19

Ireland 40 50 80 26 60 80 33 66 53 46 80 33 33

Italy 60 35 66 57 76 85 71 76 80 66 90 62 62

Japan 500 41 89 61 91 84 73 81 81 60 94 28 28

Korea 200 42 60 52 46 61 44 70 73 50 56 29 29

Latin America 50 54 72 25 15 50 53 68 84 40 78 31 32

Netherlands 50 66 93 63 70 76 71 66 86 70 97 61 65

New Zealand 50 46 78 21 39 39 16 60 43 60 52 22 22

Nordic 200 65 88 44 69 77 67 68 79 62 93 45 37

Portugal 40 30 83 41 41 83 83 91 91 58 91 67 67

Russia 50 8 50 0 100 50 50 50 50 0 50 0 0

South Africa 100 74 95 50 42 82 42 77 85 80 92 39 41

Spain 85 40 87 53 71 84 72 81 84 62 97 69 63

Switzerland 100 58 77 26 52 59 56 38 63 42 82 40 35

Turkey 50 24 75 87 37 62 0 88 72 37 50 25 25

UK FTSE 600 51 96 49 61 73 48 68 74 59 87 41 39

US S&P 500 70 67 48 53 77 53 50 61 63 80 35 29

1 The key trends table provides a snapshot of response trends based on headline data. The numbers in this table are based on the online responses submitted to CDP as of 14 July 2010. They may
therefore differ from numbers in the rest of the report which are based on the number of companies which responded by the applicable local deadline (e.g. 30 June 2010).
2 For some samples, the number of companies included in a table may be lower than the original sample size due to takeovers, mergers and acquisitions.
3 Includes offline responses to the CDP 2010 questionnaire and indirect answers submitted by parent companies. All other key trend indicators are based on direct and online company responses only.
4 Asia excluding Japan, India, China and Korea (ex-JICK).
15
2 Overview of the
Europe 300

Figure 2: Country origin of Figure 3: Breakdown of the The Europe 300 sample is based on
companies in the Europe 300 index the FTSEurofirst 300 index, which
Europe 300 by GICS sector contains the 300 largest publicly listed
companies by market capitalisation in
15 8 Europe.
47
60 15
72 The 233 companies in the Europe 300
17 sample who disclosed their direct on-
11 site emissions (Scope 1) report 1.96bn
tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2-e) of
14
24 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This
is equivalent to ca. 40% of the GHG
15 emissions of the 27 European Member
54
States (EU-27) in 2008. However, many
19 29 49 European companies have worldwide
operations and emit GHG emissions
22
beyond the borders of Europe. Only
34
31 50% of the sample’s direct emissions
24 40 are clearly reported in European
countries. European companies emit
United Kingdom 60 Financials 72 almost 300 mtCO2-eq on the American
France 54 Industrials 49 Continent.
Germany 34 Consumer Discretionary 40
Switzerland 24 Materials 31 Beyond on-site direct emissions,
Spain 22 Consumer Staples 29 companies report on their indirect
Italy 19 Utilities 24 emissions related to the purchase of
Sweden 15 Telecommunication Services 17 secondary energy (Scope 2, such as
Netherlands 14 Energy 15 electricity and heat) and to external
Belgium 11 Health Care 15 boundaries (Scope 3 categories, such
Other* 47 IT 8 as employee travel, carbon content
*Austria, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Denmark, of goods purchased and emissions
Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, related to the use of products/
other non-European services).The total direct and indirect
emissions reported by the companies
in the Europe 300 sample amounts to
7.7bn tCO2-eq or ca. 15% of global
GHG emissions. There is naturally
some double counting in this figure
since the indirect emissions reported
by one company (e.g. related to the
purchase of electricity) can be the
direct emissions of another company
(e.g. a utility company).

16
Figure 4: Location of direct emissions of the Europe 300

EU-27 (+Switzerland and Norway)

North America

Latin America

Africa

Southern & Eastern Europe

Asia

Oceania

Middle East

Not identified

0 200 400 600 800 1000

GHG Emissions (mtCO2e)

17
3 Political Context

EU Targets Implications from the economic The European Commission has also
The economic downturn in 2009 has crisis made progress on the new rules
led to substantial reductions in GHG In these economic times, Member applying to the EU ETS over 2013-
emissions in Europe, which will clearly States are having to deal with 2020. The official list of sectors
help the European Union meet its budget constraints and seem to be deemed significantly exposed to the
international commitment under the adopting a more cautious stance with risk of carbon leakage, due to extra
Kyoto Protocol, as well as its 2020 regards to the costs associated with CO2 costs arising from the EU ETS,
climate ambitions. policies supporting carbon reduction was published in late 2009. Most of the
commitments and the development of industries (apart from brick production)
Indeed, EU-27 GHG emissions in renewable energies. The discussion are in this list and are therefore eligible
2009 are estimated by the European over a potential switch to 30% has to receive 100% free CO2 rights until
Environment Agency to be 17.3% been postponed until after the UN 2020, up to a sector carbon efficiency
below 1990 levels, while the EU has international climate meeting in Cancun benchmark. The calculation is based
committed to reducing emissions by in December 2010. on the 10% most efficient installations
8% over 2008-2012 under the Kyoto of a sector.
Protocol and by at least 20% by 2020 Spain, Germany and France have all
(unilateral commitment). reviewed their supporting policies for The Working Groups in charge of
solar energy by lowering guaranteed designing these sector benchmarks
Based on these figures, the EU feed-in tariffs and applying annual caps have made progress in 2009/2010,
looks on track to meet its targets, to the development of solar capacities. although discussions are still ongoing
which are no longer seen as posing and nothing has been officially
a challenge. In this context, and The economic crisis also had the effect set so far. The final decisions on
despite the disappointing outcome of reducing electricity consumption. these benchmarks are expected by
of the international talks on climate This automatically reduces the December 2010.
change at Copenhagen, the European forecasts of additional renewable
Commission continues to push the energy capacities needed to comply Another challenge of the post-2012
idea of Europe possibly revising with EU targets, as the latter are carbon market is the creation of a
its carbon emissions reduction defined as a percentage of total energy primary market for emission rights
commitment from 20% to 30% by consumption. through the organisation of auctions.
2020. One of the fears raised by some CDP
EU Carbon Market respondents regarding these auctions
A draft discussion document was With regard to the EU carbon market, is that non-regulated players could play
published in 2010 to debate this the carbon price has remained fairly the system by manipulating the price of
opportunity. This draft notably contains stable since the 2009 edition of the carbon.
the estimate that a switch to a 30% CDP Europe 300 report, trading in
reduction target would raise costs by a range of €12 to €16/tCO2. The
€33 billion per annum. However, the stability of the carbon price is mainly
initial cost of cutting emissions by 20% due to the sharp drop in production
has also been revised down to €47 volumes in sectors regulated under the
billion after factoring in the economic carbon market, which has left millions
crisis. This is compared to the previous of surpluses of emission rights in the
figure of over €70 billion p.a. in 2020. hands of cement and steel producers.

An assessment indicates that if the The European Commission believes


EU switches to a 30% target, the that a higher carbon price of
risk to production volumes is highest around €30/t would be necessary
in chemicals activities, but remains to incentivise further investments in
generally less than 1%. One idea is to low-carbon technologies. In order to
implement an EU-harmonised carbon safeguard the price of carbon, the
tax based on the carbon content of European Commission has notably
fossil fuels in order to create a carbon been firm in its position not to yield to
price signal for sectors not included the claims of several Eastern European
under the EU Emissions Trading countries to obtain extra free CO2
System (i.e. higher prices of fossil rights for their industries.
fuels). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=COM:2010:0265:FIN:FR:PDF
18
Comparison with indices from Management and strategy
other global geographies European companies report
At a time when one of the EU’s encouraging signals that risks and
ambitions is to lead the way in opportunities related to climate change
terms of a low-carbon economy, are well-identified and that companies
it is encouraging that European have taken steps to adapt their
companies, as a whole, appear to be strategies to face this challenge. Only
at the forefront of carbon disclosure Japanese companies can compare to
and climate change strategy design, European companies when it comes
when compared to other key global to placing responsibility for climate
geographies. As highlighted in the change at the Board/Executive level,
chart below, the Europe 300 index and implementing both management
ranks first in many aspects of the incentives linked to addressing climate
questionnaire. change-related issues and emission
reduction targets.
Disclosure and reporting
The response rate to CDP in the Europe A high share of European companies
300 is at its highest. It has increased to (87%) see business opportunities
84% in the Europe 300 index (versus derived from climate change
82% last year). The Europe 300 index regulations. This is higher than US
has also maintained its place as leader companies (61%), but comparable with
in terms of disclosure, compared top Japanese (81%) and Emerging
with other geographies, with the US Markets (84%) companies. This
(S&P 500 index) and Brazil (top 80 figure is even as high as 90% for
companies by market capitalisation) India 200 companies. In the case of
following with 69% and 72% response companies in emerging markets, this
rates, respectively. Disclosure rates in high rate might be attributable to their
China, India and Eastern Europe remain opportunity to earn carbon credits
low (<21%). Another key aspect of under Kyoto flexible mechanisms,
differentiation is that more than two- whereas the enthusiasm of Japanese
thirds of European companies have and European companies may instead
their emissions data (Scope 1) verified be tied to their perception of growing
externally (this figure is stable compared market opportunities for some of the
to 2009 results). In the Japan, US and products or services they sell. Indeed,
the Emerging Market indices, no more 73% and 71% respectively of Japan
than 39% of companies have their 500 and Europe 300 respondents
emissions verified. consider that they have products or
services in their portfolios that help
third parties to avoid or reduce GHG
emissions.

Figure 5: Europe 300 outperforms in many aspects of climate change awareness

100
Emerging Markets 800
Emerging Markets 800

US S&P 500
Europe 300
US S&P 500
80
Japan 500

Europe 300

60 Japan 500

40

20
Response rate

board/executive level
climate change at
Responsibility for

incentives
Management

targets
Emission reduction

helping to cut emissions


Products/services

regulatory risks
Perception of

(Scope 1)
of emissions data
External verification
emissions
Actions to reduce

19
Political Context

Analysis of corporate The resulting figures are generally lower Among utilities companies, three large
emission reduction targets than last year. This is mainly due to two companies in the power generation
versus EU targets key factors: business do not communicate
• Some companies achieved their reduction targets on a group level. At
Absolute and intensity targets targets in 2009 (sometimes ahead the sector level, this offsets the high
191 companies (75%) have defined at of schedule and/or helped by lower ambitions of other companies (EDP:
least one numeric emission reduction production volumes) and have not average 9% reduction in CO2 intensity
target. Some companies have several set new targets. This is notably the annually out to 2020). In the Materials
targets applying to different business case for companies in the Materials sector, chemicals companies generally
units or with different time horizons. sector. tend to have higher reduction targets
43% of targets include absolute • In order to adapt to a changing than cement and metals & mining
emissions reductions, while 37% reality, some methodological companies, apart from a few notable
are intensity targets (e.g. relative to changes to this edition of the exceptions (e.g. Norsk Hydro: 4.8%
production volumes). However, apart Europe 300 report have been annualised reduction target for specific
from the Financials, Telecommunication made. In 2010, the reduction emissions per tonne of aluminium).
Services and IT sectors, intensity targets have been calculated by
targets prevail in other sectors (e.g. assessing (when possible) the The Energy sector guides for an
67% of targets in the Materials sector). efforts that have yet to be delivered annualised reduction effort of 1.8%,
by the company to achieve its but the figure is mostly determined
Time horizons target (i.e. based on companies’ by ENI’s and Total’s targets to cut
63% of companies have a reduction most recent emissions rather than gas flaring at oil fields in emerging
target within the next six years. These their emissions for the base year). countries. All companies involved in
are predominantly companies from the transportation businesses (Airlines,
Industrials, Utilities, Financials, Material Marine, Air Freight) expect to cut the
and Consumer Staples sectors. Short- carbon-intensity of their operations by
term targets are frequent. These are over 2% annually.
driven by regulatory visibility, which
allows companies to include emission
reduction targets into their strategic
plans. Against the backdrop of
uncertainty beyond 2020 and the long-
term investment forecast constraint,
E.ON, for instance, recognises that its
largest possible source of risk arising
from climate change is the political
Figure 6: Percentage of target reduction plan set by companies
uncertainty surrounding future carbon
by timescale
emission reduction policies. Fewer than
one-quarter of all the targets defined
by companies target a time horizon
after 2015. 2009-2012 54%

The Europe 300 aggregate


reduction target 2013-2015 22%
All company reduction targets applying
to Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions 2015-2020 22%
have been aggregated in order to get
an indication of the carbon reductions 2021-2050 2%
these will deliver in the Europe 300
index, both as a whole and by sector.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Table 3: The Europe 300 aggregate reduction targets

Implicit average annual Weigh in the index (in % of


reduction target total emissions in 2009)

Utilities -2.1% 43%


Materials -0.8% 32%
Energy -1.8% 15%
Industrials (Transportation industry only) -2.1% 3%
Sub-total for biggest emitting sectors -1.6% 94%
Other sectors 6%
Europe 300 index -1.5% 100%

20
Emission reduction plans backed Absolute terms Corporate emission targets fall
by capex plans We have evaluated the cumulative short of the EU ETS 2020 cap
These emission reduction targets are absolute emission reductions, which It is important to bear in mind that
backed by capital expenditure plans in would be delivered if the targets set these emission reductions will not
alternative energy and energy efficient by the large emitters are achieved in take place in Europe alone and that
projects. Europe 300 companies plan their respective target years. GHG the scope of the Europe 300 index
to invest more than €31 billion in the emissions reported in 2009 were used does not capture many areas of the
years to come, which should ultimately as the current base level in order to economy, such as buildings and
deliver emission reductions of ca. 61mt characterise the efforts that must be transportation, which are sources
of CO2-equivalent per annum. made from now to achieve targeted of considerable GHG emissions in
reduction plans. This bears the promise Europe.
The €31 billion figure is well below of emission cuts of approximately
the ca. €100 billion in investments 170mt CO2-eq. out to 2020 (compared As a result, corporate emission
disclosed in the previous edition of to a business-as-usual scenario). reduction figures cannot be compared
the Europe 300 report, but this gap to the EU-wide GHG reduction target
is mostly attributable to companies The Utilities and Materials sectors for 2020 (20% or a possible 30%
no longer disclosing their future show a strong emission reduction reduction by 2020 compared to 1990
investments or having left the index, commitment from 2009 to 2020. levels).
rather than to a general lower This analysis is limited in scope since
commitment to invest in low-carbon emission reductions targeted through However, the scope of the Europe 300
projects. the commercialisation of more energy- index is closer to the scope of the EU
efficient products are not taken into ETS. It can be estimated that between
Companies have disclosed more account (e.g. fuel-efficient passenger 29% and 67% of direct emissions
information on future investments (€31 cars, electric appliances, etc). reported by Europe 300 companies fall
billion) than on projects already carried under the scope of the EU ETS.
out (€10.8 billion). In addition, it seems
that companies will invest in energy/ Although only 38% of responding
resource efficiency projects to a much companies state that they participate
greater extent than in the past (€15 in the EU ETS, these companies
billion anticipated versus €4 billion represent 95% of total direct emissions
achieved). of the Europe 300 index.

Figure 7: Total Investments Figure 8: Absolute carbon emissions reduction as implied by


achieved and anticipated reduction targets of main emitters
by type (from 2009 to target year)

35000
0

30000
-30

25000 -60

20000 -90

-120
15000

-150
10000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

5000
Energy and Resource Efficiency Industrials (Transportation only)
0 Alternatives to fossil energy Energy
and GHG propellant gas Materials
Achieved

Anticipated

Utilities

21
Political Context

Two-thirds of these disclose the Companies participating in the EU ETS Recent emissions trends are
quantity of emissions regulated are more likely than others to perceive positive
under the scheme in 2009. This a regulatory risk related to climate GHG emissions of the Europe 300
totals 565mtCO2-eq. (or 29% of change regulations (86% of them vs. index were down 7% in 2009. Most
direct carbon emissions reported by 66% for companies not regulated). companies in carbon-intensive sectors
European companies in the Europe reported a sharp drop in their absolute
300 index), with only 33 companies Certainly as a result, they also engage emissions in 2009, mainly due to
in the Utilities, Energy and Materials more with policymakers (91% vs. production cuts in a context of the
sectors responsible for 97% of these 68%) on climate change issues and economic crisis.
emissions. This relatively low figure can are more likely than others to have
be explained by the fact that some of set an emission reduction target However, the carbon intensity (i.e.
the largest emitters (e.g. E.ON, GDF (90% vs. 74%). Management of these GHG emissions relative to production
Suez and ArcelorMittal) do not disclose companies is also more incentivised volumes) remained well oriented in
their emissions under the EU ETS, and than others to manage climate 2009. For instance, the electricity
that most non-CO2 gases are not yet change issues, including delivering on production of 18 utility companies
regulated under the EU ETS. GHG targets (78% vs. just 53% for decreased by 2.7% in 2009, while their
companies not regulated under the EU absolute CO2 emissions dropped by
On the other hand, one-third of direct ETS). This point holds particularly true 5.6%, pointing to a 3% improvement
emissions reported by Europe 300 for the Utilities sector, where 84% of in CO2 intensity. This is also the case
companies occur outside Europe. companies have an incentive scheme for many companies in the Materials
Therefore, it can be estimated that up in place for management to achieve sector. Aluminium producers Hydro
to 67% of Europe 300 GHG emissions emission reduction targets. and Rio Tinto cut their carbon
may actually fall under the scope of the intensities by more than 10% in 2009.
EU ETS over 2013-2020. The four cement producers included
in the report also managed to reduce
their overall CO2 intensity. However,
some others saw a deterioration in
carbon intensity during the crisis,
due to adverse effects that can be
considered crisis-related (e.g. negative
mix effect in production volumes at
ArcelorMittal, some plants running
at suboptimal capacity rates at Air
Liquide, etc).

Figure 9: Carbon emissions of the Figure 10: Specificities of EU ETS regulated companies
Europe 300 sample
covered by the EU ETS
Figures are in mtCO2-eq.
77%
Perception of
regulatory risk
1400 53%

91%
Engaging
policymakers
68%

90%
Emission
reduction target
74%

565 Incentives for 77%


attaining emission
targets
53%

0 20 40 60 80

66 422

4 73
EU Europe 300 emissions not Utilities Out of EU ETS NB: as a % of respondent companies
covered by the EU ETS Energy Under EU ETS
Utilities Materials
Other
22
Corporate emissions reduction These targets reflect supply-side Risk and opportunity perception
targets fall short of EU ETS carbon efficiency. As a result, reaching In the Utilities and Materials sectors
objectives EU ETS targets suggests more (the latter including aluminium,
Targets of Utilities, Materials and ambitious targets and/or demand-side steel, building materials and
Energy companies aggregated at efficiency to reduce the consumption chemicals producers), as well as in
the sector level point to average of electricity and petroleum products. Transportation, companies generally
annual cuts in emission intensity of On this matter, it is interesting to note complain about the persisting
respectively 2.1%, 0.8% and 0.4% that capital goods and automobile uncertainty over future climate change
(excluding flaring down projects that manufacturers are making R&D efforts policies, which create a negative
take place outside Europe). to commercialise equipment with environment for taking decisions to
higher energy efficiency (see dedicated invest in long-life assets.
This falls short of the planned decrease specific sector analyses).
in the absolute emission cap under the They advocate global sector-wide
EU ETS: 1.9% each year on average Assuming constant emissions at schemes for regulating carbon
over 2013-2020, and up to 4.1% the 2009 level, emission reductions emissions rather than regional
should the EU decide to embrace the targeted by utilities would significantly initiatives, as the latter cause
30% EU-wide GHG reduction target. help meet the EU ETS cap in 2020 competitive distortions and raise the
under the 20% scenario, while the risk of carbon leakage.
In absolute terms, emission reductions cap under the 30% scenario remains
planned by utility companies reach largely out of reach, and would The table 4 summarises the risks and
127mt CO2-eq. by 2020. This can be thus require stronger targets from opportunities perceived by sectors
compared with the reduction efforts companies (see figure 11). sensitive to carbon costs.
required of the industries covered
by the EU ETS cap, i.e. 11%, or
205mt CO2-eq. by 2020 compared to
emission levels in 2009 under the 20%
reduction scenario for Europe, or 24%,
i.e. 447mt CO2-eq. under the 30%
reduction scenario.

Figure 11: Emission reduction targets versus EU ETS cap

Emission cap (30% sc

PHASE II PHASE III Emission cap (20% sc


2000
Emissions

Emission cap 20% scenario -127mtCO2

1500
Emission cap 30% scenario

1000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Emission cap (30% scenario)


Emission cap (20% scenario)
Emissions
23
Political Context

Table 4: Risks and opportunities perceived by companies sensitive to carbon costs

Risks Opportunities
Power generation - Uncertainty over rules for use of CERs post-2012 and continuity of - Energy services business
EU ETS post-2020 - Development of renewable energies
- Reduced demand for electricity due to energy efficiency plans and
compliance with demand-side energy-efficiency mandates
- Dual steering instruments (renewable energy target and EU ETS) lead
to inefficiencies and sub-optimisation of production (Fortum)
Steel - No allocation of free CO2-rights for waste gases post-2012 under - Surpluses of carbon credits (Arcelor Mittal)
the EU ETS - “Product diversification in high value products” such as “lighter
- Carbon leakage as CO2 costs distort competition. Call for a global steels for automotive and construction markets”. Increased
sectoral scheme profitability (Arcelor Mittal)
Aluminium - Competitive distortion with higher electricity prices. Compensatory - “High energy price level increases the momentum for light-
measures needed for the transition phase until all regions have similar weighting of vehicles, and aluminium is one of the main solutions”
carbon constraints (Hydro) (Hydro)
- “Key requirements for investments in new capacity are long term - “Products that help minimising lighting, heating and cooling,” in
competitive power supply and a predictable regulatory framework” buildings and “by integrating solar energy generation in the
(Hydro) facades” (Hydro)
- “Regulations related to vehicle emissions and recycled content could
affect consumption trends of our products” (Rio Tinto)
Cement - Risk of CO2 costs post-2012 and carbon leakage - Energy efficient construction materials (e.g. insulation properties)
- Risk of having a allocation benchmark not taking into account all
reduction levers of the industry (Holcim)
Chemicals - Higher electricity prices and direct CO2 costs with no limited capacity - Numerous products with applications in various sectors (e.g.
to pass-through costs in the price of products insulation materials, antifooling coatings, oxygen) help customers
to reduce emissions
- Total carbon footprint can be negative (reductions through the use
of products > direct on-site emissions)
Auto - EU emissions standards for cars seen achievable at the price of - Development of electric vehicles
significant R&D efforts
- Need to increase the type of models produced in small numbers to
fit with market specific requirements
Shipping - “Uncertainty as to how GHG emissions from shipping will be regulated. - “Anticipate that the shipowners that can offer the most energy
The inability to reach an agreement at COP 15 means that local or efficient or “low-carbon” fleet will have a competitive advantage
regional regulation of GHG emissions from shipping now seem more in the future” (Maersk)
likely”. (Maersk)

24
4 The 2010 Carbon
Disclosure Scores

The carbon disclosure scores assess


companies on the quality and What does a CDP carbon disclosure score represent?
completeness of their disclosures and The carbon disclosure score is normalised to a 100-point scale. Generally,
consider factors including: companies scoring within a particular range suggest levels of commitment
to, and experience of, carbon disclosure. Indicative descriptions of these
levels are provided below for guidance only; investors should read individual
• Clear consideration of business-
company responses to understand the context for each business.
specific risks and potential
opportunities related to climate
High (>70)
change; and
A higher score typically indicates one or more of the following:
• Good internal data management
• Strong understanding and management of company-specific exposure
practices for understanding GHG
to climate-related risks and opportunities
emissions, including energy use.
• Strategic focus and commitment to understanding the business issues
related to climate change, emanating from the top of the organisation
It is important to note that the carbon
• Ability to measure and manage the company’s carbon footprint
disclosure score is not a metric of a
• Regular and relevant disclosure to key corporate stakeholders
company’s performance in relation to
climate change management, because
Midrange (50–70)
the score does not make any judgment
A midrange score typically indicates one or more of the following:
about mitigation actions. A company’s
• Growing maturity in understanding and managing company-specific
disclosure score is based solely on the
risks and potential opportunities related to climate change
information disclosed in the company’s
• Good evidence of ability to measure and manage carbon footprint
CDP response.
across global operations
• Commitment to the importance of transparency

Low (<50)
A lower score typically indicates one or more of the following:
• Relatively new commitment to understanding climate-related issues
• Limited ability to disclose known risks or potential opportunities
related to climate change
• Limited ability to measure and manage the company’s carbon footprint
• Possible reluctance to disclose certain requested information due to
commercial sensitivity

25
The 2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores

The Carbon Disclosure Leadership Results by sector The Energy, Industrials and Financials
Index (CDLI) Score analysis at the sector level sectors show more modest results
reveals significant gaps. As in the in terms of disclosure with average
The Carbon Disclosure Leadership previous edition, the Utilities sector disclosure scores below 65.
Index (CDLI) includes the companies ranks well above the others with an
with the highest disclosure scores average disclosure score of 75, three
and provides a valuable perspective points ahead of the Telecommunication
on the range and quality of responses Services sector.
to CDP’s questionnaire. This year’s
CDLI includes the top-scoring 10% These two leading sectors have
of the Europe 300 index2: 25 in total. something else in common - the
To qualify for this leadership index, a scores obtained by companies
company must respond to CDP by within these sectors show some
using the Online Response System of the lowest dispersion of scores
prior to the deadline and make its (standard deviations) against the sector
response available for public use. average (14.8 for Utilities, 13.1 for
Telecommunication Services). This is
Summary – Results of 2010 Scoring an indication that companies in these
Of the 300 companies in the Europe 300 sectors do report better as a group. In
index, 253 companies responded to the other words, the sector performance
information request in 2010. 252 have cannot be (fully) attributed to a few
received a carbon disclosure score based companies with extremely high scores.
on their answers (with one company
answering too late to be scored). The Consumer Discretionary sector
also scores above the Europe 300
Almost half of the companies (47%) average, but with a higher scattering
achieved a score higher than 70, and of company scores within this sector
the average disclosure score is 67.5. (standard deviation: 18.8). This could
This is significantly above disclosure be attributed to the higher diversity
scores from 2009. of industries represented in the
sector. In terms of disaggregation in
Figure12 illustrates the distribution the Consumer Discretionary sector,
of scores. According to the CDP it appears that the Automobiles
methodology, 45% of companies have & Components industry achieves
achieved a high score (>70), which an average score of 80, whereas
reflects a high level of understanding of companies within the Consumer
climate change issues associated with Services industry have a much lower
a high level of reporting. average score of 55.

Figure
80
12: Number of companies by score range
Number of comp
70 Low score (15%) Midrange (40%) High Score (45%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

Number of companies
2 The top-scoring 10% includes tied scores.

26
Results by section Figure 13: Disclosure scores by sector
The CDP questionnaire is composed
of distinct categories of questions Financials 65
that include different aspects, such
as governance, strategy, targets and Industrials 65
reporting of emissions data. The
detail of the scores by section allows Energy 65
a deeper level of analysis and helps Consumer
66
to better understand which aspects Staples

of climate change disclosure sectors Health Care 66


differentiate.
Information
Technology 67
In general, it is clear that companies Europe 300
score better when they describe average 68
the corporate governance practices Consumer
69
adopted in response to the climate Discretionary

change challenge than when they Materials 70


are asked to identify (and describe)
Telecommunication
business opportunities driven by Services
72
climate change policies. The average
disclosure score for governance is Utilities 75
89. However, the governance section
is weighted at only 3% of the total 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

disclosure score.
Average disclosure score
The largest share of the points lie
in the sections dealing with risks
and opportunities, strategies and
targets, and emissions reporting. Figure 14: Disclosure scores by sector for key sections of the questionnaire
The three leading sectors (Utilities,
Telecommunication Services, and 100

Materials) have been especially


good at reporting identified risks and
opportunities related to the climate
change challenge, alongside their
strategy and emissions reduction
targets. This is also true for the section 80
on emissions reporting and emissions
verification statements, although
other sectors with lower total scores,
such as Consumer Discretionary
and Consumer Staples have also
performed well in this field.
60

The bottom three sectors (Financials,


Industrials and Energy) obtained
below average or average scores in all
sections of the questionnaire.

Healthcare companies were 40

relatively good at identifying risks


and opportunities, but have below-
Financials

Industrials

Energy

Consumer Staples

Health Care

IT

Consumer Discretionary

Materials

Telecommunication Services

Utilities

average scores when it comes to


reporting on emissions data, reduction
strategies and targets. The Consumer
Staples sector, on the other hand, is
clearly weak in identifying risks and
opportunities raised by climate change. Scope 1, 2, 3 emissions data
Strategy & target
Emissions: history, intensity, verification
Risks
Opportunities

27
The 2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores

The Carbon Disclosure Leadership Table 5: The Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index 2010
Index 2010
The 25 highest scoring companies Sector Company Disclosure Score 2009
Score 2010
in the Europe 300 index are in the
Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index Consumer Discretionary Philips Electronics 94 73
(CDLI). All sectors are represented this  
Renault 93 80; CDLI
year, whereas in 2009, no companies Consumer Staples Reckitt Benckiser 93 80; CDLI
in the Telecommunication Services  
Tesco 92 69
sector were included. The Consumer  
Staples sector is also more strongly Nestlé 92 60
represented with Tesco and Nestlé Energy Royal Dutch Shell 89 75
joining Reckitt Benckiser in the index. Financials Royal Bank of Scotland 93 77; CDLI
 
HSBC Holdings 92 92; CDLI
Some sectors remain largely over- or
under-represented in the CDLI. The Health Care Novo Nordisk 89 73
Materials sector distinguishes itself Industrials Siemens AG 98 85; CDLI
clearly, with six companies included in  
Deutsche Post AG 97 63
 
the index. This sector is therefore more   FERROVIAL 89 68
than twice as highly represented in the
index with respect to the overall index Saint-Gobain 89 67

of scored companies (making up 24% Information Technology Nokia Group 91 78; CDLI
of the CDLI and only 11% of scored Materials BASF SE 96 94; CDLI
companies).  
Bayer AG 95 95; CDLI
 
  Lafarge 94 84; CDLI
On the contrary, the Financials sector  
is largely under-represented. This year,  
UPM-Kymmene Corporation 90 72; CDLI
it represents only 8% of companies SCA 90 63; CDLI
in the CDLI and 24% of scored Rio Tinto 89 87; CDLI
companies.
Telecommunication Services Telefonica 89 59
 
Siemens ranks first for this edition, BT Group 89 65
and eleven companies entered the Utilities Centrica 92 84; CDLI
Europe 300 CDLI for the first time. The  
  Scottish & Southern Energy 90 78; CDLI
performance of Deutsche Post, Nestlé
and Telefonica should be highlighted, EDP - Energias de Portugal S.A. 90 75

as their scores have risen by more


than 30 points compared to last year’s
results.

It should also be noted that Royal


Dutch Shell has replaced Total in the
Energy sector, and NovoNordisk has
taken the place of GlaxoSmithKline,
as the only company to represent the
Healthcare sector.

28
5 The 2010 Carbon
Performance Scores

In the 10 years that CDP has • Carbon performance ranking is It is important for investors to
monitored disclosure practices, based solely on information keep in mind that the CDP carbon
corporate activity has advanced to a disclosed in a company’s CDP performance score is not:
stage where analysis of performance response. Any additional negative • An assessment of the extent to
can aid investors who want to or positive actions that are not which a company’s actions have
identify leading companies in carbon disclosed in a company’s CDP reduced carbon intensity relative to
management. In 2009, CDP piloted a response are not considered in other companies in its sector.
performance component in an effort the application of the performance • An assessment of how material a
to respond to investor requests for this score methodology. company’s actions are relative
analysis. • CDP performance results should to the business or to climate
be considered in conjunction with mitigation; the score simply
This year, all companies with other carbon metrics to provide recognises evidence of forward
sufficient disclosure scores received a more comprehensive picture action.
a performance score; the qualifying of a company’s performance on • A comprehensive measure of how
threshold to receive a performance mitigating climate change. green or low carbon a company
score was a minimum disclosure score • The relative weighting of is but, rather, an indicator of the
of 50. Disclosure scores lower than performance indicators within the extent to which a company is taking
50 do not necessarily indicate poor Rating Methodology does not take action to manage its impacts on,
performance. Rather, they indicate into consideration certain sector- and from, climate change.
insufficient information to evaluate specific issues and challenges,
performance. For the Europe 300, the such as customer expectations, Carbon performance scores form
performance scores are published regulatory requirements or cost of the basis for determining the Carbon
for the top 15% of the responses (33 doing business. Performance Leadership Index (CPLI)
companies). —the companies with the highest
performance scores. As with the
While performance scoring is an CDLI, a company’s response must be
instructive exercise for all stakeholders, publicly available to be eligible for the
CDP recognises that this is a process CPLI.
that will evolve over time. CDP
recommends that investors review
individual company disclosures in
addition to performance rankings in
order to gain the most comprehensive
understanding of company
performance.

While clear indicators of good


performance emerge from the results,
there are several factors to consider
when evaluating where a company is
ranked in comparison to its peers.

29
The 2010 Carbon Performance Scores

The following descriptions explain the Figure 15: What are the characteristics of carbon performance
four performance bands that were leadership in 2010?
used for categorising respondents.
They provide an illustrative example of
Strategy
the potential profiles of the companies
that may be included in each band.
• Integrate climate change risks and opportunities into overall
The key indicators that identify the
company strategy
characteristics of 2010’s performance
• Establish GHG emissions reduction target
leaders are outlined in Figure 15.
• Engage with policy makers on climate policy
Investors are also encouraged to
read individual company responses
in order to gain further context for a
company’s carbon performance score. Governance
Care should be taken when comparing
performance across companies. • Identify formal accountability for oversight and management
• Establish incentives for climate-change-related activities
More information can be found
at www.cdproject.net in the
questionnaire, supporting methodology
Stakeholder Communications
and guidance documents, as well as
within individual company responses.
• Communicate in mainstream reporting or other regulatory filings
• Verify emissions data through an external third party

Achievements

• Implement energy or emissions reduction initiatives


• Achieve significant emissions reduction
• Capitalize on opportunities as sources of business value

30
The CDP 2010 carbon performance bands
The carbon performance score is given as a banded score. Indicative descriptions of the bands follow and are for
guidance only. The drivers of any individual company score may vary across a number of different indicators. As
such, investors should read individual company responses to understand the context for each business.

Band A (Leading): Companies with scores greater than 80


Companies in this band excel for overall performance — relative to those in other bands — indicating both higher
degrees of maturity in their climate change initiatives and achievement of their objectives. Companies in this band
demonstrate the following characteristics.
Strategy: With the highest number of significant risks and opportunities identified, companies in this group were
the most likely to demonstrate integration of their climate-related priorities into their overall business strategy.
They frequently disclose targets aligned with those ambitions and emission reduction initiatives.
Governance: These companies demonstrate the most structured and most defined climate change management
mechanisms by frequently reporting formalized accountability, incentives and oversight from the board or
executive level.
Stakeholder communications: These companies also recognize the importance of providing transparent and
quality disclosure for their stakeholders by taking steps to verify data and report climate-related information in
their external communications.
Achievements: In support of their commitment to reduce emissions, these companies disclose the highest
number of actions taken to reduce their emissions, and most report success in achieving emissions reductions.

Band B (Fast following): Companies with scores of 51 to 80


Companies in band B also recognize the importance of climate change and are quickly following in the footsteps of
the leading companies. While the majority of companies in band B note climate change as a priority, their responses
indicate that actions and initiatives may not be as established or as well integrated into the companies’ overall
structures and strategies compared with those in band A. However, there may be a broad spectrum of performance
maturity within this tier, because some seemingly higher-performing companies in this band may have provided
limited information for certain key performance areas, thereby constraining the ability to fully evaluate them.

Band C (On the journey): Companies with scores of 21 to 50


Companies in band C indicate some activity on climate change. Most companies in this group identify at least one
risk from climate change and accordingly exercise some degree of oversight to monitor the progress of their climate
change initiatives. The levels of integration and maturity of those initiatives tend to vary according to disclosure of
emissions reduction targets, implementation of emissions reduction activities, employee incentives and verification
of emissions information. This group represents a variety of companies, including those that are new to taking
action on climate change, those that do not have climate change objectives as strategic actions for the organisation,
and those that do not believe the agenda to be a shorter-term priority.

Band D (Just starting): Companies with scores of 20 or below


Companies in this band recognize the importance of participating in CDP, and they have therefore achieved
reasonable levels of disclosure (i.e., a disclosure score >50). However, they have disclosed limited evidence of
actions taken on mitigation or adaptation. Companies in this band may include (1) those that believe that issues
regarding climate change are not relevant to them and (2) those that are beginning to take action on climate change.
As such, no further assertions can be made about their performance.

31
The 2010 Carbon Performance Scores

Summary – Results of 2010 Scoring The proportion of Financials companies Table 6: The list of companies with
is higher in the CPLI than in the a band A performance
Overall, 217 companies received a CDLI, but the weight of the sector in scores by sector
sufficient disclosure score to get a these two indices is still below their
CPLI score. The breakdown by band weight in the Europe 300 index. This Sector Companies in Performance
Band A
(figure 16) shows that more than two indicates that the Financials sector
thirds of companies got a grade A or underperforms other sectors on a Consumer BMW, Kingfisher, Philips
B and only very few (8 companies) relative basis in terms of disclosure and Discretionary Electronics, Renault
scored in the D band. performance with regard to climate Consumer Staples Nestlé, Reckitt Benckiser,
change issues (according to CDP Tesco
The Telecommunication Services, scoring methodologies). Energy Eni, Repsol YPF, Royal Dutch
Energy and Utilities sectors are over- Shell
represented in the Band A Score CPLI Table – Band A Financials Barclays, HSBC, Munich
range. Energy companies represent Table 6 presents the list of companies Re, Royal Bank of Scotland,
only 4% of companies with a with a Band A performance scores by Swiss Re, UBS

performance score, and constitute 9% sector. Health Care Novo Nordisk


of the companies in Band A. Industrials Deutsche Post, Ferrovial,
Every sector is represented in the Rolls-Royce, Siemens
This sector is a particularly interesting CPLI, in some cases with the same Information Nokia Group
case, as it illustrates the disconnect companies as in the CDLI (e.g. Technology
between disclosure and performance Consumer Staples, Healthcare, IT). In Materials BASF, Bayer, Lafarge
scores (the average disclosure score of some cases, there are minor changes;
Telecommunication BT Group, Deutsche
this sector is below average). for example, Rolls Royce appears Services Telekom, Royal KPN,
instead of Saint-Gobain in this ranking. Telefonica
However, a large majority of Utilities E.ON, Iberdrola, National
companies in the CDLI did receive high Grid, Scottish & Southern
performance bands (19 A bands, 6 B Energy
bands).

Figure 16: Number of companies by Figure 17: Weight of sectors in band categories
performance band
120 35

Number of companies
Sectors over represented in band A
30
100

25
80

20

60

15

40

10

20
5

0 0

A B C D
Industrials

Financials

Materials

Health Care

Consumer Staples

Consumer Disc.

IT

Utilities

Energy

Telecommincation Services

Band A
Band C
All bands
32
6 Analysis by Sector

Introduction Levels of disclosure across


different sectors
253 (84%) companies in the Europe
300 index responded to the CDP 2010 The Telecommunication Services,
information request. Key highlights are: Utilities and Industrials sectors have
the highest response rates to the
• With regard to emissions data, CDP questionnaire this year. Despite
92% of responding companies a relatively low response rate, the
provide Scope 1 emissions and Consumer Discretionary sector
91% provide Scope 2 emissions distinguishes itself by a high disclosure
figures. More than half of rate for Scope 3 emissions and a
respondents3 have more than 80% relatively high level of emissions data
of emissions data externally verified. verification (50% of companies have
Three quarters provide at least one more than 80% of their Scopes 1 and
figure for their Scope 3 emissions. 2 emissions verified by independent
third parties).
• With regard to identification of
risks and opportunities, European The perception of a significant
companies are more concerned regulatory risk linked to climate change
by climate change policies than policies is widely spread among
by the physical impact of climate energy-intensive sectors (Utilities,
change, where timing is often Materials, Energy). However, while
uncertain. While energy-intensive they perceive themselves as at risk,
sectors focus on risks related to the Energy and Materials sectors have
carbon regulation, the perception of fewer internal emissions reduction
business opportunities (shared by targets at the corporate level than
87% of respondents) is widespread average. However, the practice of
among sectors. However, a smaller incentive schemes for the management
proportion of respondents (71%) to achieve emission reductions is well
consider that their products and spread among Energy companies.
services can help third parties to
reduce their emissions. More than 4 out of 5
Telecommunication Services
• With regard to managerial aspects, companies also consider that
79% of companies have an carbon regulation poses risks. This
emissions reduction target and follows the European Commission’s
62% apply management incentives recommendation in October 2009
linked to objectives, including on mobilising Information and
climate change issues. Communications Technologies to
facilitate the transition to an energy-
efficient, low-carbon economy.

On the other hand, the Information


Technology and Telecommunication
Services sectors are optimistic about
opportunities related to climate
policies, as 100% of them identify
opportunities and believe they have
products or services that can help their
clients reduce emissions.

3 This excludes the Utility sector for which scope 2 (related


to power consumption) is not relevant as the sector produces
electricity, and emissions related to the purchases of electricity
for resale fall in scope 3.
33
Analysis by Sector

Table 7: Levels of disclosure across different sectors

% of sample answering CDP

services help third parties to


emissions reduction targets
% of sample veryfing >80%

% of responders indicating
of Scope 1 AND Scope 2

regulatory opportunities
management incentives

% of responders seeing

% of responders seeing

% of responders seeing

% of responders seeing
% of sample disclosing

that their products and

physical opportunities
% of responders with

% of responders with

avoid GHG emissions


Scope 3 emissions

regulatory risks

physical risks
emissions
20103

Consumer Discretionary 73 57 87 73 57 53 70 83 73 50

Consumer Staples 89 48 70 87 74 52 74 87 70 65

Energy 80 50 58 58 83 67 100 92 83 33

Financials 83 48 87 77 52 60 77 85 75 68

Health Care 73 55 82 64 64 45 55 55 36 9

Industrials 90 50 50 86 55 77 55 84 45 50

Information Technology 88 43 100 86 86 100 43 100 57 57

Materials 84 48 67 78 67 85 89 93 70 70

Telecommunication Services 94 50 88 88 63 100 81 100 88 81

Utilities 92 N/A 73 82 77 95 95 100 82 86

Grand Total 84 50 74 79 62 71 74 87 68 61

Risks and opportunities perception Table 8: Risk perception of sectors by type of risks
among sectors
Most regulatory risks identified by Cap and trade schemes Materials (risk quoted by 42% of companies);
responding companies are short-term Energy (40%)

risks (within a 5-year timeframe). Nearly Regulation and tax Utilities (64%),
three quarters (74%) of companies Telecommunication Services (50%),
Energy (40%)
claim that they will be exposed to at
least one regulatory risk over the next Product labelling and energy efficiency Consumer Discretionary (43%),
Telecommunication Services (42%)
five years. The most exposed sectors
are: Utilities (64%), Energy (60%),
Materials and Telecommunication
Services (58%).
Figure 18: Percentage of responding companies in each sector seeing
Most commonly identified risks within risks due to products regulations and standards
this 5-year timeframe are associated (efficiency, labelling)
to cap and trade schemes; regulation
and tax; product labelling; and energy Consumer
efficiency standards. staples
11%

The sector breakdown of the most Industrial 17%


important risks (cap and trade
schemes; regulation and tax) shows Financials 20%
the same result as the timescale
breakdown, except for product Utiliities 25%
labelling and energy efficiency, where
Consumer
Consumer Discretionary is the most Discretionary
26%
exposed sector.
Materials 33%

Telecommunication
Services 63%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

% of responding companies

34
Turning regulations into Risks associated with the physical
opportunities impacts of climate change “Some Nestlé sites are
Similar to regulatory risks, most Companies consider that they being affected by lack
regulatory opportunities identified by are mainly exposed to changes
the sample are short-term: 64% of in frequency of extreme weather of precipitation.”
respondents identified at least one events (one-third of respondents)
regulatory opportunity within the next five and precipitation patterns. They also
years. Materials and Telecommunication identified that the changes in supply Nestlé
Services (75%), Utilities (67%) and chain and/or customers (17% of
Energy (60%) sectors are seeing physical risk identified) and natural
business opportunities coming from resources (12% of answers) occurring The Consumer Discretionary,
climate change regulation. The most as a consequence of extreme weather Consumer Staples and Financials
commonly identified opportunity is linked events could represent significant risks. sectors appear relatively more exposed
to product regulations and standards, These risks are supposed to occur in to changes in supply chain and/
followed by regulation and taxes, as well the short-term (the next five years), or customers that may result from
as cap and trade schemes. except the potential impacts on natural weather-related natural hazards. In
resources, which are considered the Consumer Staples sector, all the
The perception of business as uncertain by most of responding companies concerned are in the Food,
opportunities in Telecommunication companies. Beverage and Tobacco industry, as
Services is related to products or they fear shortages of agricultural
services which could help clients Companies across sectors identify raw materials, due to drought, water
to reduce emissions: “Stricter extreme weather events as risks, scarcity, etc.
regulations in energy and fuels could whereas water scarcity as a result
drive companies to use our solutions of a potential change in precipitation In the Financial sector, the Banks and
(teleservices) to reduce energy and fuel patterns is more of a concern for Insurance industry groups identify the
cost.” SWISSCOM water-intensive sectors, such as risk that changes in weather patterns
Utilities (52% of companies); Consumer and natural catastrophes can impact
Most companies in the Materials sector Staples (33%, which includes the their clients’ solvency and ability
expect that an international post- Food, Beverage and Tobacco industry); to operate, especially in sectors,
Kyoto agreement could create new and Materials (32%). particularly vulnerable to climate
markets and boost existing markets change (fisheries, forestry, tourism,
for energy efficient products. They also agriculture, etc).
consider that potential future cap and
trade mechanisms in the US, Canada
and other developed countries could
represent opportunities for them to
benefit from early emissions reductions
and innovative products and solutions.

Table 9: Risks associated with the Figure 19: Perception of a risk of change in supply chain and/or customers
physical impacts of induced by weather events within sectors
climate change
Information
technology 0% % of responding companies in %
Induced changes in natural
Induced changes in supply
Changes in precipitation
Changes in frequency of

8%
extreme weather events

chain and/or customers

Healthcare

Materials 12%

Utilities 17%
resources
patterns

Industrials 19%
Tele-
Uncertain 27 % 21% 31% 32% communication 19%
services
Current 27% 29% 14% 10%
0–5 19% 16% 21% 19% Energy 25%
6 – 10 3% 5% 7% 6% Consumer
discretionary 38%
11 – 20 7% 13% 7% 10%
21 – 50 3% 2% 0% 3% Financials 39%
> 50 14% 14% 19% 19%
Consumer
staples 46%

0 10 20 30 40 50
35
Analysis by Sector

Key themes from the Europe 300


company responses by industry
sector

Climate change poses specific


challenges to every sector. The key
climate change issues faced by
each of the 10 sectors of the GICS
classification are summarised in
table 10.

Table 10: Key themes from the Europe 300 company responses by industry sector

Sector Key themes highlighted by Europe 300 companies


Consumer Discretionary - Improving the CO2-efficiency of products to meet consumption trends and comply with regulation
- Engaging regulators to ensure sustainable incentives and framework to stimulate demand for new technologies,
e.g. electric vehicles
- Awareness campaigns to clients to act on emissions at product use phase (e.g. eco-driving training)
Consumer Staples - Improving the carbon efficiency of stores to cut energy costs and anticipate higher fossil fuel prices (retailers)
- Switching to HFC-free refrigeration systems (food retailers)
- Improving the CO2-efficiency of products and packaging to meet changes in consumer demand and mitigate
the impact of potential regulations (carbon labelling, CO2 tax)
- Securing sustainable supply of agricultural raw materials as increasing adverse weather events may affect crops
and price stability
Energy - Carbon-efficiency of processes to mitigate impact of CO2 cap and trade schemes and flaring down regulations
- Lowering the carbon-intensity of the product portfolio and sustainable sourcing of biofuels to comply with biofuel
blending mandates and Low Carbon Fuel Standards
- Taking opportunities and positioning on alternative energy technologies (renewables, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen)
Financials - Exposure of banks and insurers to clients with credit profile sensitive to the increase of CO2 costs
- Opportunities in the development of green products and services (e.g. financing, leasing, insurance of renewable
energy systems, low emissions vehicles, low consumption homes; carbon finance, eco loans)
- Identifying risks and taking opportunities in insurance and reinsurance of weather-related natural catastrophe risks
Health Care - Mixed views on business opportunities linked with disease spread and intensification due to climate change
- Potential difficulties on carrying product labelling due to the abundance of substances and products
Industrials - Risk of carbon/energy efficiency regulations for air and marine carriers. Commercial opportunities with
“low carbon” offers (Transportation)
- R&D on CO2-efficient products and creation of business units to capture opportunities in growing markets
for energy efficient engines, motors, buildings, mobility, and renewable energies
Information Technology - Product innovation to meet carbon reduction needs of customers (e.g. smart metering solutions for electricity suppliers)
- Energy-efficiency of products in anticipation of potential EU regulation by 2015
Materials - Lowering carbon-intensity of production processes is key to avoid significant costs under cap & trade schemes
- Engaging regulators on global sectoral schemes to avoid risks of carbon leakage regionally and distortion of competition
- Seizing market opportunities with the development of eco-efficient products helping emissions cuts in other sectors
(e.g. insulation products)
Telecommunication Services - Risk of rise in the price of equipments, in the event suppliers would have to comply with energy efficiency standards
on their products
- Eco-design of products
- Commercialisation of new products/services to help consumers reduce emissions (e.g. videoconferencing)
Utilities - Diversifying the energy mix towards low-carbon energies to reduce financial exposure to CO2 costs under the
EU ETS over 2013-2020
- Compliance with national renewable and energy efficiency mandates applying to electricity/gas suppliers in some
EU Member States
- Seizing opportunities in the development of renewable energies and of energy efficiency services, to compensate
risks of displacement of non renewable power generation and reduced demand for electricity

36
Contrasting outlooks within sectors

Two companies within a sector


can have radically different views,
positioning, practices or standards
regarding an identical and specific
challenge posed by climate
change. Table 11 gathers diverging
or contrasting answers given by
companies to a common sector issue.

Table 11: Contrasting outlooks with sectors

Issue Outlook 1 Outlook 2


Consumer Discretionary Regulatory FIAT: “...the EU regulation introduces financial penalties Porsche: “Through intensive research and development
Risk: Emissions for car manufacturers not compliant with their specific efforts, Porsche is in a position to comply with the
standards on targets starting from 2012 (the penalty amounts a prescribed mandatory national emission limits for all its
passenger cars maximum of €95/g for each exceeding gram). Fiat has vehicle models in order to, on the one hand, contribute
in place a process in order to constantly monitor the towards climate protection and, on the other, to avoid
achievement of its target. No risk of penalties is being the payment of penalties. If the limit values prescribed
identified.” in regulations cannot be achieved within the prescribed
period, despite every effort and by means of appropriate
improvements within development, there is a threat of
severe penalties.”

Consumer Staples Physical Risk: SAB Miller: “Physical availability and quality of water Carlsberg: “For the moment, we don’t envisage any
Availability and resources to our operations in a number of locations concrete direct physical risks to our production sites due
quality of water have the potential to pose a risk to business continuity. to extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes and
resources Given the importance of both quality and quantity of floods.”
this resource to our products this is considered to be an
extremely import risk and forms part of our 3 global focus
areas.”
Energy Regulatory Statoil: “Statoil is a pioneer within CCS, and is engaged ENI: “Regarding the geological storage of carbon
opportunity: in 3 of 4 worlds biggest CCS projects, as an operator dioxide, eni is focused on backing both the Italian
development of at Sleipner and Snøhvit fields in Norway and as partner and European regulators in implementing a support
alternative fuels in In-Salah, Algeria. Statoil was the first company to framework to remove obstacles to the full development
and technologies store CO2 in a geological formation offshore... Statoil of CCS technology. In 2008, eni signed a strategic
is developing business opportunities as operator of cooperation agreement with Enel for the joint
geological storage of CO2.” development of CCS technologies aimed at accelerating
the implementation of the entire technology package
required for the capture, transfer and confinement of
carbon dioxide. A joint pilot project is on-going.”

Financials Indirect regulatory Barclays: “We have not yet faced any material financial BCP: “BCP is planning to internalize the environmental
risk: credit risk of impact as a result of current or forthcoming climate risk of all customers on credit risk analysis. But for a
client base due to change regulation on our client base. Deep industry correct identification of risks and how these should
carbon regulations expertise combined with strong risk management means be incorporated into risk analysis is now collecting
that visible regulatory risks from climate change are information and providing training to employees.”
assessed as part of the broader industry and macro-
environment when assessing lending and investment
decisions. For instance, we model carbon price scenarios
during the credit analysis process for energy intensive
clients in relevant jurisdictions.”
Health Care Physical GlaxoSmithKline: “Below is a list of events associated Novo Nordisk: “Looking at the direct impacts of climate
opportunity: with climate change that have the potential to change on human health, climate change is likely to
increase of create opportunities for GSK in the form of a greater create increased demand for treatment of vector-borne
diseases as an requirement from society to GSK for preventative action and respiratory diseases. As our core business is chronic
effect of climate as well as the supply of effective medicines. Changes diseases such as diabetes and haemophilia we do not
change in precipitation patterns are likely to influence patients’ see significant opportunities in terms of selling more
needs as water-borne diseases increase their spread drugs as a consequence of climate change.”
with increasing global temperatures. The increase in
frequency of extreme weather events may exacerbate
the spread of respiratory, diarrhoeal and water-borne
diseases. Changes in crop yields induced by climate
change would increase malnutrition related diseases.”

37
Analysis by Sector

Industrials Regulatory ABB: “45% of ABB’s revenues are generated from the Sandvik: “Sandvik has not identified any significant
opportunity: demand for energy efficiency. As energy prices rise, climate change opportunities that have occurred due to
commercialisation energy efficiency will become an even more important regulations. The emission trading scheme could be seen
of energy-efficient purchase criterion. ... as an opportunity when the emission rights are not used
product, renewable In 2008 alone, the worldwide installed base of ABB drives fully, but they are not significant.”
energies is estimated to have saved around 140 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide.”
Information Technology Regulatory risk: Capgemini: “Capgemini is anticipating changes in the Ericsson: “We do not consider our company to be
requirements regulatory environment by taking a proactive stance exposed to regulatory risks.[...] we are leading in our
related to energy- towards these rising issues and increasing our focus sector in terms of energy efficiency, and thus we are well
efficiency towards building Green data centres, implementing positioned to comply with any regulatory requirements
Green IT and energy efficient technologies as well as related to energy efficiency if/when such emerge.
focusing on reducing our business travel. We continue We believe this readiness will result in a competitive
to work with our suppliers to minimize our environmental advantage in the marketplace.”
impact in our supply chain ...”
Materials Regulatory Yara: “The regulatory requirements will strengthen K + S: Do current and/or anticipated regulatory
opportunity: the need for efficient agriculture, and thereby for requirements related to climate change present
the tailor-made fertilizers and best practice fertilizing significant opportunities for your company? “No”
tools developed by Yara. Stricter GHG regulations on
production will strengthen the position of Yara’s catalyst
technology on N2O abatement in nitric acid plants.”
Telecommunication Regulatory risk: Telefonica: “The specific ICT regulation for lowering Swisscom: “No modification of current legislation or
Services requirements emissions will impact also our suppliers from the ICT regulation expected in near future. Voluntary target
related to energy- sector as they will also be requested to improve their agreement for energy efficiency and CO2-emissions
efficiency energy efficiency in their products and services. This between Swisscom and Swiss federal government in
would probably increase our costs. For example, costs force until 2012 liberates Swisscom from local and states
of energy efficient equipment for telecommunications in requirements.”
networks.”

Utilities Regulatory risk: GDF Suez: “Energy regulations may affect our energy EDF: “EDF has chosen to implement a program of
Demand-side sales and will increase the need of energy saving several energy efficiency actions in all its markets with
energy efficiency certificates acquisitions. However it will also provide new the goal of allowing EDF to comply with all of its legal
mandates opportunities for our Energy Services branch.” and regulatory obligations, in particular regarding energy
efficiency certificates (EEC). However, EDF cannot
guarantee that the actions taken by the Group in favour
of controlling energy demand will be sufficient to achieve
the goals set by the public authorities.”

38
7 Sector Specific
Analysis

Consumer Discretionary Emission profile Risks and opportunities


Most of the carbon footprint in the Automobiles & Components is the
The Consumer Discretionary sector Consumer Discretionary sector comes only industry to unanimously see
is very diversified, consisting of five from the product use phase. Indeed, a significant risk due to carbon
different industries: Automobiles & Automobile Manufacturers and regulations. The main risk lies in
Components (8); Consumer Durables Consumer Electronics sub-industries’ regulations forcing them to meet fuel
& Apparel (8); Consumer Services (5); Scope 3 emissions represent more economy standards for their vehicles
Media (11); and Retailing (9). than 90% of the total absolute CO2 sold (e.g. EU Directive, US CAFE-
emissions for the entire Consumer standards and US-Tier-standard)
Disclosure highlights Discretionary sector. For instance, rather than incurring significant fines
Companies in CDLI: Philips Electronics Philips Electronics (301 mtCO2e or to having their products barred
(94); Renault (93) Scope 3 emissions) evaluated its from a market. However, most of the
direct emissions at “less than 1% automobile manufacturers believe
Companies with an A performance compared to the impact of the usage that they are on track to meet existing
band: BMW; Kingfisher; Philips of [its] products”. Apart from auto regulations. They all believe that they
Electronics; Renault manufacturers, Philips is the only are part of the solution to climate
company which has clearly set an change, as they unconditionally believe
Largest non-respondents by market emissions reduction target for its they are developing products and
capitalisation: Swatch Group; Christian products. The group is committed services that help their clients reduce
Dior; PPR; Hermes International; to improving the energy efficiency emissions. This view is shared by
Luxottica Group; Michelin (among 11 of its “products with 50% by 2015 Philips Electronics and Electrolux in the
non respondents) compared to 2009”. Apart from Consumer Durables & Apparel industry.
product energy-efficiency, improving The latter stresses that “within
Total GHG emissions Scope 1: packaging, transportation, distribution consumer durables, the products with
17.0 mtCO2e lifetime reliability, reducing hazardous the best environmental performance
substances, facilitating disposal and accounted for 21% of [their] total sold
Total GHG emissions Scope 2: recycling are the other key actions units in 2009 and 30% of gross profit.
19.1 mtCO2e implemented by the sector to reduce Also, tax credit permit to encourage
its carbon footprint. energy-smart product purchase…This
Total GHG emissions Scope 3: underscores that efficient products
420.4 mtCO2e deliver higher profit margins.”

39
Sector Specific Analysis

Industry focus: Automobiles & sustainable mobility for all. Since 2005, More recently, companies have
Components KDC has provided more than 50,000 been engaging with governments to
In this industry, the most interesting hours of training, bringing about a real enhance the development of electric
Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is change in attitude in the daily driving mobility, as it is crucial that states
the sales-weighted CO2 emissions practices of 10,000 drivers, both support the development of electric
(Scope 3) by region (at least EU, US, business users and consumers. vehicles, hybrids and plug-in hybrids
Japan and other) and by segment. with incentives to stimulate emerging
This KPI allows for tracking reduction In the race to maximise vehicle demand for these vehicles. For these
efforts in the average fuel economy of efficiency, auto manufacturers have new markets to reach maturity, PSA
vehicles sold and for assessing efforts to dedicate significant amounts of insisted that it is vitally important that
remaining to reach emission standards. R&D and investments to develop new these incentives be highly visible and
However, reporting on this KPI remains technologies. stable over time.
relatively poor with uneven consistency
between auto manufacturers. For instance, with PSA’s objective BMW Group has made available its
While auto manufacturers have to sell one million e-HDi-equipped MINI E and Hydrogen 7 vehicles to
made important efforts to answer vehicles by 2013 (Stop & Start a large number of global political
comprehensively the questionnaire, system that combines a reversible decision makers (in the US, the UK
this important KPI is still not available starter-alternator and a diesel and in Berlin) in order to demonstrate
in a comparable way. Fiat reports engine), the company spent €300 in practical use, the potentials of
the lowest corporate average fuel million of investment to implement Electromobility and the hydrogen
economy for vehicles sold in Europe as this technology and mobilised 500 technology and to illustrate the political
shown in table 12. engineers and technicians during 36 need for action concerning long term
months. infrastructure issues.
In this 2010 edition of the Europe 300
report, auto manufacturers report on The Renault-Nissan Alliance is From Tennessee to Israel and Japan,
new initiatives launched to develop investing €4 billion in projects related to the Renault/ Nissan Alliance signed
alternative mobility. For example, PSA zero-emission mobility. partnerships with over 40 public and
is working on new mobility services, private entities by end 2009.
such as Mu by Peugeot, a renting As a point of comparison, the Euro 5
service or new monthly fee concepts standard has required approximately Interestingly, PSA Peugeot Citroën also
for electric vehicles. Indeed the two €1.5 billion of capital expenditure on defends the position that test cycles
electric vehicles that are going to be nearly 4 years, according to PSA. and procedures should be harmonised
launched at the end of the year will be worldwide. This is an increasingly
offered with monthly leasing fees4. In Due to its important footprint on the important issue to be able to better
2009, Renault Environnement joined economy and employment, the sector measure fuel economy of the vehicles,
forces with the Belgian company Key has a long tradition of interacting in particular with the emergence of
Driving Competences (KDC) to deploy with governments and lobbying to hybrids and electric vehicles.
innovative eco-driving training projects influence regulation, tax policy, as
and the services associated with well as town and country planning.

Table 12: Corporate average fuel economy for vehicles sold in Europe

Of which petrol (in Western Europe) Of which diesel (in Western Europe) Target
  2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
   
BMW 156* 178 163 158 167 150 148 - 25% less CO2-emissions in our
newly sold fleet worldwide from
2008 until 2020
Fiat 131 142 137 129 141 137 129**  
Porsche ND             -1.7% per year
PSA Peugeot 135.8 ND ND sell one million vehicles emitting
Citroen less than 120g/km of CO2 in Europe
each year as from 2012
Renault 138.9*** 156.6 152 147.5 139.1 136.9 129.6 130gCO2/km by 2012 in average for
internal combustion vehicles

* Germany only;
** This figure does not seem consistent;
*** Communicated by the company but not in the CDP

4 Reference: In French newspaper La Tribune, 7 September


2010, “PSA lance la première voiture électrique de série”.

40
Consumer Staples 86% of total emissions reported in
the sector are Scope 3 emissions “Consumer use and
The Consumer Staples sector is (e.g. Unilever: 150 mtCO2-e, Nestlé: disposal of products
composed of three industries: Food & 51 mtCO2-e; Reckitt Benckiser:
Staples Retailing (9 companies); Food, 25mtCO2-e). Unilever therefore believes may reach between 30
Beverage & Tobacco (14); Household & that awareness campaigns directed at and 60 times as much
Personal Products (4). customers is a key component for its as our own emissions,
carbon mitigation action. depending on the
Disclosure highlights
Companies in CDLI: Reckitt Benckiser HFC gases (high global warming assumptions made
(93); Tesco (92); Nestlé (92) potential greenhouse gases) are about how consumers
also a specific issue for the sector, use our products.
Companies with an A performance especially for retailers, since leakages
band: Reckitt Benckiser; Tesco; Nestlé of refrigerant gases account for up to
61% (in the case of Delhaize) of their …
Largest non-respondents by market direct emissions. Most companies
capitalisation: Casino; Colruyt aim to reduce refrigerant losses
and are gradually switching to other The Cleaner Planet
Total GHG emissions Scope 1: environmentally friendly refrigerants
21.6 mtCO2e (e.g. CO2-based refrigeration systems Plan, which is being
in all new Tesco’s stores in the UK in rolled out across our
Total GHG emissions Scope 2: 2010/11), as the Montreal Protocol Omo, Persil and Surf
20.2 mtCO2e requires a global phase-out of the brands, is a behaviour
production and use of such refrigerants
Emission profile and carbon by 2030 (at the latest). Nestlé warns change programme that
mitigation actions of potential difficulties to implement educates consumers on
Within the sector, the Household & natural refrigerant in a number of how to do their washing
Personal Products industry has the countries though.
lowest carbon footprint. Direct on-site
in a resource-efficient
emissions are slightly higher than those Along with efficient lighting, insulation fashion.”
related to the purchase of power and and energy recovery measures,
heat in the Food, Beverage & Tobacco retailers plan to decrease their carbon-
industry. This is the opposite pattern for intensity per square meter of sales area Unilever
retailing companies for which electricity by 1.6% to 4.7 % annually (chart 20 for
and heat dominates the energy comparative assessment).
mix, due to lighting and refrigeration
requirements in stores. However,
Figure 20: Comparison of carbon-intensities of retailers
overall these emissions sources
are dwarfed by the GHG Life Cycle * The methodology may vary across
600 Food & Staples Retailing Multiline Retail
Assessments performed by a few companies. For Tesco, group’s total
companies, which shows that most carbon emissions are accounted for
while other companies limit the scope
of the carbon footprint of the sector to carbon emissions at stores.
actually lies in the emissions related to 500
the use of the products by customers
and the purchase of (agricultural and
chemical) raw materials. Indeed, 400

300

200

100

0
kgCO2/m2 sales area 2009
J Sainsbury Plc

Koninklijke Ahold

Delhaize Group (CR)

Carrefour

Tesco**

Metro

Marks & Spencer

41
Sector Specific Analysis

Risks and opportunities • The development of agrofuels


Danone sees “Major Compared to other industries in the could adversely impact on the
opportunity to gain sector; Food, Beverage & Tobacco availability of lands for other
companies consider themselves much agricultural raw materials. This
market share thanks to more at risk both of climate change could lead to supply pressure and
a better performance regulations (100%) and of the physical potential price increases.
on CO2 (mainly CO2 impact of climate change (92%).
claim, milk/methane • Changes in consumer demand
Regulatory risks commonly mentioned towards greener products further
claim, packaging are: driven by product labelling
claims…)” and highlight obligations also pose a risk.
for example “The bio • Cap & trade risk: 10 companies Danone is confident that the extra
have sites regulated under the EU cost of bio packaging on its dairy
packaging on the dairy ETS and raise the risk of higher brand can be recovered thanks to
brand has an extra cost carbon costs post-2012. Financial gains in market share.
of €25/tonne, €5m/year implications are limited, notably as
cost increased on the activities concerned can be eligible In terms of the physical risks from
for free CO2 rights by 2020 (e.g. climate change, all companies in
brand European Scope sugar manufacturing) and as the the industry, except Carlsberg are
(1.5% volume growth amounts of emissions at stake also concerned that a change in
needed to pay back). are fairly low (maximum 1mtCO2e precipitation patterns, leading to floods
The business return reported by Associated British or droughts, could alter the availability
Foods). of clean water (a key element for beers,
of these investments soft drinks, etc) and increase the price
has been for the first • Higher energy prices or carbon of raw materials (due to reduction in
time confirmed this taxes could significantly raise yields) and agricultural raw material
year in consumer tests logistics and packaging costs. shortages. To mitigate such risks,
SAB Miller, for instance, sees a companies are working on increasing
with very promising potential risk in the indirect impact the water efficiency of their process,
consumer results in from packaging related CO2 taxes, diversifying or securing a continuous
a test run in France, such as those in place in The supply of key raw materials (e.g. coffee
Netherlands. for Nestlé, barley for AB InBev) through
the UK, Belgium and specific programmes.
Germany on renewable
packaging (50% CO2
reduction claim). “In order to assure the
This will need to be continuous supply of its
confirmed in real life.” main commodities, one
of the initiatives Nestlé
has in place is working
“In 2009, the company with suppliers, providing
used 8.5% less water training and technical
per hectolitre of assistance… Cocoa
production than in 2008, supply is becoming
and has decreased increasingly critical.
water use per hectolitre With farmer training,
of production 14.5% Nestlé is helping farmers
since 2007.” increase yields, reduce
disease and produce a
better quality crop which
AB Inbev
attracts higher prices.”

Nestlé

42
Energy A patchwork of metrics in carbon- Gas flaring
intensity reporting ENI remains a large flarer in 2009
The Energy sector contains 15 When reporting on carbon-intensity (ca.13mtCO2e), but the company
companies, which belong to two indicators, companies use widely delivers well on its target to cut gas
industries: Oil, Gas & Consumable different metrics (e.g. tonnes of flaring by 70% over 2007-2012
Fuels (11); and Energy Equipment & throughput versus output, barrel of (ca. half of the reduction effort was
Services (4). oil equivalent versus tonne), as well achieved at end 2009).
as different boundaries (total group,
Disclosure highlights by division, distinction of oil and gas Risks and Opportunities
Companies in CDLI: Royal Dutch Shell extraction activities, and so forth). All companies consider that several
This prevents any direct consistent types of climate change regulations
Companies with an A performance comparison between companies. create significant risks for their
band: Royal Dutch Shell; ENI; Repsol business. All energy companies
YPF Generally, companies have not set have ended 2009 with surpluses of
emissions reduction targets based on emission rights (except Statoil and
Largest non-respondents by market carbon-intensity indicators, but rather BP), but direct carbon compliance
capitalisation: Tenaris; Galp Energia; seek absolute emissions reductions costs are expected to increase under
Technip or improvements in energy efficiency. the EU ETS. Total estimates that the
Although BP has no official CO2 benchmark allocation method starting
Emissions profile reduction target, it tracks emission in 2013 may hand out “only 70 to 80%
There is a clear lack of transparency on reductions through efficiency projects of required allocations” to installations
carbon issues in the Energy Equipment (7.9mtCO2e since 2002). On the other in the sector. ENI prepares for turning
& Services industry, as companies hand, Statoil states that it has achieved to a shortage of CO2 emissions rights
have either not responded to the its emissions reduction target, but as soon as 2011.
CDP questionnaire or have asked for does not disclose any figure or
their answer not to be made publicly timescale. Emissions reduction targets
available. are relatively low, requiring emissions
cuts of 0.3% (RD Shell) to 1.6% (BG)
Predominance of Scope 3 p.a. In years to come, most emission
emissions reductions in the sector should come
The bulk of the sector carbon footprint from ENI and Total’s flaring down
lies in CO2 emissions from the use of plans.
products (5 to 11 times higher than
direct emissions). These estimates
are based on different methodologies
though (e.g. production vs. sales of
petroleum products or different sources
of emission factors used), which
Figure 21: Upstream energy mix of oil & gas companies in 2009
does not allow for direct comparison
between companies. Statoil is the
100
only integrated Oil & Gas company Gas
that does not disclose an estimate for Conventional
such emissions. Pending a harmonised Other
methodology in this field, the upstream
80
mix of natural gas and crude oil
production is the best indicator,
providing a view on the carbon-
intensity of the products sold. RD Shell
states that “by around 2012 [they] will 60

be producing more gas than oil”.

40

20

0
ENI

Total

OMV

Cairn Energy

BG Group

Tullow Oil

43
Sector Specific Analysis

All else being equal, based on EU ETS Opportunities: Products helping to


“In Europe, according to data disclosed by companies and reduce emissions
preliminary estimates, assuming a 30% shortage of emission Within the Oil, Gas & Consumables
rights over 2013-2020 and a CO2 price industry, all companies but Tullow Oil
our concerned exposed of €25/tCO2, estimates of annual CO2 and Cairn Energy consider that their
sectors may received compliance costs in Europe, starting products can reduce emissions of their
only 70 to 80% of their in 2013, range from €24m (BG) to users in:
required allocations for €181m (Total SA), with OMV the most
financially exposed with 1.8% of its The Transportation sector:
the third period of the EBITDA 2009 appearing at risk (see The blending of biofuels; the
EU ETS, beyond 2012; figure 22 below). commercialisation of Compressed
this may represent Natural Gas and LPG as transport
an additional charge, Other commonly cited regulatory risks fuels; and the use of fuel economy
are: petroleum fuels and lubricants can
according to market reduce the carbon footprint of vehicles.
price, from €1bn to • Reduced demand for their products
€1.6bn by taking into as carbon caps apply to their clients Industries: Providing access to natural
(e.g. airlines, international shipping), gas or renewable energies can replace
account a cost of €25 the use of higher carbon fuels.
per tonne of CO2 for the • Increased costs to comply with
2013-2020 period.” renewable fuel mandates; low Buildings: The use of monomers and
carbon fuel standards; and energy polymers produced by petrochemical
saving certificates applying to their plants as insulation materials can
Total SA portfolio of products and services; reduce energy consumption, hence
and carbon emissions of buildings.

• Tightening control on flaring and The estimates of absolute emissions


venting in emerging countries. cuts achieved thanks to the use of
such products remain relatively low. For
instance, “In 2009, Repsol YPF sold
68,625 metric tonnes of [LPG] fuel,
which implies a 35,706 metric tonnes
of CO2 emission reduction compared
to the emissions, which would have
been caused by the equivalent diesel
use”.

Figure 22: Estimates of potential CO2 costs in 2013 under the EU ETS
BG BP OMV Repsol YPF Royal Dutch Shell Total
0 0.0
as a % of EBITDA 2009
Estimated EU ETS costs for 2013

-50 -0.5

-100 -1.0

-150 -1.5

-200 -2.0

44
Regarding investments made in In general, financial contributions to
alternative energies, BP seems to alternative energy projects compared OMV “supports the use
invested the most, with US$4 billion to company results are insignificant. of compressed natural
spent at end 2009 and has made For instance, renewable energies made
investments in all main alternative a €20.7 million financial contribution to gas as a transport fuel
energy areas. Other companies are Repsol YPF group EBITDA in 2008 (i.e. due to its significant
more selective and concentrate on 0.3%). advantages: up to 15%
technologies selected for their strategic fewer CO2 emissions.”
fit and/or economic opportunities.

Table 13: Involvement in alternative energies and technologies by European oil majors

Biofuel Solar Wind CCS Hydrogen Investments


(production)
BP $45-million Unit sales of Portfolio Focus on large 2 hydrogen > $4 billion in
investment in a 203MW focused in the scale projects power Alternative Energy
JV which plans US. Additional projects since 2005, in line
to construct capacity in with commitment
lignocellulosic 2009 to invest $8 billion
bioethanol by 2015.
production facility
Total Explores new Develops Project in Lacq now
avenues for the positions in full course
future, particularly particularly in PV
based on solar, emphasising
agricultural waste technology and
and ligno-cellulosic know-how,
sources without unduly
compromising
economic
requirements.
RD Signed a non- LoI signed by Natural gas will be
Shell binding MoU with Alberta and central to a low-
Cosan in Brazil Canadian carbon energy
to form a JV to governmnet to future.
produce ethanol provide funding of
from sugar cane, CA $865 million to a
the lowest-CO2 project to store over
biofuel 1 mtCO2 a year
Statoil Focus on First company Investing around
offshore wind: to store CO2 in a NOK 400 million
building a 315 geological formation in the pilot
MW offshore offshore (1996). floating offshore
wind farm in Engaged in 3 of 4 wind turbine
a $1.7 billion worlds biggest CCS (construction &
joint venture projects R&D)
Repsol Continued
YPF evaluating the
feasibility of CCS
technologies in its
refineries, as well
as the associated
costs.

45
Sector Specific Analysis

Disclosure of exposure to extreme


“...because they could climate events
deliver substantial All Oil & Gas producers, except BP,
consider that the physical impacts
reductions in CO2 of climate change can create a risk
and because of their for their business. Companies were
close fit with our fuels invited to disclose the value of net
business, transport asset exposure to extreme weather
events by country in a specific sector
biofuels will increasingly questionnaire. Only ENI, Repsol YPF
be the priority area for and Cairn Energy provided information.
our renewable energy For instance, Cairn has US$250 million
of assets in Bangladesh and Repsol
spending. We are ca.€460m of assets in Trinidad &
serious about trying Tobago. “Eni’s production in [sensitive]
to build a substantial areas represents 8% of the total
business in biofuels. production of the company in 2009”,
but the company states that “in case
This involves both of offshore floating production units,
building capacity in the risks of extreme weather events are
sustainable current reduced via quickly releasable Floating
generation biofuels Production, Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) vessels”. Total considers that
and investing in they “don’t have any key assets in
technologies…” countries exposed to major weather
events.”

RD Shell

46
Financials Risks and opportunities
Green products: 60% of respondents AXA UK’s “Green
The Financials sector is made up of 72 estimate that they propose products Homeowner policy
companies in three industries: Banks or services which help clients avoid
(35 companies); Diversified Financials or reduce GHG emissions, usually entitles customers to
(13); and Insurance (24). through modified behaviours. Singling make environmental
out the Banks industry, the result is claims by upgrading the
Disclosure highlights much higher (77%). energy consumption
Companies in CDLI: RBS (93); HSBC
(92) Among the services described, we profile of their electrical
find: financing or leasing of renewable appliances in case of
Companies with an A performance energies and energy efficiency equipment loss. Green
band: Barclays; HSBC; Munich Re; projects; participation in carbon funds rebuilding even applies
RBS; Swiss Re; UBS or monetisation of carbon credits;
bookrunning on share offerings; to large damage claims
Largest non-respondents by market carbon finance; leasing and promoting where the majority
capitalisation: Groupe Bruxelles green cars; thematic equity funds with of the property is
Lambert; Sampo Group an environmental filter; “eco” loans
(sometimes at discounted rates); and
damaged by an insured
Emission profile “eco” bonds. event.”
The main source of carbon emissions
in this sector is from the purchase Insurers also provide specific
of electricity, heat and cooling. This insurance products for green cars;
remains a single digit figure (8mtCO2e). homes and buildings; carbon credits; “Since 1998 RBS has
The sector has been good at and renewable energies, as well as financed over 8,800MW
reporting Scope 3 emissions (87% of Life & Savings products integrating
respondents), but the figures provided environmental, social and governance of installed wind
are low (2mtCO2e reported) and (ESG) screening strategies and risk generation capacity
correspond mostly to business travel. prevention services. These activities globally.”
tend to support the development
The main carbon emission reduction of new environmental technologies,
efforts are energy-efficiency measures, reduce certain types of risk exposures Royal Bank of
the use of zero-carbon electricity, and generate premiums (e.g. €17.6m Scotland
the reduction of business travel and generated by Mapfre in 2009 for wind
offsetting. Targets are often defined in farms and solar photovoltaic panels
tCO2e/employee. insurance).

The exposure of investment banks to Generali warns that “the application of DnB NOR “offers
carbon risks through their investment discounts to incentivise eco-friendly loans at a discounted
portfolios is certainly a higher concern choices implies lower margins in
for investors. Although risks, such as some cases” but sees more long-term interest rate for new
default risk for loans or equity valuation benefit (such as customer loyalty, green and second-hand cars
are clearly identified by most and are brand value). which meet certain
seen as bearing materiality. Banks and emission criteria.
Insurers’ specific exposure to carbon The contribution of these services
sensitive sectors remains poorly remains fairly limited at company level. Volumes, however, are
detailed. Direct equity investments in companies still insignificant but
active in renewable energies and the product can be
To mitigate such risks, carbon risk carbon offsetting services are among seen to make a notable
assessments are carried out during other activities mentioned.
the credit/investment analysis process, contribution in the
especially for counterparts in energy- Insurance of weather hazards: future.”
intensive industries. Dexia remains the The Financials sector considers
only company to have set a target on itself relatively more exposed to the
the carbon-intensity of its portfolio of effects of climate change, both in
power generation projects: “In 2009, terms of opportunities and risks.
the carbon intensity of the portfolio of This is especially true for Insurance
projects for producing electricity and companies, as 90% of them see
heat of Dexia was 0.330tCO2/MWh. significant risks for their business
We aim to reach 0.316tCO2/ MWh by due to the physical impact of climate
2013”. change and 76% of them consider
business opportunities. As a result,
certain insurers have increased
47
Sector Specific Analysis

their research expertise (e.g. the preventative solutions aiming to limit


“Under capital €100 million “AXA Research Fund” the amount of the claims (e.g. flood-
allocation in respect supporting academic research), as well resilient repairs).
as signing up to collaborative initiatives,
of general insurance such as the UNEP FI Insurance Opportunities: The weather related
risk of claims from Working Group or the Geneva insurance coverage was 55% and
catastrophic events, Association’s “Kyoto Statement”, which 6.7% respectively in developed and
such as windstorm commits insurers to enhance research emerging countries (see figure 23).
and develop adapted products and The higher frequency and severity
or flooding, our total services. of national catastrophe is seen as
potential loss from our a trigger for increased demand for
most concentrated Risks: Banks stress potential risks to insurance coverage, although Swiss
exposure (northern their loan books, in the case of climate Re recognises that tapping into this
risks damaging the creditworthiness market will require considerable
European windstorm) of their clients, especially in sectors resources. Products, such as
is approximately £335 sensitive to climate change, or damage natural catastrophe insurance and
million for a one in the value of the collateralised assets. reinsurance, national catastrophe
bonds, weather derivatives and
ten year annual loss Insurers obviously consider a direct weather index insurance could benefit
scenario, compared exposure through their property and from an increasing demand for flood
with a £620 million for casualty (P&C) re-insurance business. and crop protection insurance. Swiss
a one in hundred year Re seems particularly well positioned
Weather-related events accounted for with a 30% global market share in
annual loss scenario.” 85% (€22bn) of the total loss incurred weather and weather contingent
by the global insurance industry and commodity structures.
climate change is seen as a catalyst
Aviva for increased frequency of extreme
weather events. Munich Re, among
others, considers that the impact can
go beyond the P&C business line
Swiss Re “anticipates and also sees indirect impact on life
growing demand for and health business lines (through
premature deaths). The Solvency II
catastrophe covers as a regulatory framework - an updated
result of changes in the Figure 23: Total and insured
set of regulatory requirements for
weather-related natural
climate and increased insurance firms that operate in the
catastrophe losses in 2008
climate variability. The European Union is scheduled to come
into effect on 31 December 2012.
financial opportunity in This will require insurers to account for
200

this context is related climate exposure in a proper economic


to potential premium evaluation of risks and reinsurance
growth from traditional needs.
and new products To mitigate such risks, companies
150

designed to help in the are investing in research to better


management of climate understand the potential consequence
of climate change (risk of floods, for
risk.” instance) in order to integrate changes
in risks in their underwriting and to 100

adapt their pricing and consequently


their risk management frameworks.
Some companies propose more
50

Developed countries Emerging countries

Total weather related natural catastrophe losses


Insured weather related natural catastrophe losses
Source: Swiss Ré
48
Health Care Risks and opportunities Business opportunities are anticipated
Risk and opportunities are mostly by Novartis “as a rise in global
The Health Care sector is composed identified by the Pharmaceuticals, temperatures and changing climate
of two industries: Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences patterns will influence the spread of
Biotechnology & Life Sciences companies, whilst for the Health Care tropical and other vector diseases”,
(10); and Health Care Equipment & Equipment & Services industry, climate for which more medical treatments
Services (5). There are a number of change is not a key issue that they are will be needed. Change in consumer
key companies that did not respond currently tackling. demand also pave the way to new
to the questionnaire in this sector; four chemical products, such as the
companies equally divided in each With production sites and activities in applications developed by Merck for
industry. all major regions of the world, Novo the Automotive & Components industry
Nordisk along with Merck and GSK “to improve the performance of lithium-
Disclosure highlights dread the implementation of enlarged ion batteries, thereby significantly
Companies in CDLI: Novo Nordisk (89) carbon cap and trade systems. increasing the range of electric
Fuel/Energy taxes also represent a vehicles” and on the Photovoltaic
Companies with an A performance important issue for Novo Nordisk due technology through significant
band: Novo Nordisk to Transportation activities, which efficiency reached on solar cells to
represent half of the company’s CO2 become a mass product.
Largest non-respondents by market emissions in 2010 (car fleet, product
capitalisation: Synthes Inc.; Sonova distribution and business travel). If new
Holding AG; UCB Cap; Smith & national green taxes are set, “Novo
Nephew Nordisk has estimated the effect of
these changes will amount to an extra
Total GHG emissions Scope 1: cost of 40 million DKK worst case
3.1 mtCO2e annually corresponding to a 16%
increase”.
Total GHG emissions Scope 2:
3.7 mtCO2e Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology &
Life Sciences companies point out
Emission profile and carbon uncertainties arising from climate
mitigation actions change effects: “There is a great
GHG emissions are relatively low in degree of uncertainty around the
this sector. But note worthily, GSK relationship between climate change,
generates high Scope 3 emissions, health and healthcare provision and
due to the distribution of specific it is therefore difficult to determine
goods, such as asthma inhalers whether the net effect of climate
containing HFC, a propellant gas. change-related events result in risks
Since the Montreal Protocol placed or opportunities for GSK nor to what
restrictions on such substances, the extent these risks or opportunities may
group developed dry powder inhalers be significant to GSK’s performance”.
to substitute this product. Emissions The group evaluated the value of
also come from the waste generated in new markets associated with climate
operations. change-related events at more than
£100 million.

49
Sector Specific Analysis

Industrials Risks and Opportunities


“Buildings account The Capital Goods companies
for approximately 40 The Industrials sector contains 49 consider climate change policies, such
companies, which belong to one of the as efficiency standards for buildings
percent of the world’s three different industry groups: Capital and cars as an opportunity (87%
energy consumption, Goods (33 companies); Commercial of companies), rather than a threat
and elevators and & Professional Services (5); and (57%). These companies are perfectly
escalators can account Transportation (11). aware of the role they can play in
helping their clients to reduce their
for 2-10 percent of Disclosure highlights energy consumption, as 90% of them
a building’s energy Companies in CDLI: Siemens (98); consider that their products or service
consumption.” Deutsche Post (97); Ferrovial (89); help their clients to reduce their carbon
Saint-Gobain (89) emissions. Capital goods companies
provide various equipments and
Kone Companies with an A performance services with applications in the most
band: Deutsche Post; Ferrovial; Rolls- carbon-intensive economic sectors,
Royce; Siemens such as buildings, transportation,
power and industry (table 14). R&D in
Largest non-respondents by market carbon saving technologies is seen as
“While motor-driven capitalisation: Autoroutes Paris Rhin an important component to maintain
applications consume Rhône; Safran; Ryanair competitiveness. In 2009, Siemens
two-thirds of electricity dedicated 1.3% of its revenues to
in industry and one- Emissions profile R&D in eco-friendly technologies.
The carbon footprints of the three Despite the economic downturn, ABB
quarter of all the industry groups in this sector are increased R&D spending by 5%. New
electricity used in the highly contrasted. The Commercial generations of products are from 12%
world, drives control & Professional Services sector has up to 50% more energy-efficient.
fewer than 10 percent a low carbon footprint (0.4mtCO2-e
reported only). Direct emissions are While Vestas’ core business is the
of the motors. Many predominantly in the Transportation production of renewable equipments,
small applications industry group, mostly due to marine Siemens is positioned to capture the
have no form of speed and air carriers, but reporting of Scope opportunities coming from the demand
3 emissions is extremely light (only TNT of products with a low carbon footprint
control at all.” and Deutsche Post report emissions, in all market segments thanks to a
due to subcontracted services), diversified portfolio of products and
although one can suspect that this is services. ABB also states that 45% of
ABB a significant aspect of the industry’s its revenues are generated from the
carbon footprint. Indeed, VINCI demand for energy efficiency. Some
states that: “the use of motorways is companies build up their capacities
responsible for 96% to 99% of the life to seize opportunities in identified
“Our Environmental cycle of a motorway” and VINCI is the low-carbon markets (e.g. Rolls Royce
Portfolio has grown by only company to provide an estimate created a new business in 2008 to
of the emissions from its clients on the address the global market in civil
11% by comparison highways it operates. nuclear).
with fiscal 2008 and
already accounts for In the Capital Goods industry group,
about 30% of our emissions due to power consumption
prevail except for construction and
total sales. Our goal engineering companies. Again, only
is to generate €25 three companies propose an estimate
billion in revenue from of the emissions due to the use of their
products and solutions products. Capital goods companies
prefer to communicate on how many
for environmental and carbon emissions are saved thanks
climate protection by to their products. The installed base
fiscal 2011”. of Vestas’ wind turbines, ABB drives
and Siemens’ diverse products
and services are estimated to save
Siemens respectively 163, 140 and 210 million
tonnes of CO2-e annually.

50
Table 14: Product portfolio of capital good companies helping their clients or end-customers to reduce
their own carbon emissions

Markets
Company Power & Industry Transportation Building Products and services helping clients to reduce their carbon emissions

EADS   X   A380 - aircraft the less fuel demanding of its category


Finmeccanica X X   Power: Ansaldo’s fuel cells for Carbon Capture & Storage. Highly efficient gas turbines.
Rolls-Royce X X   Airlines: Next Trent engine generation some 12% per cent more fuel efficient than previously.
Marine: Hybrid electric drive system
New business unit launched in 2008 to address the global market in civil nuclear power.
Marine: improved propulsion efficiencies of around 10-15 per cent. Gas engine producing up to
20 per cent less CO2 than an equivalent diesel engine
Thales   X X Lighter cockpits for aircrafts (next A350) and work on optimisation of kerosene consumption.
Innovative ticketing machines for public transport, less 70% electricity consumption
Geberit   X Stand-by electricity consumption of the Geberit AquaClean has been reduced by more than
half
Saint-Gobain X X Holds 20% of the world’s market for photoelectric glass. Aim to generate € 2 billions between
by 2015. Insulation products, mainly based on glass wool or rock wool; double or triple glazing
Acciona X X X One of the largest wind power developers. Road: biofuel production and search for alternatives
to road freight. Energy solutions for sustainable buildings through the use of renewable
technologies
ACS X   Electricity production from renewable sources
Ferrovial   X X New departure procedure for A380s at airports subsidiary saves 300kg of fuel per flight. New
product named “Green refitting” (Ferrovial Agroman)
Skanska   X Buildings exceeding national building codes and voluntary certification schemes
Vinci X X X Wind farm infrastructure project. OKIGO car-sharing system: fleet emits an average of
111gCO2/km.New building: eco-label “Oxygen”. Old building: maintenance and energy
performance services
Schneider X X Power monitoring, Industrial automation and control, low and medium-voltage distribution.
Electric Energy management solutions (Ecostruxure). Lighting systems. Solutions sales counted for
30% of revenues in 2008. Targets 2/3rd of products’ revenues achieved with Green Premium
products in 2011
Vestas X   Pure wind turbines producer
Alstom X X   World leader in hydro power plants, and also present on the wind and solar businesses.
Efficient fossil power plants. Carbon Capture & Storage (10 pilot plants). Leading position
worldwide in high-speed rail technology. Expertise in urban transport systems.
Orkla X X   Strategic investments in solar companies Elkem Solar and REC. Borregaard subsidiary: leading
producer of wood based chemicals, including biofuels. Aluminium allows lighter vehicles
Siemens X X X Efficient fossil power generation. Renewable Energy Division (wind, solar thermal): €2.935bn of
revenues. Smart-grid. Energy-saving motors, energy recovery, energy management (incl. data
centres) Rail technologies: e.g. automation and electrification. Lighting (OSRAM subsidiary)
ThyssenKrupp X X X Wind turbines components. InCar project with automakers: potential to reduce CO2 emissions
per km by up to 17.63g. Regenerative drives and motor efficiency controllers for elevators
solutions.
ABB X X Leading supplier of products and systems to onshore and offshore wind power. Three phase
solar inverter technology launched in 2009. Power grid: HVDC (high voltage direct current) .
Energy-efficient variable-speed drives controlling the speed of machinery, pumps, mixers, fans
and compressors. Advanced industrial information technology for the control and optimisation
of integrated systems
Atlas Copco X X   Oil-free air compressor with built in energy recovery. Intelligent control systems with energy
savings of up to 25 %.New asphalt rollers, used in road construction projects, 24 % less fuel
consuming compared to already fuel efficient predecessors
Kone   X In 2009 KONE released a range of elevators which reduced energy consumption by 30 percent
compared to previous volume models.
MAN X X   Diesel engines. Trucks engines and eco-driving training: up to 15% fuel savings. Marine: diesel
engines
Sandvik X X   Efficient tubes for furnaces. Cemented-carbide components reduces fuel consumption in in
automotive engines using fuel injection.
SKF X X   Exposure to the wind energy market. New family of bearings 30% more energy efficient
compared with standard products. Energy services. New family of energy efficient bearings
consuming 30% less energy than standard ISO products
Vallourec X X   High quality tubes for nuclear. Lighter tubes

51
Sector Specific Analysis

Information Technology Risks and opportunities


“Preliminary analysis IT companies are generally
indicates that SAP’s The Information Technology sector less concerned (compared to
contains 3 industries: Semiconductors Telecommunication Services
product use phase & Semiconductor Equipment companies) of the impact of the
(data centres, servers, (2), Software & Services (3) and potential EU regulation on the
etc.) has 100 times Technology Hardware & Equipment (3). energy efficiency of Information &
more impact than SAP’s Communication Technologies. Ericsson
Disclosure highlights even considers it is “well positioned
own operations and Companies in CDLI: Nokia Group (91) to comply with any regulatory
that the CO2 footprint requirements related to energy
of our customer base Companies with an A performance efficiency if/when such emerge. [The
band: Nokia Group company] believes this readiness will
(power sector, oil & gas, result in a competitive advantage in the
chemicals, consumer Largest non-respondent by market marketplace.”
products, etc.) is 10,000 capitalisation: ASML Holding
greater than that of SAP, All IT companies see regulatory
Total GHG emissions Scope 1: opportunities and the possibility to
indicating that SAP has 0.7 mtCO2e address the needs of their clients
the ability to influence to reduce their carbon footprint.
1/6 of global CO2 Total GHG emissions Scope 2: New consumer segments have set
emissions.” 2.2 mtCO2e sustainability and climate change as
key purchasing criteria. Ericsson, STM
Emission profile and carbon and Nokia are commonly aware of
SAP mitigation actions this competitive advantage on energy
The IT sector has extremely low monitoring products, particularly
direct emissions (<1mtCO2e). Most for “home appliance (i.e. lighting),
of sector’s carbon footprint lies in the automotive (i.e. Stop & Start systems),
emissions due to the use of products industrials, etc.” as highlighted by
“With our experience by Communication Equipment STM. Also, travelling, transport and
in telecom applications companies. Nokia, for example, works logistic optimisation can emerge from
to create solutions on tackling the “non-load” energy the IT sector applications. Indeed, an
aimed at the evolving waste of phones kept connected to the estimation completed by STM reveals
receptacle. It is working on innovative that “for the automotive market only:
smart grid and smart solutions to manage this issue using use of our products in 2009 have
metering markets. renewable energy: “Several mobile reduced the fuel consumption by
We enable utilities device chargers in the market already 13,000,000 barrels equivalent to 22
to monitor real time operate with solar power, cranks or TWh”. SAP also pointed out “process
even wind mills”. Ericsson’s Life Cycle automation” opportunities, notably
usage, to inform and Analysis of the total CO2 emissions for among the value chain, as it represents
influence consumers a GSM mobile subscriber emphasised: the majority of its consumer’
to be more energy “The importance of design decisions operations and emissions: “Much
for products that will operate for a long of the data needed to identify and
aware and to consume life time”. act on business resides in core SAP
energy more efficiently. systems”.
Our smart grid / smart
metering applications
enable utilities to launch
flexible tariff patterns,
providing a financial
incentive to consumers
to reduce their usage at
periods when the cost
of electricity production
peaks.”

Alcatel-Lucent

52
Materials Emission profile
The Materials sector is the 2nd largest
The Materials sector contains emitter of direct carbon emissions
32 companies from four different (547mt CO2e) after Utilities. The sector
industries: Chemicals (12); is also characterised by a high diversity
Construction Materials (4); Metals of GHG types with nitrous oxide (N2O),
& Mining (14); and Paper & Forest emitted by fertilisers businesses of
Products (2). chemicals companies and methane
(CH4), emitted by mining companies,
Disclosure highlights for instance. Industries in the sector
Companies in CDLI: BASF (96); Bayer are large consumers of electricity and
(95); Lafarge (94); UPM-Kymmene (90); heat, as suggested by relatively high
SCA (90); and Rio Tinto (89). Scope 2 emissions in Chemicals,
Metals & Mining, as well as Paper &
Companies with an A performance Forest products industries (which are
band: BASF; Bayer; Lafarge the largest consumers overall).

Largest non-responders by market 18 companies report on some Scope 3


capitalisation: Eurasian Natural emissions, which amount to ca.900mt
Resources Corporation; Kazakhmys; CO2e. This mostly comes from a few
Vedanta Resources; Eramet mining companies and BASF oil & gas
subsidiary reporting on the emissions
Total GHG emissions Scope 1: related to the use of their production of
547 mtCO2 fossil fuel (e.g. coal, gas, oil) or iron ore.
Other sources of Scope 3 emissions
Total GHG emissions Scope 2: come from purchased goods, as well
156 mtCO2 as the disposal of sold chemicals
products at the end of their life.

Chemicals companies are particularly


ambitious, with challenging carbon
reduction targets, especially
companies involved in the Fertilizers
& Agricultural Chemicals business.
Syngenta, for instance, has a target
to reduce its carbon-intensity by
40% (relative to the financial metrics
Earnings Before Interest and Taxes)
over 2006-2012 and has so far
achieved 18% of the effort. This can
be due to the fact that more radical
emissions cuts can be obtained with
N2O destruction measures, compared
to energy efficiency measures. Akzo
Nobel’s emission reduction target
also applies to supply chain related
emissions (Scope 3). Also worth
highlighting, cement producers
Lafarge, Heidelberg and Holcim have
all achieved their emission reduction
targets for 2010 ahead of schedule.
Holcim is the only one to have set a
new target for 2015.

53
Sector Specific Analysis

Table 15: Comparison of carbon-intensities and reduction targets of materials companies

Carbon- Unit (kg CO2e / ) Trend Reduction target Comment


intensity y-o-y (%)
2009
Metals & Mining
Antofagasta 2,160 / ton of fine copper 0% No target Negative trend is expected
Arcelor Mittal 2,240 / ton of output 3% 8% over 2007-2020 Intensity 5% above base year
Norsk Hydro 1,850 / ton of primary aluminium -13% 17.8% by 2013 Scope 1, electrolysis process, only
Rio Tinto N/A (Group index) -7.5% 10% over 2008-2015 7.5% achieved
Chemicals
Akzo Nobel 273 / ton of output 10% by 2015 Target includes Scope 3 supply
chain
BASF 915 / ton of sales product N/A 25% over 2002-2020 Chemical business only
Bayer 930 / ton of output different 25% over 2005-2020 (Bayer Material
scope Science). Other divisions: absolute targets
DSM 830 / ton of output -2% 25% over 2008-2020 (absolute emissions)
K+S 66 / ton of product 50% over 2008-2014, excl. Morton Salt
Syngenta 1 / $EBIT (scope 1,2,3) 1% 40% over 2006-2012 18% achieved
Building materials
CRH 686 / ton of cement -6% 15% over 1990-2015 8% achieved
Heidelberg Cement 634 / ton of cement 15% over 1990-2010 Achieved (19%)
Holcim 597 / ton of cement * 25% over 1990-2015 21% achieved
Lafarge 614* / ton of cement * 20% over 1990-2010 Achieved (20.7%)
Paper & Forest products
SCA 90,000 / full-time employee 20% over 2005-2020 (per tonne of output)
UPM-Kymmene 570 / ton of paper produced Stable N/A

* Cement producers have changed the methodology applied to calculate carbon-intensity compared to CDP 2009 and have
switched to net specific emissions per tonne of cementitious material as advocated by the WBCSD Cement Sustainability
Initiative. The figure for Lafarge is taken from company’ publicly available Sustainable Development report to ensure comparability.

Figure 24: Percentage of direct emissions regulated under the EU ETS

SCA 58%

UPM-Kymmene 55%

Bayer 50%

Akzo Nobel 32%

BASF 26%

Lafarge 18%

DSM 16%

Holcim 12%

Anglo American 10%

Rio Tinto 10%

Syngenta 9%

BHP Billiton 1%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

% of direct emissions regulated under the EU ETS


54
Risks and opportunities: Windfall effect of emission • The expansion of the scope
All responders in the sector, except surpluses continued in 2009 of the scheme to non-CO2
Wacker Chemie, K+S and Givaudan In 2009, reduced production volumes gases: More chemicals activities,
believe that their business is at risk in Europe have allowed materials such as the production of soda
of climate change regulations and companies to end the year with at ash, hydrogen and nitrogenous
primarily cite the EU ETS and other cap least 21.6 million of emission rights fertilisers, as well as aluminium
and trade carbon regulations currently surpluses under the EU ETS, two- production (Hydro) will fall under
discussed in the US, Canada, Australia thirds of them falling in the hands of the scope of the EU ETS. BASF
and New Zealand, but also in emerging the two cement companies: Lafarge therefore expects that “from 2013
countries (e.g. India, China). and Holcim (cf. figure 25). Arcelor on, between 75% and 90% of [its]
Mittal and Heidelberg Cement do not EU GHG emissions i.e. roughly 50%
The two paper companies and disclose their surpluses of emissions of [its] global GHG emissions will
Bayer have the highest exposure to rights, although one can suspect them be included according to current
the EU ETS with more than 50% of to be significant given the depressed resolutions”. This is more than twice
their direct emissions capped by the production volumes in Europe in than in 2009.
EU regulation. Due to their global 2008/2009 due to the economic
operations, building materials, as well recession. • The shift to an allocation system
as metals and mining companies are based on sector benchmark
relatively less exposed. However, this is set to come to an of CO2 efficiency: While most
end with phase 3 of the EU ETS industries are eligible for free
(2013-2020). Although, the CO2 costs emission rights post-2012, in order
related to the EU ETS are set to further to protect their competitiveness,
materialise over 2013-2020 due to: only plants operating with the best
CO2 efficiency standards will get
100% free emission rights. The
less efficient plants will be subject
to CO2 compliance costs with no
or limited ability to pass this extra-
cost on to clients. The choice of
benchmarks for the allocation of
emission rights post-2012 will be
of paramount importance and will
set the magnitude of the financial
impact.
Figure 25: Positive impact of surpluses of emissions rights in 2009
12 4.0

3.5
10

3.0

8
2.5

6 2.0

1.5
4

1.0

2
0.5

0 0.0
Lafarge

Holcim

UPM-Kymmene

DSM

BASF

SCA

Anglo American

Akzo Nobel

Bayer

Rio Tinto

Surplus of emission rights in 2009 (left-hand scale)


As a % of EBITDA, if valued at EUR13/t (right-hand scale) 55
Sector Specific Analysis

• Further increase in the cost of Table 16: Views from companies in the Materials sector
electricity supply: Electro-
intensive industries, such as BAYER YARA HOLCIM
aluminium or chemicals production “As the details and benchmarks “The EU ETS 2013-2020 will “Benchmarking is more than a
have already been hit by the carbon have not yet been aligned, the impact on Yara’s profitability tool for distributing allowances
inflation in electricity prices. With exact costs that will arise in the of ammonia and nitric acid within a trading system. It goes to
third trading period are not clear. production. This concerns all the fundamental question of what
the expiry of long-term supply Between 2013 and 2020, we are Yara production in Europe. The the future of the cement industry
contracts and the phase out of free expecting costs of €40-85 million cost/benefit depends on the ought to be and the appropriate
CO2 permits for combined heat and with relief regulations or €70-150 emission allowance rules under CO2 performance metric for
power plants, this indirect adverse million without relief regulations.” development by the European stimulating improvement and
Commission, and specifically on innovation. Holcim has explained
impact is expected to intensify over
the emission benchmarks that will its rationale for a cement
phase 3. Hydro’s “German smelter be established.” benchmark [rather than a clinker
in Neuss is most affected due to benchmark] on many occasions.”
earlier expiry of power contracts. It
was mothballed in 2009, in part due
to the CO2 cost.” This impact could Table 17: Carbon reduction solutions
be mitigated by compensatory
measures obtained from the EU   Products reducing carbon emissions
regulator after intense lobbying by Airliquide Industrial gases for producers of PV solar cells. Oxygen for energy-efficient oxyfuel
the industry. combustion. Carbon capture & Storage technology.
Akzo Nobel AkzoNobel has set a target to achieve 30 % annual sales from Eco-efficient Solutions by 2015
Focus on the chemicals industry: (20% in 2009) This includes Carbon Efficient Solutions. Example: antifouling coating saves 6
carbon reduction solutions % fuel consumption and CO2 emission in ship transport due to its smoothness.
Among the chemicals industry, all BASF 287 mtCO2e avoided thanks to BASF products (data 2008), of which 13 millions account
responders believe that their products for BASF’s proprietary catalyst for decomposing N2O sold to industries. Other products:
can help their clients to reduce carbon insulating materials for buildings, light-weight plastics for cars, nitrification inhibitor for
agriculture
emissions and only two speciality
chemicals companies (K+S and Bayer Across the entire lifecycle, the use of these Bayer products such as polyurethanes
Givaudan) do not see significant as insulating materials or used in cooling units, coatings for sea-going vessels, and
polycarbonoates for cars, abates approximately three times more GHG emissions (86
business opportunities arsing from mtCO2e) than Bayer emits itself (30 mtCO2e incl. Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions).
climate change regulations.
DSM The target is to have LCA-studies completed for 80% of our total turnover by the end of 2010.
“White biotechnology” is the key topic of DSM vision 2010 (shift from oil-based to renewable
Many chemicals products help to raw materials).
reduce energy consumption and GHG Givaudan Certain type of flavours can replace natural based products like meat or fruit for which its
emissions during the use phase of a production tend to have relatively high levels of GHG-emissions
product (e.g. thermal insulation for
K+S Use of fertilizers increases vegetation and therefore binding of atmospheric CO2 into biomass.
buildings, anti-fooling coatings for Preliminary calculations show that the amount of CO2 bound into biomass exceeds CO2
ships, light-weight plastics for cars, emissions for production and transportation of fertilizers.
applications for agriculture). Linde OxyFuel technology helps steel, glass and aluminium industries to improve the energy
efficiency of their production processes. Carbon Capture equipment for storage or upgrade to
a valuable product. Switching to on-site generated fluorine (F2) from nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)
for electronics manufacturers (250 ktCO2e saved in 2010).
Syngenta “Our products help farmers reduce energy inputs and improve carbon storage in the soil. For
example, weed control using non-selective herbicides in place of mechanical tillage – known as
minimum tillage – significantly reduces emissions from fuel use. It also preserves plant roots,
storing carbon in the soil.”
Wacker Polysilicone for photovoltaic solar applications. Silicone for LED applications
Chemie
Yara Yara fertilizer application tools provides an opportunity for GHG reductions of 10-30% in
agriculture

56
Telecommunication Services International agreement or European It will also have an impact on ICT
regulation on lowering emissions suppliers leading to services and
The Telecommunication Services in the Telecommunication Services product innovation. As pointed out
sector is made up of 17 services sector could request companies to by Telefonica: “This would probably
companies. anticipate emissions reduction plans increase our costs. For example,
and make associated investments in costs of energy efficient equipment for
Disclosure highlights energy efficient technologies. Related telecommunications in networks.”
Companies in CDLI: BT Group (89); timescales from such regulations
Telefonica (89) remain uncertain for most respondents. Climate friendly solutions and
However, this has become clearer technologies developed
Companies with an A performance since October 2009 when the Numerous regulatory and other
band: BT Group; Deutsche Telekom European Commission defined specific opportunities are identified, mainly
AG; Royal KPN; Telefonica ICT (Information and Communication within the timeframe of the coming
Technologies) regulations “to facilitate 5 years. Companies have identified
Largest non-respondent by market the transition to an energy-efficient, significant opportunities in New
capitalisation: Iliad (only non- low-carbon economy”. It encourages Services and/or Product Market
respondent) companies to commit “to a progressive opportunities along with increased
decarbonisation process leading to a efficiency of goods and services
Total GHG emissions Scope 1: measurable and verifiable reduction and the importance of attracting
2.0 mtCO2e in energy intensity” (European and retaining talent. The European
Commission). Companies have Commission has “estimated that ICT-
Total GHG emissions Scope 2: reacted to this recommendation. For enabled improvements in other sectors
11.7 mtCO2 instance, “BT is collaborating with could save about 15% of total carbon
others in the ICT sector in the ICT for emissions by 2020. Significant ICT-
Internal carbon mitigation actions Energy Efficiency (ICT4EE) Forum. enabled energy efficiency gains are
Scope 2 accounts for 81% of total The forum was set up in response expected to be achievable in the short
absolute CO2 emissions and is mainly to the European Commission’s term in buildings and construction, in
driven by electricity consumption of recommendation for the ICT sector transport logistics and energy end-
data centres and their cooling systems, to identify, by 2011, energy efficiency use.”
along with power transmission targets that aim to exceed the EU 2020
stations. Therefore, electric energy targets by 2015.” Most respondents are currently
purchase is a key sector issue developing different strategies to
for carbon dioxide mitigation. expand their range of environmental
products. See table below.

Table 18: Climate friendly solutions and technologies developed

Company Climate friendly applications Substitute for Source/potential/achieved emission reductions


due to products and services
BT Group Carbon Impact Assessment (CIA), Build a Energy-greedy -Revenues: £100m of revenues per year
Sustainable Organisation (BASO) service proposition, facilities, physical -Emission avoided: this delivers an overall reduction in CO2
Smart & Green ITC: Cloud computing, Field Force transportation emissions, for the customers, of around 50,000 tonnes annually
Automation and Video Conference
Deutsche Telecom Digitalisation, Leaner computers and savings on Paper, CD-ROMs, -Digitizing documents: Total savings of around 200 metric tons
storage place maintenance and operating costs, Paying machine, of paper per year.
CO2 saving modelisation by using Dynamics Hardware, Large -Payroll accounting: Almost 10 million households now benefit
Services, Video conference, Smart metering power-hungry from this service, enabling savings over 1,500 tons of paper
computer systems each year
-Downloading: potential savings over 80 percent of CO2
compared with buying a CD-ROM
Royal KPN Video Conference, more energy efficient routers Physical transportation In 2009, introduction of 17% energy saving with now model
standard modem.
Telefonica Video Conference, Smart Building, Data Centre Energy bill, Business Smart Building reduces around 27% of the energy bill of several
energy efficiency, M2M (machine to machine) mobile trips, Building devices banking and services companies using Telefonica solutions.
platform, Networks using satellite communication; and lighting
AMR (automated meter reading) and AMI (advanced
metering infrastructure)

57
Sector Specific Analysis

Table 19: FOCUS on lower carbon economy opportunities: SMART 2020 Study in 2008 by the
Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) and The Climate Group

Climate friendly applications Substitute for Potential emission reductions due to products and
services
- Dematerialisation with virtual alternatives - Office space, inefficient processes/travel Reduce global emissions of CO2 by as much as 15 %
such as videoconferencing and mobile delivery - Inefficient electricity grids by 2020
notifications - Monitoring and tracking vehicles and their
- Smart grid through active monitoring and loads optimisation - Dematerialisation: Carbon savings of 22.1 Mt CO2e;
reducing reliance on centralised electricity - Inefficient manufactures Energy cost savings of €14.1 billion
production - Smart grid: Carbon savings of 43.1 Mt CO2e;
- Smart logistics to improve the efficiency of Energy cost savings of €11.4 billion
logistics operations by utilising vehicles more fully - Smart logistics: Carbon savings of 35.2 Mt CO2e;
- Smart cities by improving traffic and utilities Energy cost savings of €13.2 billion
management - Smart cities: Carbon savings of 10.5 Mt CO2e;
- Smart manufacturing by synchronising Energy cost savings of €3.7 billion
manufacturing operations and incorporating - Smart manufacturing: Carbon savings of
communication modules In manufactured 1.9 Mt CO2e; Energy cost savings of €0.8 billion
products.

Users: Customers, Corporate, Citizens:


25 projects in 10 countries

58
Utilities Emissions profile and reduction Based on the reporting of 14
targets companies involved in power
The Utilities sector contains 24 The sector is by far the largest emitter generation, the average carbon-
companies associated to 4 industry in the Europe 300 sample, as it intensity has decreased by 3.5%
groups: Electricity Utilities (14); Gas produces 48% (946 mtCO2e) of direct p.a. in average over 2006-2009.
Utilities (2); Independent Power emissions reported by companies. Verbund (-17% p.a. in av.); EDP (-9%)
Producers & Energy Traders (2); and The large spread between the carbon- and Endesa - owned by Enel (-8%)
Multi-Utilities (6). intensity profiles of companies can be have delivered well on their emission
explained by the diversity of power reduction targets and report the best
Disclosure highlights generation technologies. Hence, carbon reduction performances over
Companies in CDLI: Centrica (92); carbon-intensities of electricity utilities this period.
Scottish & Southern Energy (90); EDP mostly depend on their energy mix.
(90) The high response rate to the specific Going forward, EDP and Verbund’s
questionnaire for electricity utilities emission reduction targets still imply
Companies with an A performance enables the analysis of energy mixes the most aggressive carbon reductions
band: E.ON; Iberdrola; National Grid; and the carbon-intensities of most of (average emission reduction per annum
Scottish & Southern Energy companies in the sector. of respectively 9.3% and 6.4%). RWE
comes after this, with a 5.2% implicit
Largest non-respondents by market annual reduction rate. Emissions
capitalisation: Iberdrola Renovables; forecasts made by the company
EDP Renováveis suggest that RWE expects to have
achieved 25% of its carbon reduction
target by 2014.

Figure 26: Energy mixes of Utility companies


100
High carbon thermal*
Low carbon thermal**
Nuclear
80
Renewables & other alt.

Renewables & othe


60

Nuclear
40

Low carbon therma


20
High carbon therm
0
EDF

Verbund

Fortum

Endesa

EDP

ENEL

Iberdrola

E.ON

A2A

RWE

SSE

Centrica

59
Sector Specific Analysis

Table 20: Carbon-intensity and emission reduction targets of utility Risks and Opportunities
companies The main regulatory risks raised by
companies in the sectors are:
CO2-intensity 2012 (Forecast) Target (Group-wide) Implied av.
(kgCO2/MWh) reduction target
Carbon costs associated to the EU
2009 p.a.
ETS and carbon price volatility
RWE 813 771 450 by 2020 -5.2% The shortage of CO2 rights of utilities
Edison 558 N/A N/A N/A decreased in 2009 along with
SSE 491 N/A 300 by 2020 -4.4% electricity generation and emission
E.ON 476 N/A 360 by 2030 -1.3%
volumes. Enel even ended the year
with 1.6 million of emission rights
ENEL 427 N/A N/A N/A
in surplus. However, post-2012,
EDP 362 254 120 by 2020 -9.6% new allocation rules will force power
Gas Natural 343 344 N/A N/A generators to buy emission rights for
Endesa 334 N/A 295 by 2012 -4.0%
every tonne of CO2 emitted. Operating
results of Edison, Scottish & Southern
GDF Suez 333 N/A Target for Belgium only N/A
Energy and RWE appear to be most at
A2A 295 N/A N/A N/A risk of the phase-out of free CO2 rights.
Centrica 293 217 270 by 2012 -2.7%
Iberdrola 287 247 220 by 2020 -2.4% Indeed, in 2013, the need to purchase
large amounts of additional emission
Fortum 151 198 96 by 2020 -4.0%
rights previously granted for free by
EDF 126 N/A Target for France only N/A government could potentially cost
Verbund 74 126 50 by 2015 -6.4% them respectively 19.6%, 19% and
17% of the EBITDA levels achieved in
2009 (assuming constant emissions,
current carbon price of €15/t and no
Figure 27: Comparative financial impact of the phase out of free pass-through of the extra cost to end
CO2 rights in 2013 customers). Seven companies provide
internal forecasts for their emissions up
500
until 2014.
Gas Natural

GDF Suez

0
Iberdrola
Centrica
Verbund

Fortum

Edison
E.ON

RWE
EDP
Enel

SSE
EDF

-5

-500

-10
-1000

-1500 -15

-2000

-20

Estimated CO2 cost 2009 (@€13/t)


Estimated Additional CO2 cost 2013 (@€15/t)
Additional CO2 burden expected in 2013 as a % of EBITDA 2009

60
Rules governing the use of offsets
“As a power and heat carbon credits: “Energy regulations
production company Companies are concerned of the may affect our energy
uncertainty surrounding the eligibility
with low carbon dioxide of carbon offset credits (CER/ERU) sales and will increase
emissions, Fortum will in the EU ETS post-2012 depending the need of energy
be a relative winner on project types and origins. Endesa saving certificates
of the new climate specifically states that this could acquisitions. However,
lead to a shift in the value of its
regulatory regime, portfolio. Many utility companies have it will also provide
even assuming very built portfolios of carbon credits for new opportunities for
high prices for emitted compliance in the EU ETS. our Energy Services
carbon dioxide and/ National renewable or energy
branch.”
or full auctioning of the efficiency mandates / schemes:
allowances.” Companies also widely consider
GDF-Suez
the compliance risk deriving from
the renewable and energy efficiency
Fortum mandates imposed by certain Member
States to utility companies in order
to help them reach their EU targets. “… for the period 2006-
This includes the obligation for 2009, the government
electricity distributors to reach a fixed
percentage of renewable energies set energy saving
in their energy mix (e.g. Renewable targets for energy
Obligation Certification in the U.K.) suppliers. To meet this
or mandates to provide and deliver target, EDF has chosen
energy saving services to end-users
(e.g. white certificates in France, to implement a program
Carbon Emissions Reduction Target in of several energy
the U.K.). In case of non-compliance, efficiency actions in
companies would have to buy green or all its markets with the
energy saving certificates at the market
or regulated price. goal of allowing EDF
to comply with all of
Centrica, Scottish & Southern Energy its legal and regulatory
and Gas Natural have set targets to
reduce emissions of their electricity
obligations, in particular
and gas customers, by supplying regarding energy
energy efficiency services and/or efficiency certificates
products. While this is perceived (EEC). However, EDF
as a risk by many companies, this
can also represent opportunities for can not guarantee that
those companies, which have Energy the actions taken by
Services branches, such as GDF-Suez. the Group in favour
of controlling energy
demand will be
sufficient to achieve the
goals set by the public
authorities.”

EDF

61
Appendix 1: Table of emissions,
scores and sector information
by company

Total Emissions
2010 Response

Carbon Disclo-

Carbon Perfor-

Scope 2 Grid
mance Band

Non-Public
sure Score

Average
Scope 1
Status
Company Sector
A.P. Moller - Maersk Industrials AQ 66 B 44,888,318 44,001,421 886,897
A2A Utilities AQ 81 C 4,571,047 4,441,853 129,194
ABB Industrials AQ 73 C 1,476,000 720,000 756,000
Abertis Infraestructuras Industrials AQ 83 B 205,232 34,087 171,145
Acciona Industrials AQ 69 B 1,115,170 977,054 138,116
Accor Consumer Discretionary AQ 65 C 1,933,002 324,313 1,608,689
ACS Actividades de Construccion y Industrials AQ 50 C 8,126,971 8,070,259 56,712
Servicios
Actelion Health Care AQ 69 D NP
Adecco Industrials AQ 42
Adidas AG Consumer Discretionary AQ 68 B 58,267 7,392 50,875
ADP Industrials AQ 34 NP
Aegon Financials AQ 81 C 80,388 10,492 69,896
Air Liquide Materials AQ 76 B 16,833,000 9,386,000 7,447,000
Akzo Nobel Materials AQ 78 B 4,600,000 1,900,000 2,700,000
Alcatel - Lucent Information Technology AQ 81 B 772,816 170,130 602,686
Allianz Financials AQ 82 B 309,552 53,205 256,347
Alpha Bank Financials DP
Alstom Industrials AQ 54 C 433,000 153,000 280,000
Anglo American Materials AQ 85 B 19,102,000 8,850,000 10,252,000
AB InBev Consumer Staples AQ 74 B 4,550,000 2,962,000 1,588,000
Antofagasta Materials AQ 57 D 1,121,181 469,569 651,612
Arcelor Mittal Materials AQ 59 B 166,116,000 137,955,000 28,161,000
ASML Holding Information Technology DP
Assa Abloy Industrials AQ 34 - 184,060 39,060 145,000
Associated British Foods Consumer Staples AQ 55 C 3,856,407 2,694,260 1,162,150
AstraZeneca Health Care AQ 65 B 695,300 397,000 298,300
Atlantia Industrials AQ 53 B 194,593 49,810 144,783
Atlas Copco Industrials AQ 60 C 99,000 21,000 78,000
Aviva Financials AQ 69 B 137,587 55,593 81,994
AXA Group Financials AQ 64 B 277,002 83,998 193,004
BAE Systems Industrials AQ 58 D NP
Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena Financials AQ 79 B 112,772 19,143 93,629
Group
Banco Comercial Português BCP Financials AQ 79 B 157,679 20,424 137,255
Banco Espanol Credito Financials AQ 36 26,749 177 26,572
Banco Espirito Santo Financials AQ 82 B 25,488 5,055 20,433
Banco Popular Espanol Financials AQ 63 C 12,409 858 11,551
Banco Sabadell Financials AQ 66 C NP
Banco Santander Financials AQ 73 B 565,218 174,305 390,913
Barclays Financials AQ 87 A 909,782 56,903 852,879

62
Total Emissions
2010 Response

Carbon Disclo-

Carbon Perfor-

Scope 2 Grid
mance Band

Non-Public
sure Score

Average
Scope 1
Status
Company Sector

BASF Materials AQ 96 A 31,631,000 27,523,000 4,108,000


Bayer Materials AQ 95 A 8,100,000 4,570,000 3,530,000
BBVA Financials AQ 64 C 546,213 9,912 536,301
Beiersdorf Consumer Staples AQ 39 - 66,125 21,165 44,960
Belgacom Telecommunication Services AQ 71 B 150,112 53,160 96,952
BG Group Energy AQ 71 B 8,673,594 8,644,396 29,198
BHP Billiton Materials AQ 71 B 49,043,000 21,355,000 27,688,000
BMW Bayerische Motoren Werke Consumer Discretionary AQ 78 A 1,205,293 357,793 847,500
BNP Paribas Financials AQ 81 B 303,481 43,036 260,445
Bouygues Industrials AQ 33 - NP
BP Energy AQ 67 B 74,620,000 65,030,000 9,590,000
Brisa Industrials AQ 61 B 24,079 7,449 16,630
British American Tobacco Consumer Staples AQ 58 C 760,625 393,531 367,094
British Land Company Financials AQ 70 B 36,882 3,767 33,115
British Sky Broadcasting Consumer Discretionary AQ 83 B 134,604 24,945 109,659
BT Group Telecommunication Services AQ 89 A 1,630,801 211,738 1,419,060
Cable & Wireless Worldwide Telecommunication Services AQ 65 B 227,743 8,266 219,477
Cadbury Consumer Staples SA
Cairn Energy Energy AQ 49 - 25,732 24,891 841
Cap Gemini Information Technology AQ 45 121,078 0 121,078
Capita Group Industrials AQ 87 B 56,961 6,618 50,343
Carlsberg Breweries Consumer Staples AQ 68 C 1,106,580 781,924 324,656
Carnival Corporation Consumer Discretionary AQ 80 C 10,317,221 10,264,098 53,123
Carrefour Consumer Staples AQ 63 B 4,811,568 2,319,453 2,492,120
Casino Guichard-Perrachon Consumer Staples NR
Centrica Utilities AQ 92 B 11,799,441 11,598,816 200,625
Christian Dior Consumer Discretionary NR
CINTRA Industrials SA
Cnp Assurances Financials AQ 66 B 4,190 2,160 2,030
Coca-Cola Hellenic Consumer Staples AQ 72 B 831,301 488,752 342,549
Colruyt Consumer Staples NR
Commerzbank AG Financials IN
Compagnie Financière Richemont SA Consumer Discretionary AQ 46 NP
Compagnie Nationale à Portefeuille Financials NR
Compass Consumer Discretionary AQ 57 C 87,421 79,542 7,879
Credit Agricole Financials AQ 76 C 38,156 2,209 35,947
Credit Suisse Financials AQ 69 B 202,007 18,057 183,950
CRH Materials AQ 54 B 10,542,000 9,395,000 1,147,000
Criteria Caixa Corp Financials AQ 42 - 433 433
Daimler Consumer Discretionary AQ 75 B NP
Danone Consumer Staples AQ 81 B 1,131,427 497,245 634,182
Danske Bank Financials AQ 66 B 41,446 4,345 37,101
Dassault Systemes Information Technology AQ 57 D NP
Delhaize Consumer Staples AQ 42 2,710,064 966,923 1,743,141
Deutsche Bank Financials AQ 73 B 459,051 36,938 422,113
Deustche Börse Financials AQ 60 C 21,732 - 21,732

63
Appendix 1: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

Total Emissions
2010 Response

Carbon Disclo-

Carbon Perfor-

Scope 2 Grid
mance Band

Non-Public
sure Score

Average
Scope 1
Status
Company Sector

Deutsche Lufthansa Industrials AQ 77 B NP


Deutsche Post Industrials AQ 97 A 5,800,000 4,900,000 900,000
Deutsche Postbank Financials AQ 65 B NP
Deutsche Telekom Telecommunication Services AQ 77 A 3,361,095 397,878 2,963,220
Dexia Financials AQ 56 C 24,787 17,107 7,680
Diageo Consumer Staples AQ 67 B 740,116 644,613 95,503
DnB NOR Financials AQ 59 B 12,849 2,001 10,848
DSM Materials AQ 88 B 6,629,840 4,656,611 1,973,229
E.ON AG Utilities AQ 80 A 164,751,902 159,559,934 5,191,970
EADS Industrials AQ 69 B 994,500 550,500 444,000
Edison Utilities AQ 45 20,969,370 20,922,830 46,540
EDP - Energias de Portugal Utilities AQ 90 B 21,313,670 20,039,249 1,274,420
EDP Renováveis Utilities NR
EFG Group Financials AQ 24 NP
Electricite de France Utilities AQ 78 B 78,672,080 78,192,000 480,080
Electrolux Consumer Discretionary AQ 74 B 413,607 119,161 294,446
Endesa Utilities AQ 78 B 46,335,184 45,267,968 1,067,220
ENEL Utilities AQ 37 - 122,265,382 122,265,382
ENI Energy AQ 83 A 58,963,266 57,326,278 1,636,990
Eramet Materials DP
Ericsson Information Technology AQ 72 B 201,000 26,000 175,000
Erste Group Bank Financials AQ 43 - 7,641 2,561 5,080
Essilor Health Care AQ 52 D NP
Eurasian Natural Resources Materials DP NP
Corporation
EUTELSAT COMMUNICATION Consumer Discretionary NR
Experian Group Industrials AQ 67 B 66,032 7,857 58,175
Ferrovial Industrials AQ 89 A 1,952,928 1,455,390 497,538
Fiat Consumer Discretionary AQ 80 B 2,571,811 549,608 2,022,200
Finmeccanica Industrials AQ 64 C 514,953 199,107 315,846
Fortis Sa/Nv Financials SA
Fortum Utilities AQ 82 B 22,286,000 22,100,000 186,000
France Telecom Telecommunication Services AQ 69 B 1,636,511 416,498 1,220,010
Fresenius SE Health Care AQ 30 - NP
Fresnillo Materials AQ 58 C NP
Galp Energia Energy NR
Gas Natural SDG Utilities AQ 73 B 26,810,000 25,800,000 1,010,000
GBL Financials DP
GDF Suez Utilities AQ 85 B 100,541,004 97,405,418 3,135,590
Geberit Industrials AQ 75 B 77,328 18,785 58,543
Gecina Financials IN
Generali Financials AQ 69 C 76,315 14,879 61,436
Generali Deutschland Holding AG Financials AQ 65 B NP
Givaudan Materials AQ 55 C 221,317 111,290 110,027
Gk Org Fball Prgntc Consumer Discretionary NR
GlaxoSmithKline Health Care AQ 88 B 2,232,173 1,086,757 1,145,420
H&M Hennes & Mauritz Consumer Discretionary AQ 52 C 250,152 11,951 238,201

64
Total Emissions
2010 Response

Carbon Disclo-

Carbon Perfor-

Scope 2 Grid
mance Band

Non-Public
sure Score

Average
Scope 1
Status
Company Sector

Hannover Re Financials AQ 33 NP
Heidelbergcement Materials AQ 54 C 50,793,810 46,614,432 4,179,378
Heineken NV Consumer Staples AQ (L) NP
Hellenic Telecom Telecommunication Services AQ 76 B 306,121 15,936 290,185
Henkel AG & CO. KGaA Consumer Staples AQ 69 B 748,700 364,600 384,100
Hermes International Consumer Discretionary NR
Holcim Materials AQ 67 B 102,954,986 97,092,613 5,862,370
HSBC Holdings Financials AQ 92 A 830,310 90,586 739,724
Iberdrola Utilities AQ 83 A 49,522,719 41,018,580 8,504,140
Iberdrola Renovables Utilities DP
Iliad Telecommunication Services NR
Imperial Tobacco Group Consumer Staples AQ 63 C 260,086 99,676 160,410
Inditex Consumer Discretionary AQ 66 C 335,226 24,591 310,635
ING Group Financials AQ 54 B 280,596 35,775 244,821
International Power Utilities AQ 58 B NP
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. Financials AQ 66 B 159,877 73,636 86,241
Investor AB Financials AQ 59 D NP
J Sainsbury Consumer Staples AQ 59 C 855,475 207,550 647,925
Jerónimo Martins Consumer Staples AQ 64 C 493,393 33,913 459,480
Julius Baer Financials AQ 58 C NP
K + S AG Materials AQ 62 C 1,183,442 948,178 235,264
Kazakhmys Materials NR
KBC Group Financials AQ 64 C 65,610 65,610
Kingfisher Consumer Discretionary AQ 87 A 489,000 129,000 360,000
Klepierre Financials AQ 63 D NP
Kone Industrials AQ 61 B 137,627 110,960 26,667
Koninklijke Ahold Consumer Staples AQ 55 B 2,681,665 1,259,093 1,422,572
Kuehne + Nagel Industrials AQ 65 B 276,599 137,223 139,376
L’ Oreal Consumer Staples AQ 61 B 183,850 78,200 105,650
Lafarge Materials AQ 94 A 106,641,379 97,875,837 8,765,540
Land Securities Financials AQ 38 - 101,971 12,501 89,470
Legal & General Group Financials AQ 62 C NP
Legrand Industrials AQ 59 C NP
Les Sociétés d’Autoroutes Industrials NR
Linde Materials AQ 71 B 14,400,000 5,400,000 9,000,000
Lloyds Banking Group Financials AQ 85 B 412,510 69,484 343,026
Luxottica Group Consumer Discretionary NR
LVMH Consumer Discretionary AQ 75 B 253,390 48,723 204,667
MAN SE Industrials AQ 65 C 402,088 142,739 259,349
Man Group Financials AQ 61 C 10,067 1,227 8,840
Mapfre Financials AQ 68 C 25,228 1,218 24,010
Marks & Spencer Consumer Discretionary AQ 69 B 652,000 221,000 431,000
Mediaset Consumer Discretionary NR
Mediobanca Financials NR
Merck KGaA Health Care AQ 72 C 306,286 157,600 148,686
Metro Consumer Staples AQ 74 B 3,450,344 692,887 2,757,460

65
Appendix 1: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

Total Emissions
2010 Response

Carbon Disclo-

Carbon Perfor-

Scope 2 Grid
mance Band

Non-Public
sure Score

Average
Scope 1
Status
Company Sector

Michelin Consumer Discretionary DP


Morrison Supermarkets Consumer Staples AQ 47 - 1,120,978 504,863 616,115
Munich Re Financials AQ 82 A 246,702 59,760 186,942
National Bank Of Greece Financials AQ 44 - 44,603 44,603
National Grid Utilities AQ 87 A 8,850,000 8,500,000 350,000
NATIXIS Financials AQ 42 - 12,414 421 11,993
Nestlé Consumer Staples AQ 92 A 6,975,093 3,976,158 2,998,940
Next Consumer Discretionary AQ 81 B NP
Nokia Group Information Technology AQ 91 A 299,300 18,700 280,600
Nordea Bank Financials AQ 50 C 51,519 51,519
Norsk Hydro Materials AQ 59 B 10,309,158 4,759,247 5,549,911
Novartis Health Care AQ 72 B 1,509,227 578,343 930,884
Novo Nordisk Health Care AQ 89 A 184,202 40,883 143,319
Old Mutual Financials AQ 82 B 605,585 6,946 598,639
OMV Energy AQ 79 B 12,547,300 11,732,400 814,900
Orkla Industrials AQ 71 C 2,680,716 1,836,064 844,652
Pargesa Holding SA Financials DP
Pearson Consumer Discretionary AQ 69 C 194,634 45,524 149,110
Pernod-Ricard Consumer Staples AQ 60 C 421,786 317,631 104,155
Philips Electronics Industrials AQ 94 A 1,083,700 434,717 648,983
Porsche AG Consumer Discretionary AQ 73 B 76,906 23,010 53,896
Portugal Telecom Telecommunication Services AQ 77 B 154,985 16,678 138,307
PPR Consumer Discretionary NR
Prudential Financials AQ 66 C 127,261 18,878 108,383
PSA Consumer Discretionary AQ 87 B 805,242 523,703 281,539
Publicis Groupe SA Consumer Discretionary AQ 45 160,703 86,416 74,287
R.E.E. Utilities AQ 69 C 920,015 54,275 865,740
Raiffeisen International Bank Holding Financials IN
Randgold Resources Materials AQ 50 D 210,069 210,069
Randstad Industrials AQ 61 C 22,231 9,253 12,978
Reckitt Benckiser Consumer Staples AQ 93 A 287,085 91,063 196,022
Reed Elsevier Consumer Discretionary AQ 77 B 143,748 18,587 125,161
Renault Consumer Discretionary AQ 93 A 1,190,658 576,792 613,866
Repsol YPF Energy AQ 88 A 26,473,220 24,701,381 1,771,840
Rio Tinto Materials AQ 89 B 42,437,000 26,100,000 16,337,000
Roche Holding Health Care AQ 56 C 889,412 433,535 455,877
Rolls-Royce Industrials AQ 79 A 567,086 210,758 356,328
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group Financials AQ 45 - 49,255 15,118 34,137
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Financials AQ 93 A 776,487 87,629 688,858
Royal Dutch Shell Energy AQ 89 A 76,000,000 67,000,000 9,000,000
Royal KPN Telecommunication Services AQ 80 A 559,618 84,909 474,709
RTL Group Consumer Discretionary NR
RWE Utilities AQ 67 B 149,100,000 149,100,000
Ryanair Holding PLC Industrials NR
S.E.B. Consumer Discretionary AQ 14 NP
SABMiller Consumer Staples AQ 65 B 2,632,056 1,449,442 1,182,610

66
Total Emissions
2010 Response

Carbon Disclo-

Carbon Perfor-

Scope 2 Grid
mance Band

Non-Public
sure Score

Average
Scope 1
Status
Company Sector

Safran Industrials DP
Saint-Gobain Industrials AQ 89 B 16,100,879 12,347,534 3,753,350
Saipem Energy AQ 76 C NP
Sampo Financials NR
Sandvik Industrials AQ 63 C 479,000 195,000 284,000
Sanofi-Aventis Health Care AQ 63 C NP
SAP Information Technology AQ 83 B 232,000 131,000 101,000
SCA Materials AQ 90 B 4,350,000 2,579,000 1,771,000
Schneider Electric Industrials AQ 52 B 477,647 200,497 277,150
Scottish & Southern Energy Utilities AQ 90 A 24,286,543 22,731,418 1,555,130
Seadrill Energy AQ 38 NP
SES Consumer Discretionary AQ 62 C 49,798 17,317 32,481
SGS Industrials AQ 59 B 157,382 65,913 91,469
Shire Health Care AQ 74 C 47,310 20,102 27,208
Siemens Industrials AQ 98 A 3,371,990 1,509,736 1,862,250
Skanska Industrials AQ 85 B 366,250 258,370 107,880
SKF Industrials AQ 71 B 528,555 69,803 458,752
Smith & Nephew Health Care DP NP
Smiths Group Industrials AQ 25 - 114,300 18,776 95,524
Snam Rete Gas Utilities AQ 52 C 1,255,416 1,227,000 28,416
Société Générale Financials AQ 55 C 219,921 26,186 193,735
Sodexo Consumer Discretionary AQ 17 NP
Solvay Materials AQ 66 B NP
Sonova Holding AG Health Care DP
Standard Chartered Financials AQ 82 B 131,190 5,806 125,384
Standard Life Financials AQ 82 B 18,417 2,902 15,515
Statoil Energy AQ 39 - 13,100,000 13,100,000
STMicroelectronics Information Technology AQ 38 1,212,560 337,000 875,560
Suez Environnement Utilities AQ 74 B NP
Svenska Handelsbanken Financials AQ 36 - NP
Swatch Group Consumer Discretionary DP
Swedbank Financials AQ 67 C 2,790 2,790
Swiss Re Financials AQ 79 A 26,690 5,718 20,972
Swisscom Telecommunication Services AQ 42 - 26,300 26,300
Syngenta International Materials AQ 71 B 1,059,000 641,000 418,000
Synthes Health Care NR
Technip Sa Energy NR
Tele2 Telecommunication Services AQ 70 C 9,283 678 8,605
Telecom Italia Telecommunication Services AQ 70 B 1,058,026 187,513 870,513
Telefónica Telecommunication Services AQ 89 A 1,886,030 119,510 1,766,520
Telekom Austria Telecommunication Services AQ 47 NP
Telenor Telecommunication Services AQ 63 C 810,252 196,414 613,838
TeliaSonera Telecommunication Services AQ 80 B 205,838 27,672 178,166
Tenaris Energy NR
Terna Utilities AQ 81 B 155,144 79,464 75,680
Tesco Consumer Staples AQ 92 A 5,094,719 1,956,628 3,138,090

67
Appendix 1: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

Total Emissions
2010 Response

Carbon Disclo-

Carbon Perfor-

Scope 2 Grid
mance Band

Non-Public
sure Score

Average
Scope 1
Status
Company Sector

Thales Industrials AQ 44 267,075 105,900 161,175


ThyssenKrupp Materials AQ 70 B 20,380,906 15,280,906 5,100,000
TNT Industrials AQ 81 B 982,849 883,982 98,867
Total Energy AQ 77 B 60,300,000 55,100,000 5,200,000
Tullow Oil Energy AQ 27 - 370,776 370,776
UBS Financials AQ 82 A 324,061 25,723 298,338
UCB Cap Health Care DP
Unibail-Rodamco Financials AQ 61 C 117,419 21,425 95,994
Unicredit Group Financials AQ 67 C 502,909 96,122 406,787
Unilever Consumer Staples AQ 82 B 2,641,079 1,100,785 1,540,290
Unione Di Banche Italiane Financials NR
UPM-Kymmene Corporation Materials AQ 90 B 5,080,000 2,870,000 2,210,000
Vallourec Industrials AQ 56 C 1,066,649 739,804 326,845
Vedanta Resources Materials NR
Veolia Environnement Utilities AQ 82 B 50,026,560 44,482,430 5,544,130
Verbund Utilities AQ 85 B 2,688,664 2,220,911 467,753
Vestas Wind Systems Industrials AQ 82 B 118,981 50,523 68,458
Vienna Insurance Financials DP
Vinci Industrials AQ 80 B 2,154,500 1,959,500 195,000
Vivendi Universal Consumer Discretionary AQ 78 C 247,969 27,614 220,355
Vodafone Group Telecommunication Services AQ 83 C 1,622,535 249,087 1,373,450
Voestalpine Materials NR
Volkswagen Consumer Discretionary AQ 77 B 6,516,034 1,510,950 5,005,080
Volvo Industrials AQ 57 C NP
Wacker Chemie Materials AQ 51 C 985,018 985,018
Wolters Kluwer Consumer Discretionary IN
WPP Consumer Discretionary AQ 65 C 166,696 6,282 160,414
Xstrata Materials AQ 75 B NP
Yara Group Materials AQ 38 12,500,000 12,500,000
Zardoya Otis Industrials NR
Zurich Financial Services Financials AQ 57 C NP

Key

AQ Answered questionnaire
AQ(L) Answered questionnaire late
DP Declined to participate
IN Provided some information
(but did not answer the CDP questions)
NP Non public response
NR No response
– Company not in CDP sample that year

68
Appendix 2: Composition of GICS
sectors at three different
segmentation levels

GICS Sector (Company) GICS Industry Group (Company) GICS Industry (Company)

Consumer Discretionary Automobiles & Components Auto Components

    Automobiles

  Consumer Durables & Apparel Household Durables

    Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods

  Consumer Services Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure

  Media Media

  Retailing Multiline Retail

    Specialty Retail

Consumer Staples Food & Staples Retailing Food & Staples Retailing

  Food, Beverage & Tobacco Beverages

    Food Products

    Tobacco

  Household & Personal Products Household Products

    Personal Products

Energy Energy Energy Equipment & Services

    Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels

Financials Banks Commercial Banks

  Diversified Financials Capital Markets

    Diversified Financial Services

  Insurance Insurance

    Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

Health Care Health Care Equipment & Services Health Care Equipment & Supplies

  Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences Biotechnology

    Pharmaceuticals

Industrials Capital Goods Aerospace & Defense

    Building Products

    Construction & Engineering

    Electrical Equipment

    Industrial Conglomerates

    Machinery

  Commercial & Professional Services Commercial Services & Supplies

    Professional Services

69
Appendix 2: Composition of GICS sectors at three different segmentation levels

  Transportation Air Freight & Logistics

    Airlines

    Marine

    Transportation Infrastructure

Information Technology Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment

  Software & Services IT Services

    Software

  Technology Hardware & Equipment Communications Equipment

Materials Materials Chemicals

    Construction Materials

    Metals & Mining

    Paper & Forest Products

Telecommunication Telecommunication Services Diversified Telecommunication Services


Services

    Wireless Telecommunication Services

Utilities Utilities Electric Utilities

    Gas Utilities

    Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders

    Multi-Utilities

70
Acknowledgements

The development of the CDP Europe 300 report 2010 is a collaborative effort to which many
people have contributed. Special thanks go to the following people and institutions:

Report Writer – CA Cheuvreux

Erwan Créhalet, Stéphane Voisin,


Climate Change Analyst Head of Sustainability Research

With the collaboration of Marine Mellado and Tahirou Gourouza

Lead Sponsor – AXA

Alice Steenland, Sylvain Vanston,


Vice President Group Corporate Responsibility
Corporate Responsibility

Sponsor – Omnicom

Frank Manzi,
Vice President

Sponsor – Océ

Harry Loozen,
Senior Vice President of Corporate Public Affairs and Sustainability

Printing

Printed on-demand by Océ Business Services on sustainable paper that is


produced carbon neutrally: Océ Black Label Zero, 80g/sqm.

www.oce.com

Layout

Floda31

Marije de Haas,
Designer

Foreword – DG Climate Action

Connie Hedegaard,
European Commissioner for Climate Action
CDP contacts

Carbon Disclosure Project Paul Dickinson Sue Howells


40 Bowling Green Lane Executive Chairman Head of Global Operations
London, EC1R 0NE sue.howells@cdproject.net
United Kingdom Paul Simpson
Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7970 5660 Chief Executive Officer Cassie Chessum
Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7691 7316 Head of Government Relations
www.cdproject.net Nigel Topping cassie.chessum@cdproject.net
info@cdproject.net Chief Innovation Officer
Marianne Gillis
Joanna Lee Project Manager – Government Relations
Chief Partnerships Officer marianne.gillis@cdproject.net

Report writer contacts

Stéphane Voisin Erwan Créhalet


Head of Sustainability Research Climate Change Analyst
svoisin@cheuvreux.com ecrehalet@cheuvreux.com

CDP Board of Trustees

Chair: Robert Napier Christoph Schröder Chris Page


The Met Office TVM Capital Rockefeller Philanthropy
Advisors
Martin Wise Alan Brown
Relationship Capital Partners Schroders Tessa Tennant
The Ice Organisation
Jeremy Smith James Cameron
Berkeley Energy Climate Change Capital Takejiro Sueyoshi

Important Notice

The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project. This does not represent a license to repackage
or resell any of the data reported to CDP and presented in this report. If you intend to do this, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so. CA
Cheuvreux and CDP prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2010 information request. CA Cheuvreux and CDP do not guarantee
the accuracy or completeness of this information. CA Cheuvreux and CDP make no representation or warranty, express or implied, and accept no liability of any kind in
relation to the report including concerning the fairness, accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained herein. All opinions expressed herein by CDP
and/or CA Cheuvreux are based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific
factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report reflect the views of their respective authors.

CA Cheuvreux and CDP and their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/or
employees, may have a position in the securities discussed herein. The securities mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor
suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates.

‘Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee,
registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330.

© 2010 Carbon Disclosure Project.