cdp 2010 europe 300 report

8/8/2019 CDP 2010 Europe 300 Report

1/72

Carbon Disclosure Project 2010Europe 300

On behal o 534 investors with assets o US$64 trillion

Carbon Disclosure [email protected]+44 (0) 20 7970 5660www.cdproject.net

Report sponsored b:Report written or the Carbon Disclosure Project b:


2/72

Carbon Disclosure Project

2

Carbon Disclosure Project 2010

This report and all o the publicresponses rom corporations areavailable to download ree o chargerom www.cdproject.net. ABRAPP - Associao

Brasileira das EntidadesFechadas de PrevidnciaComplementar

Aegon N.V.

Akbank T.A. .

Allianz Global Investors AGATP Group

Aviva InvestorsAXA Group

Banco Bradesco S.A.

Bank o America Merrill LynchBBVA

BlackRock

BP Investment ManagementLimited

Caliornia Public EmployeesRetirement System

Caliornia State TeachersRetirement System

Calvert GroupCatholic Super

CCLA InvestmentManagement Ltd

Co-operative AssetManagement

Essex Investment

Management, LLCEthos Foundation

Generation InvestmentManagement

HSBC Holdings plcING

KLP Insurance

Legg Mason, Inc.

The London PensionsFund Authority

Mergence Arica Investments(Pty) Limited

Mitsubishi UFJ FinancialGroup (MUFG)

Morgan StanleyNational Australia Bank Limited

Neuberger Berman

Newton InvestmentManagement Limited

Nordea InvestmentManagement

Northwest and EthicalInvestments LP

PFA Pension

Raieisen SchweizRBS Group

RobecoRockeeller & Co. SRI Group

Russell Investments

SchrodersSecond Swedish NationalPension Fund (AP2)Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.

Standard Chartered PLCSun Lie Financial Inc.TD Asset Management Inc.TDAM USA Inc.The Wellcome Trust

Zurich Cantonal Bank


3/72

CDP Signatories 2010

3

Carbon Disclosure Project 2010

534 inancial institutions with assets

o over US$64 trillion were signatoriesto the CDP 2010 inormation requestdated February 1st, 2010, including:

Aberdeen Asset Managers

Aberdeen Immobilien KAG

Active Earth Investment Management

Acuity Investment Management

Addenda Capital Inc.

Advanced Investment Partners

Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd

AEGON Magyarorszg Beektetsi Alapkezelo Zrt.

Aegon N.V.

AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., LtdAeneas Capital Advisors

AGF Management Limited

AIG Asset Management

Akbank T.A.S.

Alberta Investment Management Corporation(AIMCo)

Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund

Alcyone Finance

Allianz Global Investors AG

Allianz Group

Altshuler Shaham

AMP Capital Investors

AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH

Amundi Asset ManagementANBIMA - Brazilian Financial and Capital MarketsAssociation

APG Asset Management

Aprionis

ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance)

Arma Porty Ynetimi A.S.

ASB Community Trust

ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A.

ASN Bank

Assicurazioni Generali Spa

ATP Group

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

Australian Central Credit Union incorporating

Savings & Loans Credit UnionAustralian Ethical Investment Limited

AustralianSuper

AVANA Invest GmbH

Aviva Investors

Aviva plc

AvivaSA Emeklilik ve Hayat A.S.

AXA Group

Baillie Giord & Co.

Bakers Investment Group

Banco Bradesco S.A.

Banco de Crdito del Per BCP

Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A.

Banco do BrazilBanco Santander

Banco Santander (Brasil)

Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social

Banesto (Banco Espaol de Crdito S.A.)

Bank o America Merrill Lynch

Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd

Bank Vontobel

Bankhaus Schelhammer & SchatteraKapitalanlagegesellschat m.b.H.

BANKINTER S.A.BankInvest

Banque Degroo

Barclays Group

BBC Pension Trust Ltd

BBVA

Bedordshire Pension Fund

Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd

BioFinance Administrao de Recursos deTerceiros Ltda

BlackRock

Blue Marble Capital Management Limited

Blue Shield o Caliornia Group

Blumenthal Foundation

BMO Financial GroupBNP Paribas Investment Partners

BNY Mellon

Boston Common Asset Management, LLC

BP Investment Management Limited

Brasilprev Seguros e Previdncia S/A.

British Columbia Investment ManagementCorporation (bcIMC)

BT Investment Management

The Bullitt Foundation

Busan Bank

CAAT Pension Plan

Cadiz Holdings Limited

Caisse de dpt et placement du Qubec

Caisse des Dpts

Caixa de Previdncia dos Funcionrios do Bancodo Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF)

Caixa Econmica Federal

Caixa Geral de Depsitos

Caja de Ahorros de Valencia, Castelln y Valencia,BANCAJA

Caja Navarra

Caliornia Public Employees Retirement System

Caliornia State Teachers Retirement System

Caliornia State Treasurer

Calvert Group

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)

CAPESESP

Capital Innovations, LLC

CARE Super Pty Ltd

Carlson Investment Management

Carmignac Gestion

Catherine Donnelly Foundation

Catholic Super

Cbus Superannuation Fund

CCLA Investment Management Ltd

Celeste Funds Management Limited

The Central Church Fund o Finland

Central Finance Board o the Methodist Church

Ceres, Inc.

Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLPChristian Super

Christopher Reynolds Foundation

CI Mutual Funds Signature Advisors

CIBC

Clean Yield Group, Inc.

ClearBridge Advisors

Climate Change Capital Group Ltd

Close Brothers Group plc

The Collins Foundation

Colonial First State Global Asset ManagementComite syndical national de retraite Btirente

Commerzbank AG

CommInsure

Companhia de Seguros Aliana do Brasil

Compton Foundation, Inc.

Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Co-operative Asset Management

Co-operative Financial Services (CFS)

The Co-operators Group Ltd

Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. Bhd.

Crdit Agricole S.A.

Credit Suisse

Daegu BankDaiwa Securities Group Inc.

The Daly Foundation

de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A.

DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale

Deutsche Asset Management

Deutsche Bank AG

Deutsche Postbank Vermgensmanagement S.A.,Luxemburg

Development Bank o Japan Inc.

Development Bank o the Philippines (DBP)

Dexia Asset Management

DnB NOR ASA

Domini Social Investments LLC

Dongbu Insurance Co., Ltd.DWS Investment GmbH

Earth Capital Partners LLP

East Sussex Pension Fund

Ecclesiastical Investment Management

Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social

The Edward W. Hazen Foundation

EEA Group Ltd

Element Investment Managers

ELETRA - Fundao Celg de Seguros ePrevidncia

Environment Agency Active Pension Fund

Epworth Investment Management Ltd

Equilibrium Capital Group

Erste Group Bank AGEssex Investment Management, LLC

Ethos Foundation

Eureko B.V.

Eurizon Capital SGR

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada PensionPlan or Clergy and Lay Workers

Evli Bank Plc

F&C Management Ltd

FAELCE - Fundao Coelce de Seguridade Social

FASERN Fundao Cosern de PrevidnciaComplementar

Fdris Gestion dActis

FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH

FIM Asset Management LtdFinancire de Champlain

FIRA. - Banco de Mexico

First Airmative Financial Network

First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1)

FirstRand Ltd.


4/72

Five Oceans Asset Management

Florida State Board o Administration (SBA)

Folketrygdondet

FolksamFondaction CSN

Fondation de Luxembourg

Fonds de Rserve pour les Retraites FRR

Forward Management, LLC

Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4)

Frankurter Service Kapitalanlage-GesellschatmbH

FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment GesellschatmbH

Friends Provident Holdings (UK) Limited

Front Street Capital

Fukoku Capital Management, Inc.

Fundao AMPLA de Seguridade Social -

BrasiletrosFundao Atlntico de Seguridade Social

Fundao Banrisul de Seguridade Social

Fundao Codesc de Seguridade Social -FUSESC

Fundao de Assistncia e Previdncia Social doBNDES - FAPES

Fundao Forluminas de Seguridade Social

Fundao Itasa Industrial

Fundao Promon de Previdncia Social

Fundao So Francisco de Seguridade Social

Fundao Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social- VALIA

FUNDIGUA - Fundao de Previdncia daCompanhia de Saneamento e Ambiental do

Distrito FederalFuturegrowth Asset Management

Gartmore Investment Management Limited

Generali Deutschland Holding AG

Generation Investment Management

Genus Capital Management

Gjensidige Forsikring

GLG Partners LP

GLS Gemeinschatsbank eG, Germany

Goldman Sachs & Co.

GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT r globaleVermgensentwicklung mbH

Governance or Owners LLP

Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF),

Republic o South AricaGreen Cay Asset Management

Green Century Funds

Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc.

GROUPE OFI AM

Grupo Banco Popular

Gruppo Monte Paschi

Guardian Ethical Management Inc

Guardians o New Zealand Superannuation

Guosen Securities Co., LTD.

Hang Seng Bank

HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbH

Harbourmaster Capital

Harrington Investments, Inc

The Hartord Financial Services Group, Inc.

Hastings Funds Management Limited

Hazel Capital LLP HDFC Bank Ltd

Health Super Fund

Henderson Global Investors

Hermes Fund Managers

HESTA Super

Hospitals o Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP)

HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland)GmbH

HSBC Holdings plc

HSBC INKA InternationaleKapitalanlagegesellschat mbH

Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance

IDBI Bank Limited

Illinois State Treasurer

Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company

Impax Asset Management Ltd

Industrial Bank

Industrial Bank o Korea

Industry Funds Management

Inrastructure Development Finance Company

Ltd. (IDFC)ING

Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd

Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios eTelgraos - Postalis

Instituto Inraero de Seguridade Social -INFRAPREV

Insurance Australia Group

Investec Asset Management

Irish Lie Investment Managers

Ita Unibanco Banco Mltiplo S.A.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management

Janus Capital Group Inc.

The Japan Research Institute, Limited

Jarislowsky Fraser LimitedThe Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust

Jubitz Family Foundation

Jupiter Asset Management

K&H Investment Fund Management / K&HBeektetsi Alapkezelo Zrt

KB Asset Management

KB Financial Group

KB Kookmin Bank

KBC Asset Management NV

KCPS and Company

KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd.

Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, LP

KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschat m.b.H.

KW BankengruppeKLP Insurance

Korea Investment & Trust Management

Korea Technology Finance Corporation

KPA Pension

Kyobo AXA Investment Managers

La Banque Postale Asset Management

La Financire Responsable

Landsorganisationen i Sverige

LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Wrttemberg

LBBW Asset Management InvestmentgesellschatmbH

LD Lnmodtagernes Dyrtidsond

Legal & General Group plc

Legg Mason, Inc.

Lend Lease Investment Management

Light Green Advisors, LLC

Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A.

Local Authority Pension Fund Forum

The Local Government Pensions Institution

Local Government Super

Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie

The London Pensions Fund Authority

Lothian Pension FundMaci Gestion

Macquarie Group Limited

Magnolia Charitable Trust

Maine State Treasurer

Man Group plc

Maple-Brown Abbott Limited

Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc.

Maryland State Treasurer

Matrix Asset Management

McLean Budden

MEAG Munich Ergo Asset Management GmbH

Meeschaert Gestion Prive

Meiji Yasuda Lie Insurance CompanyMerck Family Fund

Mergence Arica Investments (Pty) Limited

Meritas Mutual Funds

MetallRente GmbH

Metzler Investment GmbH

MFS Investment Management

Midas International Asset Management

Miller/Howard Investments

Mirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd.

Mistra, The Swedish Foundation or StrategicEnvironmental Research

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd

Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.Mn Services

Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbH

Morgan Stanley

Motor Trades Association o AustraliaSuperannuation Fund Pty Ltd

Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia

Natcan Investment Management

The Nathan Cummings Foundation

National Australia Bank Limited

National Bank o Canada

National Bank o Kuwait

National Grid Electricity Group o the ElectricitySupply Pension Scheme

National Grid UK Pension SchemeNational Pensions Reserve Fund o Ireland

National Union o Public and General Employees(NUPGE)

Natixis

Nedbank Limited

Needmor Fund

Nelson Capital Management, LLC

Nest Sammelstitung

Neuberger Berman

New Amsterdam Partners LLC

New Jersey Division o Investment

New Mexico State Treasurer

New York City Employees Retirement System

New York City Teachers Retirement SystemNew York State Common Retirement Fund(NYSCRF)

Newton Investment Management Limited

NFU Mutual Insurance Society

NGS Super

NH-CA Asset Management

Carbon Disclosure Project

4


5/72

CDP Signatories 2010

5

Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd.

Nissay Asset Management Corporation

NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschat AG

Nordea Investment ManagementNorolk Pension Fund

Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)

Norinchukin Zenkyouren Asset Management Co.,Ltd

North Carolina State Treasurer

Northern Ireland Local Government OicersSuperannuation Committee (NILGOSC)

Northern Trust

Northwest and Ethical Investments LP

Oddo & Cie

Old Mutual plc

OMERS Administration Corporation

Ontario Teachers Pension Plan

OP Fund Management Company LtdOppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH

Opplysningsvesenets ond (The NorwegianChurch Endowment)

OPSEU Pension Trust

Oregon State Treasurer

Orion Asset Management LLC

OTP Fund Management Plc.

Pax World Funds

Pensioenonds Vervoer

Pension Fund or Danish Lawyers and Economists

The Pension Plan For Employees o the PublicService Alliance o Canada

Pension Protection Fund

PensionsmyndighetenPETROS - The Fundao Petrobras deSeguridade Social

PFA Pension

PGGM

Phillips, Hager & North Investment ManagementLtd.

PhiTrust Active Investors

Pictet Asset Management SA

The Pinch Group

Pioneer Alapkezelo Zrt.

PKA

Pluris Sustainable Investments SA

Pohjola Asset Management Ltd

Portolio 21 InvestmentsPortolio Partners

Porto Seguro S.A.

PRECE Previdncia Complementar

The Presbyterian Church in Canada

PREVI Caixa de Previdncia dos Funcionrios doBanco do Brasil

PREVIG Sociedade de Previdncia Complementar

Principle Capital Partners

Psagot Investment House Ltd

PSP Investments

Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd

QBE Insurance Group Limited

Rabobank

Raieisen Schweiz

Railpen Investments

Rathbones / Rathbone Greenbank Investments

RBS Group

Real Grandeza Fundao de Previdncia eAssistncia Social

Rei Super

Resona Bank, Limited

Reynders McVeigh Capital Management

Rhode Island General TreasurerRLAM

Robeco

Robert Brooke Zevin Associates, Inc

Rockeeller & Co. SRI Group

Rose Foundation or Communities and theEnvironment

Royal Bank o Canada

RREEF Investment GmbH

The Russell Family Foundation

Russell Investments

SAM Group

Sampension KP Livsorsikring A/S

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance

Samsung Lie Insurance

Sanlam Investment Management

Santa F Portolios Ltda

Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG

Schroders

Scotiabank

Scottish Widows Investment Partnership

SEB

SEB Asset Management AG

Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2)

Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc

Sentinel Investments

SERPROS Fundo Multipatrocinado

Service Employees International Union BeneitFunds

Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7)

The Shiga Bank, Ltd.

Shinhan Bank

Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment TrustManagement Co., Ltd

Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd

Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbH

Signet Capital Management Ltd

SIRA Asset Management

SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD

Smith Pierce, LLC

SNS Asset Management

Social(k)Sociedade Ibgeana de Assistncia e Seguridade(SIAS)

Solaris Investment Management Limited

Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.

Sopher Investment Management

SPF Beheer bv

Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd

Standard Bank Group

Standard Chartered PLC

Standard Lie Investments

State Street Corporation

Storebrand ASA

Strathclyde Pension Fund

Stratus GroupSumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation

Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited

Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., Ltd

Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group

Sumitomo Trust & Banking

Sun Lie Financial Inc.

Superund Asset Management GmbH

Sustainable Capital

Svenska Kyrkan, Church o SwedenSwedbank Ab (publ)

Swiss Reinsurance Company

Swisscanto Holding AG

Syntrus Achmea Asset Management

TD Asset Management Inc. TDAM USA Inc.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF)

Tempis Capital Management Co., Ltd.

Terra Forvaltning AS

TL Pension Fund

The University o Edinburgh Endowment Fund

Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)

Threadneedle Asset Management

Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Toronto Atmospheric Fund

The Travelers Companies, Inc.

Trillium Asset Management Corporation

TRIODOS BANK

TrygVesta

UBS AG

Unibanco Asset Management

UniCredit Group

Union Asset Management Holding AG

Unipension

UNISON sta pension scheme

UniSuper

Unitarian Universalist AssociationThe United Church o Canada - General Council

United Methodist Church General Board oPension and Health Beneits

United Nations Foundation

Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS)

Vancity Group o Companies

Veritas Investment Trust GmbH

Vermont State Treasurer

VicSuper Pty Ltd

Victorian Funds Management Corporation

VietNam Holding Ltd.

Viso Prev Sociedade de PrevidnciaComplementar

Waikato Community Trust IncWalden Asset Management, a division o BostonTrust and Investment Management Company

WARBURG - HENDERSONKapitalanlagegesellschat r Immobilien mbH

WARBURG INVESTKAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH

The Wellcome Trust

Wells Fargo

West Yorkshire Pension Fund

WestLB Mellon Asset ManagementKapitalanlagegesellschat mbH (WMAM)

The Westpac Group

Winslow Management Company

Woori Bank

YES BANK Limited

York University Pension Fund

Youville Provident Fund Inc.

Zegora Investment Management

Zurich Cantonal Bank


6/72

Climate change constitutes a massivethreat, as the extreme weather eventso mid-2010 have tragically remindedus. But it also oers a huge opportunityor those businesses which act tosucceed in mainstreaming low-carbonsolutions to avert dangerous globalwarming.

The Carbon Disclosure Project ishelping provide the transparencythat investors and other stakeholdersrequire to evaluate how companiesare positioned to cope with these risksand opportunities. It also encouragescompanies to take steps towardsmanaging their carbon emissions. Theproject thus provides an importantcomplement to the EU EmissionsTrading System, since more than 60%o European companies participating inCDP are not covered by the EU ETS.

This years Europe 300 report showsthat European companies continue tolead the world in carbon disclosure andclimate change strategy. Comparedto other regions, more than twiceas many European rms had theiremissions data independently veried.These encouraging trends are, Irmly believe, due in large part to theproactive policy approach that theEuropean Union has taken to tacklingclimate change.

The climate and energy goals the EUis implementing or the medium termhave given us a head start on the roadto building a low-carbon economy. Wewill cut our greenhouse gas emissionsto 20% below 1990 levels by 2020,and are ready to scale up the reductionto 30% provided the conditions areright. A decade rom now, 20% o theEUs energy will come rom renewablesources. We also aim to reduce energyconsumption by 20% o projectedlevels.

Foreword

Connie Hedegaard,European Commissioner or Climate Action

These measures promise greenereconomic growth, new jobs andgreater energy security. It is perhapslittle surprise that a high proportion oEuropean companies almost nineout o ten, according to this report -see business opportunities in the ghtagainst climate change.

But Europe cannot aord to reston its laurels on the contrary. TheUS, China, Korea and other majoreconomies are investing heavily in low-carbon technologies and inrastructureto counter the economic crisis.

Ensuring Europe maintains itsleadership position and reaps the ulleconomic benets o the low-carbonrevolution requires a continued strongpush rom the policy side. This is onereason the European Commissionhas put decarbonising the economy

at the heart o our vision or Europesdevelopment up to 2020 and beyond.

The EUs long-term goal is to cutemissions by 80-95% by 2050. Thisprocess will eventually impact oncompanies big and small across allsectors. Joining the Carbon DisclosureProject is a way or businesses toprepare themselves or this transition -and maximise their chances o protingrom it.

6


7/72

Climate change, growing energydemand, resources depletion andpopulation growth are straining globaleconomies and ecosystems. Althoughthe 2009 Copenhagen Summit ailed toprovide clear guidelines or businesses,there is a general consensus that thecost o inaction outweighs the cost oaction, and that a pro-active approachto environmental issues is sound riskmanagement or governments andbusinesses alike.

In particular, climate instability can havea signicant impact on the insurancebusiness through growing risks andliabilities, evolving investment trendsand changing customer liestyles,hence coverage needs. Indeed,insurers and investors such as AXAstand at a strategic crossroads and arekey actors in a position to provide bothadaptation and mitigation solutions

to society. They are in the onlyeconomic sector that has the data andmodelling expertise necessary to helpanalyse the risks, across all economicsectors and regions. They have acritical role in infuencing individualchoices through insurance and canalso make innovation possible.

Insurers and inestors at a strategic crossroad

Henri de Castries,Chairman and CEO, AXA

Last but not least, insurers support theentire economy through their broadinvestment portolios. Large universalowners such as AXA in eect owna slice o the world economy - withboth upsides and downsides linkedto long term societal transormations.Investment strategies can impact thesetransormations, as well as reduceexposure to certain risks.

AXA is committed to making adierence in these areas. This isnot just being good, it is goodmanagement, refecting an in-depthanalysis o the situation and risingexpectations rom employees,investors, customers and civil society.Tangible proos o this commitmentinclude a range o initiatives suchas green insurance products,responsible investment unds, actionsto reduce our own environmental

ootprint, the unding and sharing oresearch (notably via the AXA ResearchFund), and contributing to collaborativeinitiatives such as the UNEP FI or theCDP.

AXA has been a CDP partner since2006, and we have supported thepublication and presentation o theFrench (2006-2008) and European(2009) survey results. This year again,AXA is proud to support the Europe300 report, highlighting where risksand opportunities lie to help investorsto better navigate the path towards alow-carbon economy.

7


8/72

8

Writing the CDP Europe 300 reportor the second year in a row meansseveral things to CA Cheuvreux.

Firstly, it means we must not allowourselves to be distracted by the losso momentum on climate changepolicies and by reduced mediacoverage over the past year. It alsomeans that the Carbon DisclosureProject (CDP) initiative now has aneven greater role to play, in orderto partly make up or the lack oregulatory pressure. It means wemust cast an even stronger light oncompanies responses to climatechange, so that investors can assessand reward their perormance at a timewhen the media is less ocussed onthis issue, and the excitement leadingup to the Copenhagen Summit hasaded. Last but not least, it means

the lack o visibility and the increasinguncertainty surrounding climatechange policies heighten the risks andopportunities involved in investing inEuropean companies.

The CDP is no ordinary initiative. Inour view, it is equally important asthe International Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) and the Stern Reviewon the Economics o Climate Changeas it represents the business sectorsresponse to both scientic knowledgeabout climate change, and the resultingthreat to the economy. It paves the wayor a low-carbon economy and givesinvestors and other stakeholders thetools to assess whether or not we areon track to meet this challenge.

CA Cheureux and the Carbon Disclosure Project

Jean-Claude Bassien,Chairman and CEO, Crdit Agricole Cheuvreux

Nor is CA Cheuvreux an ordinarybrokerage and research house. Itis the most European in its natureand outlook, with presence in allmajor European nancial centres anda coverage o 700 listed Europeancompanies. CA Cheuvreux was therst broker worldwide (and is stillthe only one to date) to become asignatory to the UN-backed Principlesor Responsible Investment, in 2008.Climate change is an integral part oour research and investment services,as we have recognised that nancialindicators should be supplementedwith carbon-related equivalents (and ocourse other environmental, social andgovernance criteria) in order to capturethe complexity o market risk andopportunities.

We thereore take it as our

responsibility to work alongside theinitiatives with the greatest legitimacy,such as the Carbon Disclosure Project,in order to raise the standards andimprove the accuracy and pertinenceo climate change-related inormationprovided by companies. I hope thisreport will benet the investmentcommunity, as well as the 300companies under review, as theypursue their strategies to achieve shareperormance in a low-carbon economy.


9/72

Executie Summar

Introduction

2009 marked a trough in the economiccrisis in Europe. Uncertainties persistboth on the economic recovery andthe uture o climate change policies,as the Copenhagen Summit ailed toprovide certainty on any post-Kyotointernational ramework or regulating

greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this, European companiescontinue to respond to investorrequests (through the CDPquestionnaire) with increaseddisclosure on climate change-relatedrisks and opportunities. The responserate or the Europe 300 report is at itshighest: 84%.

It is interesting to analyse the evolutiono the Europe 300 index, whichrepresents the 300 largest Europeancompanies by market capitalisation.The market capitalisation o wind andsolar companies has not proved anymore resilient than other companies intraditional sectors. As a result the windturbines manuacturer Gamesa andsolar energy companies Q-Cells andREC have let the Europe 300 samplein 2010.

However, renewable energies remainwell presented in the sample:

EDPRenovveisandIberdrolaRenovables the renewable energysubsidiaries o electricity utilitiescompanies EDP and Iberdrola have entered the ranks o thelargest 300 European companies

by capitalisation.

In addition, large industrialcompanies, such as Siemens,Alstom or Saint-Gobain, also havedeveloped renewable energytechnologies in their productportolios. Siemens indicates thatthe revenues o its RenewableEnergy Division grew by 39% in2009.

This is an important indicator that

some o the largest Europeancompanies have built signicantcapacities in low-carbon technologiesand have been seizing opportunitiesto participate in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

2010 Highlights

There are several positive highlightsrom this years report:

The Europe 300 index maintainedits place as the leader in termso disclosure, with 84% ocompanies responding to the

CDP questionnaire (versus 70%or the US S&P 500 and 41% orthe Japan 500). This is up 2%rom 2009 and even reaches 86%ater restating the sample romcompanies acquired during the year(e.g. the Cadbury take-over by KratFoods).

Disclosure o Scope 1 and Scope2 emissions improved respectivelyto 92% and 91% o companies.Around 50% o companiesindependently veriy more than80% o their Scope 1 and Scope2 emissions data. The Europe 300index also demonstrates by ar thehighest assurance level comparedto other geographies. This shouldhelp investors to use emissionsdata with increased condence,although there is still room orimprovement.

Direct carbon emissions ell sharplyin 2009 (by 7%), largely as a resulto the economic crisis. By way o

comparison, EU-27 GHG emissionsdropped by 17.3% in 2009. Itis certainly interesting to notethat most o the largest emittersmanaged to improve their carbon-intensity (relative to productionvolumes) in this tough economicenvironment (see the Materials andUtilities sector specic analysis).

9


10/72

Executie Summar

10

Apart rom the Health Care sector,at least 83% o companies in everysector see regulatory opportunities

emerging rom climate changepolicies. This rate hits 100% orthe IT, Telecommunication Servicesand Utilities sectors. This positiveoutlook is oten correlated tomarket opportunities or companiesselling products and services thathelp clients to reduce their ownemissions (71% o companies).

For instance, new generations oproducts developed by capitalgoods companies are 12% to 50%more energy-ecient, and haveapplications in the transportation,building, power and industrymarkets.

However, there remain areas oconcern that need to be addressed:

Reduction targets and inestmentsall short 79%ofrespondingcompanieshave

set an emission reduction target,but the majority will expire by 2012.

Companies reported just 31bnin anticipated investments oralternative energy and energyeciency projects. This gureis signicantly lower than theequivalent in 2009 o ca. 100bn.This investment gap is largelyattributable to companies which nolonger disclose, or to companieswhich are no longer in the Europe300 index, rather than to lowerambitions.

Overall, the aggregation o allreported targets show that theEurope 300 companies coulddeliver an average emissionsreduction o just 1.5% per annum ithey achieve their targets.

It is not possible to achieve a truecomparison between targets setby the Europe 300 companies

and EU-wide GHG reductiontargets because the Europe 300index does not ully capture manyareas o the economy, which areconsiderable sources o GHGemissions, such as buildings,transportation and agriculture.

The scope o direct emissions othe Europe 300 index is closer inscope to the EU Emissions TradingSystem (EU ETS) because o itsconstituents. Disclosed carbonreduction commitments within theEurope 300 companies appear toolow to reach the EU ETS cap setor 2020. The targets o Europe300 utilities, materials and energycompanies aggregated at sectorlevel will deliver an average annualcut in emission intensity o 2.1%,0.8% and 0.4% respectively.These cuts all short o the planneddecrease in the absolute emissioncap under the EU ETS: 1.9% eachyear on average over 2013-2020,and up to 4.1% i the EU should

decide to embrace the 30% EU-wide GHG reduction target.

Scope 3 emissions remain theweakest part o the picture Although74%ofrespondents

disclose at least one source oScope 3 emissions, these are notalways the most material rom arisk perspective. For instance, ca.70% disclose carbon emissionsdue to business travel while only20% (11% less than last year)provide an estimate o theemissions related to the use o theirproducts and services at the use ordisposal phase.

Financialsstilldisclosewidelyonbusiness travel but ail to providequantitative inormation on thecarbon risks lying in their clientsportolios, which can certainly be ohigher interest or investors.

Thelackofaharmonisedmethodology or calculating Scope3 emissions also continues tohamper intra sector comparisons,such as in the Oil & Gas sector, orinstance.


11/72

Sector CDLI (Score) CPLI (Band A)

Consumer Discret ionary Philips Electronics (94),

Renault (93)

Philips Electronics, Renault, BMW,

Kingsher

Consumer Staples Reckitt Benckiser (93),

Tesco (92), Nestl (92)

Reckitt Benckiser, Tesco, Nestl

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

Financials Royal Bank o Scotland (93),

HSBC (92)

Royal Bank o Scotland, HSBC,

Barclays, Munich Re, Swiss Re, UBS

Health Care Novo Nordisk (89) Novo Nordisk

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

Ferrovial (89),

Saint-Gobain (89)

Siemens, Deutsche Post,

Ferrovial, Rolls-Royce

Inormation Technology Nokia (91) Nokia

Materials BASF (96), Bayer (95),

Laarge (94),

UPM-Kymmene (90), SCA (90),

Rio Tinto (89)

BASF, Bayer, Laarge

Telecommunication Services Teleonica (89)

BT Group (89)

Teleonica, BT Group, Deutsche

Telekom, Royal KPN

Utilities Centrica (92)

Scottish & Southern Energy (90)

EDP (90)

Scottish & Southern Energy, E.ON,

Iberdrola, National Grid

Table 1: Companies with the highest CDLI and CPLI scores

Conclusion

From a market opportunity

perspective, businesses generallycall or a clear and stable regulatoryramework providing long-term visibility,which policymakers ailed to deliver atCopenhagen.

More than ever, at a time when budgetconstraints challenge the ambitionso EU Member States to supportthe development o low-carbontechnologies and services, urthercollaboration and understandingbetween economic players andpolicymakers is absolutely essentiali the right signals are to be sent toallow more investments in low-carbontechnologies.

This ranges rom the nal decisionexpected on CO2 eciencybenchmarks, which will set the carbonallocations post-2012 in the EUcarbon market, to the implementationo additional supporting policies tooster investments in costly low-carbon technologies (e.g. a foor priceor carbon, a harmonised regulatory

ramework or Carbon Capture andStorage, higher visibility on post-2020EU climate ambitions).

Scoring HighlightsScores are generally higher than lastyear (average disclosure score is 68

versus 60 in 2009). This is partly due tochanges in the scoring methodology,but some companies have madeimpressive improvements. DeutschePost, Nestl and Teleonica haveincreased their score by more than30 points compared to last yearsresults and are ranked in the CarbonDisclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) othe Europe 300.

A perormance score, whichrecognises and rewards theintegration o climate change issuesinto the business strategy andthe evidence o orward action,complements disclosure scores thisyear. Most o the time, disclosureleaders are also perormanceleaders, with a ew exceptions(Saint-Gobain, UPM Kymmene,SCA, Rio Tinto, Centrica, EDP)where perhaps the ambition tointegrate policy has not quitematched the actual evidence oorward action.

Siemens achieved the highestdisclosure score o the index (98)and took the CDLI crown rom

Bayer. Siemens notably stands outby having dened an EnvironmentalPortolio since 2008, which nowcomprises 30% o Siemens entireportolio (25% in 2008) and whoseproducts and solutions installed in2009 are cutting customers annualCO2 emissions by some 50mt CO2emissions (+47% versus 2008).1

The Utilities sector continues tooutperorm on average in terms odisclosure, whereas the Financialssector underperorms both indisclosure and in perormanceaspects. Every sector isrepresented in the CDLI.

11

1 Please note that, or the purposes o this report,mtCO2e = 1 000 000 metric tonnes CO2.Emissions gures have been rounded. For unroundedgures please see company responses atwww.cdproject.net.


12/72

Figure 1: Disclosure leel

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

Europe 300 sample 300 100%

Any portion of Scope 1 emissions independently verified 172 57%

Disclosing any Scope 3 emissions 187 62%

Having emissions reduction target 200 67%

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

Responding companies 253 84%

Executie Summar

12


13/72

Contents

CDP Signatories 2

Foreword:Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner or Climate Action

6

Commentar:Henri de Castries, Chairman and CEO, AXA

7

Commentar:Jean-Claude Bassien, Chairman and CEO, CA Cheuvreux

8

Executie summar 9

1. Oeriew o CDP 14

2. Oeriew o the Europe 300 16

3. Political Context 18

4. The 2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores 25

5. The 2010 Carbon Perormance Scores 29

6. Analsis b Sector 33

7. Sector Specic Analsis 39

Consumer Discretionary 39

Consumer Staples 41

Energy 43

Financials 47

Health Care 49

Industrials 50

Inormation Technology 52

Materials 53

Telecommunication Services 57

Utilities 59

Appendix 1: Table o emissions, scores and sector inormation b compan 62

Appendix 2: Composition o GICS sectors at three dierent segmentation leels 69

13


14/72

1

Oeriew o CDP

The Carbon Disclosure Project(CDP) is an independent not-or-prot organisation holding the largestdatabase o primary corporate climatechange inormation in the world. CDPwas launched in 2000 to acceleratesolutions to climate change by puttingrelevant inormation at the heart obusiness, policy and investmentdecisions. CDP urthers this missionby harnessing the collective power ocorporations, investors and politicalleaders to accelerate unied action onclimate change.

In 2009, 2,500 organisations insome 60 countries around theworld measured and disclosed theirgreenhouse gas emissions and climatechange strategies through CDP, inorder to set reduction targets andmake perormance improvements.

In 2010, even more companies thanever beore are reporting through CDPand managing their emissions. Thisdata is made available or use by awide audience including institutionalinvestors, corporations, policymakersand their advisors, public sectororganisations, government bodies,academics and the public.

Climate change is not a problem thatexists within national boundaries.This is why CDP harmonises climatechange data rom organisations aroundthe world and develops internationalcarbon reporting standards. CDPoperates the only global climatechange reporting system on behalo 534 institutional investors (holdingUS$64 trillion in assets undermanagement) and some 60 purchasingorganisations, such as Dell, EADS,PepsiCo and Walmart.

Message rom PaulDickinson, ExecutieChairman, CDP

Carbon management continuesto rise as a strategic priority ormany businesses. This is uelled byopportunities to reduce energy costs;secure energy supply; protect thebusiness rom climate change riskand damaged reputation; as well asgenerating revenue and remainingcompetitive. Companies globallyare seizing commercial carbonopportunities, oten acting ahead oany policy requirements.

The demand or primary corporateclimate change data is growing itis now accessed through Bloombergand Google Finance. It is also used byan increasing number o investment

research providers and sell-sidebrokers to generate new insights intothe impacts o climate change on theglobal industry and to highlight theassociated opportunities. CDP hasalso launched two index productsbased on CDP data the FTSE CDPCarbon Strategy Index series and theMarkit Carbon Disclosure LeadershipIndex. These products give investorsexposure to companies betterpositioned in the transition to a lowcarbon economy.

Ke ocus areasCDP has set three key ocus areas orthe immediate uture. One is to workwith companies and the users o itsdata to continue improving qualityand comparability. Data that supportsaction is central to ullling CDPsmission. As part o this process, CDPis launching a new package, ReporterServices, exclusively or respondingcompanies, to help them developtheir carbon management strategiesthrough increased data quality, deeper

analysis and the sharing o bestpractice.

Never orget that climate change is aglobal problem and requires a globalsolution. That is why CDPs second

key ocus is on globalising all programsin the major economies in the comingyears. Beyond CDPs Investorprogram, which sits at the heart othe initiative, CDP intends to grow itsSupply Chain and Public Procurementprograms, as well as CDP WaterDisclosure, in order to maximise theullment o CDPs mission.

The third key ocus is mitigation andemissions reduction. The number ocompanies within the Global 500 index(FTSE Global Equity Series) reportingreduction targets has already increasedourold since CDPs rst reportingyear. But this is just the rst step. CDPremains committed to help advanceemissions reductions and works withinvestors and industry to achieve this.

Looking ahead

It is through partnerships that wecan achieve the largest impact.CDP is delighted to be workingwith the Europe 300 report sponsorAXA; the Europe 300 report writerCA Cheuvreux; its global advisorPricewaterhouseCoopers; its globalsponsor Bank o America; its localpartners; as well as Accenture,Microsot and SAP to accelerateits mission and highlight the hugeopportunities or business to capitaliseon the transition to a low carboneconomy.

These are exciting times or business,with signicant changes coming to theway we produce and consume energy.New power rom low or zero emissionssources is an urgent priority or climatechange policy that simultaneouslyhelps deliver energy security. Newtechnologies, such as smart grids,electric vehicles, alternative uelsources and advanced telepresencevideoconerencing are showing a clearcase or business growth with reduced

emissions. The opportunities orbusiness are enormous. It is throughthe intelligent investment o capitalinto the right solutions, identied bythe business community that we willachieve the low carbon uture we need.

14


15/72


16/72

2

Oeriew o theEurope 300

The Europe 300 sample is based onthe FTSEurorst 300 index, whichcontains the 300 largest publicly listedcompanies by market capitalisation inEurope.

The 233 companies in the Europe 300sample who disclosed their direct on-site emissions (Scope 1) report 1.96bntonnes o CO2 equivalent (tCO2-e) ogreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Thisis equivalent to ca. 40% o the GHGemissions o the 27 European MemberStates (EU-27) in 2008. However, manyEuropean companies have worldwideoperations and emit GHG emissionsbeyond the borders o Europe. Only50% o the samples direct emissionsare clearly reported in Europeancountries. European companies emitalmost 300 mtCO2-eq on the AmericanContinent.

Beyond on-site direct emissions,companies report on their indirectemissions related to the purchase osecondary energy (Scope 2, such aselectricity and heat) and to externalboundaries (Scope 3 categories, suchas employee travel, carbon contento goods purchased and emissionsrelated to the use o products/services).The total direct and indirectemissions reported by the companiesin the Europe 300 sample amounts to7.7bn tCO

2-eq or ca. 15% o global

GHG emissions. There is naturallysome double counting in this guresince the indirect emissions reportedby one company (e.g. related to thepurchase o electricity) can be thedirect emissions o another company(e.g. a utility company).

Figure 2: Countr origin ocompanies in theEurope 300

Figure 3: Breakdown o theEurope 300 indexb GICS sector

60

54

3424

22

19

15

14

11

47

72

49

40

31

29

24

17

15

158

United Kingdom 60

France 54

Germany 34Switzerland 24

Spain 22

Italy 19

Sweden 15

Netherlands 14

Belgium 11

Other* 47

*Austria, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Denmark,

Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg,

other non-European

Financials 72

Industrials 49

Consumer Discretionary 40Materials 31

Consumer Staples 29

Utilities 24

Telecommunication Services 17

Energy 15

Health Care 15

IT 8

16


17/72

Figure 4: Location o direct emissions o the Europe 300

0 200 400 600 800 1000

GHG Emissions (mtCO2e)

Not identified

Middle East

Oceania

Asia

Southern & Eastern Europe

Africa

Latin America

North America

EU-27 (+Switzerland and Norway)

17


18/72

3

Political Context

EU TargetsThe economic downturn in 2009 hasled to substantial reductions in GHGemissions in Europe, which will clearlyhelp the European Union meet itsinternational commitment under theKyoto Protocol, as well as its 2020climate ambitions.

Indeed, EU-27 GHG emissions in2009 are estimated by the EuropeanEnvironment Agency to be 17.3%below 1990 levels, while the EU hascommitted to reducing emissions by8% over 2008-2012 under the KyotoProtocol and by at least 20% by 2020(unilateral commitment).

Based on these gures, the EUlooks on track to meet its targets,which are no longer seen as posinga challenge. In this context, and

despite the disappointing outcomeo the international talks on climatechange at Copenhagen, the EuropeanCommission continues to push theidea o Europe possibly revisingits carbon emissions reductioncommitment rom 20% to 30% by2020.

A drat discussion document waspublished in 2010 to debate thisopportunity. This drat notably containsthe estimate that a switch to a 30%reduction target would raise costs by33 billion per annum. However, theinitial cost o cutting emissions by 20%has also been revised down to 47billion ater actoring in the economiccrisis. This is compared to the previousgure o over 70 billion p.a. in 2020.

An assessment indicates that i theEU switches to a 30% target, therisk to production volumes is highestin chemicals activities, but remainsgenerally less than 1%. One idea is toimplement an EU-harmonised carbon

tax based on the carbon content oossil uels in order to create a carbonprice signal or sectors not includedunder the EU Emissions TradingSystem (i.e. higher prices o ossiluels).

Implications rom the economiccrisisIn these economic times, MemberStates are having to deal withbudget constraints and seem to beadopting a more cautious stance withregards to the costs associated withpolicies supporting carbon reductioncommitments and the development orenewable energies. The discussionover a potential switch to 30% hasbeen postponed until ater the UNinternational climate meeting in Cancunin December 2010.

Spain, Germany and France have allreviewed their supporting policies orsolar energy by lowering guaranteedeed-in taris and applying annual capsto the development o solar capacities.

The economic crisis also had the eect

o reducing electricity consumption.This automatically reduces theorecasts o additional renewableenergy capacities needed to complywith EU targets, as the latter aredened as a percentage o total energyconsumption.

EU Carbon MarketWith regard to the EU carbon market,the carbon price has remained airlystable since the 2009 edition o theCDP Europe 300 report, trading ina range o12 to 16/tCO

2. The

stability o the carbon price is mainlydue to the sharp drop in productionvolumes in sectors regulated under thecarbon market, which has let millionso surpluses o emission rights in thehands o cement and steel producers.

The European Commission believesthat a higher carbon price oaround 30/t would be necessaryto incentivise urther investments inlow-carbon technologies. In order tosaeguard the price o carbon, the

European Commission has notablybeen rm in its position not to yield tothe claims o several Eastern Europeancountries to obtain extra ree CO2rights or their industries.

The European Commission has alsomade progress on the new rulesapplying to the EU ETS over 2013-2020. The ocial list o sectorsdeemed signicantly exposed to therisk o carbon leakage, due to extraCO2 costs arising rom the EU ETS,was published in late 2009. Most o theindustries (apart rom brick production)are in this list and are thereore eligibleto receive 100% ree CO2 rights until2020, up to a sector carbon eciencybenchmark. The calculation is basedon the 10% most ecient installationso a sector.

The Working Groups in charge odesigning these sector benchmarkshave made progress in 2009/2010,although discussions are still ongoingand nothing has been ociallyset so ar. The nal decisions on

these benchmarks are expected byDecember 2010.

Another challenge o the post-2012carbon market is the creation o aprimary market or emission rightsthrough the organisation o auctions.One o the ears raised by some CDPrespondents regarding these auctionsis that non-regulated players could playthe system by manipulating the price ocarbon.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0265:FIN:FR:PDF

18


19/72

Comparison with indices romother global geographiesAt a time when one o the EUs

ambitions is to lead the way interms o a low-carbon economy,it is encouraging that Europeancompanies, as a whole, appear to beat the oreront o carbon disclosureand climate change strategy design,when compared to other key globalgeographies. As highlighted in thechart below, the Europe 300 indexranks rst in many aspects o thequestionnaire.

Disclosure and reportingThe response rate to CDP in the Europe300 is at its highest. It has increased to84% in the Europe 300 index (versus82% last year). The Europe 300 indexhas also maintained its place as leaderin terms o disclosure, comparedwith other geographies, with the US(S&P 500 index) and Brazil (top 80companies by market capitalisation)ollowing with 69% and 72% responserates, respectively. Disclosure rates inChina, India and Eastern Europe remainlow (


20/72

Analsis o corporateemission reduction targetsersus EU targets

Absolute and intensit targets191 companies (75%) have dened atleast one numeric emission reductiontarget. Some companies have severaltargets applying to dierent businessunits or with dierent time horizons.43% o targets include absoluteemissions reductions, while 37%are intensity targets (e.g. relative toproduction volumes). However, apartrom the Financials, TelecommunicationServices and IT sectors, intensitytargets prevail in other sectors (e.g.67% o targets in the Materials sector).

Time horizons63% o companies have a reductiontarget within the next six years. Theseare predominantly companies rom theIndustrials, Utilities, Financials, Materialand Consumer Staples sectors. Short-term targets are requent. These aredriven by regulatory visibility, whichallows companies to include emissionreduction targets into their strategicplans. Against the backdrop o

uncertainty beyond 2020 and the long-term investment orecast constraint,E.ON, or instance, recognises that itslargest possible source o risk arisingrom climate change is the politicaluncertainty surrounding uture carbonemission reduction policies. Fewer thanone-quarter o all the targets denedby companies target a time horizonater 2015.

The Europe 300 aggregatereduction targetAll company reduction targets applyingto Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionshave been aggregated in order to getan indication o the carbon reductionsthese will deliver in the Europe 300index, both as a whole and by sector.

The resulting gures are generally lowerthan last year. This is mainly due to twokey actors:

Some companies achieved theirtargets in 2009 (sometimes aheado schedule and/or helped by lowerproduction volumes) and have notset new targets. This is notably thecase or companies in the Materialssector.In order to adapt to a changingreality, some methodologicalchanges to this edition o theEurope 300 report have beenmade. In 2010, the reductiontargets have been calculated byassessing (when possible) theeorts that have yet to be deliveredby the company to achieve itstarget (i.e. based on companiesmost recent emissions rather thantheir emissions or the base year).

Implicit aerage annual

reduction target

Weigh in the index (in % o

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 or biggest emitting sectors -1.6% 94%

Other sectors 6%

Europe 300 index -1.5% 100%

Among utilities companies, three largecompanies in the power generationbusiness do not communicate

reduction targets on a group level. Atthe sector level, this osets the highambitions o other companies (EDP:average 9% reduction in CO2 intensityannually out to 2020). In the Materialssector, chemicals companies generallytend to have higher reduction targetsthan cement and metals & miningcompanies, apart rom a ew notableexceptions (e.g. Norsk Hydro: 4.8%annualised reduction target or specicemissions per tonne o aluminium).

The Energy sector guides or anannualised reduction eort o 1.8%,but the gure is mostly determinedby ENIs and Totals targets to cutgas faring at oil elds in emergingcountries. All companies involved intransportation businesses (Airlines,Marine, Air Freight) expect to cut thecarbon-intensity o their operations byover 2% annually.

2%

0 10 20 30 40 50

2021-2050

2015-2020

2013-2015

2009-2012

22%

22%

54%

Figure 6: Percentage o target reduction plan set b companiesb timescale

Table 3: The Europe 300 aggregate reduction targets

20

Political Context


21/72

Emission reduction plans backedb capex plansThese emission reduction targets are

backed by capital expenditure plans inalternative energy and energy ecientprojects. Europe 300 companies planto invest more than 31 billion in theyears to come, which should ultimatelydeliver emission reductions o ca. 61mto CO2-equivalent per annum.

The 31 billion gure is well belowthe ca. 100 billion in investmentsdisclosed in the previous edition othe Europe 300 report, but this gapis mostly attributable to companiesno longer disclosing their utureinvestments or having let the index,rather than to a general lowercommitment to invest in low-carbonprojects.

Companies have disclosed moreinormation on uture investments (31billion) than on projects already carriedout (10.8 billion). In addition, it seemsthat companies will invest in energy/resource eciency projects to a muchgreater extent than in the past (15billion anticipated versus 4 billion

achieved).

Absolute termsWe have evaluated the cumulativeabsolute emission reductions, which

would be delivered i the targets setby the large emitters are achieved intheir respective target years. GHGemissions reported in 2009 were usedas the current base level in order tocharacterise the eorts that must bemade rom now to achieve targetedreduction plans. This bears the promiseo emission cuts o approximately170mt CO2-eq. out to 2020 (comparedto a business-as-usual scenario).

The Utilities and Materials sectorsshow a strong emission reductioncommitment rom 2009 to 2020.This analysis is limited in scope sinceemission reductions targeted throughthe commercialisation o more energy-ecient products are not taken intoaccount (e.g. uel-ecient passengercars, electric appliances, etc).

Corporate emission targets allshort o the EU ETS 2020 capIt is important to bear in mind that

these emission reductions will nottake place in Europe alone and thatthe scope o the Europe 300 indexdoes not capture many areas o theeconomy, such as buildings andtransportation, which are sourceso considerable GHG emissions inEurope.

As a result, corporate emissionreduction gures cannot be comparedto the EU-wide GHG reduction targetor 2020 (20% or a possible 30%reduction by 2020 compared to 1990levels).

However, the scope o the Europe 300index is closer to the scope o the EUETS. It can be estimated that between29% and 67% o direct emissionsreported by Europe 300 companies allunder the scope o the EU ETS.

Although only 38% o respondingcompanies state that they participatein the EU ETS, these companiesrepresent 95% o total direct emissions

o the Europe 300 index.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Anticipated

Achieved

-150

-120

-90

-60

-30

0

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

Figure 7: Total Inestmentsachieed and anticipatedb tpe

Figure 8: Absolute carbon emissions reduction as implied breduction targets o main emitters(rom 2009 to target ear)

Energy and Resource Eciency

Alternatives to ossil energy

and GHG propellant gas

Industrials (Transportation only)

Energy

Materials

Utilities

21


22/72

Political Context

Two-thirds o these disclose thequantity o emissions regulatedunder the scheme in 2009. This

totals 565mtCO2-eq. (or 29% odirect carbon emissions reported byEuropean companies in the Europe300 index), with only 33 companiesin the Utilities, Energy and Materialssectors responsible or 97% o theseemissions. This relatively low gure canbe explained by the act that some othe largest emitters (e.g. E.ON, GDFSuez and ArcelorMittal) do not disclosetheir emissions under the EU ETS, andthat most non-CO2 gases are not yetregulated under the EU ETS.

On the other hand, one-third o directemissions reported by Europe 300companies occur outside Europe.Thereore, it can be estimated that upto 67% o Europe 300 GHG emissionsmay actually all under the scope o theEU ETS over 2013-2020.

Companies participating in the EU ETSare more likely than others to perceivea regulatory risk related to climate

change regulations (86% o them vs.66% or companies not regulated).

Certainly as a result, they also engagemore with policymakers (91% vs.68%) on climate change issues andare more likely than others to haveset an emission reduction target(90% vs. 74%). Management o thesecompanies is also more incentivisedthan others to manage climatechange issues, including delivering onGHG targets (78% vs. just 53% orcompanies not regulated under the EUETS). This point holds particularly trueor the Utilities sector, where 84% ocompanies have an incentive schemein place or management to achieveemission reduction targets.

Recent emissions trends arepositieGHG emissions o the Europe 300

index were down 7% in 2009. Mostcompanies in carbon-intensive sectorsreported a sharp drop in their absoluteemissions in 2009, mainly due toproduction cuts in a context o theeconomic crisis.

However, the carbon intensity (i.e.GHG emissions relative to productionvolumes) remained well oriented in2009. For instance, the electricityproduction o 18 utility companiesdecreased by 2.7% in 2009, while theirabsolute CO

2emissions dropped by

5.6%, pointing to a 3% improvementin CO2 intensity. This is also the caseor many companies in the Materialssector. Aluminium producers Hydroand Rio Tinto cut their carbonintensities by more than 10% in 2009.The our cement producers includedin the report also managed to reducetheir overall CO2 intensity. However,some others saw a deterioration incarbon intensity during the crisis,due to adverse eects that can beconsidered crisis-related (e.g. negative

mix eect in production volumes atArcelorMittal, some plants runningat suboptimal capacity rates at AirLiquide, etc).

1400

565

734

42266

0 20 40 60 80

Incentives for

attaining emission

targets

Emission

reduction target

Engaging

policymakers

Perception of

regulatory risk

77%

53%

91%

68%

90%

74%

77%

53%

Figure 9: Carbon emissions o theEurope 300 samplecoered b the EU ETS

Figure 10: Specicities o EU ETS regulated companies

Figures are in mtCO2-eq.

NB: as a % o respondent companies

22

Out o EU ETS

Under EU ETS

EU Europe 300 emissions not

covered by the EU ETS

Utilities

Utilities

Energy

Materials

Other


23/72

23

Corporate emissions reductiontargets all short o EU ETSobjecties

Targets o Utilities, Materials andEnergy companies aggregated atthe sector level point to averageannual cuts in emission intensity orespectively 2.1%, 0.8% and 0.4%(excluding faring down projects thattake place outside Europe).

This alls short o the planned decreasein the absolute emission cap under theEU ETS: 1.9% each year on averageover 2013-2020, and up to 4.1%should the EU decide to embrace the30% EU-wide GHG reduction target.

In absolute terms, emission reductionsplanned by utility companies reach127mt CO2-eq. by 2020. This can becompared with the reduction eortsrequired o the industries coveredby the EU ETS cap, i.e. 11%, or205mt CO2-eq. by 2020 compared toemission levels in 2009 under the 20%reduction scenario or Europe, or 24%,i.e. 447mt CO2-eq. under the 30%reduction scenario.

These targets refect supply-sidecarbon eciency. As a result, reachingEU ETS targets suggests more

ambitious targets and/or demand-sideeciency to reduce the consumptiono electricity and petroleum products.On this matter, it is interesting to notethat capital goods and automobilemanuacturers are making R&D eortsto commercialise equipment withhigher energy eciency (see dedicatedspecic sector analyses).

Assuming constant emissions atthe 2009 level, emission reductionstargeted by utilities would signicantlyhelp meet the EU ETS cap in 2020under the 20% scenario, while thecap under the 30% scenario remainslargely out o reach, and wouldthus require stronger targets romcompanies (see gure 11).

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

000

500

000

PHASE II PHASE III

Emission cap 20% scenario -127mtCO2

Emission cap 30% scenario

Figure 11: Emission reduction targets ersus EU ETS cap

Emission cap (30% scenario)

Emission cap (20% scenario)

Emissions

Risk and opportunit perceptionIn the Utilities and Materials sectors(the latter including aluminium,

steel, building materials andchemicals producers), as well as inTransportation, companies generallycomplain about the persistinguncertainty over uture climate changepolicies, which create a negativeenvironment or taking decisions toinvest in long-lie assets.

They advocate global sector-wideschemes or regulating carbonemissions rather than regionalinitiatives, as the latter causecompetitive distortions and raise therisk o carbon leakage.

The table 4 summarises the risks andopportunities perceived by sectorssensitive to carbon costs.


24/72

Political Context

Risks Opportunities

Power generation - Uncertainty over rules or use o CERs post-2012 and continuity oEU ETS post-2020

- Reduced demand or electricity due to energy eciency plans andcompliance with demand-side energy-eciency mandates

- Dual steering instruments (renewable energy target and EU ETS) leadto ineciencies and sub-optimisation o production (Fortum)

- Energy services business- Development o renewable energies

Steel - No allocation o ree CO2-rights or waste gases post-2012 underthe EU ETS

- Carbon leakage as CO2 costs distort competition. Call or a globalsectoral scheme

- Surpluses o carbon credits (Arcelor Mittal)- Product diversication in high value productssuch as lightersteels or automotive and construction markets. Increasedprotability (Arcelor Mittal)

Aluminium - Competitive distortion with higher electricity prices. Compensatorymeasures needed or the transition phase until all regions have similarcarbon constraints (Hydro)

- Key requirements or investments in new capacity are long termcompetitive power supply and a predictable regulatory ramework

(Hydro)- Regulations related to vehicle emissions and recycled content couldaect consumption trends o our products (Rio Tinto)

- High energy price level increases the momentum or light-weighting o vehicles, and aluminium is one o the main solutions(Hydro)

- Products that help minimising lighting, heating and cooling, inbuildings and by integrating solar energy generation in the

acades (Hydro)

Cement - Risk o CO2 costs post-2012 and carbon leakage- Risk o having a allocation benchmark not taking into account allreduction levers o the industry (Holcim)

- Energy ecient construction materials (e.g. insulation properties)

Chemicals - Higher electricity prices and direct CO2 costs with no limited capacityto pass-through costs in the price o products

- Numerous products with applications in various sectors (e.g.insulation materials, antiooling coatings, oxygen) help customersto reduce emissions

- Total carbon ootprint can be negative (reductions through the useo products > direct on-site emissions)

Auto - EU emissions standards or cars seen achievable at the price osignicant R&D eorts

- Need to increase the type o models produced in small numbers tot with market specic requirements

- Development o electric vehicles

Shipping - Uncertainty as to how GHG emissions rom shipping will be regulated.The inability to reach an agreement at COP 15 means that local or

regional regulation o GHG emissions rom shipping now seem more

likely. (Maersk)

- Anticipate that the shipowners that can oer the most energyecient or low-carbon feet will have a competitive advantage

in the uture (Maersk)

Table 4: Risks and opportunities perceied b companies sensitie to carbon costs

24


25/72

4

The 2010 CarbonDisclosure Scores

The carbon disclosure scores assesscompanies on the quality andcompleteness o their disclosures andconsider actors including:

Clear consideration o business-specic risks and potentialopportunities related to climate

change; andGood internal data managementpractices or understanding GHGemissions, including energy use.

It is important to note that the carbondisclosure score is not a metric o acompanys perormance in relation toclimate change management, becausethe score does not make any judgmentabout mitigation actions. A companysdisclosure score is based solely on theinormation disclosed in the companysCDP response.

What does a CDP carbon disclosure score represent?The carbon disclosure score is normalised to a 100-point scale. Generally,companies scoring within a particular range suggest levels o commitmentto, and experience o, carbon disclosure. Indicative descriptions o theselevels are provided below or guidance only; investors should read individualcompany responses to understand the context or each business.

High (>70)A higher score typically indicates one or more o the ollowing: Strong understanding and management o company-specic exposure

to climate-related risks and opportunities Strategic ocus and commitment to understanding the business issues

related to climate change, emanating rom the top o the organisation Ability to measure and manage the companys carbon ootprint Regular and relevant disclosure to key corporate stakeholders

Midrange (5070)A midrange score typically indicates one or more o the ollowing: Growing maturity in understanding and managing company-specic

risks and potential opportunities related to climate change Good evidence o ability to measure and manage carbon ootprint

across global operations Commitment to the importance o transparency

Low (


26/72

The 2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores

The Carbon Disclosure LeadershipIndex (CDLI)

The Carbon Disclosure LeadershipIndex (CDLI) includes the companieswith the highest disclosure scoresand provides a valuable perspectiveon the range and quality o responsesto CDPs questionnaire. This yearsCDLI includes the top-scoring 10%o the Europe 300 index2: 25 in total.To qualiy or this leadership index, acompany must respond to CDP byusing the Online Response Systemprior to the deadline and make itsresponse available or public use.

Summar Results o 2010 ScoringO the 300 companies in the Europe 300index, 253 companies responded to theinormation request in 2010. 252 havereceived a carbon disclosure score basedon their answers (with one companyanswering too late to be scored).

Almost hal o the companies (47%)achieved a score higher than 70, andthe average disclosure score is 67.5.This is signicantly above disclosurescores rom 2009.

Figure12 illustrates the distributiono scores. According to the CDPmethodology, 45% o companies haveachieved a high score (>70), whichrefects a high level o understanding oclimate change issues associated witha high level o reporting.

Results b sectorScore analysis at the sector levelreveals signicant gaps. As in the

previous edition, the Utilities sectorranks well above the others with anaverage disclosure score o 75, threepoints ahead o the TelecommunicationServices sector.

These two leading sectors havesomething else in common - thescores obtained by companieswithin these sectors show someo the lowest dispersion o scores(standard deviations) against the sectoraverage (14.8 or Utilities, 13.1 orTelecommunication Services). This isan indication that companies in thesesectors do report better as a group. Inother words, the sector perormancecannot be (ully) attributed to a ewcompanies with extremely high scores.

The Consumer Discretionary sectoralso scores above the Europe 300average, but with a higher scatteringo company scores within this sector(standard deviation: 18.8). This couldbe attributed to the higher diversityo industries represented in the

sector. In terms o disaggregation inthe Consumer Discretionary sector,it appears that the Automobiles& Components industry achievesan average score o 80, whereascompanies within the ConsumerServices industry have a much loweraverage score o 55.

The Energy, Industrials and Financialssectors show more modest resultsin terms o disclosure with average

disclosure scores below 65.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

91-10081-9071-8061-7051-6041-5031-4021-30

Low score (15%) Midrange (40%) High Score (45%)

11-20

Figure 12: Number o companies b score range

26

Number o companies2 The top-scoring 10% includes tied scores.


27/72

27

Results b sectionThe CDP questionnaire is composedo distinct categories o questions

that include dierent aspects, suchas governance, strategy, targets andreporting o emissions data. Thedetail o the scores by section allowsa deeper level o analysis and helpsto better understand which aspectso climate change disclosure sectorsdierentiate.

In general, it is clear that companiesscore better when they describethe corporate governance practicesadopted in response to the climatechange challenge than when theyare asked to identiy (and describe)business opportunities driven byclimate change policies. The averagedisclosure score or governance is89. However, the governance sectionis weighted at only 3% o the totaldisclosure score.

The largest share o the points liein the sections dealing with risksand opportunities, strategies andtargets, and emissions reporting.The three leading sectors (Utilities,

Telecommunication Services, andMaterials) have been especiallygood at reporting identied risks andopportunities related to the climatechange challenge, alongside theirstrategy and emissions reductiontargets. This is also true or the sectionon emissions reporting and emissionsverication statements, althoughother sectors with lower total scores,such as Consumer Discretionaryand Consumer Staples have alsoperormed well in this eld.

The bottom three sectors (Financials,Industrials and Energy) obtainedbelow average or average scores in allsections o the questionnaire.

Healthcare companies wererelatively good at identiying risksand opportunities, but have below-average scores when it comes toreporting on emissions data, reductionstrategies and targets. The ConsumerStaples sector, on the other hand, isclearly weak in identiying risks and

opportunities raised by climate change.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Utilities

Telecommunication

Services

Materials

Consumer

Discretionary

Europe 300

average

Information

Technology

Health Care

Consumer

Staples

Energy

Industrials

Financials 65

65

65

66

66

67

68

69

70

72

75

40

60

80

100

Utilities

TelecommunicationService

s

Materials

ConsumerDiscretionary

ITHealthCare

ConsumerStaples

Energy

Industrials

Financials

Figure 13: Disclosure scores b sector

Figure 14: Disclosure scores b sector or ke sections o the questionnaire

Average disclosure score

Scope 1, 2, 3 emissions dataStrategy & target

Emissions: history, intensity, verication

Risks

Opportunities


28/72

The 2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores

The Carbon Disclosure LeadershipIndex 2010The 25 highest scoring companies

in the Europe 300 index are in theCarbon Disclosure Leadership Index(CDLI). All sectors are represented thisyear, whereas in 2009, no companiesin the Telecommunication Servicessector were included. The ConsumerStaples sector is also more stronglyrepresented with Tesco and Nestljoining Reckitt Benckiser in the index.

Some sectors remain largely over- orunder-represented in the CDLI. TheMaterials sector distinguishes itselclearly, with six companies included inthe index. This sector is thereore morethan twice as highly represented in theindex with respect to the overall indexo scored companies (making up 24%o the CDLI and only 11% o scoredcompanies).

On the contrary, the Financials sectoris largely under-represented. This year,it represents only 8% o companiesin the CDLI and 24% o scoredcompanies.

Siemens ranks rst or this edition,and eleven companies entered theEurope 300 CDLI or the rst time. Theperormance o Deutsche Post, Nestland Teleonica should be highlighted,as their scores have risen by morethan 30 points compared to last yearsresults.

It should also be noted that RoyalDutch Shell has replaced Total in theEnergy sector, and NovoNordisk hastaken the place o GlaxoSmithKline,as the only company to represent theHealthcare sector.

Sector Compan Disclosure

Score 2010

Score 2009

Consumer Discretionary

Philips Electronics 94 73

Renault 93 80; CDLI

Consumer Staples

Reckitt Benckiser 93 80; CDLI

Tesco 92 69

Nestl 92 60

Energy Royal Dutch Shell 89 75

Financials

Royal Bank o Scotland 93 77; CDLI

HSBC Holdings 92 92; CDLI

Health Care Novo Nordisk 89 73

Industrials

Siemens AG 98 85; CDLI

Deutsche Post AG 97 63FERROVIAL 89 68

Saint-Gobain 89 67

Inormation Technology Nokia Group 91 78; CDLI

Materials

BASF SE 96 94; CDLI

Bayer AG 95 95; CDLI

Laarge 94 84; CDLI

UPM-Kymmene Corporation 90 72; CDLI

SCA 90 63; CDLI

Rio Tinto 89 87; CDLI

Telecommunication Services

Teleonica 89 59

BT Group 89 65Utilities

Centrica 92 84; CDLI

Scottish & Southern Energy 90 78; CDLI

EDP - Energias de Portugal S.A. 90 75

Table 5: The Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index 2010

28


29/72

29

5

The 2010 Carbon

Perormance Scores

In the 10 years that CDP hasmonitored disclosure practices,corporate activity has advanced to astage where analysis o perormancecan aid investors who want toidentiy leading companies in carbonmanagement. In 2009, CDP piloted aperormance component in an eortto respond to investor requests or thisanalysis.

This year, all companies withsucient disclosure scores receiveda perormance score; the qualiyingthreshold to receive a perormancescore was a minimum disclosure scoreo 50. Disclosure scores lower than50 do not necessarily indicate poorperormance. Rather, they indicateinsucient inormation to evaluateperormance. For the Europe 300, theperormance scores are published

or the top 15% o the responses (33companies).

While perormance scoring is aninstructive exercise or all stakeholders,CDP recognises that this is a processthat will evolve over time. CDPrecommends that investors reviewindividual company disclosures inaddition to perormance rankings inorder to gain the most comprehensiveunderstanding o companyperormance.

While clear indicators o goodperormance emerge rom the results,there are several actors to considerwhen evaluating where a company isranked in comparison to its peers.

Carbon perormance ranking isbased solely on inormationdisclosed in a companys CDPresponse. Any additional negativeor positive actions that are notdisclosed in a companys CDPresponse are not considered inthe application o the perormancescore methodology.

CDP perormance results shouldbe considered in conjunction withother carbon metrics to providea more comprehensive pictureo a companys perormance onmitigating climate change.

The relative weighting operormance indicators within theRating Methodology does not takeinto consideration certain sector-specic issues and challenges,such as customer expectations,regulatory requirements or cost o

doing business.

It is important or investors tokeep in mind that the CDP carbonperormance score is not: An assessment o the extent to

which a companys actions havereduced carbon intensity relative toother companies in its sector.

An assessment o how material acompanys actions are relativeto the business or to climatemitigation; the score simplyrecognises evidence o orwardaction.

A comprehensive measure o howgreen or low carbon a companyis but, rather, an indicator o theextent to which a company is takingaction to manage its impacts on,and rom, climate change.

Carbon perormance scores ormthe basis or determining the Carbon

Perormance Leadership Index (CPLI)the companies with the highestperormance scores. As with theCDLI, a companys response must bepublicly available to be eligible or theCPLI.


30/72

Figure 15: What are the characteristics o carbon perormanceleadership in 2010?

STRATEGy

GOvERNANCE

STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS

ACHIEvEMENTS

The 2010 Carbon Perormance Scores

The ollowing descriptions explain theour perormance bands that wereused or categorising respondents.

They provide an illustrative example othe potential proles o the companiesthat may be included in each band.The key indicators that identiy thecharacteristics o 2010s perormanceleaders are outlined in Figure 15.Investors are also encouraged toread individual company responsesin order to gain urther context or acompanys carbon perormance score.Care should be taken when comparingperormance across companies.

More inormation can be oundat www.cdproject.net in thequestionnaire, supporting methodologyand guidance documents, as well aswithin individual company responses.

30


31/72

31

The CDP 2010 carbon perormance bands

The carbon perormance score is given as a banded score. Indicative descriptions o the bands ollow and are orguidance only. The drivers o any individual company score may vary across a number o dierent indicators. Assuch, investors should read individual company responses to understand the context or each business.

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

Companies in this band excel or overall perormance relative to those in other bands indicating both higherdegrees o maturity in their climate change initiatives and achievement o their objectives. Companies in this banddemonstrate the ollowing characteristics.

Strateg: With the highest number o signicant risks and opportunities identied, companies in this group werethe most likely to demonstrate integration o their climate-related priorities into their overall business strategy.They requently disclose targets aligned with those ambitions and emission reduction initiatives.

Goernance: These companies demonstrate the most structured and most dened climate change managementmechanisms by requently reporting ormalized accountability, incentives and oversight rom the board orexecutive level.

Stakeholder communications: These companies also recognize the importance o providing transparent andquality disclosure or their stakeholders by taking steps to veriy data and report climate-related inormation intheir external communications.

Achieements: In support o their commitment to reduce emissions, these companies disclose the highestnumber o actions taken to reduce their emissions, and most report success in achieving emissions reductions.

Band B (Fast ollowing): Companies with scores o 51 to 80

Companies in band B also recognize the importance o climate change and are quickly ollowing in the ootsteps othe leading companies. While the majority o companies in band B note climate change as a priority, their responsesindicate that actions and initiatives may not be as established or as well integrated into the companies overallstructures and strategies compared with those in band A. However, there may be a broad spectrum o perormancematurity within this tier, because some seemingly higher-perorming companies in this band may have providedlimited inormation or certain key perormance areas, thereby constraining the ability to ully evaluate them.

Band C (On the journe): Companies with scores o 21 to 50

Companies in band C indicate some activity on climate change. Most companies in this group identiy at least onerisk rom climate change and accordingly exercise some degree o oversight to monitor the progress o their climatechange initiatives. The levels o integration and maturity o those initiatives tend to vary according to disclosure oemissions reduction targets, implementation o emissions reduction activities, employee incentives and vericationo emissions inormation. This group represents a variety o companies, including those that are new to takingaction on climate change, those that do not have climate change objectives as strategic actions or the organisation,

and those that do not believe the agenda to be a shorter-term priority.

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

Companies in this band recognize the importance o participating in CDP, and they have thereore achievedreasonable levels o disclosure (i.e., a disclosure score >50). However, they have disclosed limited evidence oactions taken on mitigation or adaptation. Companies in this band may include (1) those that believe that issuesregarding climate change are not relevant to them and (2) those that are beginning to take action on climate change.As such, no urther assertions can be made about their perormance.


32/72

The 2010 Carbon Perormance Scores

Summar Results o 2010 Scoring

Overall, 217 companies received a

sucient disclosure score to get aCPLI score. The breakdown by band(gure 16) shows that more than twothirds o companies got a grade A orB and only very ew (8 companies)scored in the D band.

The Telecommunication Services,Energy and Utilities sectors are over-represented in the Band A Scorerange. Energy companies representonly 4% o companies with aperormance score, and constitute 9%o the companies in Band A.

This sector is a particularly interestingcase, as it illustrates the disconnectbetween disclosure and perormancescores (the average disclosure score othis sector is below average).

However, a large majority ocompanies in the CDLI did receive highperormance bands (19 A bands, 6 Bbands).

The proportion o Financials companiesis higher in the CPLI than in theCDLI, but the weight o the sector in

these two indices is still below theirweight in the Europe 300 index. Thisindicates that the Financials sectorunderperorms other sectors on arelative basis in terms o disclosure andperormance with regard to climatechange issues (according to CDPscoring methodologies).

CPLI Table Band ATable 6 presents the list o companieswith a Band A perormance scores bysector.

Every sector is represented in theCPLI, in some cases with the samecompanies as in the CDLI (e.g.Consumer Staples, Healthcare, IT). Insome cases, there are minor changes;or example, Rolls Royce appearsinstead o Saint-Gobain in this ranking.

Sector Companies in Perormance

Band A

ConsumerDiscretionary

BMW, Kingsher, PhilipsElectronics, Renault

Consume

cdp 2010 europe 300 report

Documents