More at ease: business and carbon pricing

Transcription

1 More at ease: business and carbon pricing CDP Australia and New Zealand Climate Change Report 212 On behalf of 655 investors with assets of US$78 trillion Report Writer

2 Contents Management of reputational risks is becoming increasingly critical as increased focus on climate change issues occurs CFS Retail Property Trust CEO Foreword by Paul Simpson, CEO, Carbon Disclosure Project 3 Executive Summary 4 CDP Investor Members CDP Signatory Investors Investor Group Perspective 1 Report Writer Perspective 11 Response Analysis 12 Key Themes and Highlights 14 Companies are increasingly comfortable with carbon pricing 14 Action on energy efficiency moves ahead of governance, strategy and targets 17 Consumers have influence and companies are listening, reputation is valuable 2 Innovation is an enabler of market competitiveness 21 Emissions Analysis 23 Direct (Scope 1) emissions 23 Indirect (Scope 2) emissions 25 Corporate Value Chain/Other Indirect (Scope 3) emissions 27 Sector Analysis 28 Verification 32 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Indices 34 Carbon Performance Leadership Indices 38 Appendix I: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company 41 Appendix II: CDP Global Key Trends 48 2

3 CEO Foreword CDP has pioneered the only global system that collects information about corporate behaviour on climate change and water scarcity on behalf of market forces, including shareholders and purchasing corporations. The pressure is growing for companies to build long-term resilience in their business. The unprecedented debt crisis that has hit many parts of the world has sparked a growing understanding that short-termism can bring an established economic system to breaking point. As some national economies have been brought to their knees in recent months, we are reminded that nature s system is under threat through the depletion of the world s finite natural resources and the rise of greenhouse gas emissions. Business and economies globally have already been impacted by the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, which scientists are increasingly linking to climate change 1. Bad harvests due to unusual weather have this year rocked the agricultural industry, with the price of grain, corn and soybeans reaching an all time high. Last year, Intel lost US$1 billion in revenue and the Japanese automotive industry were expected to lose around US$45 million of profits as a result of the business interruption floods caused to their Thailand-based suppliers. It is vital that we internalise the costs of future environmental damage into today s decisions by putting an effective price on carbon. Whilst regulation is slow, a growing number of jurisdictions have introduced carbon pricing with carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes, including Australia and New Zealand. The most established remains the EU Emissions Trading Scheme but moves have also been made in California, China and South Korea among others. Enabling better decisions by providing investors, companies and governments with high quality information on how companies are managing their response to climate change and mitigating the risks from natural resource constraints has never been more important. CDP has pioneered the only global system that collects information about corporate behaviour on climate change and water scarcity, on behalf of market forces, including shareholders and purchasing corporations. CDP works to accelerate action on climate change through disclosure and more recently through its Carbon Action program. In 212, on behalf of its Carbon Action signatory investors CDP engaged 25 companies in the Global 5 to request they set an emissions reduction target; 61 of these companies have now done so. CDP continues to evolve and respond to market needs. This year we announced that the Global Canopy Programme s Forest Footprint Disclosure Project will merge with CDP over the next two years. Bringing forests, which are critically linked to both climate and water security, into the CDP system will enable companies and investors to rely on one source of primary data for this set of interrelated issues. Accounting for and valuing the world s natural capital is fundamental to building economic stability and prosperity. Companies that work to decouple greenhouse gas emissions from financial returns have the potential for both short and long-term cost savings, sustainable revenue generation and a more resilient future. Paul Simpson CEO Carbon Disclosure Project 1: The State of the Climate in 211 report, led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and published as part of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) 3

4 Executive Summary About this report The Australian Securities Exchange ( ASX ) 2 and New Zealand Exchange ( NZX ) 5 is a sample representing the 2 and the 5 largest listed companies, by market capitalisation, of the ASX and NZX respectively. The Carbon Disclosure Project ( CDP ) annual climate change information request was sent to ASX2 and NZX5 companies and almost 6, companies in total globally on behalf of 655 investors with assets of US$78 trillion, asking them to measure and disclose what climate change means for their business. CDP 212 is the seventh year that the ASX and NZX top listed companies have been asked to respond to investors through the CDP. Consistent with last year, 5% of ASX2 companies and 42% of NZX5 companies responded to the CDP questionnaire. Responding companies represent 85% of the ASX2 total market capitalisation and 91% of the NZX5 total market capitalisation. However, fluctuating market capitalisations did see a significant change in the companies included in the ASX2 and NZX5 this year. 32 companies invited to respond this year had not been invited to respond in either of the prior two years, six of which answered the questionnaire. In addition, seven companies responded to the CDP 212 questionnaire having not responded to an invitation in the prior two years. Only seven companies that responded to CDP 211 did not do so this year. Company responses were prepared before the commencement of the Australian carbon price and the release of proposed amendments to the New Zealand (NZ) Emissions Trading Scheme. 4 ASX2 and NZX5 companies are increasingly comfortable with carbon pricing The number of ASX responding companies identifying risks from carbon pricing fell 12% on last year. Only 3% of responding companies rated risks associated with carbon pricing as high. In New Zealand, where carbon pricing commenced in 28, fewer NZX5 companies identify risks from carbon pricing (48%) than their ASX2 counterparts (74%). Whilst many companies were aware of the potential for carbon pricing to increase operational costs, 35% also indicated that carbon pricing could create new business opportunities. Action on energy efficiency Energy efficiency initiatives are emerging as the preferred approach to emissions reduction, with 6% of reported initiatives relating to energy efficiency (a 1% increase on 211). This is a possible indication that rising electricity prices are making investments in energy efficiency increasingly viable. While 8% of responding companies had at least one active emissions reduction initiative in the reporting year, less than half (48%) had a formal emissions reduction target. This may indicate a less than strategic approach, possibly contributing to delayed action and unnecessarily high costs. Consumers have influence and companies are listening, reputation is valuable Companies are increasingly identifying climate change risks and opportunities for their business from areas often considered less tangible; reputation and changing consumer behaviour. The Consumer Staples and Financial sectors in particular predict reduced customer demand if they or their products are perceived to be unresponsive on climate change. By responding to climate change, they identify opportunities to capture new customers with new low carbon products and services. Some companies were also concerned that a lack of responsiveness to climate change will affect their ability to attract investment and retain and attract new staff. ASX2 companies are accelerating improvements in climate change transparency, NZX5 companies need to catch up Companies providing the highest quality climate change disclosure to investors (top 1% of the reporting population) are included each year in the CDP Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index ( CDLI ). Separate leadership indices for ASX2 and NZX5 companies have been published for the first time this year. The minimum disclosure score for inclusion in the ASX2 CDLI in 212 was 86 - a significant increase on the CDP 211 ASX2 and NZX5 CDLI minimum score of was the minimum score for inclusion in the NZX5 CDLI this year. While ASX2 climate change leaders continue to improve the quality of their disclosure, climate change disclosure standards continue to be higher amongst leaders of the Global 5, US (S&P5) and UK (FTSE35) companies. NZX5 responding companies have a way to go on climate change disclosure; 28 ASX2 responding companies scored higher than the highest scoring, NZheadquartered NZX5 company. More companies reported verification of their emissions, with all CDLI and CPLI companies and 53% (Scope 1) and 51% (Scope 2) of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies reporting that they had completed verification/assurance or that is was underway.

5 Table 1 ASX2 companies recognised on both the CDP 212 ASX2 CDLI* and CPLI^ Table 2 NZX5 companies recognised on both the CDP 212 NZX5 CDLI* and CPLI^ Company Sector Carbon disclosure score band Commonwealth Financials 97 A Property Office Fund CFS Retail Financials 95 A Property Trust Mirvac Group Financials 92 A National Financials 91 A Australia Bank Financials 9 A Insurance Australia Group Carbon performance Company Westpac Banking Corporation Carbon Carbon disclosure performance Sector score band Financials 83 A * CDLI = Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index ^ CPLI = Carbon Performance Leadership Index However, only 3% of companies, representing 53% of total Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions, had their verification/assurance approved in line with CDP criteria. Further work on verification is required by both companies and CDP to build confidence in corporate greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions reporting. Innovation is an enabler of market competitiveness Companies are embracing innovation as a means to manage and capitalise on climate change business impacts with 44% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies making it part of their response. Innovation is driving improvements in the design and operation of plant and machinery, and in the creation of new products and services. This ability to ability to adapt to climate change impacts is a strong indication of a company s ability to maintain market competiveness in the longer term. Scoring highlights: Australian banks and property companies continue to outperform, while airlines and retailers have improved significantly Banks and property companies continue to dominate the ASX2 and NZX5 CDLIs and CPLIs, possibly as a result of an increased focus on performance and disclosure associated with concern over reputation and customer expectations. This is unusual by international standards as companies from the Financials sector are under-represented in other CDP indices such as the CDP Global 5 CDLI. Airlines and retailers have made significant improvements in their CDP climate change disclosures this year. Qantas Airways achieved the equal highest carbon disclosure score across the ASX2 and NZX5. Virgin Australia Holdings achieved membership of the ASX2 CDLI for the first time after a very significant improvement in its disclosure score, and Air New Zealand also significantly increased its disclosure score this year. A number of large Australian retailers have also made noticeable improvements in the quality of their climate change disclosures through CDP in 212, including: David Jones, Metcash, Wesfarmers and Woolworths Limited. The average carbon disclosure score for ASX2 companies increased from 62 in 211 to 65 in 212. The NZX5 average disclosure score decreased from 42 in 211 to 37 in 212 for non dual-listed companies. Six companies were included in the ASX2 CPLI, all from the Financials sector. The NZX5 CPLI included only the dual-listed Westpac Banking Corporation. Emissions generally stable from 211 to 212 There was no significant change in direct ( Scope 1 ) greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions reported by ASX2 and NZX5 companies compared to last year, with 11 million metric tons ( t ) CO 2 e emitted in 212. Taking into account a high emitting non-responder, total indirect ( Scope 2 ) GHG emissions, fell approximately 5 million tonnes to 63 million tco 2 e. BHP Billiton reported a 5 million tco 2 e (-2%) Scope 2 GHG emission reduction, with the purchase of zero carbon emissions hydro-electricity to power the Mozal aluminium smelter contributing to this improvement. ASX2 GHG emissions are heavily concentrated. Whilst 93% of Scope 1 and 99% of Scope 2 emissions were reported by ASX1 companies, this reflects the emissions intensive nature of a number of sectors. The Materials sector alone accounts for 6% of all ASX2 Scope 1 and 77% of all ASX2 Scope 2 GHG reported emissions. A large market capitalisation is not necessarily reflective of high emissions. In 212, 54% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies disclosed data on at least one Corporate Value Chain ( Scope 3 ) emission source. 5

6 CDP Investor Members CDP works with investors globally to advance the investment opportunities and reduce the risks posed by climate change by asking almost 6, of the world s largest companies to report on their climate strategies, GHG emissions and energy use in the standardized Investor CDP format. To learn more about CDP s member offering and becoming a member, please contact us or visit the CDP Investor Member section at net/investormembers 1 CDP INVESTOR SIGNATORIES & ASSETS 2 (US$ CDP TRILLION) Investor AGAINST Signatories TIME & Assets (US$ Trillion) against time Investor CDP Signatories Investor CDP CDP Signatory Signatories Assets Investor CDP Signatory Assets Number of Signatories Aegon AKBANK T.A.Ş. Allianz Global Investors Aviva Investors AXA Group Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Blackrock BP Investment Management California Public Employees Retirement System - CalPERS California State Teachers Retirement Fund - CalSTRS Calvert Asset Management Company Catholic Super CCLA Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Generation Investment Management HSBC Holdings Legg Mason London Pension Fund Authority Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S/A CDP investor members and signatories headquartered in Australia or New Zealand are marked in red text Assets (US$ Trillions) Morgan Stanley National Australia Bank NEI Investments Neuberger Berman Newton Investment Management Ltd Nordea Investment Management Norges Bank Investment Management PFA Pension Robeco Rockefeller & Co. SAM Group Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Schroders Scottish Widows Investment Partnership SEB Sompo Japan Insurance Inc Standard Chartered TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc. The RBS Group The Wellcome Trust Signatory Investor Breakdown 259 Asset Managers 22 Asset Owners 143 Banks 33 Insurance 13 Other % 5% 2% 39% 33%

7 CDP Signatory Investors financial institutions with assets of US$78 trillion were signatories to the CDP 212 information request dated February 1st, 212 Aberdeen Asset Managers Aberdeen Immobilien KAG mbh ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Achmea NV Active Earth Investment Management Acuity Investment Management Addenda Capital Inc. Advanced Investment Partners AEGON N.V. AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd AFP Integra AIG Asset Management AK Asset Management Inc. AKBANK T.A.Ş. Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Alcyone Finance AllenbridgeEpic Investment Advisers Limited Allianz Elementar Versicherungs-AG Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Allianz Group Altira Group Amalgamated Bank AMP Capital Investors AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Amundi AM ANBIMA Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos Mercados Financeiro e de Capitais Antera Gestão de Recursos S.A. APG AQEX LLC Aquila Capital Arisaig Partners Asia Pte Ltd Arma Portföy Yönetimi A.Ş. ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. ASN Bank Assicurazioni Generali Spa ATI Asset Management ATP Group Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Australian Ethical Investment AustralianSuper Avaron Asset Management AS Aviva Investors Aviva plc AXA Group Baillie Gifford & Co. BaltCap BANCA CÍVICA S.A. Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena Group Banco Bradesco S/A Banco Comercial Português S.A. Banco de Credito del Peru BCP Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Banco do Brasil S/A Banco Espírito Santo, SA Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social - BNDES Banco Popular Español Banco Sabadell, S.A. Banco Santander Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social Banesto Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A. Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of Montreal Bank Vontobel Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.h. BANKIA S.A. BANKINTER BankInvest Banque Degroof Banque Libano-Francaise Barclays Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank BASF Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Basler Kantonalbank Bâtirente Baumann and Partners S.A. Bayern LB BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh BBC Pension Trust Ltd BBVA Bedfordshire Pension Fund Beetle Capital BEFIMMO SCA Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited Bentall Kennedy Berenberg Bank Berti Investments BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Terceiros Ltda BlackRock Blom Bank SAL Blumenthal Foundation BNP Paribas Investment Partners BNY Mellon BNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage Gesellschaft Boston Common Asset Management, LLC BP Investment Management Limited Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. British Airways Pension Investment Management Limited British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcimc) BT Investment Management Busan Bank CAAT Pension Plan Cadiz Holdings Limited Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Caisse des Dépôts Caixa Beneficente dos Empregados da Companhia Siderurgica Nacional - CBS Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Caixa Econômica Federal Caixa Geral de Depositos CaixaBank, S.A California Public Employees Retirement System California State Teachers Retirement System California State Treasurer Calvert Investment Management, Inc Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) Canadian Labour Congress Staff Pension Fund CAPESESP Capital Innovations, LLC CARE Super Carmignac Gestion Catherine Donnelly Foundation Catholic Super CBF Church of England Funds CBRE Cbus Superannuation Fund CCLA Investment Management Ltd Celeste Funds Management Limited Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Ceres CERES-Fundação de Seguridade Social Change Investment Management Christian Brothers Investment Services Christian Super Christopher Reynolds Foundation Church Commissioners for England Church of England Pensions Board CI Mutual Funds Signature Global Advisors City Developments Limited Clean Yield Asset Management ClearBridge Advisors Climate Change Capital Group Ltd CM-CIC Asset Management Colonial First State Global Asset Management Comerica Incorporated COMGEST Commerzbank AG CommInsure Commonwealth Bank Australia Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Compton Foundation Concordia Versicherungsgruppe Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) Credit Suisse Daegu Bank Daesung Capital Management Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Dalton Nicol Reid CDP investor members and signatories headquartered in Australia or New Zealand are marked in red text de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A. DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Delta Lloyd Asset Management Deutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbh Deutsche Bank AG Development Bank of Japan Inc. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Dexia Asset Management Dexus Property Group DnB ASA Domini Social Investments LLC Dongbu Insurance DWS Investment GmbH Earth Capital Partners LLP East Sussex Pension Fund Ecclesiastical Investment Management Ecofi Investissements - Groupe Credit Cooperatif Edward W. Hazen Foundation EEA Group Ltd Elan Capital Partners Element Investment Managers ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência Environment Agency Active Pension fund Epworth Investment Management Equilibrium Capital Group equinet Bank AG Erik Penser Fondkommission Erste Asset Management Erste Group Bank Essex Investment Management Company, LLC ESSSuper Ethos Foundation Etica Sgr Eureka Funds Management Eurizon Capital SGR Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Evangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern Canada Evli Bank Plc F&C Investments FACEB FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDÊNCIA DOS EMPREGADOS DA CEB FAELCE Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade Social FAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária da Extensão Rural do Rio Grande do Sul FASERN - Fundação COSERN de Previdência Complementar Fédéris Gestion d Actifs FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH FIM Asset Management Ltd FIM Services FIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementar dos Empregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPq FIRA. - Banco de Mexico First Affirmative Financial Network, LLC First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Firstrand Group Limited Five Oceans Asset Management Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) Folketrygdfondet Folksam Fondaction CSN Fondation de Luxembourg Forma Futura Invest AG Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment-Gesellschaft mbh Fukoku Capital Management Inc FUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários Federais Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Brasiletros Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Fundação Attilio Francisco Xavier Fontana Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Fundação BRDE de Previdência Complementar - ISBRE Fundação Chesf de Assistência e Seguridade Social Fachesf Fundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da Companhia Riograndense de Saneamento Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES - FAPES FUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROS Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social - FORLUZ Fundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e Assistência Social FUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCO Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Fundação Rede Ferroviária de Seguridade Social - Refer FUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA E ASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL - FUSAN 7

8 8 Fundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel) Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIA FUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIA COMPLEMENTAR DA CAESB Futuregrowth Asset Management Garanti Bank GEAP Fundação de Seguridade Social Generali Deutschland Holding AG Generation Investment Management Genus Capital Management Gjensidige Forsikring ASA Global Forestry Capital SARL GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eg Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale Vermögensentwicklung mbh Governance for Owners Government Employees Pension Fund ( GEPF ), Republic of South Africa GPT Group Graubündner Kantonalbank Greater Manchester Pension Fund Green Cay Asset Management Green Century Capital Management GROUPAMA EMEKLILIK A.Ş. GROUPAMA SIGORTA A.Ş. Groupe Crédit Coopératif Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. GROUPE OFI AM Grupo Financiero Banorte SAB de CV Grupo Santander Brasil Gruppo Bancario Credito Valtellinese Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Hanwha Asset Management Company Harbour Asset Management Harrington Investments, Inc Hauck & Aufhäuser Asset Management GmbH Hazel Capital LLP HDFC Bank Ltd Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Henderson Global Investors Hermes Fund Managers HESTA Super HIP Investor Holden & Partners HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbH HSBC Holdings plc HSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh HUMANIS Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance. Co., Ltd. Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. IBK Securities IDBI Bank Ltd Illinois State Board of Investment Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company Impax Asset Management IndusInd Bank Limited Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. Industrial Bank (A) Industrial Bank of Korea Industrial Development Corporation Industry Funds Management Infrastructure Development Finance Company ING Group N.V. Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos- Postalis Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREV Instituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - SEBRAEPREV Insurance Australia Group IntReal KAG Investec Asset Management Investing for Good CIC Ltd Irish Life Investment Managers Itau Asset Management Itaú Unibanco Holding S A Janus Capital Group Inc. Jarislowsky Fraser Limited JOHNSON & JOHNSON SOCIEDADE PREVIDENCIARIA JPMorgan Chase & Co. Jubitz Family Foundation Jupiter Asset Management Kaiser Ritter Partner (Schweiz) AG KB Kookmin Bank KBC Asset Management NV KBC Group KCPS Private Wealth Management KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. KDB Daewoo Securities KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m. b. H. Keva KfW Bankengruppe Killik & Co LLP Kiwi Income Property Trust Kleinwort Benson Investors KlimaINVEST KLP Korea Investment Management Co., Ltd. Korea Technology Finance Corporation (KOTEC) KPA Pension Kyrkans pensionskassa La Banque Postale Asset Management La Financiere Responsable Lampe Asset Management GmbH Landsorganisationen i Sverige LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbh LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond Legal & General Investment Management Legg Mason Global Asset Management LGT Capital Management Ltd. LIG Insurance Co., Ltd Light Green Advisors, LLC Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. Lloyds Banking Group Local Authority Pension Fund Forum Local Government Super Local Super Logos portföy Yönetimi A.Ş. London Pensions Fund Authority Lothian Pension Fund LUCRF Super Lupus alpha Asset Management GmbH Macquarie Group Limited MagNet Magyar Közösségi Bank Zrt. MainFirst Bank AG MAMA Sustainable Incubation AG Man MAPFRE Maple-Brown Abbott Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. Maryland State Treasurer Matrix Asset Management MATRIX GROUP LTD McLean Budden MEAG MUNICH ERGO AssetManagement GmbH Meeschaert Gestion Privée Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Mendesprev Sociedade Previdenciária Merck Family Fund Mercy Investment Services, Inc. Mergence Investment Managers Meritas Mutual Funds MetallRente GmbH Metrus Instituto de Seguridade Social Metzler Asset Management Gmbh MFS Investment Management Midas International Asset Management Miller/Howard Investments Mirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd. Mirae Asset Securities Mirvac Group Ltd Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Mistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Mn Services Momentum Manager of Managers (Pty) Limited Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S/A Morgan Stanley Mountain Cleantech AG MTAA Superannuation Fund Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia Nanuk Asset Management Natcan Investment Management Nathan Cummings Foundation, The National Australia Bank National Bank of Canada NATIONAL BANK OF GREECE S.A. National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme National Grid UK Pension Scheme National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) NATIXIS CDP investor members and signatories headquartered in Australia or New Zealand are marked in red text Nedbank Limited Needmor Fund NEI Investments Nelson Capital Management, LLC Neuberger Berman New Alternatives Fund Inc. New Amsterdam Partners LLC New Mexico State Treasurer New York City Employees Retirement System New York City Teachers Retirement System New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF) Newton Investment Management Limited NGS Super NH-CA Asset Management Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Nipponkoa Insurance Company, Ltd Nissay Asset Management Corporation NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG Nordea Investment Management Norfolk Pension Fund Norges Bank Investment Management North Carolina Retirement System Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) NORTHERN STAR GROUP Northern Trust Northward Capital Pty Ltd Nykredit Oddo & Cie OECO Capital Lebensversicherung AG ÖKOWORLD Old Mutual plc OMERS Administration Corporation Ontario Teachers Pension Plan OP Fund Management Company Ltd Oppenheim & Co. Limited Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment) OPTrust Oregon State Treasurer Orion Energy Systems Osmosis Investment Management Parnassus Investments Pax World Funds Pensioenfonds Vervoer Pension Denmark Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists Pension Protection Fund Pensionsmyndigheten Perpetual Investments PETROS - The Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Social PFA Pension PGGM Vermogensbeheer Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd. PhiTrust Active Investors Pictet Asset Management SA Pioneer Investments PIRAEUS BANK PKA Pluris Sustainable Investments SA PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Pohjola Asset Management Ltd Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation Portfolio 21 Investments Porto Seguro S.A. Power Finance Corporation Limited PREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTAR PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Brasil PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar ProLogis Provinzial Rheinland Holding Prudential Investment Management Prudential Plc Psagot Investment House Ltd PSP Investments Q Capital Partners QBE Insurance Group Rabobank Raiffeisen Fund Management Hungary Ltd. Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.h. Raiffeisen Schweiz Genossenschaft Rathbones / Rathbone Greenbank Investments RCM (Allianz Global Investors) Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência Social Rei Super Reliance Capital Ltd

9 Resolution Resona Bank, Limited Reynders McVeigh Capital Management RLAM Robeco Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation Rockefeller Financial (trade name used by Rockefeller & Co., Inc.) Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment Rothschild Royal Bank of Canada Royal Bank of Scotland Group RPMI Railpen Investments RREEF Investment GmbH Russell Investments SAM Group SAMPENSION KP LIVSFORSIKRING A/S SAMSUNG FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE Samsung Securities Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda Santam Sarasin & Cie AG SAS Trustee Corporation 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 Pension Fund Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) Shinhan Bank Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Signet Capital Management Ltd Smith Pierce, LLC SNS Asset Management Social(k) Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - Prevdata Socrates Fund Management Solaris Investment Management Limited Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Sopher Investment Management SouthPeak Investment Management SPF Beheer bv Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Standard Bank Group Standard Chartered Standard Chartered Korea Limited Standard Life Investments State Bank of India State Street Corporation StatewideSuper StoreBrand ASA Strathclyde Pension Fund Stratus Group Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc. Sun Life Financial Inc. Superfund Asset Management GmbH SUSI Partners AG Sustainable Capital Sustainable Development Capital Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Swedbank AB Swift Foundation Swiss Re Swisscanto Asset Management AG Syntrus Achmea Asset Management T. Rowe Price T. SINAI KALKINMA BANKASI A.Ş. Tata Capital Limited TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund Telluride Association Tempis Asset Management Co. Ltd Terra Forvaltning AS TerraVerde Capital Management LLC TfL Pension Fund The ASB Community Trust The Brainerd Foundation The Bullitt Foundation The Central Church Fund of Finland The Children s Investment Fund Management (UK) LLP The Collins Foundation The Co-operative Asset Management The Co-operators Group Ltd The Daly Foundation The Environmental Investment Partnership LLP The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust The Korea Teachers Pension (KTP) The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada The Pinch Group The Presbyterian Church in Canada The Russell Family Foundation The Sandy River Charitable Foundation The Shiga Bank, Ltd. The Sisters of St. Ann The United Church of Canada - General Council The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund The Wellcome Trust Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Threadneedle Asset Management TOBAM Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc Toronto Atmospheric Fund Trillium Asset Management Corporation Triodos Investment Management Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment Tryg UBS Unibail-Rodamco UniCredit SpA Union Asset Management Holding AG Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH Unione di Banche Italiane S.c.p.a. Unionen Unipension UNISON staff pension scheme UniSuper Unitarian Universalist Association United Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health Benefits United Nations Foundation Unity Trust Bank Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) Vancity Group of Companies VCH Vermögensverwaltung AG Ventas, Inc. Veris Wealth Partners Veritas Investment Trust GmbH Vermont State Treasurer Vexiom Capital, L.P. VicSuper Victorian Funds Management Corporation VietNam Holding Ltd. Vinva Investment Management Voigt & Coll. GmbH VOLKSBANK INVESTMENTS Waikato Community Trust Inc Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust & Investment Management Company WARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbh WARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH Water Asset Management, LLC Wells Fargo & Company West Yorkshire Pension Fund WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM) Westpac Banking Corporation WHEB Asset Management White Owl Capital AG Winslow Management, A Brown Advisory Investment Group Woori Bank Woori Investment & Securities Co., Ltd. YES BANK Limited York University Pension Fund Youville Provident Fund Inc. Zegora Investment Management Zevin Asset Management Zurich Cantonal Bank CDP investor members and signatories headquartered in Australia or New Zealand are marked in red text CalSTRS (California State Teachers Retirement System) CalSTRS board has made climate risk management the signature issue in our corporate governance engagement program. CDP data is an essential input and is reviewed prior to meeting with companies on any issue to ensure that the discussion covers climate risk if warranted. CDP data is also very important to CalSTRS as we develop and execute our shareholder resolutions. Jack Ehnes, CEO 9

10 Investor Group Perspective CDP has played a critical role in preparing local investors for the implementation of carbon pricing and the Australian Clean Energy Future Act. 1 The Investor CDP climate change disclosure program is now in its seventh year in Australia and NZ. Since 26, the quality of the climate change disclosures by local companies through CDP has improved substantially. The benefits of more consistent and comparable climate disclosures by companies are now also being seen in substantial improvements in the way that investors use the information in their investment processes. In a recent survey of investor group members on their climate change investment practice, 94% of Australian asset managers and 83% of Australian asset owners reported that they use quantitative data in their assessment of climate change risk. In the global survey sample, of the 34 responding asset managers that are CDP signatories, 31 use CDP data. While investor group members are among the most active on climate risk management globally, the numbers are encouraging. The high level of use of quantitative climate data is attributable in large part to the benefits of consistent and comparable reporting via CDP. The most common reported uses for CDP data include assessment of emissions profiles, qualitative assessment of risk management and for relevant sectors, assessment of the potential consequences of the physical impacts of climate change. It is worth noting that respondents indicated they often rely on investment brokers for analysis about the materiality of carbon price impacts. While investment brokers were not surveyed on their sources of climate change data, a range of data sources are known to be used by Australian analysts, including the CDP reports of local and international companies. To emphasise the value of improving data quality, the recent investor survey results also showed that further data assurance by companies would encourage deeper integration of CDP data. We encourage companies to continue on their verification and assurance journeys. Climate policy settings also matter. Responding to questions about the drivers of quantitative climate change analysis, many Australian respondents stated that the recent adoption by the Australian Government of the Clean Energy Future Act has deepened climate risk analysis across investment processes. CDP has played a critical role in preparing local investors for the implementation of carbon pricing and the Australian Clean Energy Future Act. Australian and NZ investor signatories to the CDP again thank local companies for their participation in the program. Our undertaking to disclosing companies is that we will continue to work to more deeply integrate disclosed data into our investment practices. Disclosures by companies and analysis by investors will continue to improve insights on company prospects and will help all concerned to price company value accordingly. We look forward to working with you in future years. Nathan Fabian Chief Executive Investor Group on Climate Change

11 Report Writer Perspective It is critical that businesses are thinking strategically to allow the efficient allocation of capital as they seek to optimise energy efficiency outcomes on both an environmental and a financial basis. With the commencement of Australia s carbon price behind us, most businesses are handling the transition with minimal upheaval. Companies have continued to take action on the implementation of energy efficiency opportunities at an even greater rate and scale than 211. However, the focus on implementation of energy efficiency initiatives, at times in the absence of clear targets, indicates a less than strategic approach by many organisations, possibly contributing to delayed action and higher than necessary costs to the business in the medium to longer term. It is critical that businesses are thinking strategically to allow the efficient allocation of capital as they seek to optimise energy efficiency outcomes on both an environmental and a financial basis. The assurance of greenhouse gas and energy data is a key driver of improved internal management processes that can be harnessed for strategy review and continuous improvements in performance. It is pleasing that the number of companies seeking some form of verification or assurance of their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions continued to increase in 212. The application of the Carbon Disclosure Project s ( CDP ) increasingly stringent criteria for the scoring and reporting of verification and assurance claims is impacting disclosure and performance scores and I encourage companies to discuss these requirements with their assurance provider to ensure their verification or assurance activities are recognised by CDP. Respondents to the recent GlobeScan/SustainAbility Rate the Raters 212 Polling the Experts 1 survey identified the CDP as the most credible sustainability rating. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu was very pleased to continue our role this year as the CDP Australian & New Zealand Climate Change Report Partner. The process of taking a yearly snapshot of Australia and New Zealand s largest listed companies response to climate change is a complex project and underscores our leading role in providing a broad range of carbon advisory, reporting and assurance services to clients. We would like to thank the CDP along with all the current Australian and New Zealand Institutional Investor Signatories for the opportunity to participate in such an important industry benchmarking process and also thank participating companies for their efforts in responding and continued support of the Investor CDP climate change disclosure program. BJ Pollock Lead Partner Sustainability Deloitte Australia 1: GlobeScan / SustainAbility (212), Rate the Raters, Phase Five: Polling the Experts A GlobeScan / SustainAbility Survey [Online] library/rate-the-raters-phase-five-polling-the-experts

12 Response Analysis Fig 1 Breakdown of the ASX2 companies by GICS sector as at 3 December Consumer 7 Consumer Staples 2 Energy 35 Financials 1 Health Care 32 Industrials 4 Information Technology 53 Materials 4 Telecommunication Services 8 Utilities Fig 2 Breakdown of the NZX5 companies by GICS sector as at 3 December Consumer 3 Consumer Staples 2 Energy 13 Financials 3 Health Care 6 Industrials 1 Information Technology 4 Materials 3 Telecommunication Services 4 Utilities The Australian Securities Exchange ( ASX ) 2 and New Zealand Exchange ( NZX ) 5 is a sample representing the 2 and the 5 largest listed companies, by market capitalisation, of the ASX and NZX respectively. Throughout this report, subsets of the ASX2 and NZX5 universe of companies are separately analysed for comparison including the ASX1, the ASX2 and the NZX5. Consistent with reports of previous years, the Global Industry Classification Standard ( GICS ) is used to classify companies into sectors. The ASX2 continues to be dominated by the Materials and Financials sectors, which represent approximately 27% and 18% of companies respectively. In comparison, only 8% of the NZX5 companies are from the Materials sector. The Financials (26%) and Consumer (22%) are the largest two sectors of the NZX5. The overall response rate for ASX2 and NZX5 companies is 48%. The response rates for the ASX2 and the NZX5 remained static from 211 at 5% and 42% respectively. Whilst the ASX1 response rate was higher at 71%, it is still lower than the Global 5 response rate of 81% and virtually unchanged from 73% in 211 and 72% in 21. Responding companies represent 85% of the ASX2 total market capitalisation and 91% of the NZX5 total market capitalisation. As the CDP provides a valuable medium for companies to disclose their management response to climate change risks and opportunities, there was an expectation that the commencement of the carbon price in Australia would be a driver of increased disclosure through the CDP, however this was not the case. Transparency of responding companies is generally high, with the majority of those companies that do respond choosing to make their responses public (ASX2: 84%, NZX5: 76%). More companies are also reporting verification of their emissions see Verification section for further information. However, fluctuating market capitalisations did result in a significant change in the companies included in the ASX2 and NZX5 this year. 32 companies invited to respond this year had not been invited to respond in either of the prior two years, 6 of which answered the questionnaire. In addition, 7 companies responded to the CDP 212 questionnaire having not responded to an invitation in the prior two years. Only 6 companies that responded to CDP 211 did not do so this year. Response rates within the ASX2 were highest in the Consumer Staples (71%) Financials (69%) and Utilities (5%) sectors. Table 3 Companies who responded to CDP 211 but not to CDP 212 Company Sector Index Adelaide Brighton Materials ASX2 Bank of Queensland Financials ASX1 Contact Energy Utilities NZX5 New Zealand Oil & Gas Energy NZX5 PGG Wrightson Consumer Staples NZX5 Singapore Telecom Telecommunication Services ASX2

13 In the NZX5, all three Health Care sector companies responded, as did the single Telecommunications sector company. However there was no response from Energy or Consumer Staples companies, a continued concern to investors seeking to understand the implications of climate change for their investment decisions. Table 4 Largest non-responding ASX1 companies^ Company Singapore Telecom QR National Westfield Retail Trust Iluka Resources ASX Sonic Healthcare Lend Lease Group Ramsay Health Care ResMed Cochlear ^ by market capitalisation, as at 3 December 211. Table 5 Sector Telecommunication Services Industrials Financials Materials Financials Health Care Financials Health Care Health Care Health Care Largest non-responding NZX5 companies^ Company Sector Telecom Corporation Telecommunication Services of New Zealand Contact Energy Utilities Vector Utilities TrustPower Utilities Sky City Entertainment Group Consumer Port Of Tauranga Industrials Goodman Fielder Consumer Staples Mainfreight Industrials Guinness Peat Group Consumer New Zealand Refining Company Energy ^ by market capitalisation, as at 3 December 211. ASX2 and NZX5 companies can reasonably expect greater scrutiny of their operations and performance including requests for disclosure and should prepare themselves accordingly, however a number of nonresponding companies cited a lack of reliable emissions data as a reason for declining to respond to the CDP questionnaire. Encouragingly, the majority of these companies indicated that they are moving to address this. Other non-responding companies reported that their operations were currently in start-up phase and the business not yet mature enough to provide a meaningful response. Lack of availability of resources and cost to the business of preparing a response, were also reasons given. Certainly, for some companies, the focus is on other reporting and compliance obligations such as the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 27 ( NGER ) and Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 26 ( EEO ). However the Investor CDP climate change disclosure program remains a critical means for investors to understand climate change risks and opportunities facing companies beyond just compliance to GHG emission reporting or energy efficiency obligations as required under these other schemes, and is unique in the marketplace. Investors seek disclosure of corporate climate change information through CDP to gain a deeper understanding of the carbon risks and opportunities facing companies at a consolidated and listed entity level beyond the reporting of quantitative data relating to Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data required under NGER. This includes understanding factors such as: offshore emissions (i.e., made outside Australia and/or New Zealand); carbon management strategies employed; climate change governance arrangements; physical risks and market opportunities amongst other issues. Fig 3 ASX2 and NZX5 responses to CDP 212 by sector ASX2 NZX5 Public responses Non Public responses Percentage response rate (public and private) by sector 212 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 19 3 CD 71 CS 1 45 EGY 3 69 FIN 1 HC IND 25 IT 6 34 MAT 25 TCOM 13 5 UTIL Percentage response rate (public and private) by sector 212 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 9 18 CD CS EGY FIN HC 33 IND 1 IT 25 MAT 67 TCOM 25 UTIL 13

14 Key Themes and Highlights All proposals for property acquisition are submitted to DEXUS s Investment Committee and include analysis of climate change and sustainability risks and environmental performance. Dexus Property Group With all of the public and political discussion on the 1 July 212 commencement of Australia s carbon price and the review of New Zealand s Emissions Trading Scheme ( NZETS ), it was anticipated that company response, prepared before the commencement of the Australian carbon price or release of proposed amendments to the NZETS, would be focussed on the associated risks and opportunities. However, it appears ASX2 and NZX5 companies are becoming more and more at ease with carbon pricing, and confronted with rising electricity prices are focussing attention on energy efficiency. From analysis of company responses a number of key themes have emerged offering valuable insights to investors, policy makers and others in seeking to understand the drivers of and barriers to meaningful corporate action on climate change. Companies are increasingly comfortable with carbon pricing At the time of responding to CDP 212, only 15% of ASX2 responding companies reported participating in at least one Emissions Trading Scheme ( ETS ) with the European Union ETS ( EU ETS ) the most commonly cited. Voluntary participation was also reported. However, from 1 July 212 Australia s largest emitters were liable for a carbon price of $23 for every tonne of GHG (CO 2 -e) emitted. The establishment of the carbon price was a key component of the Australian Federal Government s Clean Energy Legislative Package that sets out the roadmap to transition Australia to a low carbon, clean energy economy over the coming decades. This is the likely driver of the 27% of ASX1 and 24% of ASX2 responding companies indicating that they expect to be participating in an ETS within the next two years. Whilst liable entities adjust to this new carbon price regime, other components of the Clean Energy Legislative Package are taking effect including changes to the aviation and diesel fuel tax credit schemes, tax cuts and a range of other assistance measures for households and the roll out of a range of financial assistance measures to business, all of which need to be considered by both direct and indirectly affected companies. However, climate change policy uncertainly remains with the Australian Federal Opposition unchanged in its position that it will unwind the carbon price and other elements of the Government s Clean Energy Legislative Package should it win government at the next Federal election, although it does acknowledge that this may take some time. 14

15 Australia s Clean Energy Future Legislation More than 2 separate Clean Energy Bills passed the Senate in November 211 and received Royal Assent by December 211. Commencing 1 July 212 the carbon pricing mechanism is an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price of $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) (indexed annually by 2.5%) for the first 3 years. On the 1 July 215 the ETS converts to a flexible, market-based mechanism. Generally, a threshold of 25, tonnes of direct CO 2 e emissions applies for determining whether a facility will be covered by the carbon pricing mechanism. The sectors covered are stationary energy, industrial processes, fugitive processes (other than decommissioned coal mines), non-legacy waste and limited coverage of the transport sector. Airline, mining and rail transport companies may opt in to manage their carbon costs themselves rather than pay the equivalent carbon price under the fuel tax or excise systems. Agriculture and land-use emissions are excluded. The scheme covers four of the six greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from aluminium smelting. Synthetic greenhouse gases such as hydrofluorocarbon, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride have an equivalent carbon price applied through increased levies via the existing Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act New Zealand offers a similar picture, with only 24% of NZX5 responding companies participating in at least one ETS. Since its commencement in 28 and then subsequent amendment in 29 following the election of the National Party led coalition Government, the NZETS was subject to independent review in 211. The Government has recently released its planned amendments, with a consultation period underway. Amongst the proposed amendments are an extension to the transitional arrangements beyond 212 including the one for two NZU surrender deal and a deferral to the start date for surrender obligations for biological emissions from agriculture such as methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from animal excrement and the use of nitrogen fertiliser. The Prime Minister also signalled that he would wait for action from the rest of the world before putting a cost on biological agricultural emissions. Current New Zealand economic conditions are driving Government action to minimise the cost of the scheme on businesses and consumers. New Zealand s Emissions Trading Scheme Commenced in 28 Covers all sectors of the economy, yet individual sectors of the economy have different entry dates for when obligations for voluntary reporting, mandatory reporting and surrendering of New Zealand Units ( NZU ) take effect A fixed price option of NZ$25 per tonne, but one NZU may be surrendered for two tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, making the effective price NZ$12.5 per tonne. In discussion of risks and opportunities, many responding companies have used the terms carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes or ETS interchangeably and as such have been combined for analysis in this report. Overall, 69% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies identified a risk to their business from carbon pricing down from the 81% 211, illustrating that companies are feeling increasingly comfortable with carbon pricing. The risk perception is higher in ASX1 responding companies (83%), being more likely to be directly impacted. By contrast, the risk perception is significantly lower amongst NZX5 companies (52%), where perhaps companies who have had a longer time to participate in an active scheme have adapted to carbon price risk. Of those companies that identified a risk to their business from carbon pricing only 3% (3) responding companies consider this a high risk. These are the same three companies as in David Jones, Origin Energy and OneSteel. Unsurprisingly given their higher likelihood of direct impact, the Industrial, Utilities and Energy sectors have the highest percentage of members identifying risks from carbon pricing. Obvious concerns about indirect impacts are coming through from the Financials and Consumer Staples sectors, perhaps reflecting a belief that discretionary spending may decrease if household budgets are under pressure. Amongst the ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies that identified a risk from carbon pricing, the most commonly stated risks were increased operational cost (88% of companies identifying risks due to carbon pricing) followed by reduced demand for goods and services (14%). Amongst Airlines and Airport Services companies Auckland International Airport, Qantas Airways and Virgin Australia Holdings all identified this risk of reduced demand for goods and services as customers may seek lower cost and lower emission transport options. 15

16 Despite being a perceived risk of increased operational cost, many responding companies (35%) reported that carbon pricing was also a driver of business opportunites. Although down from 211 (56%), this may be an indication that companies are adopting a business as usual approach now that the scheme is better understood. ASX1 responding companies were more frequently reporting opportunities (46%), whilst only 14% of NZX5 responding companies did so. The Energy sector, the sector with the largest percentage of members identifying risks from carbon pricing, also had a high percentage identifying opportunities (7%). Respondents commonly identified an increase in economic attractiveness of gas compared to coal, thereby increasing the demand for gas resources for electricity generation. The Industrials sector, whilst lower at 5% identifying opportunities was focussed on reducing operational costs through process and energy efficiency improvements. Within those companies that identified a carbon pricing opportunity, the most common opportunity drivers were new products and services (28%) or increased demand for existing products and services (26%). AGL Energy predict the carbon price will increase wholesale electricity prices allowing opportunities to develop new gas fired and renewable generation facilities and Aquila Resources predict opportunities to develop local power generation from coal seam gas. From a business perspective, carbon pricing brings with it a multitude of opportunities and risks, and regardless of which sector the company is in, the key will be to understand and minimise the risks, while maximising the new and existing array of opportunities. Fig 4 ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies identifying risks and opportunities from carbon pricing BHP Billiton maintains an internal mechanism for costing carbon and determining carbon price impacts on greenfield and brownfield developments and on mergers and acquisitions BHP Billiton A price of $23 per tonne of carbon (for FY13) will affect input costs to our manufacturers, suppliers and the business direct Woolworths Limited The changing political landscape regarding an impending carbon pricing scheme in Australia will affect Mirvac in the near future. For new-build project, we estimate the cost increase to be 1-1.5% Mirvac Group % responding companies reporting carbon price risks % responding companies reporting carbon price opps 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% the carbon price will tend to increase the economic attractiveness of gas as a fuel for generation compared to coal Origin Energy 3% 2% % 13 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 16 opps

17 Action on energy efficiency moves ahead of governance, strategy and targets In CDP 211 it was clear that the business focus on climate change was strengthening, however whilst there have been improvements in some areas this year, evidence of continuous improvement in governance, strategy and targets is not a strong trend. Despite this, companies are taking action to reduce their GHG emissions particularly through the implementation of energy efficiency initiatives. Governance There has been no significant improvement in the number of responding companies reporting climate change issues to the Board and executive, which remained stable at 72% (from 73% in 211). The proportion of companies that reported having no individual or committee with overall responsibility for climate change has encouragingly decreased from 6% in 211 to 4%. With the increase of new responding companies to CDP 212, that the levels of Board and executive oversight have remain stable is an indication that companies are thinking of climate change impacts on their business and establishing the necessary governance structures earlier in their growth phase. Within ASX2 responding companies, 75% reported that responsibility for climate change rests at Board and executive level. Perhaps surprisingly given their likely carbon pricing liabilities, not all ASX2 Materials sector responding companies make climate change a Board, executive or senior management issue. This is a possible indicator that carbon pricing risks may not be being appropriately managed by these some companies in the Materials sector. Board and executive responsibility for climate change in NZX5 companies also needs to be strengthened with only 67% appointed at this level. Encouragingly, the number of responding companies linking climate change related performance metrics with remuneration has increased. Of the 63% of ASX2 and 48% of NZX5 responding companies that provided any form of incentive (an increase from 53% and 45% respectively in 211), 58% of ASX2 and NZX5 respondents offered monetary incentives, up from 44% in 211. For example, Environmental Managers at Telstra Corporation have the delivery of targets and programs included in their Performance Development Plans. Embedding climate change performance metrics within remuneration is a strong indication of the increasing level of importance the issue is receiving. Fig 5 Board or other senior management oversight by sector in 212 for ASX1, ASX2 & NZX5 responding companies ASX1 Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board ASX1 Senior Manager/Officer ASX2 Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board ASX2 Senior Manager/Officer NZX5 Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board NZX5 Senior Manager/Officer 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 ASX1 ASX2 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 17

18 Strategy Responding companies continue to report greater integration of climate change into the company business strategy (88% of ASX2 and NZX5, 96% of ASX1, 89% of ASX2 and 86% of NZX5 responding companies). A 21% increase in integration by NZX5 companies is hopefully an early indication that the performance score of NZX5 companies will improve over the coming years. The continued focus on integration is encouraging as it shows companies are considering climate change alongside core business drivers. However, responding companies overall need to provide greater clarity on the material effect of this on their business. Targets From 4% in 21 and 45% in 211, 52% of ASX2 responding companies report that they have absolute and/or intensity emission reduction targets. However the increase is not universal, with the NZX5 dropping to 43% from 5% in 211, a surprising outcome given the expectation that the NZETS, now in its fourth year, should be a driver for companies to implement emissions reduction targets. A variety of reasons were given for the absence of targets, including waiting for policy certainty, a lack of reliable baseline information and an expectation that future business strategy will see GHG emissions increase. A number of companies also stated that their GHG emissions were so low that targets were not warranted. Highly efficient buildings encourage greater demand from tenants, lower vacancy rates and stronger rental growth. This results in assets with a lower risk profile and ultimately higher valuations. Commonwealth Property Office Fund Of continuing concern is the continuing low number of responding companies in high emitting sectors with absolute and/ or intensity emission reduction targets. Only 2% of Utilities, 33% of Materials and 4% of Energy ASX2 responding companies disclose an absolute and/or intensity emissions reduction target. This was an area where improvement was expected in line with the commencement of the carbon price, perhaps it will require the financial effects to be felt before the majority of companies in these sectors take action. Encouragingly, the Industrial sector has demonstrated a step change in the number of companies disclosing targets since 211, with an increase of 28% up to 67% of responding companies. Fig 6 climate change integrated into overall business strategy for ASX1, ASX2 & NZX5 responding companies ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% % 4% 5 3% 2% 1% CD CS NA EGY NA FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 18 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 X1 X2 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5

19 Fig 7 Companies with emission reduction targets by sector Absolute & intensity targets Absolute targets Intensity targets No targets % of responding companies in sector with any target % of sector with any target No. of companies % 4 13% CD 1% 14 67% 61% 11 56% 5% 5% 4% 33% % 6 32% % % 2% 2% % 2 8% CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM 17% 8% UTIL 5 1% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % of sector Taking into account the non-responders, 92% of all Utilities companies (85% in 211), 82% of all Energy companies (83% in 211) and 87% of all Materials companies (82% in 211) did not have any GHG emission reduction targets. This general level of unresponsiveness to GHG emissions management is problematic and demonstrates a continued lack of preparedness to respond to carbon pricing and economy wide emission reduction targets. Companies with targets are not setting the bar particularly 14 high for themselves. Of the absolute GHG emission reduction targets reported to include at least 12 8% of Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions, the average percentage 1 target reduction across all periods reported was just 12%, although a slight increase on 11% reported in 8CDP Action on energy efficiency Companies are perhaps adopting an actions speak louder than words approach, given that whilst only 48% of all ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies had emission reduction targets in place, 8% had at least one NTemission reduction initiative active within the reporting year. Energy efficiency initiatives are emerging as the preferred AT approach to emissions reduction, with 6% (up from 5% NT in 211) of reported initiatives relating to energy AIT efficiency (37%: energy efficiency of building IT services, 21% energy efficiency of operational processes, 3% energy efficiency of building fabric). A possible indication AT that rising electricity prices are increasing management focus and improving investment returns on energy efficiency AIT initiatives. IT Table 6 Average percentage reduction for absolute targets for ASX2 4 and NZX5 responding companies 6 2 Average % CD reduction CS EGY FIN Sector Consumer 1% 7% Consumer Staples 2% 1% Energy 4%.2% Financials 17% 14% Industrials 13% 33% Materials 12% 13% Utilities 3%.2% Average across all responding companies 11% 12% * average percentage reduction is applied only to those ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies with targets covering more than 8% of either Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions, and is independent of base year. This is supported by the quantum of monetary savings from energy efficiency initiatives reported, increasing from AU$75 million in 211 to AU$166 million this year. This represents 71% of all emission reduction monetary savings reported. HC IND IT MATTCOMUTIL On a sector basis, 39% of the AU$272 million of reported annual monetary savings were from the Materials sector. Rio Tinto alone reported AU$68 million in annual monetary savings from improvements in the energy efficiency of its processes from a AU$112 million investment, a payback of less than 2 years. This is typical of the average payback period of emissions reductions initiatives of 1-3 years, consistent with 211. However, other sectors are clearly prepared to take a longer term view of payback periods. Within the Financials sector, Real Estate companies reported AU$9 million in annual monetary savings from energy efficiency initiatives from 19

20 AU$166 million invested, corresponding to a payback of approximately 18 years. This is a possible reflection of lengthy building life expectancy and accrual of energy savings to the tenant, but the long payback does indicate that additional Government incentives may be required to mobilise wholesale building energy performance improvements across the sector. Whilst there was a strong focus on energy efficiency initiatives, 22% of responding companies were undertaking initiatives relating to behavioural change, evidence that people are critical to long term GHG emission reduction. Initiatives relating to low carbon energy installation remain a small proportion of initiatives being undertaken (8% in 212 from 6.5% in 211), however total investment of $1.2 billion in these initiatives represents 68% of all investment, an indication of significant barriers to wholesale adoption. With the onset of the carbon price and favourable payback periods in evidence, it could be expected to see a step change in annual monetary savings next year as proactive companies look to minimise the direct or indirect impacts of the carbon price. However the disconnect between setting targets and implementing emission reduction initiatives could indicate a less than strategic approach by the majority of companies, possibly contributing to delayed action and higher than necessary costs of implementation. Consumers have influence and companies are listening, reputation is valuable Companies are increasingly identifying and considering, climate change risks and opportunities for their business from areas often considered less tangible; reputation and changing consumer behaviour. 37% of ASX2 and NZX5 companies report reputational risks, an increase from 34% in 211. Reporting of risks from changing consumer behaviour also increased to 29% from 27% in 211. Similarly, the identification and management of these same drivers are driving opportunities for an increasing number of responding companies, with 3% (up from 25% in 211) reporting that changing consumer behaviour in response to climate change issues has provided them with new opportunities. Reputation impacts remained static at 25%. At times, it was the management of an identified risk that created the opportunity. Table 7 ASX2 and NZX5 companies reporting risks and opportunities from reputation and changing consumer behaviour Reputation % identifying risks % identifying opportunities Changing Consumer Behaviour % % identifying identifying risks opportunities ASX1 49% 37% 31% 39% ASX2 4% 3% 29% 32% NZX5 33% 24% 29% 9% Fig 8 ASX2 and NZX5 companies reporting risks and opportunities from changing consumer behaviour by sector Companies reporting reputational risks Companies reporting reputational opportunities Companies reporting risks from changing consumer behaviour Companies reporting opportunities from changing consumer behaviour 1% 9% 8% 7% 8 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 25 CD 31 6 CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT 5 TCOM 5 UTIL 5 2