Carbon Disclosure Project Nordic Report 2009

Transcription

1 Carbon Disclosure Project Nordic Report 2009 On behalf of 475 investors with assets of $55 trillion Report written by: Carbon Disclosure Project Nordic Region Amanda Haworth Wiklund +46 (0) Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) (0)

2 CDP Signatories 2009 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 This report and all of the public responses from corporations are available to download free of charge from CDP Members 2009 ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Brazil Aegon N.V. Netherlands AIG Investments US APG Investments Netherlands ASN Bank Netherlands ATP Group Denmark Aviva Investors UK AXA Group France Bank of America Corporation US BBVA Spain BlackRock US BP Investment Management Limited UK Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Canada California Public Employees Retirement System US California State Teachers Retirement System US Calvert Group US Catholic Super Australia CCLA Investment Management Ltd UK CIBC Canada Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd Japan Essex Investment Management, LLC US Ethos Foundation Switzerland Folksam Sweden Fortis Investments Belgium Generation Investment Management UK Grupo Santander Brasil Brazil ING Netherlands KLP Insurance Norway Legg Mason, Inc. US Libra Fund, L.P. US London Pensions Fund Authority UK Mistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Sweden Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Japan Morgan Stanley Investment Management US National Australia Bank Limited Australia Neuberger Berman US Newton Investment Management Limited UK Northwest and Ethical Investments LP Canada Pictet Asset Management SA Switzerland Rabobank Netherlands Robeco Netherlands Russell Investments UK Schroders UK Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) Sweden Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Japan Standard Chartered PLC UK Sun Life Financial Inc. Canada Swiss Reinsurance Company Switzerland The RBS Group UK The Wellcome Trust UK Zurich Cantonal Bank Switzerland CDP Signatories institutional investors with assets of over US$55 trillion were signatories to the CDP 2009 information request dated 1st February 2009, including: Aachener Grundvermögen Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany Aberdeen Asset Managers UK Acuity Funds Canada Addenda Capital Inc. Canada Advanced Investment Partners US Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd South Africa Aegon N.V. Netherlands Aeneas Capital Advisors US AGF Management Limited Canada AIG Investments US Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) Canada Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Canada Alcyone Finance France Allianz Group Germany Altshuler Shacham LTD Israel AMP Capital Investors Australia AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Germany APG Investments Netherlands ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance) Australia Arkitekternes Pensionskasse Denmark Artus Direct Invest AG Germany ASB Community Trust New Zealand ASN Bank Netherlands ATP Group Denmark Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Australia Australian Ethical Investment Limited Australia AustralianSuper Australia Aviva Investors UK Aviva plc UK AXA Group France Baillie Gifford & Co. UK Bakers Investment Group Australia Banco Sweden Banco Bradesco S.A Brazil Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Argentina Banco do Brazil Brazil Banco Santander, S.A. Spain Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social Brazil Bank of America Corporation US Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd Switzerland Bank Vontobel Switzerland BANKINTER S.A. Spain Barclays Group UK BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany BBC Pension Trust Ltd UK BBVA Spain Bedfordshire Pension Fund UK Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd Canada BlackRock US Blue Marble Capital Management Limited Canada BMO Financial Group Canada BNP Paribas Investment Partners France Boston Common Asset Management, LLC US BP Investment Management Limited UK Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. Brazil British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcimc) Canada BT Financial Group Australia BT Investment Management Australia Busan Bank South Korea CAAT Pension Plan Canada Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Canada Caisse des Dépôts France Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Brazil Caixa Econômica Federal Brazil Caixa Geral de Depósitos Portugal California Public Employees Retirement System US California State Teachers Retirement System US California State Treasurer US Calvert Group US Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Canada Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Canada CAPESESP Brazil Capital Innovations, LLC US CARE Super Pty Ltd Australia Carlson Investment Management Sweden Carmignac Gestion France Catherine Donnelly Foundation Canada Catholic Super Australia Cbus Superannuation Fund Australia CCLA Investment Management Ltd UK Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church UK Ceres, Inc. US Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP UK CI Mutual Funds Signature Advisors Canada CIBC Canada Clean Yield Group, Inc. US ClearBridge Advisors, Socially Aware Investment US Close Brothers Group plc UK Colonial First State Global Asset Management Australia Comite syndical national de retraite Bâtirente Canada Commerzbank AG Germany CommInsure Australia Companhia de Seguros Aliança do Brasil Brazil Compton Foundation, Inc. US Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds US Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) UK Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia Crédit Agricole Asset Management France Credit Suisse Switzerland Daegu Bank South Korea Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Japan DB Advisors Deutsche Asset Management Germany DEFO Deutsche Fonds für Immobilienvermögen GmbH Germany DEGI Deutsche Gesellschaft für Immobilienfonds mbh Germany Deka FundMaster Investmentgesellschaft mbh Germany Deka Investment GmbH Germany DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Germany Deutsche Bank Germany Deutsche Postbank Privat Investment Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany Development Bank of Japan Japan Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Philippines Dexia Asset Management France DnB NOR ASA Norway Domini Social Investments LLC US DPG Deutsche Performancemessungs- Gesellschaft für Wertpapierportfolio mbh Germany East Sussex Pension Fund UK Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social Brazil ELETRA Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência Brazil Environment Agency Active Pension fund UK Epworth Investment Management UK Erste Group Bank AG Austria Essex Investment Management, LLC US Ethos Foundation Switzerland Eureko B.V. Netherlands Eurizon Capital SGR Italy Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Canada Evli Bank Plc Finland F&C Management Ltd UK Faelba Brazil FAELCE Fundação Coelce de Seguridade Social Brazil Fédéris Gestion d Actifs France First Affirmative Financial Network US First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Sweden FirstRand Ltd. South Africa Fishman & Co. Israel Five Oceans Asset Management Pty Limited Australia Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) US Folksam Sweden Fondaction CSN Canada Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites FRR France Fortis Bank Nederland Netherlands Fortis Investments Belgium Forward Management, LLC US Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) Sweden Frankfurter Service Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft mbh Germany Franklin Templeton Investment Services Gmbh Germany Frater Asset Management South Africa Friends Provident UK Front Street Capital Canada 2 3

3 CDP Signatories 2009 Fukoku Capital Management Inc Japan Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social Brasiletros Brazil Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Brazil Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Brazil Fundação CEEE de Seguridade Social ELETROCEEE Brazil Fundação Codesc de Seguridade Social FUSESC Brazil Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES FAPES Brazil Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social FORLUZ Brazil Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Brazil Fundação São Francisco de Seguridade Social Brazil Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social VALIA Brazil FUNDIÁGUA - Fundação de Previdência da Companhia de Saneamento e Ambiental do Distrito Federal Brazil Gartmore Investment Management Ltd UK Generation Investment Management UK Genus Capital Management Canada Gjensidige Forsikring Norway GLG Partners LP UK Goldman Sachs & Co. US Governance for Owners UK Government Employees Pension Fund ( GEPF ), Republic of South Africa South Africa Green Cay Asset Management Bahamas Green Century Funds US Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. Canada GROUPE OFI AM France GrowthWorks Capital Ltd. Canada Grupo Banco Popular Spain Grupo Santander Brasil Brazil Gruppo Monte Paschi Italy Guardian Ethical Management Inc Canada Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation New Zealand Hang Seng Bank Hong Kong HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbH Germany Harrington Investments US Hastings Funds Management Limited Australia Hazel Capital LLP UK Health Super Fund Australia Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany Henderson Global Investors UK Hermes Fund Managers UK HESTA Super Australia Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) Canada HSBC Holdings plc UK Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co, Ltd South Korea IDBI Bank Limited India Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company Finland Impax Group plc UK Industrial Bank China Industry Funds Management Australia Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. (IDFC) India ING Netherlands Inhance Investment Management Inc Canada Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd UK Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos- Postalis Brazil Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social INFRAPREV Brazil Insurance Australia Group Australia Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany Investec Asset Management UK Itaú Unibanco Banco Múltiplo S.A. Brazil J.P. Morgan Asset Management US Janus Capital Group Inc. US Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Canada Jubitz Family Foundation US Jupiter Asset Management UK K&H Investment Fund Management/K&H Befektetési Alapkezelö Zrt Hungary KB Kookmin Bank South Korea KBC Asset Management NV Belgium KCPS and Company Israel KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. South Korea Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, LP US KfW Bankengruppe Germany Kibo Technology Fund South Korea KLP Insurance Norway Korea Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd. South Korea KPA Pension Sweden Kyobo Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd. South Korea La Banque Postale Asset Management France La Financiere Responsable France LBBW Landesbank Baden-Württemberg Germany LBBW Asset Management GmbH Germany LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond Denmark Legal & General Group plc UK Legg Mason, Inc. US Lend Lease Investment Management Australia Libra Fund, L.P. US Light Green Advisors, LLC US Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. Switzerland Local Authority Pension Fund Forum UK Local Government Superannuation Scheme Australia Local Super SA-NT Australia Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie Switzerland London Pensions Fund Authority UK Lothian Pension Fund UK Macif Gestion France Macquarie Group Limited Australia Magnolia Charitable Trust US Maine State Treasurer US Man Group plc UK Maple-Brown Abbott Limited Australia Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. US Maryland State Treasurer US McLean Budden Canada MEAG Munich Ergo Asset Management GmbH Germany MEAG Munich Ergo Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany Meeschaert Gestion Privée France Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Japan Merck Family Fund US Mergence Africa Investments (Pty) Limited South Africa Meritas Mutual Funds Canada Metzler Investment Gmbh Germany Midas International Asset Management South Korea Miller/Howard Investments US Mirae Investment Asset Management South Korea Mistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Sweden Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Japan Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd. Japan Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Japan Mn Services Netherlands Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany Morgan Stanley Investment Management US Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd Australia MP Pension Pensionskassen for Magistre og Psykologer Denmark Munich Re Group Germany Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia Finland Natcan Investment Management Canada Nathan Cummings Foundation, The US National Australia Bank Limited Australia National Bank of Canada Canada National Bank of Kuwait Kuwait National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme UK National Grid UK Pension Scheme UK National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland Ireland Natixis France Needmor Fund US Nest Sammelstiftung Switzerland Neuberger Berman US New Alternatives Fund Inc. US New Jersey Division of Investment US New Mexico State Treasurer US New York City Employees Retirement System US New York City Teachers Retirement System US New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF) US Newton Investment Management Limited UK NFU Mutual Insurance Society UK NH-CA Asset Management South Korea Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Japan Nissay Asset Management Corporation Japan Nordea Investment Management Sweden Norfolk Pension Fund UK Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Norway Norinchukin Zenkyouren Asset Management Co., Ltd Japan North Carolina State Treasurer US Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) UK Northern Trust US Northwest and Ethical Investments LP Canada Oddo & Cie France Old Mutual plc UK OMERS Administration Corporation Canada Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Canada Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment) Norway Oregon State Treasurer US Orion Asset Management LLC US Pax World Funds US PBU Pension Fund of Early Childhood Teachers Denmark Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists Denmark Pension Protection Fund UK Pensionskassen for Jordbrugsakademikere og Dyrlæger Denmark PETROS The Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Social Brazil PFA Pension Denmark PGGM Netherlands Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd. Canada PhiTrust Active Investors France Pictet Asset Management SA Switzerland Pioneer Alapkezelö Zrt. Hungary Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany PKA Denmark Portfolio 21 Investments US Portfolio Partners Australia Porto Seguro S.A. Brazil PPM Premiepensionsmyndigheten Sweden PRECE Previdência Complementar Brazil PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Brasil Brazil Principle Capital Partners Limited UK PSP Investments Canada QBE Insurance Group Limited Australia Q Capital Partners South Korea Railpen Investments UK Rathbones/Rathbone Greenbank Investments UK Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência Social Brazil Rei Super Australia Rhode Island General Treasurer US RLAM UK Robeco Netherlands Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment US Royal Bank of Canada Canada RREEF Investment GmbH Germany Russell Investments UK SAM Group Switzerland Sanlam Investment Management South Africa Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda Brazil Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen Germany Savings & Loans Credit Union (S.A.) Limited. Australia Schroders UK Scotiabank Canada Scottish Widows Investment Partnership UK SEB Sweden SEB Asset Management AG Germany Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) Sweden Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Finland Sentinel Funds US SERPROS Fundo Multipatrocinado Brazil Service Employees International Union Benefit Funds US Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) Sweden Shinhan Bank South Korea Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd South Korea Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Japan Shinsei Bank Limited Japan Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Germany Signet Capital Management Ltd Switzerland Skandia Nordic Division Sweden SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD Japan Smith Pierce, LLC US SNS Asset Management Netherlands Social(k) US Société Générale France Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Japan Souls Funds Management Limited Australia SPF Beheer bv Netherlands Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Canada Standard Chartered PLC UK Standard Life Investments UK State Street Corporation US Statewide Superannuation Trust Australia Storebrand ASA Norway Strathclyde Pension Fund UK Stratus Group Brazil Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Japan Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited Japan Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., Ltd Japan Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Japan Sumitomo Trust & Banking Japan Sun Life Financial Inc. Canada Superfund Asset Management GmbH Germany Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Sweden Swedbank Sweden Swiss Reinsurance Company Switzerland Swisscanto Holding AG Switzerland Syntrus Achmea Asset Management Netherlands TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc. Canada Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) US Tempis Capital Management South Korea Terra Forvaltning AS Norway TfL Pension Fund UK The Bullitt Foundation US The Central Church Fund of Finland Finland The Collins Foundation US The Co-operators Group Ltd Canada The Daly Foundation Canada The Dreyfus Corporation US The Japan Research Institute, Limited Japan The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust UK The Local Government Pensions Insitution (LGPI) (keva) Finland The Presbyterian Church in Canada Canada The RBS Group UK The Russell Family Foundation US The Shiga Bank, Ltd. Japan The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited South Africa The Sustainability Group at the Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge Office US The Travelers Companies, Inc. US The United Church of Canada General Council Canada The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund UK The Wellcome Trust UK Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Sweden Threadneedle Asset Management UK Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Japan Toronto Atmospheric Fund Canada Trillium Asset Management Corporation US Triodos Bank Netherlands TrygVesta Denmark UBS AG Switzerland Unibanco Asset Management Brazil UniCredit Group Italy Union Asset Management Holding AG Germany Union Investment Institutional GmbH Germany Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH Germany Union Investment Service Bank AG Germany Union PanAgora Asset Management GmbH Germany UniSuper Australia Unitarian Universalist Association US United Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health Benefits US United Nations Foundation US Universal Investment Gesellschaft mbh Germany Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) UK Vancity Group of Companies Canada VERITAS SG INVESTMENT TRUST GmbH Germany Vermont State Treasurer US VicSuper Pty Ltd Australia Victorian Funds Management Corporation Australia Visão Prev Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar Brazil Waikato Community Trust Inc New Zealand Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust and Investment Management Company US Warburg-Henderson Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbh Germany West Yorkshire Pension Fund UK WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM) Germany Westpac Investment Management Australia Winslow Management Company US WOORI BANK South Korea YES BANK Limited India York University Pension Fund Canada Youville Provident Fund Inc. Canada Zurich Cantonal Bank Switzerland 4 5

4 Contents CDP Signatories Executive summary 8 2 Foreword 10 Connie Hedegaard Danish Minister for Climate and Energy 3 CDP Nordic Region Report 11 Amanda Haworth Wiklund Director CDP Nordic region 4 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index 12 5 Nordic Company Responses 15 6 Risks, Opportunities and Emissions 24 by Industry Group Will setting a price on CO 2 emissions 36 solve the long-term climate problem? Martin Gavelius, Director Energy & Utilities - Climate Change Services Öhrlings PricewaterhouseCoopers AB 7 Overview of CDP 38 8 Appendix 1: 41 CDLI Scores and Emissions 9 Appendix 2: 46 CDP 2009 Questionnaire Jens Olsen's clock on the Copenhagen Town Hall shows Can COP 15 determine last-minute measures to prevent irreversible, disastrous global climate change? Cover Photo: Thomas Lekdorf 6 7

5 1 Executive Summary 1 Executive Summary Response rates For the third year in a row the number of Nordic companies responding to the CDP information request increased, from 110 in 2008 to 128 in With 196 companies in the Nordic sample the overall response rate increased by 6% to 65% for CDP The higher response rate can to some extent be attributed to the fact that 19 companies declined to participate last year but completed responses for CDP this year. A consideration of responses from a geographic perspective shows that Sweden has the highest response rate of 85% followed by Denmark and Finland (68%), and Norway (35%). The Norwegian response rate is surprisingly low and efforts will be made to break the downward trend. Response rates also vary from sector to sector. The Health Care sector performed very well, with all 13 companies responding to CDP Other high responding sectors are from Materials, Consumer Discretionary, and Telecommunications & IT with response rates of 87%, 80% and 75% respectively. Lower response rates came from the Energy & Utilities (50%) and Financials (56%) sectors. Transparency Responding companies can choose to make their responses public or nonpublic when submitting their responses to CDP. 70% of all Nordic companies submitted public responses. This figure has been stable throughout the last three years. For 2009 transparency rates were similar across all four Nordic countries. There are cross-industry discrepancies on public disclosure. Interestingly, the Energy & Utilities sector had the lowest response rate but the highest public disclosure rate. Other sectors with high rates of public responses are Materials (85%) and Industrial (75%), both carbon intensive sectors. It is both interesting and reassuring to find the top three CO 2 emitting sectors 8 coming out best in class in terms of public disclosure. Risks and Opportunities In the Materials sector, which includes paper & forest and metals & mining firms, the entire sector identifies increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation as a risk, as it could potentially lead to higher energy costs. On the other hand, companies in this sector see climate change-related opportunities in bio-fuels and energy efficiency solutions. Companies in the Energy & Utilities sector identify regulatory risks as potentially leading to increased energy costs once the new EU climate agreement starts in This sector identifies climate change-related opportunities in renewable energy. The Industrials sector is the largest, with 44 responding companies. Companies in this sector see climate change risks throughout their value chain. Responses indicate that companies are preparing for climate change by putting energy reduction plans in place. Emissions accounting Companies report both direct and indirect emissions to CDP (Scopes 1, 2, and 3). 51% of overall Scope 1 emissions come from the Industrials sector, where the transportation industry accounts for 43% of these. The other carbon-intensive sectors, Energy & Utilities and Materials, emit 28% and 20% of Scope 1 emissions respectively. The remaining industry sectors contribute marginally to Scope 1 emissions. Not surprisingly, companies in the Energy & Utilities sector have the highest average Scope 1 emissions. The sector consists of relatively few large companies, and the average Scope 1 emissions figure for the sector is almost metric tonnes CO 2. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is identified as both a risk and an The overall response rate increased by 6% to 65% for CDP % of all reported Scope 1 emissions came from the Industrials sector. opportunity by responding companies. 86% of the companies in the Energy & Utilities sector either operate or have ownership of facilities covered by the EU ETS. The Materials sector comes next with 85%. In total 24% of the surveyed sample is covered by this scheme. A new CDP question for 2009 asked corporations how, through the use of their products and services, other companies can avoid or reduce emissions. Companies in the Industrials sector, and within the Commercial services & supplies industry, are investing in renewable energy solutions and IT-services for energy efficiency to take steps toward achieving this goal. Emissions Reduction Plans One important CDP question asks what companies are doing to mitigate GHG emissions. 80% of the responding companies answered that they have a GHG emissions and/or energy reduction plan in place. Although 20% of responding companies do not currently have reductions plans in place, 72% of these companies are currently engaged in the process of defining them. Governance 77% of all responding companies say that either a board committee or other executive body has overall management responsibility for handling climate change. About one third indicate that they have incentive systems in place for individuals with climate change responsibilities. 59% of responding companies report engagement with policymakers on climate change related issues. Report findings show variation in levels of engagement across sectors, with the carbon intensive sectors reporting the highest levels of policymaker engagement (Materials 92% and Energy & Utilities 86%). Carbon Disclosure Leaders The Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) has been developed to highlight the companies that provide the most comprehensive responses to the CDP information request. The CDLI 2009 includes the top 10% or 21 leading Nordic companies who have provided inclusive responses. The main objective of the CDLI is to identify leaders and to inspire other Nordic companies to participate and commit to full carbon disclosure. It is important to realise that the index is based on self-reported and in many cases non-verified company responses, and the company score is not a guarantee for actual company performance. Companies representing industry sectors Energy & Utilities, Health Care, and Materials are well positioned in this year s CDLI. 80% of the responding companies answered that they have a GHG emission and/or energy reduction plan in place. 9

6 2 Foreword by Connie Hedegaard Danish Minister for Climate and Energy 3 CDP Nordic region report Amanda Haworth Wiklund, Director CDP Nordic region The structure of this year s Nordic Report has shifted from giving national comparisons to making sector comparisons. We trust that this will prove of greater benefit to investors. * For the third year a number of the largest listed companies in the Nordic region were approached on behalf of the signatory investors. The selection was increased from 190 for CDP 2008 to 200 for CDP All Icelandic corporations were removed due to the collapse of the country s economy. Some companies have been excluded from the stock exchange due to closures and mergers. There were 22 newcomers selected from Denmark, Norway and Sweden that received the information request for the first time. The CDP process is now a familiar figure on the Nordic corporate landscape. It is gradually becoming recognised as a valuable tool for assessing how to survive in the gathering climate awareness of governments and society. For the first time workshops were offered in each capital city in early March to offer assistance in completing the information request. They were all well attended with an average of 85 participants including presenters from industry, accountancy and consultancy. Some companies not in the CDP investor selection attended because they realised a businessto-business customer might contact them via the Supply Chain Programme. Many corporations say they recognise how the process of completing the questionnaire provides an important guide to re-structuring their activities towards a low carbon economy. Perhaps due to the intense focus of COP15, the Danish response rate rose significantly to 68% from 52% last year, while the Swedes did extremely well at 85% (80%). Finland had a good increase at 68% (59%), but Norway dropped for the second year and reached a surprisingly low 35% (38%). Quantity in no way reflects quality. Yet we do notice impressive efforts by some companies to improve the quality of their reporting as to content and details. Nordic Partners ATP, Denmark, Folksam, Sweden KLP, Norway Nordic signatories Denmark: Arkitekternes Pensionskasse, ATP Group, Lønemottagerned dyrtidsfond, MP Pension, PBU- Pension Fund for Early Childhood Teachers, Pension fund for Danish lawyers and Economics, Pensionskassen for Jordbrugsakademikere og Dyrlæger, PFA Pension, PKA, TrygVesta Finland: Evli Bank Plc, Illmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance, Mutual Insurance Company Pension Fennia, Seligson&Co Fund Mangement, The Central Church Fund of Finland, The Local Government Pension Institution Norway: DnBNor ASA, Gjensidige Forsikring, KLP Insurance, Norges Bank Investment Managagement (NBIM), Opplysningsvesenets fond, Storebrand ASA, Terra forvaltning AS Sweden: AP1, AP2, AP3, AP4, AP7, Banco, Carlson Investment Management, Folksam, KPA Pension, Mistra Foundation, Nordea Investment Management, PPM Premiepensionsmyndigheten, SEB, Skandia Nordic Division, Svenska kyrkan, Swedbank 10 * We remind investors that this report offers a statistical overview and conclusions drawn by the reporting team from the answers provided by all companies that have allowed their responses to be public (90). To read those responses not publicly available (38) it is necessary to be a signatory institutional investor to the CDP process. For other methods of access a fee is required. For details please contact our London office. 11

7 4 CDLI Leadership Index 4 CDLI Leadership Index Table 1: Top CDLI Scores and Ranking Company Country Parent sector CDLI Score CDLI Ranking Norske Skogindustrier Norway Materials 84 1 This year s top achievers were Norske Skogindustrier (Materials) 84 points, Hakon Invest AB (Consumer Discretionary) 83 points, and Gunnebo (Industrials) 81 points. These three companies had already featured on CDLI in CDP 2008 or CDP The Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) has been developed to highlight the companies that provided the most comprehensive response to the CDP information request. The CDLI includes 21 leading Nordic companies that all provide detailed answers. In 2009 the CDLI will be presented as one listing of companies from all industry sectors. In previous years companies were grouped in carbon-intensive and low-carbon sectors. The CDLI indicates the best disclosure performers for the CDP 2009 Nordic report. These leading companies from all sectors give valuable insights to investors on how to integrate climate change risks and opportunities in business practice. The list is made up of the leading ten percent of companies that have agreed to make their answers available to the public. Company answers are scored according to a thorough methodology (available at and weighted to a 100 point scale. It is important for investors and other readers to realize that the index is based on self-reported and in many cases non-verified company responses. The company score is not a guarantee for actual company performance. CDLI scoring does not take into account or judge different levels of emissions, target setting, and reduction achievements. The main objective of CDLI is to identify leaders and at the same time invite other Nordic 200 companies to commit to full carbon disclosure. A full listing of CDLI scores and the levels of disclosure of the respondents can be viewed in Appendix I. Some companies are classified as NP, not public which means that they have responded to the information request but they have asked to not have their answers publically disclosed. Appendix II gives a summary of the CDP questionnaire. The reason for not dividing the CDLI into carbon-intensive and low-carbon companies is that such a distinction does not feel necessary any more. The impact from climate change is now a reality in all industry sectors and is not exclusive to the carbonintensive. The CDP methodology has consequently been developed so that all types of sector can be represented in one index. In this year s CDLI the carbon intensive sectors (Energy & Utilities, Health Care, Industrials, and Materials) are represented by 16 out of 21 companies (76%). There is an over representation in CDLI for carbonintensive sectors since 60% of all 128 responding companies fall into these sectors. The average score for the 21 companies in the CDLI is 76 points, compared to 55 points which represent the average score for all respondents from the Nordic sample. In table 1 showing the CDLI by country, we can see that the distribution broadly follows the representation of respondents by country. Companies from Sweden and Norway are slightly under-represented and consequently companies from Denmark and Finland slightly overrepresented. In table 2 showing CDLI per sector we see that Financials are clearly under-represented which has also been the case historically. Consequently, Energy & Utilities, Health Care, and Materials are three sectors that are over represented in CDLI and indicate a higher degree of disclosure rates from these sectors. Hakon Invest AB Sweden Consumer Discretionary 83 2 Gunnebo Sweden Industrials 81 3 Fortum Finland Utilities 79 4 Vestas Wind Systems A/S Denmark Industrials 78 5= Nokia Group Finland Telecommunications 78 5= Q-Med AB Sweden Health Care 77 7 M-real Corporation Finland Materials 76 8= Lundbeck A/S Denmark Health Care 76 8= Lundin Petroleum Sweden Energy 76 8= Electrolux Sweden Consumer Staples 76 8= Scania Sweden Industrials 76 8= SAAB Sweden Industrials 75 13= Danisco A/S Denmark Consumer Staples 74 14= Outotec Oyj Finland Industrials 74 14= TORM AS Denmark Industrials 73 16= Novo Nordisk Denmark Health Care 73 16= Sandvik AB Sweden Industrials 73 16= Storebrand ASA Norway Financials 72 19= UPM-Kymmene Corporation Finland Materials 72 19= 12 13

8 The main objective of CDLI is to identify leaders and at the same time invite other Nordic 200 companies to commit to full carbon disclosure. This year s top achievers were Norske Skogindustrier (Materials) 84 points, Hakon Invest AB (Consumer Discretionary) 83 points, and Gunnebo (Industrials) 81 points. These three companies had already featured in CDLI in CDP 2008 or CDP These scores reflect a high ambition of climate change disclosure addressing all sections of the questionnaire. From their responses, it appears climate change risks and opportunities are identified and are an integrated part of their business strategy. These companies show determination and leadership in the transition to a lowcarbon economy. Table 2: CDLI company numbers by country Top-20 by country % of Top-20 by country CDLI by country % of CDLI by country Sweden 8 40% 57 45% Norway 2 10% 18 14% Denmark 5 25% 27 21% Finland 5 25% 26 20% % % Table 3: CDLI company numbers by sector Top-20 by sector % of top-20 by sector Companies in CDLI % of companies in CDLI Consumer Discretionary 1 5% 12 9% Consumer staples 2 10% 10 8% Energy & Utlilities 2 10% 7 5% Financials 1 5% 20 16% Health Care 3 15% 13 10% Industrials 7 35% 44 34% Materials 3 15% 13 10% Telecommunications & IT 1 5% 9 7% % % 5 Response rates The questionnaire was sent to the 196 largest listed companies in the Nordic region, made up of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, and including 11 companies from the FTSE Global Equities Index Series (the Global 500 ). Appendix I shows the complete response status for all companies. Overall, 128 companies (65%) responded to the questionnaire. This represents an increase both in the number of responding companies and in the response rate from 2008 (110 companies and a response rate of 58%). Figure 1: Nordic responses in 2007, 2008 and 2009 Answered Questionnaire Provided Information Declined to Participate No Response Nordic Company Responses Twenty companies (10%) declined to participate in this year s survey compared with forty comapanies (20%) in 2008, and 46 companies (23%) failed to provide a response. Two companies (1% of all companies approached) provided other forms of information. Of the companies that answered the questionnaire in 2008, four declined to participate or provided no response to this year s survey. Nineteen companies that declined to participate or gave no reply in 2008 provided responses in See table 1 for a list of these firms. 128 Table 1 Companies that answered the questionnaire in 2008 but declined to participate or failed to respond in 2009 Aker ASA Melker Schörling AB REC Group Sponda Plc Companies that declined to participate in 2008 but answered the questionnaire for 2009 A.P. Moller Maersk Atrium Ljungberg AB DSV A/S Elekta GN Store Nord A/S Hafslund ASA Kone Oyj Konecranes Modern Times Group MTG AB Nokian Tyres Group Outotec Oyj Peab Pronova BioPharma ASA Rockwool International A/S TietoEnator Topdanmark Transatlantic William Demant Holdings Number of companies CDP 2009 CDP 2008 CDP * We remind investors that this report offers a statistical overview and conclusions drawn by the reporting team from the answers provided by all companies that have allowed their responses to be public (90). To read those responses not publicly available (38) it is necessary to be a signatory institutional investor to the CDP process. For other methods of access a fee is required. For details please contact our London office. 15

9 5 CDP Nordic Region Report In addition to the companies approached by the investors, a few companies have volunteered responses. These companies will not be scored according to the CDLI methodology, and are not mentioned in the analysis, but their responses are available online. The companies in question are: Skandia Insurance Company Ltd., Sweden, SOL Pesulapalvelut Oy, Finland, Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB, Sweden. Figure 2 analyses responses and response rates per country in the Nordic region. The corresponding response rate for Global 500 companies 2009 is 81%. As with earlier CDP studies, the largest number of companies came from Sweden, which also had the highest response rate (85%). Finland and Denmark provide a 68% response rate for Norwegian companies stand out with a lower response rate than other Nordic countries. Their 35% response rate for 2009 is even lower than their 38% response rate in The downward trend among Norwegian companies response rate is worrying. As we are grateful for those who have made an effort to respond, CDP will increase its efforts in welcoming additional Norwegian carbon disclosure respondents. We find no reason why these figures should vary significantly between countries in this region. Figures 3a and 3b analyses responses and response rates per sector and nationality. There are significant differences in the number of responses and response rates across sectors. The Industrials sector has the highest number of responses (44). It is also the sector with one of the lowest response rates overall (59%), with only Energy & Utilities and Financials being lower (50% and 56% respectively). The highest response rates come from Health Care with an impressive 100%, followed by Materials (87%) and Consumer Discretionary (80%). Figure 2: Response rate per country over time 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CDP 2007 CDP 2008 CDP 2009 Sweden Finland Norway Denmark Figure 3a: Response rate per sector over time 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Figure 3b: Number of responses by industry sector and country Telecom & IT Materials 1 Industrials Health Care Financials Energy & Utilities Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Demark Finland Norway Sweden Number of companies Figure 4: Response rates over time in the Industrials sector Capital Goods Commercial Services and Supplies Transportation Industrials Total 18 As with earlier CDP studies, the largest number of companies came from Sweden, which also had the highest response rate. A change from earlier CDP studies is a reduction in the number of sectors from ten to eight, in order to reduce the risk of exaggerating randomly generated results. The Utilities sector (with one company) was merged with the Energy sector (13 companies) and the Information Technology sector (3 companies) was merged with the Telecommunications sector (9 companies). However, the number of companies in many sectors is still too small to permit any far-reaching conclusions, especially when breaking down the sample by both country and sector. In Figure 4 the response rates in the Industrials sector are analysed in more depth. The industrials sector is broken down into three subsectors: Capital Goods, Commercial Services and Supplies, and Transportation. In previous questionnaires the Transportation subsector has been the least frequent respondent with a disappointing 33% response rate. It is therefore positive to see an increase in this years response rate to 59%. The transportation sector is important, as they are large carbon dioxide emitters. 10% 0% CDP 2007 CDP 2008 CDP 2009 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy & Utilities Financials Health Care Industrials Materials Telecom & IT Total Response rate 16 17

10 5 CDP Nordic Region Report Transparency Companies were asked whether their responses to the questionnaire could be made publicly available on the CDP website and in the report. Transparency of respondents climate change strategies could be an important contribution to the investor community, an inspiration for other companies, and create a useful benchmark for the future. 70% of all companies that answered the questionnaire responded positively to this. Table 2 analyses disclosure rates over time and by country. Only companies that answered the questionnaire are included. We can observe an increasing trend line for Denmark and Finland over time. Norwegian responding companies show a stable interest in public disclosure. Sweden s public disclosure rate dropped in 2008 and 2009 compared to 2007, and despite the fact that they have the highest response rate, their public disclosure rate is lower than their neighbouring countries. The general conclusion is that disclosure rates have been quite stable over time and across countries. Table 2: Public disclosure rates by country over time Public Not public Total Disclosure rate 2007 Denmark % Finland % Norway % Sweden % 2007 Total % 2008 Denmark % Finland % Iceland % Norway % Sweden % 2008 Total % 2009 Denmark % Finland % Norway % Sweden % 2009 Total % Figure 5: Public disclosure rates by sector and over time % 88% Figure 6: External verification/ assurance of reported emission figures 37% Yes, in whole or in part No answer 20% No external verification 44% Figure 7: Total share of scope 1 emissions by Industry group 20% 28% 2% 51% An analysis of disclosure rates over time and by sector (figure 5) also shows quite stable numbers, maybe with the exception of the Financials sector that has consistently had the lowest willingness to disclose responses publicly (falling from 64% in 2007 to 55% this year). This is an interesting observation as it is investors from the Financials sector that are asking the companies to respond to the CDP questionnaire. Energy & Utilities has had a steady growth in transparency rate (from 75% to 86% this year) and, along with the Materials sector (80% on average and 85% this year), is the sector that has shown the highest disclosure rates over the years. The Industrials sector is also worth mentioning as it has had the most solid improvement over time, from almost the least transparent sector in 2007 (58%) to above average (75%) this year. External Verification/ Assurance Responding companies are divided in terms of having emission figures externally verified or assured (figure 6). However, 44% of companies answered that they had used external assurance in whole or in part, while 37% said they had not. On a general note, the level of external verification and assurance of non-financial sustainability data has increased over the years alongside the growing recognition of climate change issues in society overall. The general conclusion is that disclosure rates have been quite stable over time and across countries. Total share of Scope 1 emissions on industry and sector level In the questionnaire companies report their Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions*. Figure 7 shows that 51% of total Scope 1 emissions are reported from companies in the Industrials sector, where the Transportation industry stands as the largest contributor with 43% of total emissions. However it is important to note that the Industrials sector is also the sector with the highest number of companies (44 of 128, or 34% of total number of companies). The Transportation sector sample consists of 10 companies (8% of the total sample). It is also evident from the figure that it is the Industrials, Energy & Utilities and Materials sectors that are the dominant contributors of Scope 1 emissions, with all other sectors contributing only marginally. These figures are taken from the entire CDP reporting universe, but reflect trends amongst all high-emitting companies in the Nordic region Industrials Energy & Utilities Materials Other Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy & Utilities Financials Health Care Industrials Materials Telecommunications & IT Average * See Risks, Opportunities and Emissions per Industry Sector, page 24 for further descriptions of the different Scopes

11 5 CDP Nordic Region Report Average company scope emissions per industry sector Figure 8 illustrates average company Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by industry sector. This is important as it gives an idea about large CO 2 emitters on company and industry levels. This shows the Energy & Utilities sector, with 8 responding companies, has the highest average company Scope 1 emissions among all sectors. This sector is followed by carbon-intensive sectors such as Materials and Industrials. The average figure for company Scope 1 emissions across all sectors is close to tonnes CO 2, based on responses from the 108 companies that provided Scope 1 emissions figures. The Materials sector is the sector that reports the highest average Scope 2 emissions. European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) The EU ETS is the largest multinational emissions trading scheme in the world, and plays an important role in EU Climate Policy. In their answers to the Risks and Opportunities section of the questionnaire, many companies mention that the EU ETS may affect them directly or indirectly in the future. Not surprisingly, many companies in energy intensive sectors like Energy & Utilities and Materials (Paper & Forest products and Metals & Mining) disclose that they are covered by the EU ETS (86% and 85% respectively) (figure 9). In total about one in every four companies reports that they operate or have ownership of facilities covered by the EU ETS. Respondents that are involved in the scheme also report uncertainties about amendments in the scheme for the third trading period starting in Figure 8: Average company scope emission (in metric tonnes) per sector Consumer Discreationary Consumer Staples Energy & Utilities Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Figure 9: EU ETS per sector Financials Health Care Does your company operate or have ownership of facilities covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)? Energy & Utilities Materials Consumer Staples All sectors Industrials Health Care 16% 15% 30% Telecommunications & Information Technology 11% Financials 24% Industrials Materials 86% 85% Telecom & IT Total 88% Figure 10: Carbon credits per sector Have you purchased any project-based carbon credits? Energy & Utilities Materials Financials All sectors Industrials 11% 20% Consumer Discretionary 8% Health Care 8% 31% Telecommunications & Information Technology 0 Consumer Staples 0 15% Frequency of YES 57% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure11: Reduction plans & goals Yes No 20% 80% 88% Figure 12: Why not? In process of being defined 72% No answer 24% 4% Not considered necessary 72% Carbon Credits Carbon credits involve a systematic approach to mitigating the growth in concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) both nationally and internationally. Company GHGs are identified and capped and emissions are traded in regulated markets. GHG mitigation projects generate credits that may become a commodity for companies to purchase. Company reasons for purchasing carbon credits can be, for example, to offset a deficit or to lower their carbon footprint on a voluntary basis. The Energy & Utilities sector has the highest number of respondents purchasing carbon credits (57%), followed by Materials at 31% (figure 10). None of the companies in Telecommunications & IT or Consumer Staples purchased any carbon credits. It is interesting to note that 20% of responding Financials companies purchase carbon credits even though the industry is non carbon-intensive. These companies most likely purchase carbon credits on a voluntary basis. On average 15% (19 of 128 companies) have purchased project-based carbon credits. It is recommended not to draw sector related conclusions based on the low sample size in most sectors. Reduction Plans In response to mitigating GHGs companies are asked whether they have a GHG emissions and/or energy reduction plan in place. A large majority (80%) of companies answer that they do have such a plan in place (figure 11). Of the 20% that do not have reduction plans in place, 72% of these explained that they are in the process of defining them (figure 12). More detailed information on reduction plans and targets is found in Risks, Opportunities and Emissions. 5% Consumer Discretionary 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Frequency of YES 20 21