Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 Japan 500 Report

Transcription

1 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 Japan 500 Report On behalf of 475 investors with assets of $55 trillion Picture: Hachobaru Geothermal Power Station Report written for Carbon Disclosure Project by: CDP Secretariat Japan CDP Secretariat Japan Carbon Disclosure Project +44 (0)

2 Carbon Disclosure Project 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 2

3 CDP Signatories 2009 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 3

4 Carbon Disclosure Project 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 4

5 CDP Signatories 2009 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 5

6 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 CDP 2009 Japan 500 Report Introductory Letter by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon 30 June 2009 I am pleased to provide this introduction to the Japan 500 report of the Carbon Disclosure Project, an important ally in the effort to combat climate change and strengthen responsible business practices. The business and investment community has a critical role to play in this year of climate change. No issue better demonstrates the need for global solidarity than climate change, the defining challenge of our generation. No issue is more essential to our future survival as a species. And no issue is more fundamental to long-term security and sustained global prosperity. Now more than ever, we need to come together as a global community and expand our horizons to embrace common solutions to common problems. As Secretary-General, I believe that with each challenge that arises, new opportunities open if we but have the vision and courage to seize them. Nowhere is this truer than with climate change. In December, the world s governments will meet in Copenhagen to seal the deal on a new climate framework for the post-2012 period that is equitable, ambitious, and effective in reducing greenhouse gases and providing for the adaptation needs of the most vulnerable populations. Sealing a deal in Copenhagen is vital for setting the global economy on a greener, cleaner path to sustained economic prosperity. Over the next few months, the business and investor communities will play a pivotal role in mobilizing the political will needed to encourage governments to cross over the finish line in Copenhagen. I would encourage the Carbon Disclosure Project, along with other civic and business organizations, to make it clear to governments that doing the right thing for the climate is also the smart thing for global competitiveness and long-term prosperity. Indeed, organizations like the Carbon Disclosure Project can make an important difference. Participants in the Carbon Disclosure Project know that the safest way of reducing climate risks is to reduce emissions. They know that taking early action makes good business sense. And they know the cost of inaction on climate change will dwarf any price tag for acting today. We have not a moment to waste. Climate change is now accelerating at a pace and scale that requires urgent action from the highest levels of government as well as from the private sector. Now more than ever, we need leadership from savvy CEOs and investors who understand that in a climate constrained world, business as usual is no longer possible; indeed, is a recipe for financial as well as planetary disaster. What is needed is a new model of business profitability; one that takes into account the full costs of doing business and incorporates a company s long-term impact on the environment as well as on local communities. We must eschew the tyranny of short-term thinking and ask ourselves if the profits we are reaping today are adding to -- or depleting -- the planet s potential to sustain future generations. 6

7 CDP 2009 Japan 500 Report Introductory Letter With a deal in Copenhagen, however, coupled with appropriate market incentives and domestic policy signals, I am confident we can enter a new era of green growth, one in which lower-carbon energy sources form the foundation of sustained economic development and prosperity. Companies and investors that are able to assess risks and seize new opportunities will be ahead of the curve in terms of global competitiveness. Conversely, those businesses that fail to have a strategy in place to deal with climate change will be on the losing side of history. In a nutshell, this is why the work of the Carbon Disclosure Project is crucial to the success of global green business in the 21st century. As the recognized standard for detailed corporate reporting on emissions data and other climate-related disclosure information, the Carbon Disclosure Project is harnessing the power of information and investor activism to encourage a more effective corporate response to climate change. The Carbon Disclosure Project participants include some 475 institutional investors with combined assets of USD $55 trillion, ranging from pension funds and SRI asset mangers to mainstream blue chip companies. The Carbon Disclosure Project s detailed reporting is helping persuade companies throughout the world to measure, manage, disclose and ultimately reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. No other organization is gathering this type of corporate climate change data and providing it to the marketplace. Of course, the value of this kind of detailed climate-related corporate information will continue to grow as countries scale up their efforts to build a greener global economy while tackling the challenge of emissions reductions. On that note, I am pleased to highlight the cooperation between the United Nations Global Compact, in particular, through its Caring for Climate Initiative, and the Carbon Disclosure Project. Through shared principles and activities, the Global Compact and the Carbon Disclosure Project are expanding the network of corporate leaders committed to taking effective, urgent action to address what I have called the defining challenge of our age: climate change. This December in Copenhagen could mark a watershed moment in history. It is the moment where we must transform crisis into opportunity, and set the world on a safer, more prosperous path to green growth. We must work together to encourage governments to seal a deal in Copenhagen and catalyze the green economy of the future. The science demands it, the world economy needs it, and the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people depend on it. 7

8 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 Message from MUFG President & CEO The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which was launched in collaboration with institutional investors in 2000, requests companies to disclose information regarding their climate change strategies and greenhouse gas emissions. This is the seventh year the CDP has been in operation. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) is proud to be a part of this initiative. As one of the signatory institutional investors, we would like to take this opportunity to thank the companies who responded to the CDP information request, and express our sincerest hopes for their continued support. While U.S. President Obama is working to introduce a Green New Deal, Japan is taking steps to clarify economic measures and adjust industrial structures in order to increase investment in the environmental sector. We can expect international negotiations for a Post Kyoto framework to shift into full swing at COP15 at the end of the year. Public interest in Japan s efforts to meet its mid-term emissions reduction targets is mounting. Against this backdrop, the number of participating companies from around the world has steeply increased, from approximately 3,000 companies in 2008 to 4,000 companies in In Japan alone the number of companies receiving CDP information requests has burgeoned from 150 companies in the 2008 to 500 companies in We expect these results to serve as the basis for additional research and analysis in this area. This study found that while many Japanese responding companies believe that climate change issues will create risks for their business, a significant number of companies consider them to be a business opportunity. As for the scope of emissions reporting, responses increased, covering not only emissions associated with domestic operations but, also with overseas facilities. Approximately 90% of companies responded that they had specific plans and targets for reducing emissions. Each company is taking steady measures to pursue their plans in great depth. We believe that CDP will become increasingly important as the world continues to reduce its greenhouse gases. As the sponsor of the Japanese report, we hope that this report will serve as a valuable source of information and insight for you all. October 2009 President & CEO Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. 8

9 Message Foreword In 2009, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) issued its seventh information request on behalf of 475 institutional investors with USD 55 trillion of assets under management. The request was sent to 4,000 of the world s largest publicly listed companies by market capitalization for the disclosure of investment-relevant information concerning the risks and opportunities posed by climate change. We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who supported the CDP mission. The first iteration of CDP targeted the FT500. CDP has since expanded its activity in countries such as Japan, Brazil, and Australia. The Japanese expansion, now in its fourth year, has significantly enlarged in scope, from 150 companies in 2008 to 500 companies in The sample of 500 Japanese companies was selected on the basis of market capitalization on November 30, We are pleased to report that 201 Japanese companies responded to this year s information request. The CDP Secretariat extends its sincere appreciation for the cooperation of responding companies. Those seeking further information can download individual company responses from the CDP homepage. During the COP15 meetings in Copenhagen in December 2009, international negotiators will attempt to agree on a rigorous and effective international framework on climate change. As policy makers prepare for regulatory change, investors are becoming increasingly concerned with corporations understanding of the risks and opportunities associated with climate change. It gives us great pleasure to works with investors and corporations to drive transparency in climate data reporting. The 2009 CDP Japanese corporate responses have been compiled and are analyzed in the report that follows. We wish your organization all the best. CDP Secretariat Japan Chairman: Takejiro Sueyoshi Director: Michiyo Morisawa Analysts: Michiyo Morisawa, Miyako Enokibori, Yoshihiro Watanabe, Takayuki Suganuma Translators: Hiroshi Tachikawa, Yoshimi Imabuchi, Marianne Gillis, Jacob Kislevitz 9

10 Executive Summary Fig. 1: The geographic distribution of the Head office of sample 10% 19% 3% Hokkaido Tohoku Kanto Chubu 2% 1% 1% 1% 63% Fig. 2: The industrial distribution of the sample 10% 11% 3% 3% 17% 5% 3% 5% 16% Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Financials Health Care Industrials Information Technology Materials Real Estate Telecommunications Transportation Utilities Kinki Chugoku Shikoku Kyushu 10% 16% 3% This report summarizes key trends identified in Japan 500 responses to the 2009 CDP Information Request. CDP2009 is the fourth request sent to Japanese companies. The initial request was sent in Over the past year the number of Japanese companies responding to the Carbon Disclosure Project has significantly increased, from 115 companies in 2008 to 201 companies in This increase is partially attributable to the expansion of the Japanese sample, from 150 companies in 2008 to 500 companies in CDP s first iteration in 2000 targeted the five hundred largest companies globally based on market capitalization. CDP has since expanded its activities with worldwide partnership: the Japanese expansion being a part of this program. Three iterations of the Japan 150 sample were carried out before the sample was enlarged. Companies were chosen for this sample based on their market capitalization on November 30, Although 201 Japanese companies replied to CDP in 2009, this report is based on the responses of the 187 companies that replied by the July 31 deadline. Global 500 companies that appear in the Japan 500, and have received the information request more than five times have an 89% response rate. Companies that were included in the Japan 150 sample in previous years and have received the questionnaire more than two times have a 75% response rate. At this time it is difficult to tell whether the frequency with which a company has received the questionnaire or the market value of the company is the primary driver response rates. Next year s response rates will hopefully be able to provide greater insight into this matter. The CDP Information Requests covers four major areas: 1) the risks and opportunities climate change poses to business; 2) Greenhouse gas emissions accounting; 3) Management s strategy to reduce emissions / minimise risk and capitalise on opportunity; and 4) Corporate governance with regard to climate change. Risks and Opportunity Primary risks are separated into three specific areas: 1. Regulatory Risks: Current and/or expected national and/or global government policy on climate change including, but not limited to, emissions caps and energy efficiency standards. 2. Physical Risks 3. General Risks: Associated with changes in consumer preferences and demand for products that generate greater energy-efficiency. Results Among recognized risks and opportunities, regulatory risks and opportunities were the most frequently identified. Corporations are paying greater attention to climate change in both Japan and overseas due to increasingly stringent environmental regulations. The results from the emissions accounting section of the questionnaire are particularly interesting. 45 Japanese companies reported their country-bycountry emissions. The greatest proportion of Japanese corporate emissions were produced in Asia followed by North America, the EU, Latin America, Oceania and Africa. On a country-by-country basis, China accounted for the greatest proportion of Japanese companies' emissions followed by the United States, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, and Indonesia. Most of these emissions were in countries that do not legally require emissions reporting. The disclosure of emissions on a country-by-country basis is not only beneficial in terms of understanding the geographic distribution of corporate emissions. It also serves to highlight the concentration of emissions within each country. 10

11 Executive Summary In CDP2009, companies were asked about Scope 3 emissions in the following four categories: employee business travel, external distribution /logistics, the use/disposal of company s products and services, and the company s supply chain. 18% of Responding Companies reported the emissions in their supply-chain. 24% of Responding Companies reported their emissions from employee business travel. 25% of Responding Companies reported the emissions associated with the use and disposal of their products and services. While 48% of Responding Companies reported emissions associated with external distribution and logistics. The high percentage of Responding Companies reporting emissions from external distribution and logistics is, in large part, a result of Japan s Global Warming Law and Energy Saving Law. Under these laws, those companies which consign freight transports with an annual freight volume of more than 30 million tones are required to report emissions. In addition to reporting Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, it is important for companies to communicate the climate changerelated risks and opportunities that are imbedded in their supply chain. It is only through doing so that investors can gain an accurate understanding of the risks and opportunities in their carbon portfolios. Companies were asked to disclose their reduction targets as well as the investments needed to meet those targets. In Japan various industrial sectors set voluntary reduction targets. Comparing these targets with company responses revealed that many companies set targets that exceed the targets set by their sector. Targets must be accompanied by an understanding of the investments needed to reach the target. Few companies provided details of the investment needed to carry out their reduction plan. Further disclosure in this area is needed. 84% of responding companies reported that the board of directors or executive level employees have overall responsibility for climate change strategy. There were few company responses that provided the names of the executives in charge of climate change strategy and a list of their responsibilities. This is likely to change in the near future. The proposed amendments to Japan s Global Warming Law mandate that companies institute company-wide energy management systems that requires an energy management supervisor that will be assigned among corporate executives and an assistant energyplan promoter. The emissions disclosed by Japanese companies make up a significant portion of the total disclosed emissions in Asia. The insight provided in the Asia report as well a comparison of Japanese and Asian companies has been added to this year s report. Conclusion In 2009, Japanese Responding Companies provided in-depth information on the risks and opportunities posed by climate change. The fact that emissions reporting requirements and energy-efficiency regulations are becoming increasingly stringent in Japan presents corporations with a compelling argument for why they should pay greater attention to the business implications of climate change. There is an increasing number of ways in which consumers can help in the fight against climate change. Through purchasing energy-efficient products and understanding carbon footprints consumers can help drive change in corporate and consumer behavior. Many Responding Companies recognize the risks and opportunities associated with climate change. These companies disclose their reduction targets and emissions figures, both by nation and by scope. On the other hand, there are still many companies that have not yet answered the CDP Information Request. Certain sectors of the Japanese economy are far more advanced than others in terms of their climate change strategy. Additional investor engagement and higher quality corporate disclosure are needed in order to develop effective mitigation strategies and ensure the transition to a low-carbon economy. Fig. 3: Response by frequency of receiving the questionnaire First time 21% More than two times More than five times 78% 89% Fig. 4: Response by industrial sector Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Financials Health Care Industrials Information Technology Materials Real Estate Telecommunications Transportation Utilities 24% 1% 3% 73% 33% 2% 65% 38% 62% 46% 3% 51% 31% 8% 62% 41% 6% 53% 45% 4% 51% 61% 4% 35% 15% 85% 29% 7% 64% 33% 4%4% 59% : Answered Questionnaire IN: Provided Information DP: Declined to Participate : No Response 79% 21% 11

12 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 Contents CDP Signatories CDP 2009 Japan 500 Report 6 Introductory Letter UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Message 8 Executive Summary 10 1 Overview of CDP 13 2 Japanese Company 16 Responses to CDP External Environment 20 Surrounding Japanese Company 4 Key Findings 23 5 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index Appendix 1: Insights from Japanese and Asian Companies 7 Appendix 2: CDP 2009 Questionnaire 8 Appendix 3: Company Response Status

13 1 Overview of CDP The turmoil in the financial markets and the global economy over the last year has highlighted the importance of effective disclosure and high-quality risk management. The financial crisis of 2008 suggests we need to better understand systemic risks that can cause significant de-stabilizing impacts in the global economy. Climate change has the potential to cause disruption in the form of unforeseen, high-impact events (such as extreme weather) as well as a longer term re assignment of value across countries, industries and corporations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that future climate impacts show that the consequences could vary from disruptive to catastrophic 1. So it is vital that policymakers, companies and investors have a full understanding of the associated risks and opportunities. According to HSBC research 2, governments around the world have allocated US$430 billion in fiscal stimulus to key climate change themes. Those providing the low carbon solutions are very well positioned to benefit, while those who ignore the risks gamble on being left behind. By convening the collective power of the investment community, represented in 2009 by more than 475 investors, with US$55 trillion in assets under management, CDP motivates more than 1800 companies globally to report their climate change strategies and greenhouse gas emissions. This global system provides the market, investors, policymakers and procurement directors with a clear understanding of how companies are positioned as we move towards a low carbon economy and ensures corporations provide full transparency on climate change. 1 items/2905.php 2 HSBC Global Research: A Climate for Recovery The colour of stimulus goes green. This year has seen considerable growth in responses from emerging economies such as China, South Africa and Korea, and CDP expanded in Russia in 2009 where major companies such as Gazprom and Novatek reported. CDP s reach continues to grow with the launch of the first CDP Europe report, covering the largest 300 European listed companies, as well as expansion into countries within Central and Eastern Europe. We have also opened new offices in Germany and Brazil, both key economies in the fight against climate change. While the quantity and quality of data available has increased significantly, so has the use of the data, which is acting as a catalyst for changing business behavior. CDP data is increasingly being integrated into mainstream financial analysis, is available through Bloomberg Professional Services, and used to provide sector based analysis to CDP signatory members. A recent report produced by Mercer supports this view. Some CDP signatories, such as CalSTRS are going a step further, using shareholder resolutions to encourage companies to report through CDP and implement climate change management strategies. We are also working with the Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI) to drive awareness and improve climate change reporting. CDP has recently entered a new partnership with financial information services company Markit to build a suite of indices based on the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index, which will be licensed to exchange-traded fund (ETF) and structured product providers. CDP now works with more than 55 organizations including Dell, Unilever, Wal-Mart Stores and departments of the British Government to measure and assess climate change risk and opportunity through the supply chain. More than 800 companies report their climate change strategies through the CDP system to their customers and as a result we have seen a significant increase in the use of CDP data in procurement operations. Now procurement professionals can understand how their supply chains may be impacted and as a result begin to future-proof their procurement systems against climate change. The process of measuring emissions is central to emissions management and reduction. As regulatory frameworks develop to mandate emission reductions, CDP s role will expand. We will continue to work with corporations, policymakers and information users to produce practical and robust results that complement the development of mandatory reporting rules. In order to continue to provide the global hub for carbon reporting, CDP is currently undergoing a significant systems upgrade, designed to improve data comparability, facilitate benchmarking services and ultimately deliver data that is appropriate for investment analysis and regulatory submissions. In countries like the US and UK, where mandatory carbon reporting is on the horizon, CDP s systems will help companies prepare for such requirements and will eventually integrate with existing national registries to enable corporations to disclose more detailed and standardized data. Climate change is a global problem, which requires a global solution and by bridging the gaps between national governments and international businesses across the globe, CDP will help to connect the national and international climate change ecosystem. 13

14 Carbon Disclosure Project Table 1: Key trends snapshot 3 This table outlines some of the key findings from CDP 2009 by geography and industry data-set. 4 Sample: geography/ number of companies % of sample answering CDP 2009 % of sample answering CDP6 (2008) 5 % of responders with Board level responsibility for climate change % of responders seeing regulatory risks % of responders seeing regulatory opportunities Asia-ex JICK [35] Australia Brazil [83] Canada Central & Eastern Europe China Europe France Germany Global Global Electric Utility Global Transport India Ireland Italy [46] Japan [72] Korea [32] Latin America [52] Netherlands New Zealand Nordic [58] Portugal Russia South Africa Spain [71] Switzerland UK FTSE UK FTSE US S&P % of responders seeing physical risk % of responders seeing physical opportunities % of responders disclosing Scope 1 emissions % of responders disclosing Scope 2 emissions % of responders externally verifying emissions disclosures % of responders engaged/considering participation in emissions trading % of responders with an emissions reduction/energy reduction plan % of responders engaging with policy makers on climate change 3 The numbers in this table are based on the total respondents at 10th July They may therefore vary from numbers in the rest of the report which are based on the number of companies who responded on time (e.g. 30th June for Global 500). 4 In some cases, the number of responses analyzed is slightly less than the number answering CDP 2009 due to takeovers, mergers and acquisitions. 5 Percentages in square brackets reflect a different sized sample in 2008, e.g.: in 2008 we wrote to 75 companies in Brazil, not 80; and in Japan we wrote to 150 companies in 2008, not 500. A dash (-) shows that sample was not in CDP6 (2008). 6 Asia excluding Japan, India, China and Korea. 14

15 1 Overview of CDP Highlights in carbon regulation and outlook for Copenhagen 2009 has witnessed significant progress in the global approach to climate change. The Obama administration has introduced a new era in climate change policy in the US and, as a result, a global deal in Copenhagen this December appears more tangible. China, so integral to the success of Copenhagen, is set to meet ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency targets and hosts some of the world s largest renewable energy companies. Brazil entered the new year with a new National Plan on Climate Change and national governments in industrialized countries including Japan and Australia are introducing new legislation to reduce emissions. Whilst the July G8 meeting agreed to prevent global temperatures rising beyond 2º Celsius (3º-4º Fahrenheit) against pre-industrial levels, and agreed on aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by between 50 and 80% by mid-century they disappointed many by ducking the issue of medium term targets. Although the multilateral architecture still needs work, there is much to report on at a regional level. In Europe, the Energy and Climate Change package was approved in December 2008 which sets out the policy framework and accompanying measures to reduce emissions through the continuation (and expansion) of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS); targets for non-ets sectors and new targets for the promotion of renewable energy. In the US, the Obama administration moved early to set out its ambitions around climate change mitigation: We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. 7 The Waxman-Markey bill was finally put before the House of Representatives in June and passed by a narrow margin. The proposed legislation would commit the US to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 through a cap-and-trade 7 Obama inauguration speech, January 21st, system beginning in The bill will pass through various Senate Committees where amendments will be debated, before being put to a vote; most likely in October. In Australia, further work has progressed on the detail of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) despite political challenges over possible competitive impacts in the face of the economic downturn. The Scheme, which would cover around 75% of total Australian emissions, is due to face a key vote later this year. Given the multinational nature of many companies, the evolution of these policies is likely to have significant implications on strategic direction and operations and many of the world s largest companies want to seize early mover advantage. Of course, the role of government is crucial in providing the regulatory frameworks. But investors and businesses will also play an essential role by driving capital flows towards the technologies which will allow economies to flourish and innovation to thrive as we transition to a low carbon economy. Already these same investors and businesses are being directly affected by climate change. Many companies report to CDP the material impacts of climate change on their operations, through increased flooding, water shortage, spread of disease and changing local weather patterns. Within the public sector, cities reporting through CDP also explain how they are planning to adapt to changes in weather patterns such as extreme heat and extreme precipitation. Investors, policymakers, procurement directors and other stakeholders need to build up the necessary comparable datasets in order to monitor and analyze changes; both in terms of the response to mitigation measures (such as carbon regulation) and adaptation policies and programmes. Integral to the success of the deal in Copenhagen will be the availability of this accurate reported data: if businesses don t measure current emissions now, it will be impossible for them to manage and reduce them in the future. This is where CDP s role is crucial. Progress on reporting standards While CDP has set the tone on matters of disclosure over the years and, for the first time this year, is now widening its approach to encompass performance, there are other valuable and complementary initiatives underway to address the clear requirement for the creation of a global carbon measurement and reporting system. While the financial accounting system has taken several hundred years to develop, carbon accounting is in its infancy. In order to achieve a coherent global system CDP is leading the work of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), working with Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers to develop robust accounting standards to enable carbon reporting through annual financial reports. CDP and CDSB will also work with the World Economic Forum to advise the G20 group of nations on climate change accounting in The CDP process demonstrates that corporations can lead the way in taking action that can be Measured, Reported & Verified (MRV). It also shows how international companies can reduce their emissions across the entirety of their operations on a global basis, even when subject to a range of different regulatory requirements. As more and more countries introduce climate change regulation, the CDP system supports companies by bridging the gap between international business and national reporting requirements and helps reduce the reporting burden on companies. The CDP Global Forum is part of the inaugural Climate Week NYC, when business leaders, heads of state and the world s major investors congregate in New York to prepare for negotiations at COP15. An agreement there will be a vital step towards success, but it is just as important to look beyond Copenhagen and to build the global systems required to combat dangerous climate change. CDP remains focused on and dedicated to this work and thanks all of the organizations that work with us to help realize this goal. 15

16 2 Japanese Company Responses to CDP 2009 CDP 2009 asks companies to respond to questions focusing on the following 4 areas: 1. Risks and opportunities: Risks and opportunities that climate change poses to companies 2. Emissions Accounting: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting 3. Performance: GHG emissions reductions programs 4. Governance: Responsibility and management structures to cope with climate change Fig. 5: Risk and Opportunities Regulatory RIsks Physical Risks Other Risks 0Regulatory 20Opportunities Physical Opportunities Other Opportunities 80% 88% 4% 8% 79% 7% 6% 14% 14% % 13% 83% 7% 10% 74% 12% Recognize risks/ opportunities Don't know /No answer Don't recognize risks/ opportunities 22% 14% 1. Recognizing of the risks and opportunities that climate change poses to companies Objective: To recognize and identify the impact of risks and opportunities that climate change presents to companies CDP2009 requested information concerning the management and impact of three types of climate change-related risks to companies: regulatory, physical, and other. Companies were also asked to consider climate change-related opportunities. Overall, 90% of responding companies (n=187) recognized the climate changerelated risks corresponding to the abovementioned categories. Additionally, 91% of companies recognized opportunities. Risks and opportunities related to regulation were most frequently identified. (1) Regulatory Risks are those risks associated posed by emissions standards and energy efficiency regulations at both the national and international level. In this regard, 88% of the companies responded that they recognize regulatory risks, 8% feel that they do not recognize these risks, and 4% did not answer. (2) Physical Risks are those risks associated with physical phenomena, such as a sea-level rise and resource shortages. Examples of the impact of such risks include damage to assets, and project delays owing to an increase in abnormal weather. In this case, 80% of responding companies state that they recognize physical risks, 14% do not identify any risk, and the remaining 6% indicated no answer. (3) Other Risks are those risks associated with the damage to a company's reputation that results from its failure to adequately address climate change, shifts in consumer demand due to climate change and consumer preference for energyefficient production. 79% of responding companies responded that they recognize these risks, 14% responded that they do not, and 7% did not answer. (4) Regulatory Opportunities are opportunities associated with regulations and brought about by present and future domestic /international policies. 83% of responding companies recognized these opportunities, whereas 10% indicated that they do not. The remaining 7% did not answer this question. (5) As for physical Opportunities, 65% of responding companies felt that climate change creates physical opportunities, 22% did not recognize the opportunities, and 13% did not answer. (6) Other Opportunities are those not included under Regulatory and Physical Opportunities. This includes demand for products and services and higher corporate reputation. In this case, 74% of the companies recognized other opportunities, 14% did not recognize any opportunities, and 12% did not answer. 2. Accounting: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting Objective: To identify actual absolute GHG emissions (7) Out of all responding companies, 93% specified their reporting year. The majority of these companies (69%) indicated that their reporting year was (8) 94% of responding companies disclosed their reporting boundaries, and of these, 34% reported their emissions using financial boundaries. Further, 12% reported using operational domain boundaries, 3% reported using share-based domain boundaries, and 44% indicated other boundaries. Many other companies used company sites that they considered suitable for reporting.

17 (9) Calculation Methodology: 91% of responding companies reported information on calculation methodologies. Of these, 11% used the GHG Protocol, 59% companies referred to the use of legally-required reporting methods as defined by the Japanese Energy-saving Law and the Law on Global Warming. 5% of responding companies reported their domestic figures based on the national calculation method, whereas emissions at overseas sites were reported based on the GHG Protocol. The remaining 17% reported their figures based on other calculation methods including conversion. (10) Scope 1 emissions: direct emissions With regard to direct emissions, 78% of responding companies reported some type of direct emissions, including those limited to only part of the company s sites. CDP 2009 asked questions on direct emissions by country and by greenhouse gas type. Although there are several types of greenhouse gases, the questions in CDP 2009 centred around the six types of gases covered in the Kyoto Protocol. In their responses, 63% of the responding companies reported direct emissions by country, whereas 37% did not respond to the question. 24% of companies reported direct emissions by greenhouse gas type, whereas 76% did not respond to the question. (11) Scope 2 emissions: indirect emissions Scope 2 covers those GHG emissions associated with electricity, heat, cooling, and steam within the companies reporting boundaries. Purchased electricity is a prime source of Scope 2 emissions. Overall, 73% of responding companies reported Scope 2 emissions, whereas 27% did not answer. 60% of companies reported Scope 2 emissions by country. (12) A total of 125GWh worth of green power certificates were purchased by responding companies. (13) Scope 3 emissions: indirect emissions Scope 3 emissions include indirect emissions from sources that are not owned or managed by a company, but are a result of the company's business activities. The GHG Protocol lists four possible sources of Scope 3 emissions: i) employee business travel, ii) external distribution /logistics, iii) use/disposal of company s products and services, and iv) supply chain emissions. Companies were asked to disclose their emissions from these four sources. The following response rates were obtained. i) 24% of all responding companies provided information on employee business travel. Employee business travel accounted for an approximate total of 1.2 million tco2. ii) 48% of responding companies provided information on external distribution/logistics. Total emissions for this category were approximately 7.8 million tco2. iii) 25% of responding companies provided information on use/disposal of company products and services. iv) 18% of responding companies reported supply chain emissions. Reported supply chain emissions varied from 8,000 tco2 to more than 15 million tco2. Emissions industries. Emissions figures are also affected by the measures and methodologies employed. Some companies also provide information on Scope 3 emissions not covered by the 4 categories above. (14) Emissions Avoided Through use of Goods and Services CDP 2009 asks companies about their emissions reductions through third party products/services. 51% of responding companies responded to this question. (15) Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Biologically Sequestered Carbon The GHG Protocol recommends that companies report CO2 emissions from the combustion of biomass and biofuel and emissions from direct emissions separately. Accordingly, 30% of responding companies reported emissions resulting from combustion of biomass and biofuel. (16) Emissions Intensity CDP2009 requested disclosure of information about financial emissions intensity indicators, and emissions intensity per production unit. Under financial emissions intensity, 57% of responding companies indicated the amount of emissions per sales and operating profit, and 39% reported on intensity of emissions per production unit. Fig. 6: Reporting boundary 44% Company name Komatsu Ltd. 3% Nippon Oil Corporation Toto Ltd. Toyota Motor 6% 12% 34% Financial boundary Operational domain boundary Share-based domain boundary Other No answer Fig. 7: Scope 3 GHG emission Employee business travel 24% External distribution/ logistics Use/ disposal of company products and services 25% Supply chain 18% 48% Table 2: Companies that disclosed all sources of Scope3 emissions 17

18 Carbon Disclosure Project Fig. 8: Reduction target 15% 46% Fig. 9: Evaluation indicator of goal achievement 11% 18 4% 27% 7% Absolute target Intensity-based target Both absolute and intensity-based target No reduction plan Don't answer 22% 12% 25% 30% Absolute indicator Intensity-based indicator Both absolute and intensity-based indicator Quantitative indicator Don't answer (17) Emissions History The questionnaire includes a question on the variation of emissions relative to the previous year. Variations in emissions can occur due to business growth, negative investment and acquisition, improvements in energy efficiency and processes, and change in data collection and calculation methods. 85% of responding companies answered this question. Of these, 45% indicated no change in figures from the previous year. 37% did have changes in their emissions figures, and 3% of responding companies indicate no comparison because it was their first year of measurement. (18) External Verification Of all responding companies, 33% have externally verified emissions figures. (19) Data Accuracy 82% of responding companies reported their GHG calculation method, data management, and accuracy of other related systems. While 32% of these companies are subject to mandatory reporting on certain emissions types, 42% reported no requirement to report emissions, and 26% did not answer. (20) 41% of responding companies provided information on their total energy purchase costs for electricity, heat, steam, and cooling. The remaining 59% did not answer the question. Of those who provided this information, 35% reported the total cost of purchased fuel, and the remaining 65% did not answer this question. (21) Emissions Trading: Designated facility for EU emissions allocation In the EU, emissions allocations (emissions limits) are imposed on specific industrial sites that have emissions above a certain threshold. 10 companies responded that they have targeted sites for EU emissions allocations. The total emissions allocation for 2008 is approximately 390,000 tco2/year and the total emissions amount to approximately 310,000 tco2/year. Almost all emissions levels of designated facilities are below the allocated volume. (22) For emissions trading schemes 48% of companies indicated plans to participate in emissions trading schemes other than the EU ETS, whereas 2% stated that they planned to participate in only the EU ETS. Further, 36% indicated no plans, and 14% did not answer. Moreover, 50% of responding companies report having an emissions trading scheme strategy, while the remaining 50% did not answer. 28% indicated that they purchased emission rights on a project-basis, whereas 59% indicated that they did not purchase any. The remaining 13% did not respond to this query. While 21% of responding companies report that they are engaging in projects to obtain emission rights, 63% report having no engagement, and 16% did not respond. Finally, 5% of responding companies reported engagement in emissions trading, whereas 76% reported no involvement, and 19% did not answer. 3. Performance Objective: To consider performance against objectives and specify or identify the GHG reduction plan (23) CDP2009 included questions on the baseline year for goal setting, target setting and targeted periods for emissions and/or energy. 89% of responding companies report having reductions plans, 5% do not have plans, and 6% did not answer. 88% of responding companies report reduction targets, 4% have no reduction plans, and 7% did not answer. 46% of responding companies set absolute targets. 27% set an intensity-based target. 15% set both absolute and intensity-based targets. 88% of responding companies indicated a base-line year for the reduction target and 88% indicated a target period. (23.8) 93% of responding companies reported having an implemented or planned GHG emissions reduction and energy saving activity. 38% indicated specific answers for internal activities. In addition, 15% reported a concrete examples of emissions reductions or energy savings activities. (23.9) Evaluation of goal achievement When asked about their use of indicators to evaluate progress in emissions and energy use reduction plans, 78% of responding companies responded. 30% evaluated progress based on absolute indicators, 25% used intensity -based indicators, and 12% evaluated progress based on both absolute and intensity-based indicators. 11% used quantitative indicators.

19 2. Japanese Company Responses to CDP 2009 Goal achievement The questionnaire asked companies whether they undertake or plan to undertake activities to reduce their emissions and energy use, and whether there have been any outcomes associated with these activities. 55% of responding companies answered on reduction in emission and energy consumption. 13% answered on expenditure. 15% answered on an approach to calculate emissions. 7% answered on data source. 37% answered on an emissions reduction target. 27% answered on investment. 30% answered on an investment period to reduce energy consumption to the target level. Goal planning and investment 21% of responding companies reported having future reduction targets and reduction activities. 14% responded having made investments with the goal of achieving future targets. 15% have considered time periods in which they can expect payback on their investments. 34% of responding companies reveal their Scope 1 and Scope 2 forecasts for the next five years at key operational sites, and identify changes that affect GHG emissions. In addition, 13% of responding companies answered specifically on emissions related to their own activities. In addition, 5% of responding companies reported forecasted global emissions. 3% reported forecasted emissions for more than two years. Considering emissions by area, 6% of companies reported forecasted global emissions for nex year. 5% reported forecasted emissions for more than two years. For each of the main countries and territories, 27% of responding companies estimated the company s future energy use for the next five years. 9% answered specifically on emissions related to their own activities. An additional 3% of responding companies forecasted global energy use. 2% forecasted energy use for more than two years. For emissions broken down by area, 5% of responding companies reported forecasted global energy use for the next year. 4% reported forecasted emissions for more than two years. 26% of responding companies answered on the methodology used for the estimations and any assumptions made. 6% answered in detail. (24) Planning 68% responded to the question concerning the factoring of future emissions costsinto capital expenditures, and the impact of the estimated costs on investment decisions. 10% of the responding companies answered on themselves in detail. 2% provided specific examples. of how they are factoring in future emissions. 4. Governance: Climate change responsibility and management structure (25) 84% of responding companies indicate that a board committee or another executive body has overall responsibility for climate change. 7% reported that there is no board committee or other executive body with overall responsibility for climate change. 9% did not answer. 82% of responding companies answered on an overall responsibility to manage climate change. 80% answered on the mechanism by which a board committee or any other executive body reviews the company s progress and status regarding climate change. 21% provided detailed answers. (26) Individual Performance In this category, 49% of responding companies have different kinds of incentives on various activities, including achievement of GHG targets, whereas 42% answered that they had no incentives, and 9% did not answer. Among those who reported incentives, 46% of the companies indicated that these were monetary. 47% of responding companies reported information about who benefits from these incentives. All responding companies have staff incentives in place. (27) Communication 87% of responding companies disclosed their risks and opportunities presented by climate change, status on emissions, and reduction plans. However, 5% answered that they did not disclose any such information (to the public?), and 8% did not answer. Of the 87% of those who disclose information, 67% disclose information in annual or other mainstream reports. Further, 86% of the responding companies disclosed this information through various modes of communication including their Corporate Social Responsibility reports. (There is an overlap in the percentage of responding companies that disclose information in annual reports and Corporate Social Responsibility reports.) (28) Public Policy and Engagement With regard to measures related to climate change including taxation, regulation, and carbon trading, 47% of responding companies indicated that they engage with policy makers, 42% answered that they did not, and 11% did not answer. The highest percentage of responding companies reported that they are engated in the climate change-reltaed measures through industrial associations. Other responses include the use of governmental committees, participation in a research groups, and engagement with an international and non-profit organizations. 19

20 3 External Environment Surrounding Japanese Companies Fig. 10: The geographic distribution of the number of facilities under mandatory reporting 20 25% While at the UN in September 2009, Prime Minister Hatoyama announced a plan to reduce Japan's GHG emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by % Tokyo Aichi Osaka Kanagawa Hyogo 3.3% 8.6% 4.1% 3.7% 7.6% 4.7% 4.4% Shizuoka Chiba Saitama Ibaraki Hokkaido Other 6.0% 4.6% 5.8% 1. Current State of Japan s Emissions Japan produced billion tco2 in This statistic is 9% higher than the Kyoto Protocol baseline year, and represents a 2.4% increase from Measuring emissions by type of gas, CO2 accounted for billion tonnes (95%) of Japan s total emissions in % of Japan s emissions are from industry and the public sector while 20% are from the residential sector. Breaking down emissions by sector, emissions from industrial manufacturing accounted for 36% of total emissions. Other key emitting areas of the economy are the commercial sector including offices (18%), the transportation sector including private vehicles (19%), and the residential sector (14%). Industrial processing such as cement manufacturing and the energy industry, including power plants, gas companies, and refineries both accounted for (6%). In June 2008, Japan announced a national emissions reduction target of 50% below 2008 levels by In June 2009, Japan announced that it would reduce emissions by 15% below 2005 levels by In its manifesto, the newly elected Democratic Party set a goal to reduce GHG emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by The business world also announced that it would maintain a 4% increase from 1990, while the Japan Association of Corporate Executives announced its target to reduce emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. 2. Calculation and Reporting Obligations and Disclosure: Scope 1 and Scope 2 Corporate Emissions In March 2009, corporate emissions results were published for FY 2007 in compliance with the law related to Efficient Energy Use (Energy Saving Law) and the Japanese Global Warming Countermeasures Promotion Law (Global Warming Law). According to this legislation, reporting is legally required when annual energy consumption levels are above 1,500 KL (crude oil equivalent). In addition, logistics, distribution, and transportation companies with a volume of 30 million tonnes or more ( designated transporting companies and shippers ) are required to report emissions. Disclosed reporting results indicate that 14,841 sites (7,813 companies) reported a total of million tco2. A total of 1,447 Designated Shipping emitters reported million tco2. In total, million tco2, were disclosed in accordance with this reporting obligation, accounting for 47% of Japan s total emissions (1.371 billion tco2). Third party emissions verification is not legally required at this time. The manufacturing industry accounted for 88% of reported emissions. Steel businesses accounted for 33.3% of the total 204,340,000 tco2, the chemical industry accounted for 14.7%, and soil and stone for ceramic manufacturing accounted for 11.5%. he manufacturing industry accounted for 61.6% of the total, which included 1,141 chemical industries which accounted for 7.7% of the total, foodstuff preparation businesses accounted for 7.5%, and transportation equipment manufacturing accounted for 6.7%. Together 1,041 wholesalers and retailers reported emissions, accounting for 7% of the total. Of these 1,041 companies, 1,009 companies were product retailers. Total emissions can also be broken down according to the prefectures in which reporting companies are located. Chiba Prefecture accounted for 9.2% of reported emissions, Aichi Prefecture accounted for 7.3%, Hiroshima and Okayama Prefectures respectively accounted for 6.5%, Hyogo and Yamaguchi Prefectures accounted for 6.1% respectively, Ibaraki Prefecture accounted for 5.3%, Fukuoka Prefecture accounted for 5.1%, Kanagawa Prefecture accounted for 5.0%, and Oita Prefecture accounted for 4.6%.

21 3. External Environment Surrounding Japanese Companies In terms of the number of businesses reporting, Tokyo accounted for 8.6% of the total with 1,271 business establishments, Aichi Prefecture accounted for 7.6%, Osaka accounted for 6%, Kanagawa Prefecture accounted for 5.8%, Hyogo Prefecture accounted for 4.7%, Shizuoka Prefecture accounted for 4.6%, Chiba Prefecture accounted for 4.4%, Saitama Prefecture accounted for 4.1%, Ibaraki Prefecture accounted for 3.7%, and Hokkaido accounted for 3.3%. Of the total emissions produced by specific transportation industries subject to the calculation and reporting obligation, the railroad industry accounted for 30%, the air transportation industry accounted for 23%, and the water transportation industry accounted for 21% of the total. 3. Corporate Emissions Reduction Obligations: Tokyo The Tokyo metropolitan government has revised the Tokyo Metropolitan Environmental Security Ordinance, and announced a plan to implement an emissions cap and trade scheme by The proposed system would set emission quotas and approve the trading of surplus or deficit emissions for specific businesses with global warming countermeasures that consume in excess of 1500 KL (crude oil equivalent) in fuel, heat, and electricity. 90% of companies in Japan s industry sector already report their emissions. Therefore an increase in the number of reporting companies from the industrial sector is likely to be small in the new system. The greatest increase in the number of companies subject to reporting obligations will likely come from the commercial sector. Under the new scheme, companies individual emissions quotas will be based on their average emissions over any consecutive three year period between FY Companies will be required to formulate emissions reduction plans and to promote company-wide energy management systems with executive-level participation. Companies participating in this scheme will be legally required to meet certain reduction targets within defined periods (1st period FY , 2nd period ). If a company is not able to reduce its own emissions, it can fulfill its reduction obligations by purchasing carbon credits. In excess of 1,400 companies are expected to be subject to this system. 4. External Physical Distribution Calculation and Reporting Obligations and Disclosure: Scope 3 Indirect Corporate Emissions As mentioned above, in March 2009, corporate emissions results were published for FY 2007 in compliance with the law related to Efficient Energy Use and the Japanese Global Warming Countermeasures Promotion Law. These laws require businesses not only to calculate and report their direct emissions, but also to report emissions from consigned cargo transportation and in-house shipping that exceed 30,000,000 kt. Japan s indirect emissions reporting requirement is one of the first policies of its kind. 859 shippers reported emissions totaling 18.6 million tco2. The manufacturing industry accounted for 78.8% of this total, including 12.8% by the steel industry, 11.8% by the foodstuff preparation industry, 11.2% by the chemical industry, 7.2% by transport equipment manufacturing, 6.1% by soil and stone for ceramic manufacturing, 5.8% by pulp and paper manufacturing, 5.5% by petroleum and coal products manufacturing, and 5.2% by beverage, tobacco, and foodstuff manufacturing. Wholesalers and retailers accounted for 14.4% of the total amount of emissions by specific shippers, including 4.6% by building materials, minerals and metallic materials etc. wholesalers, and 3.2% by food and beverage wholesalers. The manufacturing industry accounted for 665 (77.4%) of the 859 reporting shipping companies. 123 chemical engineering companies made up the bulk of reporting companies within the manufacturing industry and 14.3% of total reporting companies. Other reporting companies within the manufacturing industry included food manufacturing companies (9.8%), steel companies (7.9%), ceramic manufacturing companies (7.7%), and transport ation and equipment manufacturing companies (6.6%). Wholesalers and retailers accounted for 135 (15.7%) of the 859 reporting shipping companies. This included building materials, minerals and metallic materials wholesalers (4.7%), and food and beverage wholesalers (3.0%). 5. Product Emissions: Top- Runner Approach, Energy Saving Labeling, Eco-Points, Carbon Footprint, Visualization The Top-Runner Approach sets energysaving standards for particular products under Japan s Energy-Saving Law. According to these requirements, new products must be more energy efficient than any product currently available. As a result of these national standards, Japanese companies have achieved market supremacy through energyefficient product development. The Top-Runner standards have been applied to 21 home appliances and automobile products. In 2009, the Top-Runner Approach was extended to one-unit homes. As a result of the recent revisions of the Energy-Saving Law in July 2009, Top-Runner standards have also been applied to routers and switching equipment. The energy-saving labeling system was launched in Labels applied to home electrical appliances indicate the degree to which products have met Top-Runner standards. As of April 2007, the scheme provides information on the energy-saving performance of 16 home appliances. As part of Japan s economic stimulus program, the government launched a series of subsidies for energy-efficient home appliances in May Consumers who purchase products between May 15, 2009 and March 31, 2010 will be eligible for eco-points, which can be exchanged for designated merchandise of an equivalent value through various businesses. Air conditioners, refrigerators, and digital televisions with a 4 star energysaving label will be subsidized under the scheme. The Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications will supervise this project with a budget of billion yen. 21

22 Carbon Disclosure Project A trial of Japan s voluntary Carbon Footprint System was officially launched in April The system calculates the total amount of greenhouse gas produced during the lifecycle of a product or service, from the procurement of raw materials to disposal or recycling, and places that information on the product s label. The carbon footprint of a product or service is expressed in equivalent tonnes of carbon dioxide. Emphasis is placed on ensuring that information displayed on the product s label is concise and easy to understand. In June 2008, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry established the Study Group for Developing and Promoting a Carbon Footprint Program. For the 2008 Eco-Products Exhibition held in Tokyo in December, 30 companies estimated life-cycle CO2 emissions for their products and put labels on them for display at the exhibition. In March 2009, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry announced the details of this system and standards for formulating PCR (product-specific calculation standards). By displaying information on a product s carbon footprint, the scheme is designed to encourage companies to compete for customers on the basis of their products carbon footprints. In addition to promoting the development of low carbon emitting products, the scheme is expected to instigate a change in consumer behavior. A similar trial is already underway in the EU and expert discussions are being conducted toward unifying calculation methods. 6. Voluntary Action Plan: Industry Group Activities The industrial world has set voluntary reduction targets. The annual emissions of companies with voluntary reduction targets are evaluated by a joint committee of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of the Environment. 17 of 34 industry groups reported annual emissions below 1990 levels. There are three types of targets within each industry category: total emissions targets, energy usage targets, and intensity targets. 10 out of 14 industry groups with total emissions reduction targets reduced their emissions below 1990 levels. 4 out of 5 industry groups with energy usage reduction targets reduced their energy usage below 1990 levels. 19 out of 23 industry groups with intensity targets improved their specific consumption when compared to 1990 levels. Some industry types have established more than two targets. A record number of industry groups raised their targets in FY As a result, there were few industry groups that raised their targets in FY groups in the industrial and energy conversion sectors did raise their target levels. They included the Japan Gas Association, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. and the Japan Auto-Body Industries Association, Inc., the Brewers Association of Japan, and the Japanese Electric Wire & Cable Makers' Association. Often the targets set by industry groups have been adopted by affiliated businesses. Industry groups that have not met their reduction goals have recently announced a plan to use Kyoto credits to meet their targets. 7. Emissions Trading System: Integrated Domestic Market, JVETS The Global Warming Prevention Headquarters is comprised of the cabinet secretary, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and the Ministry of the Environment and was formed with the express aim of participating in the international emissions trading system. In October 2008, the Global Warming Prevention Headquarters introduced an integrated domestic emissions trading market in Japan on a trial basis. The participants of Japan s emissions trading market include target setters and emissions traders. As of March 2009, 523 companies had applied for the right to participate in Japan s nascent emissions trading system, including 449 companies that were engaging in target setting (targeted number of companies: 320), 61 companies participating in emissions trading, and 13 companies that were working in the domestic credit system as emissions reduction companies. The domestic credit system is a framework which certifies the reduction in emissions achieved by small and medium-sized enterprises. The certified emissions reductions are then applied toward meeting their voluntary action plans. Japan's Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme (JVETS) was launched in 2005 by the Ministry of the Environment for the purpose of accumulating knowledge and experience relating to the cost-effective reduction and trading of emissions. JVETS has three types of participants: 1, type A target holders, participants promising a certain level of emissions reductions with subsidy incentives; 2, types B and C target holders, participants promising emissions reductions without subsidization; and 3, emissions brokers whose activities are not subject to emissions reduction targets. 8. Renewable Energy Market, Carbon Offsetting In February 2008, the Ministry of the Environment compiled the Guidelines for Carbon Offsetting in Japan (policies). The Offsetting credit (J- VER) Scheme was started in November 2008 which certified the application of greenhouse gas emission reductions and sinks realized through domestic projects as credit toward voluntary carbon offsetting. A company can offset all or a portion of its emissions by purchasing greenhouse gas emission reductions or sinks, or by implementing projects and activities that will facilitate emission reductions in other areas. Carbon offsets can be classified into two types: the carbon offsets with marketable credits and the carbon offsets with non-marketable credits. 22

23 4 Key Findings 1. Recognition of risks and opportunities that climate change poses to companies Of all responding companies (n=187), 90% responded that there are certain climate change-related risks, and 91% responded that there are certain opportunities. Regulatory risks and opportunities were most frequently recognized. 2. Accounting: Emissions Accounting (Internal emissions measurement status), Emissions Reporting, and Emissions Boundary 93% of companies specified their reporting year. The majority of companies (69%) used 2008 as their reporting year. Most Japanese companies understood the year to run from April to March; 2008 therefore corresponds to the period from April 1, 2008 to March 31, Although the end of the financial accounting year was close to the CDP deadline, companies reported using the most recent accounting year. 94% of responding companies indicated which reporting boundary they used. 34% used facilities over which financial control is exercised as a boundary, 12% reported based on facilities over which operational control is exercised, 3% used facilities in which equity share is held, and 44% used other boundaries. Many companies indicating other boundaries noted that they had included only reportable company sites. The reason is considered to be that the Japanese Laws Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming and Rational Use of Energy and the Japanese Energy Conservation Law require only offices that exceed a certain level of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption to calculate and submit a report. Regulatory requirements are imposed only on these offices. Due to the amendment made in 2008, emissions reporting for each business /franchise will be legally required for 2009 emissions reporting. Therefore, it is expected that emissions measurement in 2009 will be improved, and that disclosure of emissions by each business unit will be available in Emissions reported to CDP are categorized into Scopes 1 and 2 as defined in the GHG Protocol, and are also broken down by country and region where possible. Scope 1 refers to the direct emissions of greenhouse gases from emissions sources managed or owned by the business. Scope 2 refers to the GHG emissions arising from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the facilities and offices managed or owned by the business, which is a special item among indirect emissions. Japanese responding companies reported total domestic Scope 1 and 2 emissions figures of approximately 523 million tco2e. As stated before, approximately 70% of responding companies used 2008 as their reporting year. Although the latest emissions data disclosed in Japan are from 2007 and the 2008 data has not yet been released, the reported emissions in CDP7 corresponds to approximately 38% of Japan's total emissions in 2007 (1.374 billion tco2e). Also, the emissions reported in 2007 as regulated under the Japanese Laws Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming were accounting for approximately 47% of Japan's total emissions. Emissions figures that were reported by each company in 2007 under these laws have been released. There is a significant difference when these are compared with emissions reported under CDP; CDP emissions figures greatly exceed the figure reported under Japanese Law. The gap is attributed not to the difference in the reporting year, but to the fact that emissions not covered by the regulatory requirements are managed by the responding companies and reported to CDP. Total country-by-country emissions reported by Japanese companies were approximately 22 million tco2e in Asia excluding Japan, 8.6 million tco2e in Fig. 11: Emission volume comparison (Japan total mandatory reporting, CDP) Japan total 1.37 billion tco2e emission 100% Mandatory reporting 650 million tco2e emission 47% Emission reported 523 million tco2e to CDP 38% Total emissions reported by Japanese companies were highest in China, second is in United States, then in Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, and Indonesia 23

24 Carbon Disclosure Project North America, 4.7 million tco2e in the EU, 0.76 million tco2e in Latin America, 0.26 million tco2e in Oceania, and 0.06 million tco2e in Africa. 8 Looking at country-by-country emissions, Chinese companies accounted for the highest proportion, reporting 6.4 million tco2e. Second to China is North America with 4.5 million tco2e, then Singapore with 3.1 million tco2e, Thailand with 1.1 million tco2e, followed by Taiwan, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, and Indonesia. 9 Most reported emissions were in countries that do not legally require emissions reporting, and with the exception of the United States, were in countries with no emissions reduction targets set in the Kyoto Protocol. There were reports on emissions in small countrieswhere emissions from Japanese companies represent a large portion of total emissions. Not only were these corporate disclosures necessary for considering emissions by each company, the disclosing of such information also provided important data for understanding the emissions status in each country. Scope 3 GHG emissions Scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions that occur from sources not owned or controlled by the business. In CDP2009, companies were asked about the following four categories of Scope 3 emissions: emissions from employee business travel, emissions from external distribution/logistics, emissions from use/disposal of company products and services, and supply chain emissions. 24% of responding companies disclosed their emissions from employee business travel, 48% disclosed their emissions from external distribution/logistics, 25% disclosed their emission from the use/disposal of their company's products and services, and 18% of responding companies disclosed the emission from their supply chain. Under the Japanese Laws Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming and Rational Use of Energy and the Japanese Energy Conservation Law, those who consign freight transports with volume of 30 million ton-kilometers or more (specified shippers) are required to report emissions. The high response rate for emissions from external distribution & logistics is likely due to this legal 24 requirement. Emissions reported in conjunction with this regulation are publicly available." According to information released in March 2009, 859 Japanese specified shippers disclosed a total of 18.6 million tco2 in In CDP2009, 79 companies disclosed approximately 8 million tco2 from external distribution and shipping. Some respondents' emissions volumes are below the regulatory threshold. 18 companies that are not defined as specified shippers reported emissions under the CDP questionnaire. A number of these companies calculated and reported their total domestic and international emissions despite not being obligated to do so. There were also many companies whose emissions reported to CDP were significantly higher than the emissions they reported domestically as specified shippers; this implies that companies measured emissions from external distribution and logistics both domestically and internationally. These companies can potentially adapt to more stringent domestic and international emissions reporting requirements, being able to take the lead for future provisions. Some companies did not respond to the given question in CDP although they have reported emissions as a specified shipper as required under the Japanese regulation. This indicates that further effort is needed for companies to understand the meaning behind the subject question that asked whether companies implement a advanced practice of measuring their indirect emissions. Third Party Verification 33% of responding companies had third parties verify their emissions. There are legal reporting requirements in the Japanese Laws Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming and the ordinance by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. 78% of companies reported emissions under these regulations, although they do not require third party verification. However, even in Japan, third party verification is required for emissions trading schemes. As economic value is linked with emissions, third party verification is mandatory. The total emissions control will be started in 2010, and verification is required from that point. It is likely that the practice of third party verification will becoming increasingly necessary as the economic value of emissions increases. Emissions Trading Scheme There was tremendous variation in company responses concerning emissions strategies. The cap and trade system for emissions trading based on total emissions volume control has not been started in Japan, but some Japanese companies operate targeted facilities in the EU. There were many responses regarding the total emissions volume control in light of the cap and trade scheme that will soon start in Tokyo. In addition, there were also many responses that referred to emissions trading on a project basis, such as the voluntary emissions trading scheme and domestic integrated market led by the Ministry of the Environment. There were also companies that participated in so-called Kyoto credit projects, which are based on Kyoto mechanisms such as CDM and JI. With these external factors as a background, 48% of responding companies indicated that they planned to participate in emissions trading schemes other than EU-ETS, and 2% indicated that they planned to participate only in the EU-ETS. A total of 50% responded concerning their strategies related to emissions trading schemes. The total emissions volume from EU- ETS targeted facilities owned by responding companies amounted to approximately 310,000 tco2; the impact of the EU-ETS is limited. However, as total emissions volume restrictions and emissions trading schemes will be started in Tokyo from 2010, targeted companies need to take appropriate measures. 21% of responding companies reported that they had engaged in projects that created emissions rights. 28% indicated that they had purchased emissions rights on a project basis, which was not only limited to the Kyoto credit, but also included the emissions rights based on domestic emissions-reduction projects. This indicates that many Japanese companies have started reducing emissions to gain credits, as well as purchasing credits. 8 This does not include responses that do not clearly distinguish country-by-country answers and region-byregion answers. 9 In case of the unclear country-by-country statements, the country-by-country responses are not included regardless of the statement on regional emissions.

25 4. Key Findings Table 3: Case examples of risks that climate change present to companies Risk Company name Response Regulatory Risks Nippon Oil Corporation Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line We have been managing the regulatory risk by improving energy consumption intensity at oil refinery sites. Reduction of 200,000 tco2 emissions has been achieved through co-generation in use of gas-turbine generators and waste heat boilers. In addition, steam-trap management has been thoroughly conducted for higher energy-efficiency, resulting in significant improvement of 17-percent reduction in energy consumption intensity from the 1990 levels. Furthermore, we have been also conducting the following activity that uses the Kyoto Protocol's mechanisms. Project on recovery and effective use of the associated gas produced along with the crude oil in the Rang Dong oil field, Vietnam was registered as a CDM project and was approved for the largest ever one-time CER issuance approval. Further, the project is the first ever CER issuance in the world resulting from the recovery and utilization of associated gas. This CDM approach was uniquely developed and proposed by a group company of Nippon Oil Corporation. The approach has become a global standard and has been adopted all over the world. At present, no direct impacts have been identified as the overseas shipping business is out of the scope of the Kyoto protocol and the regulation is under consideration at IMO. However, we recognize that regulations of some types will be inevitably introduced to the overseas shipping business by the post-kyoto protocol, EUETS, etc. Associated financial impacts have been assessed internally. Assessment is also conducted externally by external consultants. As a result of simulations under various regulatory scenarios, 5 to 30-percent of profit from the marine transportation business is predicted to be necessary in order to cover envisaged exceeding by emissions rights. Physical Risks ORIX Corporation Panasonic Corporation Ajinomoto Co.Inc. Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. Measures to be taken regarding the current climate change in Japan are regulated by the Law Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming and Act concerning the Rational Use of Energy, both of which have been recently amended. The finance business and the real estate business which are the main areas of focus of our Group involve minimal production or energy facilities which are direct sources of GHG emissions. However, with the amendement, we will be obligated to manage the use of energy at our rental offices. In the near future, a cap will be placed on the amount of emissions under Tokyo Metropolitan Environmental Security Ordinance that is to curb emissions at large-scale facilities. Some ORIX-related facilities will be capped. It will be necessary to incur costs to research and analyze the current situation and to implement a management system to control emissions and usage since we have over 1,000 offices and managed properies throughout Japan. In Japan, labeling regulations have been introduced in the U.S. and EU, and even in emerging countries such as China and India, and it is mandatory to attach a label for products sold in each market. Since some countries/regions prohibit marketing products whose energy-efficiency performance is lower than criteria, it gets much clearer that anti-global warming regulations all over the world get very stricter and a new era has come that a company without energy-conserving technologies cannot survive. Aiming to step up our efforts, we newly set a basic concept for the development of environmentally-conscious products in eco ideas Strategy, which is increasing the number of products with industry s No.1 energy-efficiency performance and phasing out those with lower performance. While it is rather difficult to set quantitative targets for the energy-saving performance because we cannot make clear comparisons of our products with other companies ones, we do aim wherever possible to engage in objectively-verifiable initiatives. By the end of fiscal 2010, we aim to double the number of products with industry s No.1 energy-efficiency and eliminate products ranked in the lower 30% compared to fiscal And from fiscal 2009, we use the number of products with industry s No.1 environmental performance in terms of global warming prevention, effective resource utilization and chemical substances management as 'Key Performance Indicators (KPI).' In FY 2009, we developed and marketed 296 models with industry-leading environmental performance and 233 models among them marked top-class energy-saving performance in each country and region. The group procures certain amounts of these agricultural produce corresponding to the group s some 1 million metric tons of fermentation-related amino acid production. Supply interruption of these agricultural produce such as reduced product yield may have a direct impact upon the group s stable production. Price increase of agricultural produce is already evident recently. An example of the Group s different approach in securing stable food resources is the Group s supporting activities for local agricultural production in a way that does not have an adverse impact on natural ecosystems. For example, the Group s amino acid fermentation production system is actually a model of recycle-oriented production. The cyclic system, called Bio-cycle, has been initiated by the group with its technical expertise and developed for 30 years in regions around the world. Since the use of the liquid fertilizer replaces the use of chemical fertilizer in agriculture, the Bio-cycle practice will eventually contribute greatly to a reduction in CO2 associated with chemical fertilizer production. Our estimation based on a typical model study revealed that the byproduct fertilizer accounts for about 70% of nitrogen fertilizer required for sugar cane field. In general, economic losses of companies and individuals will become greater along with the increasing number of large-scale natural disasters around the world. Since insurance companies provide insurance products that cover customers economic losses in relation to natural disasters by underwriting such risks, a rise in the number and intensity of natural disasters will increase the burden of claims payment and accordingly the operations of insurance companies will be significantly affected. The variation caused by climate change affects the pricing, development and underwriting of insurance products. In addition, climate change may also affect our financial condition or profitability by triggering more provision of catastrophe reserves for a possible increase in claims payment. The Tokio Marine Group has to continue to strengthen its ability to analyze the impacts of climate change on insurance risks and underwriting and pricing abilities necessary for underwriting risks. Therefore, under the academic-industrial alliance with the University of Tokyo and Nagoya University, TMN conducts joint risk researches including projection of possible impact of major natural disasters. In order to help further development of research for climate change projection, we plan to provide the Center for Climate System Research of the University of Tokyo with research grant worth 50 million yen in total during the five years between FY2007 and FY

26 Carbon Disclosure Project Risk Company name Response Other Risks Mazda Motor Corporation Every automobile manufacturer has been actively introducing hybrid, electric, flex-fuel vehicles to markets. The competition over environmental technologies and eco-friendly vehicles has increased recently. In addition, especially Chinese automobile manufacturers actively starts introducing various vehicles including hybrid and electric ones, resulting in even more competition at the Asian market including China that has been significantly growing nowadays. Our priority for the time being is contribution to environment through realization of dramatically improved fuelconsumption level in terms of gasoline and diesel engines that have overwhelming impacts on CO2 emissions reduction. Actually, approximately average fuel consumption level has been improved by approximately 30-percent with our automobiles sold in Japan during the 7-year period from 2001 to Further, we aim at improving fuel consumption by 30-percent below the 2008 levels by Nippon Mining Holdings, Inc. The Japan Steel Works, Ltd. In terms of general consumers attitudes, increased popularity in fuel-efficient automobiles have already had impacts on gasoline sales. Larger impacts will be expected as the hybrid automobiles and electric automobiles are introduced in full swing. In response to more eco-friendly consumer attitudes, we start to sell bio-gasoline in series. Risk of reduced demand for wind power generation due to factors such as increased storm and hurricane damage to generation facilities, and lower operating rates resulting from changes in wind direction caused by extreme weather events. Risk of a downturn in demand for vehicle fuel tanks and oil refinery reactors due to falling demand for oil in a lowcarbon society. Risk of reduced demand for thermal and nuclear power generation due to decentralization of energy supply resulting from widespread use of technologies such as household fuel cells. Table 4: Case examples of opportunities that climate change present to companies OpportunitiyCompany name Regulatory Nankai Electric Opportunities Railway Co., Ltd. NTT Urban Development Corporation Physical Seven & I Holding Opportunities 26 Sompo Japan Insurance Response Increase in number of railway users due to more stringent regulations over CO2 emissions from automobiles. Increase in number of railway users due to regulations over automobile influx into city areas. Reduction in the electric cost due to increased electric supply by installation of photovoltaic units at a railway station through expansion of support measures for photovoltaic units. Increased demand in low-carbon, energy-saving office buildings equipped with energy consumption meters that can be segmetalized. The increased demand for eco-friendly building is expected to be started in FY 2010 when revision on the Law Regarding the Rationalization of Energy Use and the Laws Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming will be made. Creation of domestic emission credits obtained from energy-efficient office buildings. We believe it is our advantage to handle more fresh food from domestic market. Most serious climate change occurs out of Japan.Thanks to independece on foreign markets in terms of fresh food, we do not get any troubles in Japan. And food made from local area need less transportation, which is less CO2. In 2008 we established a new company and started producing vegetables from food waste collected from nearby stores. Furthermore,property and casualty insurance industry is the sector vastly affected by the increase of natural disasters possibly fueled by climate change, both in positive and negative sense. To cope with this changing environment and to take out as much benefits out from it, we had been developing and launching out number of products and services related to physical risks of climate change. One of the financial product from our lineup of which sales is significantly influenced by the physical change of climate is weather derivatives. We had worked with home solar power system manufactures to develop systems with weather compensation attached in the form of a derivatives that compensates consumers who has installed a solar power system, in the event of abnormal weather conditions resulting in lower than the normal hours of sunlight. Because this product enables consumers to lessen the impacts of reduces power production due to bad weather, it is expected to help promote sales of home solar power sytems. Sumitomo Chemical Due to global warming, people can potentially contract the malaria and the dengue fever even in the temperate area. We have been participating in the Roll Back Malaria campaign (control of malaria) led by various organizations such as the World Health Organization. We have been providing its proprietary insecticide-embedded mosquito nets and transferring its manufacturing technology free of charge to a local mosquito net manufacturer. Although the efforts to expand its production are being strengthened at present, the demand can be increased due to global warming. Due to climate change, an agricultural process and effective pesticides can be changed. In order to cope with such change, we have been conducting research and development activities for pesticides to control products diseases and pests, expanding our product portfolio. For example, climate change can hinder growth of agricultural products by dehydrating an agricultural land. We are now devoted to the stress management in use of the plant s growth hormone, which can be our business opportunity. In addition, sales of construction materials for an irrigation system to green dry lands can be expanded. Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc. Our Company promotes activities to offer encouraging proposals that can be of help to create comfortable houses and improve living environment such as electrification systems and thermal storage air conditioning systems, which are suited for highly heat insulated and highly airtight houses, as an efficient energy utilization that is aimed at harmony with the environment. Particularly, we strive to promote the widespread use of Eco Cute that is a highly efficient electric water heater that uses heat pump technology, because Eco Cute has high heating performance but its ozone depletion potential is zero. Our company group is promoting the development of environmental business chances such as woody biomass powergeneration business, wind power generation business and other similar businesses.

27 4. Key Findings OpportunitiyCompany name Other Hitachi Opportunities Toto Ltd. Response As a result of climate changes, much more demands for devices having less CO2 emission are expected as the means to minimize their impacts. Such devices include further high-effective generating facilities for power industry; and it is likely that future developing and manufacturing of power generating units using supercritical and extrasupercritical vapor pressure is required for steam-power generations. In this field, Hitachi is able to supply coal thermal power plants of the highest level in the world. Hitachi can also supply combined systems with gas turbines and conventional steam turbines in a combination to spectacularly improve the power generation efficiency of conventional power plants. Hitachi is also engaged in the sales of wind-power and solar power generation equipment. These power generating installations using renewable energies are expected to spectacularly expand in the future. Hitachi is also engaged in development and manufacturing of lithium-ion secondary batteries and motors, indispensable for next-generation vehicles. Manufacturing volume of these products is expected to widely expand in the future. Hitachi is also supplying environment-related solutions, and selling flood predictive simulation software, environmental loads aggregative software, electricity usage aggregation systems and others; the sales for these fields are promising. We have introduced the TOTO Eco Products Certification System, for encouraging the development of products that can reduce the environmental burden and the disclosure of information to customers. The system requires that new products be evaluated pursuant to our unique product environmental assessment standards, for example, through measurements of CO2 emissions, based on a lifecycle assessment starting from the product planning and design stages. Those that successfully meet the standards are recognized as TOTO Eco Products. Since the introduction of the system in 1998, TOTO Eco Products with outstanding water and energy conservation properties have been released to widespread plaudits from the market. Among these products, the Neorest Hybrid series has achieved industry-leading water and energy conservation performance, thanks to the world s first hybrid ecology system and multifarious power conservation functions. Compared with conventional products ten-odd years ago, CO2 emissions are reduced by 94kg and the running costs by about 17,000 yen each year. Moreover, the thermos bottle bathtub used with system bathrooms in private homes keeps bathwater warm longer, thanks to its double heat-insulating structure, conserving energy as there is no need to heat the bath water again. Compared to conventional bathtubs, CO2 emissions are reduced by 69kg and running costs by about 5,000 yen each year. Fig. 12: Total country-by-country emissions Asia 9,210,260 9,974,209 Oceania 37, ,241 Europe 3,353, ,585 Africa 27,775 29,619 North America 3,693,077 3,749,588 Latin America 465, ,175 Scope 1 Scope Performance: Emissions reduction activities Approximately 90% of responding companies answered that they have reduction plans in place, with just under 90% of responding companies indicating a baseline year, goal setting, and a target period. Of companies with reduction plans, 46% set absolute targets such as emissions and energy reduction by volume, 27% set intensity-based targets such as emissions per production units and sales, and 15% set both types of targets. Various industrial sectors set voluntary reduction targets. Comparing these targets with the responses by companies, the targets reported by power companies are the same as the voluntary target set by the power sector. On the other hand, there were many companies that they set targets that exceeded their sector target. Companies reporting on their targets are at an advanced level, and set targets exceeding their sector set target. Companies reporting on their targets are at an advanced level, and set targets exceeding their sector set target. 78% of responding companies reported performance indicators for assessing progress against the emissions reductions and energy reduction targets, with 16% using absolute and intensity-based indicators, 27% using absolute indicators, 25% using intensity-based indicators, and 9% using qualitative indicators. 27

28 Carbon Disclosure Project Emissions intensity CDP2009 requested disclosure of information concerning financial emissions intensity measurement and activity related intensity measurement. 57% reported their financial emissions intensity. Many companies indicated that emissions per sales and per sales profit were used as the emissions financial intensity. Some companies also responded that they used per added value sales figures and internally developed indicators as the emissions financial intensity. With regards to the activity-related intensity, 39% of companies reported their internal emissions intensity. In the manufacturing industries, many companies responded that they compared emissions with sales figures, productions, and added value. In case of the commercial sector, there were some companies that compared emissions with size of offices (in square meters) and number of employees. 4. Governance: Responsibility management systems related to climate change 84% of responding companies reported that the board of directors or executive level employees held overall responsibility for measures to cope with climate change. They also reported on climate change-related governance systems and verification processes. Few responses included the name of the executive in charge and specific responsibility for climate change, but it is expected that responses including this information will increase in the future, as the amendment on the Japanese Laws Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming will be made. This will mandate company-wide energy management systems that requires an energy management supervisor who will be assigned among corporate executives and an assistant energy-plan promoter. 49% of companies reported that incentive mechanisms for strategic climate change activities are internally in place. This incentive mechanism includes not only monetary systems but also awardsbased systems, and is reflected in performance evaluation. In addition, 46% of companies reported that they had monetary incentive mechanisms, including some indicating that board members have monetary incentives. This indicates that board members have responsibilities, indicating emergence of companies with board members clearly responsible for regarding climate change strategies. CDP2009 asked companies about disclosure of risks and opportunities related to climate change, emissions and emissions reduction plans. 67% of companies responded that they disclose information using legal documents. The reports submitted based on the legal reporting requirements by the Japanese Laws Concerning the Promotion of the Measures to Cope with Global Warming and Rational Use of Energy and the Japanese Energy Conservation Law are considered legal documents. 86% of responding companies voluntarily disclosed information in their Corporate Social Responsibility reports. As the companies that responded are those at the advanced level in disclosure, these responses are not indicative of the general trend amongst Japanese companies. However, this indicates that the advanced companies actively disclosed their activities using legal documents and CSR reports. CDP2009 asked companies whether they engaged with policymakers on possible responses to climate change including taxation, regulation and carbon trading. Although some responding companies reported direct engagement with policymakers, in Japan there are numerous advisory bodies and research groups through which many companies are engaged. There are many advisory bodies and associations related to climate change, in which authorities take charge of the secretariat role, and companies participated as committee members. Economic organizations such as the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations, the Association of Corporate Executives, and the Chamber of Commerce also submitted proposals to policymakers. Many responses reflected these activities. In CDP 2009, several companies reported their participation in the carbon footprint committee indicating that companies are engaged in new activities. Table 5: Emission Intensity Industrial sector Financial emissions intensity Activity related intensity Consumer Discretionary CO2/sales CO2/output, CO2/(floor space operating hour), CO2/floor space Consumer Staples CO2/sales CO2/output(weight, number), CO2/volume of sales, CO2/floor space Energy CO2/sales, CO2/sales profit CO2/gas sales, CO2/crude oil production(kl) Financials CO2/sales, CO2/sales profit CO2/office space, CO2/employee Health Care CO2/sales, sales/co2, energy consumption/sales CO2/floor space, output/co2 Industrials CO2/sales, CO2/sales profit, CO2/EBITDA, CO2/output, CO2/floor space, energy consumption/employee energy consumption/sales Information Technology CO2/sales CO2/output, CO2/material input Materials CO2/sales, sales/co2 CO2/output, energy consumption/output Real Estate CO2/sales CO2/floor space Telecommunications CO2/sales, CO2/EBITDA Transportation CO2/sales, CO2/EBITDA CO2/ton-kilomete,energy consumption/ton-kilomete, energy consumption/mileage Utilities CO2/sales, CO2/EBITDA CO2/electricity sales 28

29 5 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index 2009 CDLI has been developed to highlight the companies that provided the most comprehensive response to the CDP questionnaire. The CDLI provides an evaluation on CDP responses by every company for investors. 1. The analysis here is based on selfreported responses that are not verified by third parties. 2. Responses to the CDP 2009 questionnaire do not reflect companies' traditional carbon disclosure through traditional reporting channels such as annual reports, environmental reports, and other regulatory filings nor do they providean accurate reflection of companies' actual carbon performance. 3. Companies that do not public their responses don't apply to CDLI. Table 6: Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (Alphabetical order) Company name Canon Casio Computer Co., Ltd. * Daikin Industries Daiwa House Inds. FujiFilm Holdings Corporation Fujitsu Ltd. Hitachi Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. * Inpex Corporation KAO Corporation Komatsu Ltd. Mazda Motor Corporation * Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Mitsui Chemicals Nankai Electric Railway Co., Ltd. * Nippon Oil Corporation Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line Nissan Motor NTT Urban Development Corporation * OMRON Corporation * Osaka Gas Co. Panasonic Corporation Sony Corporation Takeda Pharmaceutical The Japan Steel Works, Ltd. * Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. Tokyo Gas Co. Toto Ltd. Toyo Seikan Toyota Motor Uni-Charm Corporation * Companies that received the questionnaire for the first time 29

30 6 Appendix 1: Insights from Japanese and Asian Companies About The Association for Sustainable & Responsible Investment in Asia ( ASrIA ) ASrIA, the Association for Sustainable & Responsible Investment in Asia, is a not for profit membership association dedicated to promoting corporate responsibility and sustainable investment practice in the Asia Pacific region. ASrIA has taken a leadership role in promoting sustainable investment in Asia since our founding in ASrIA has run conferences, seminars and workshops, and published wide-ranging research on SRI issues. ASrIA has also created a very wide network of organizations and individuals interested in the broad range of policy issues and investment strategies which are essential to the implementation of SRI in Asia. ASrIA's website, is the primary resource for SRI in Asia. 1. CDP Asia ex-japan Report 2009 Asian ex-japan companies have responded strongly to the carbon disclosure project this year, according the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), Asia ex-japan 2009 Report. The number of reporting companies has more than doubled to a total of 127, up from 61 last year and the quality and materiality of responses has continued to improve. Of particular note, a significantly wider range of operation data and metrics were provided this year and the responses provide a wide range of valuable information and insights for investors. This was a year of consolidation for many of the veteran companies. An increasing number of companies have set benchmarks and targets, are working with their operational data and exploring strategic initiatives. The outstandingly strong response from the Information technology sector highlighted a key theme, which is the extent to which supply chain factors have driven engagement with climate change related issues by Asian companies. Supply chain companies in the region increasingly have to respond to a range of cross-cutting issues, including regulatory developments, supply chain risks and green product and service opportunities, which together act as strong drivers to engage with climate change related issues. For investors, four key themes emerged from ASrIA s analysis of the 2009 responses: From Mitigation to Adaptation- Companies Start to Move Beyond Regulatory Uncertainty and Focus on Opportunities Regulatory uncertainty continues. However, as regulatory roadmaps are gradually put in place across the region, companies are switching their focus towards meeting higher standards beyond expected regulatory requirements, and saw this as an opportunity. The impacts of extreme weather are recognized within a wider spectrum of related risks, and opportunities are emerging from this. Companies are establishing a broader picture of the issues, how their industries may be affected and the risks and potential opportunities open to them. More Substantive Disclosure of Emissions and Operational Data Companies have started to publicly release a wider range of emissions and operationaldata, providing some real substance for investors to engage with. Baseline data and targets were established in previous years and has been helpful for companies who are well into a third or even fourth year of responding to the CDP process. IT Sector leads on Responses and Data With over a 70% response to the questionnaire and over 80% emission disclosure rates, the IT sector was well ahead of other sectors in overall response rates. Korea Pushes Ahead, India Emerges Strongly A 50% response rate by an enlarged Korean sample is a major story this year, and reflects ongoing co-ordinated initiatives by several major industry sectors. India is also emerging as a very strong reporter in the region. Taiwan continues to make valuable progress. The report is freely available on the ASrIA website at 30

31 6. Appendix 1: Insights from Japanese and Asian Companies CDP China 100, Country Insight Introduction China is the largest emerging economy in the world. Therefore, when tackling climate change, Chinese companies have a significant role to play. Since 2008, CDP sends information requests to China s top 100 listed companies and produces a report on their carbon performance. Chinese companies included in this report range from A- shares to H-shares. Response Status In 2009, 11 Chinese listed companies answered the questionnaire () and 18 companies provided CDP with relevant carbon related information (IN). Based on our research, it can be concluded that the response rate has increased since 2008 and that the quality of corporate data has improved. The IT & Telecommunications sector obtained the highest response rates. Findings and highlights Improved policy framework and social awareness Both government and civil society pay more attention to climate change issues, which promotes corporate awareness and has increased efforts to disclose carbon related information to some extent. Increased response rate and higher quality of disclosure More companies have been willing to respond to the CDP questionnaire since last year. Also the quality of the corporate data on its carbon performance has increased, although it should be noted that there is still enough room for improvement. Various awareness sectors Overall, the IT & Telecom, Finance and Energy sectors have showed a greater commitment to identify a link between the core business and climate change than other industry sectors. The Food & Beverage and Trade & Retail sectors particularly, appear to be less willing to start communications about their carbon performance. Insufficient data and carbon management Most companies have not been able to provide CDP with sufficient carbon related data, not to mention the ability to set quantitative carbon reduction targets. These companies are recommended to bring, as soon as possible, a carbon management system in place that enables data collection efforts. SynTao prepared the CDP China Insight page in this report and the CDP China 2009 report is currently being written by SynTao. The report will be launched in Beijing early November SynTao ( a Beijing-based CSR consulting firm, supports CDP in its aim to increase corporate carbon transparency and engages with Chinese companies about its carbon performance through the CDP questionnaire. Table 7: Chinese company responses to CDP 2009, 2008 CDP China 2009 CDP China 2008 Answered Questionnaire () 11 5 Provided information (IN) Number of companies with emission data 5 2 Number of companies with reduction plan 7 2 Industrial sector with highest response rate IT & Telecom Oil & Gas 31

32 Carbon Disclosure Project The CDP Korea 2009 Sector Insight was prepared for the Asia ex-japan Report by CDP s Korean partners, KoSIF, and Eco-Frontier, Further details of Korean company responses will be available in the upcoming CDP Korean Report CDP Korea 100, Country Insight Data Analysis Increase in the number of sample companies and response rates The number of samples has doubled and response rates increased 3.1 times since CDP Among 16 companies which responded to CDP 2008, 15 of them (94%) responded again to CDP Response status by industrial sectors Industry sectors with the highest response rate are: Utilities, Information Technology. Industry sectors with the lowest response rate are: Consumer Discretionary, Materials, Energy. CDP Korea 2009 Key Findings For investors, five key themes which have emerged from analysis of this year s Korean company responses are: Increase in awareness of climate change Regardless of the rise in samples, CDP Korea 2009 shows the highest response rates among the Asian regions. This reflects Korean companies increasing awareness of climate change. Moreover, increased samples enabled further sectoral analysis. Beyond risk management, finding a diversity of opportunities Many companies who responded to CDP 2009 identified risks in relation to climate change by three levels (industrial, domestic, international) and analyzed it comprehensively. At the same time, a number of companies perceived climate change as providing opportunities under the nation s new vision of Low Carbon, Green Growth. They are trying to develop environment-friendly and energy efficient products, and increasing investment in clean energy. Companies are investing in new green business projects related to climate change and developing green technology products and services. Building the infrastructure addressing climate change actively By measuring and reporting on GHG emissions, companies have established the necessary foundations for developing climate change management plans. They are better positioned to predict the potential risks of regulations in relation to GHG emissions and ensure credibility and objectivity of their reporting through external verification. GHG emissions accounting enables companies to set concrete reduction targets and to arrange appropriate reduction activities. Major initiatives for GHG emissions reduction include investment in equipment, technical process innovations and a focus on green purchase and supply chain management. Need for closer coordination with government policy through expanding communication Respondents are very active in internal reduction activities, but quite passive in their company s policies toward the Government's environmental regulation. In fact, only 55% of companies are positively engaging policy makers, compared with 74% from the Global 500 and 62% from the Asia ex-jick 100. This clearly shows the need for stronger leadership from board committees or other senior executive levels. Qualitative gap in companies' carbon disclosure According to CDLI results, the average score gap between the top 10% and the bottom 10% of Korean companies is huge and this raises a qualitative gap in companies carbon disclosure. Table 8: Korean company responses to CDP Number of samples 100 Number of respondents 50 Response rates 50% Industry sectors with the highest response rate Utilities, Information Technology Industry sectors with the lowest response rate Consumer Discretionary, Materials, Energy Number of respondents with emissions disclosure 27 Number of respondents with verified emissions information 16 Number of respondents with emissions reduction plan 31

33 6. Appendix 1: Insights from Japanese and Asian Companies CDP Japan & Asia 500, Sector Insight Steel Sector A number of large steel companies in Asia responded to CDP this year. India s Tata, South Korea s POSCO, and Japan s Nippon Steel provided responses related to Risk and Opportunity. Tata does not foresee any Regulatory Risk, as the Indian government has not put climate regulation in place, but does recognize Physical Risk and Other Risk. However POSCO sees Regulatory Risk, because even though South Korea does not have a reduction target in Kyoto protocol, POSCO expects that the government will implement an Ecotax. Nippon Steel sees Regulatory Risk, on the grounds that in the future the Government of Japan, and even local governments, may create new environmental regulations. POSCO used a financial boundary, while Tata and Nippon Steel used other boundaries. With regards to Scope 3, POSCO reported their emission volume from business travel, while Nippon steel reported the emission volume from external distribution & logistics. For emissions intensity related to activities, Tata steel and Nippon Steel reported in metric tonnes of CO2e per tonne of crude steel productions, while POSCO used a different metric. Electronics Sector Several large electronics companies in Asia responded to CDP in Samsung of South Korea, Acer of Taiwan, Lenovo in China, and Hitachi, Panasonic, Canon, Fujitsu, Sony of Japan are prominent among electronics companies which provided interesting responses to the Risk and Opportunity questions. As global companies they considered Regulatory Risk, Physical Risk and Other Risk on a global basis. All of the companies reported their Scope 1 & Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions. With regards to Scope 3, Samsung reported in all categories while Acer reported its emission from business travel. All Japanese companies reported external distribution & logistics, as they are legally required to report for their energy consumption inside Japan. CDP asked companies to report Emissions avoided through use of goods and services this year, and in answer to this question all of the large electronics companies mentioned above reported their product efficiency. Table 9: Response of steel and electronic sector Company name Steel Reporting Year Reporting Boundary Scope 1 world (CO2-e) Scope 1 Scope 2 domestic world (CO2-e) (CO2-e) Scope 2 domestic (CO2-e) Scope 3 Scope 3 Business External travel distribution & logistics Scope3 Use & disposal of Products and services Scope 3 Supply chain Fnancial Activity emissions emissions intensity intensity Tata (India) FY2008 Other x POSCO (South Korea) FY2008 Financial x x x Nippon SteelFY2008 Other x x x Electronic Samsung (South FY2008 Operational x x x x x Korea) Acer (Taiwan) FY2008 Operational x Hitachi FY2008 Financial x x x Panasonic FY2008 Corporation Financial x x x Canon FY2008 Financial x x x x x Fujitsu Ltd. FY2008 Financial x x x x Sony FY2008 Corporation Financial x x x x x Where there is a X in the column, the company did provide detail in each question. 33

34 7 Appendix 2: CDP 2009 Questionnaire Risks and Opportunities 1. Regulatory Risks: (CDP6 1(a)(i)) 1.1. Is your company exposed to regulatory risks related to climate change? 2. Physical Risks: (CDP6 1(a)(ii)) 2.1. Is your company exposed to physical risks from climate change? 3. Other Risks: (CDP6 1(a)(iii)) 3.1. Is your company exposed to other risks as a result of climate change? 4. Regulatory Opportunities: (CDP6 1(b)(i)) 4.1. Do regulatory requirements on climate change present opportunities for your company? 5. Physical Opportunities: (CDP6 1(b)(ii)) 5.1. Do physical changes resulting from climate change present opportunities for your company? 6. Other Opportunities: (CDP6 1(b)(iii)) 6.1. Does climate change present other opportunities for your company? Where the answer to any of the questions in the risks and opportunities section (see left hand column) is yes, please provide the following information if relevant: Describe the company s process for identifying risks/opportunities and assessing the degree to which they could affect the business, including the financial implications. Describe current and/or anticipated risks/opportunities. Explain the way in which the risks/opportunities could affect your business and your value chain, including the financial implications. What geographical areas are affected by the risks/opportunities you have identified. Outline the timescales over which the risks/opportunities are expected to materialise. Explain any actions the company has taken or plans to take to manage, adapt to and/or exploit the risks/opportunities that have been identified including the financial implications of those actions. Comment on whether your views on risks/opportunities have changed in the past twelve months. Where the answer to any of the questions is no, please: Explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to risks/presented with opportunities. Explain the company process for identifying risks/opportunities and assessing the degree to which they could affect the business. Comment on whether your views have changed in the past twelve months. 34

35 7. Appendix 2: CDP 2009 Questionnaire Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Accounting, Emissions Intensity, Energy and Trading Information about how to respond to this section may be found in The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition) developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development ( the GHG Protocol ), see ISO is compatible with the GHG Protocol as are a number of regional/national programme protocols. For more information see and the CDP 2009 Reporting Guidance. 7. Reporting Year: (CDP6 Q2(a)(ii)) Please also provide CDP with responses to questions 7, 8, 9, 10.1, 10.2, 11.1 and 11.2 for the three years prior to the current reporting year if you have not done so before or if this is the first time you have answered a CDP information request Please state the start date and end date of the year for which you are reporting GHG emissions. 8. Reporting Boundary: (CDP6 Q2(a)(i)) 8.1. Please indicate the category that describes the company, entities, or group for which Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions are reported. Companies over which financial control is exercised per consolidated audited financial statements; Companies over which operational control is exercised; Companies in which equity share is held; Other (please provide details) Please state whether any parts of your business or sources of GHG emissions are excluded from your reporting boundary. 9. Methodology: (CDP6 Q2(a)(iii)) 9.1. Please describe the process used by your company to calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions including the name of the standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect activity data and calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions. Please also provide: 9.2. Details of any assumptions made The names of and links to any calculation tools used The global warming potentials you have applied and their origin The emission factors you have applied and their origin. Note about questions 10, 11 and 13 When providing answers to questions 10, 11 and 13, please do not deduct offset credits, Renewable Energy Certificates etc, or net off any estimated avoided emissions from the export of renewable energy, carbon sequestration (including enhanced oil recovery) or from the use of goods and services. Opportunities to provide details of activities that reduce or avoid emissions are provided elsewhere in the information request. Carbon dioxide emissions from biologically sequestered carbon e.g. carbon dioxide from burning biomass/biofuels should be reported separately from emissions Scopes 1, 2 and 3. If relevant, please report these emissions in question 15. However, please do include any nitrous oxide or methane emissions from biomass/biofuel combustion in your emissions under the three scopes. 35

36 Carbon Disclosure Project 10. Scope 1 Direct GHG Emissions: (CDP6 Q2(b)(i)) Electric utilities should report emissions by country/region using the table in question EU3. Please provide: Total gross global Scope 1 GHG emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by: Country or region Where it will facilitate a better understanding of your business, please also break down your total global Scope 1 emissions by: Business division and/or Facility Please break down your total global Scope 1 GHG emissions in metric tonnes of the gas and metric tonnes of CO2-e by GHG type If you have not provided any information about Scope 1 emissions in response to the questions above, please explain your reasons and describe any plans you have for collecting Scope 1 GHG emissions information in future. 11. Scope 2 Indirect GHG Emissions: (CDP6 Q2(b)(i)) Important note about emission factors where zero or low carbon electricity is purchased: The emissions factor you should use for calculating Scope 2 emissions depends upon whether the electricity you purchase is counted in calculating the grid average emissions factor or not see below. You can find this out from your supplier. Electricity that IS counted in calculating the grid average emissions factor: Where electricity is sourced from the grid and that electricity has been counted in calculating the grid average emissions factor, Scope 2 emissions must be calculated using the grid average emissions factor, even if your company purchases electricity under a zero or low carbon electricity tariff. Electricity that is NOT counted in calculating the grid average emissions factor: Where zero or low carbon electricity is sourced from the grid or otherwise transmitted to the company and that electricity is not counted in calculating the grid average, the emissions factor specific to that method of generation can be used, provided that any certificates quantifying GHG-related environmental benefits claimed for the electricity are not sold or passed on separately from the electricity purchased. Please provide: Total gross global Scope 2 GHG emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by: Country or region 36

37 7. Appendix 2: CDP 2009 Questionnaire Where it will facilitate a better understanding of your business, please also break down your total global Scope 2 emissions by: Business division and/or Facility If you have not provided any information about Scope 2 emissions in response to the questions above, please explain your reasons and describe any plans you have for collecting Scope 2 GHG emissions information in future. 12. Contractual Arrangements Supporting Particular Types of Electricity Generation: (CDP6 Q2(b)(i) Guidance) If you consider that the grid average factor used to report Scope 2 emissions in question 11 above does not reflect the contractual arrangements you have with electricity suppliers, (for example, because you purchase electricity using a zero or low carbon electricity tariff), you may calculate and report a contractual Scope 2 figure in response to this question, showing the origin of the alternative emission factors and information about the tariff If you retire any certificates (eg: Renewable Energy Certificates) associated with zero or low carbon electricity, please provide details. 13. Scope 3 Other Indirect GHG Emissions: (CDP6 Q2(c)) For each of the following categories, please: Describe the main sources of emissions, Report emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e, State the methodology, assumptions, calculation tools, databases, emission factors (including sources) and global warming potentials (including sources) you have used for calculating emissions Employee business travel External distribution/logistics Use/disposal of company s products and services For auto manufacture and auto component companies please refer to the additional questions for these sectors before completing question Company supply chain Other If you have not provided information about one or more of the categories of Scope 3 GHG emissions in response to the questions above, please explain your reasons and describe any plans you have for collecting Scope 3 indirect emissions information in future. 37

38 Carbon Disclosure Project 14. Emissions Avoided Through use of Goods and Services: (New for CDP 2009) If your goods and/or services enable GHG emissions to be avoided by a third party, please provide details including the estimated avoided emissions, the anticipated timescale over which the emissions are avoided and the methodology, assumptions, emission factors (including sources), and global warming potentials (including sources) used for your estimations. 15. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Biologically Sequestered Carbon: (New for CDP 2009) An example would be carbon dioxide from burning biomass/biofuels Please provide the total global carbon dioxide emissions in metric tonnes CO2 from biologically sequestered carbon. 16. Emissions Intensity: (CDP6 Q3(b)) Please supply a financial emissions intensity measurement for the reporting year for your combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions, including a description of the measurement, The units, and The resulting figure Please supply an activity related intensity measurement for the reporting year for your combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions, including a description of the measurement, The units, and The resulting figure. 17. Emissions History: (CDP6 Q2(f)) Do emissions for the reporting year vary significantly compared to previous years? If so, please explain why, and: Estimate the percentage by which emissions vary compared with the previous reporting year. 18. External Verification/Assurance: (CDP6 Q2(d)) Has any of the information reported in response to questions been externally verified/assured in whole or in part? If so, please: State the scope/boundary of emissions included within the verification/assurance exercise State what level of assurance, (eg: reasonable or limited) has been given Provide a copy of the verification/assurance statement Specify the standard against which the information has been verified/assured If not, please state whether you have plans for GHG emissions accounting information to be externally verified/assured in future. 38

39 7. Appendix 2: CDP 2009 Questionnaire 19. Data Accuracy: (CDP6 Q2(e) New wording for CDP 2009) What are the main sources of uncertainty in your data gathering, handling and calculations e.g.: data gaps, assumptions, extrapolation, metering/measurement inaccuracies etc? How do these uncertainties affect the accuracy of the reported data in percentage terms or an estimated standard deviation? Does your company report GHG emissions under any mandatory or voluntary scheme (other than CDP) that requires an accuracy assessment? If so, please provide: The name of the scheme The accuracy assessment for GHG emissions reported under that scheme for the last report delivered. 20. Energy and Fuel Requirements and Costs: (New for CDP 2009) Please provide the following information for the reporting year: Cost of purchased energy The total cost of electricity, heat, steam and cooling purchased by your company Please break down the costs by individual energy type. Cost of purchased fuel The total cost of fuel purchased by your company for mobile and stationary combustion Please break down the costs by individual fuel type. Energy and fuel inputs The following questions are designed to establish your company s requirements for energy and fuel (inputs). Please note that MWh is our preferred unit for answers as this helps with comparability and analysis. Although it is usually associated with electricity, it can equally be used to represent the energy content of fuels (see CDP 2009 Reporting Guidance for further information on conversions to MWh). Purchased energy input Your company s total consumption of purchased energy in MWh. Purchased and self produced fuel input Your company s total consumption in MWh of fuels for stationary combustion only. This includes purchased fuels, as well as biomass and self-produced fuels where relevant Please break down the total consumption of fuels reported in answer to question 20.4 by individual fuel type in MWh. 39

40 Carbon Disclosure Project Energy output In this question we ask for information about the energy in MWh generated by your company from the fuel that it uses. Comparing the energy contained in the fuel before combustion (question 20.4) with the energy available for use after combustion will give an indication of the efficiency of your combustion processes, taking your industry sector into account What is the total amount of energy generated in MWh from the fuels reported in question 20.4? What is the total amount in MWh of renewable energy, excluding biomass, that is self-generated by your company? Energy exports This question is for companies that export energy that is surplus to their requirements. For example, a company may use electricity from a combined heat and power plant but export the heat to another organisation What percentage of the energy reported in response to question 20.5 is exported/sold by your company to the grid or to third parties? What percentage of the renewable energy reported in response to question 20.6 is exported/sold by your company to the grid or to third parties? 21. EU Emissions Trading Scheme: (CDP6 Q2(g)(i) New wording for CDP 2009) Electric utilities should report allowances and emissions using the table in question EU Does your company operate or have ownership of facilities covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)? If not, please proceed to question 22. If yes, please give details of: The allowances allocated for free for each year of Phase II for facilities which you operate or own. (Even if you do not wholly own facilities, please give the full number of allowances.) The total allowances purchased through national auctioning processes for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 for facilities that you operate or own. (Even if you do not wholly own facilities, please give the total allowances purchased through auctions by the facilities for this period.) The total CO2 emissions for 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 for facilities which you operate or own. (Even if you do not wholly own facilities, please give the total emissions for this period.) 22. Emissions Trading: (CDP6 Q2(g)(ii) New wording for CDP 2009) Electric utilities should read EU6 before answering these questions Please provide details of any emissions trading schemes, other than the EU ETS, in which your company already participates or is likely to participate within the next two years What is your overall strategy for complying with any schemes in which you are required or have elected to participate, including the EU ETS? 40

41 7. Appendix 2: CDP 2009 Questionnaire Have you purchased any project-based carbon credits? If so, please indicate whether the credits are to meet one or more of the following commitments: Primarily for compliance purposes, Primarily for voluntary offsetting of your own emissions, Other (please describe). Please also: Provide details including the type of unit, volume and vintage purchased and the standard/scheme against which the credits have been verified, issued and retired (where applicable) Have you been involved in the origination of project-based carbon credits? If so: Please provide details including: Your role in the project(s), The locations and technologies involved, The standard/scheme under which the projects are being/have been developed, Whether emissions reductions have been validated or verified, The annual volumes of generated/projected carbon credits, Retirement method if used for own compliance or offsetting Are you involved in the trading of allowances under the EU ETS and/or project-based carbon credits as a separate business activity, or in direct support of a business activity such as investment fund management or the provision of offsetting services? If so: Please provide details of the role performed. 41

42 Carbon Disclosure Project Performance 23. Reduction Plans: (CDP6 Q3(a)) Does your company have a GHG emissions and/or energy reduction plan in place? If not: Please explain why and answer question 23.8 if possible. Goal setting If your company does have a plan, please provide the following information: Do you have an emissions and/or energy reduction target(s)? What is the baseline year for the target(s)? What is the emissions and/or energy reduction target(s)? What are the sources or activities to which the target(s) applies? Over what period/timescale does the target(s) extend? GHG emissions and energy reduction activities What activities are you undertaking or planning to undertake to reduce your emissions/energy use? Goal evaluation What benchmarks or key performance indicators do you use to assess progress against the emissions/energy reduction goals you have set? Goal achievement What emissions reductions, energy savings and associated cost savings have been achieved to date as a result of the plan and/or the activities described above? Please state the methodology and data sources you have used for calculating these reductions and savings What investment has been required to achieve the emissions reductions and energy savings targets or to carry out the activities listed in response to question 23.8 above and over what period was that investment made? Goal planning and investment Electric utilities should read the table in question EU3 for giving details of forecasted emissions What investment will be required to achieve the future targets set out in your reduction plan or to carry out the activities listed in response to question 23.8 above and over what period do you expect payback of that investment? Please estimate your company s future Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for the next five years for each of the main territories or regions in which you operate or provide a qualitative explanation for expected changes that could impact future GHG emissions Please estimate your company s future energy use for the next five years for each of the main territories or regions in which you operate or provide a qualitative explanation for expected changes that could impact future GHG emissions Please explain the methodology used for your estimations and any assumptions made. 42

43 7. Appendix 2: CDP 2009 Questionnaire 24. Planning: (CDP6 Q3(c)) How do you factor the cost of future emissions into capital expenditures and what impact have those estimated costs had on your investment decisions? Governance 25. Responsibility: (CDP6 Q4(a)) Does a Board Committee or other executive body have overall responsibility for climate change? If not: Please state how overall responsibility for climate change is managed and indicate the highest level within your company with responsibility for climate change. If so, please provide the following information: Which Board Committee or executive body has overall responsibility for climate change? What is the mechanism by which the Board or other executive body reviews the company s progress and status regarding climate change? 26. Individual Performance: (CDP6 Q4(b)) Do you provide incentives for individual management of climate change issues including attainment of GHG targets? If so: Are those incentives linked to monetary rewards? Who is entitled to benefit from those incentives? 27. Communications: (CDP6 Q4(c)) Do you publish information about the risks and opportunities presented to your company by climate change, details of your emissions and plans to reduce emissions? If so, please indicate which of the following apply and provide details and/or a link to the documents or a copy of the relevant excerpt: The company s Annual Report or other mainstream filings Voluntary communications (other than to CDP) such as Corporate Social Responsibility reporting. 28. Public Policy: (CDP6 Q4(d)) Do you engage with policymakers on possible responses to climate change including taxation, regulation and carbon trading? If so, please provide details. 43

44 8 Appendix 3: Company Response Status Table 10: Responses to CDP 2009 Company name Status 77 Bank, Ltd. ABC-Mart, Inc. Acom Co., Ltd. Advantest Corporation Aeon Aeon Credit Service Co., Ltd. Aeon Delight Co., Ltd. Aeon Mall Co., Ltd. Aichi Bank, Ltd. Aioi Insurance Company, Limited Air Water Inc. Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. Ajinomoto Co.Inc. Alfresa Holdings Corporation All Nippon Airways Amada Co., Ltd. Aoyama Trading Co., Ltd. Aozora Bank, Ltd. Asahi Breweries Asahi Glass Co. Asahi Kasei Corporation Asatsu-DK Inc. DP Asics Corporation Astellas Pharma Autobacs Seven Co., Ltd. Awa Bank, Ltd. Bank of Ikeda, Ltd. Bank of Iwate, Ltd. Bank of Kyoto, Ltd. Bank of Nagoya, Ltd. Bank of Yokohama,Ltd. Benesse Corporation Bridgestone Brother Industries, Ltd. Canon Canon Marketing Japan Inc. Capcom Co., Ltd. Casio Computer Co., Ltd. Central Japan Railway IN Chiba Bank, Ltd. Chiyoda Corporation Chubu Electric Power Chudenko Corporation Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Chugoku Bank, Ltd. Chugoku Electric Power Co.,Inc. Chuo Mitsui Trast Holdings, Inc. DP Company name Circle K Sunkus Co., Ltd. Citizen Holdings Co., Ltd. Coca-Cola West Holdings Co., Ltd. Comsys Holdings Corporation Cosmo Oil Company, Limited Credit Saison Co. Culture Convenience Club Co., Ltd. Dai Nippon Printing Daibiru Corporation Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. Daido Steel Co., Ltd. Daiei, Inc. Daihatsu Mortor Co., Ltd. Daiichi Sankyo Daikin Industries Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. Daio Paper Corporation Daiseki Co., Ltd. Daishi Bank, Ltd. Daito Trust Construction Co., Ltd. Daiwa House Inds. Daiwa Securities DCM Japan Holdings Co., Ltd DeNA Co., Ltd. Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Denso Corporation Dentsu Inc. DIC Corporation Don Quijote Co., Ltd. Doutor Nichires Holdings Co., Ltd. Dowa Holdings Co., Ltd. Duskin Co., Ltd. East Japan Railway Eisai Co. Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd (J-POWER) Ezaki Glico Co., Ltd. FamilyMart Co., Ltd. Fancl Corporation Fanuc Fast Retailing Co., Ltd. FP Corporation Fuji Electric Holdings Co., Ltd. Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. Fuji Oil Co., Ltd. Fuji Television Network, Inc. FujiFilm Holdings Corporation Status DP DP DP Company name Status Fujikura Ltd. Fujitsu Ltd. Fukui Bank, Ltd. Fukuoka Financial Group, Inc. Fukuyama Transporting Co., Ltd. Furukawa Electric Glory Ltd. GS Yuasa Corporation Gunma Bank, Ltd. H2O Retailing Corporation Hachijuni Bank, Ltd. Hakuhodo DY Holdings Incorporated DP Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. DP Hankyu Hanshin Holdings, Inc. Haseko Corporation Heiwa Corporation Heiwado Co., Ltd. Higo Bank, Ltd. Hikari Tsushin, Inc. Hino Motors, Ltd. IN Hirose Electric Hiroshima Bank, Ltd. Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. DP Hitachi Hitachi Capital Corporation Hitachi Chemical Company, Ltd. Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation Hitachi Information Systems, Ltd. Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. Hitachi Metals, Ltd. Hitachi Software Engineering Co., Ltd. Hitachi Transport System, Ltd. Hogy Medical Co., Ltd. Hokkaido Electric Power Co Inc Hokkoku Bank, Ltd. Hokuetsu Paper Mills, Ltd. Hokuhoku Financial Group, Inc. Hokuriku Electric Power Company Hokuto Corporation Honda Motor Company Hosiden Corporation House Foods Corporation Hoya Hyakugo Bank, Ltd. Hyakujushi Bank, Ltd. Ibiden Co., Ltd. 44

45 8. Appendix 3: Company Response Status Company name Status Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. IHI Corporation Inpex Corporation Isetan Mitsukoshi Holdings Ltd. Isuzu Motors Limited IT Holdings Corporation Ito En, Ltd. Itochu Corporation Itochu Techno-Solutions Corporation Iyo Bank, Ltd. Izumi Co., Ltd. J. Front Retailing Co., Ltd. Jafco Co., Ltd. Japan Airlines Corporation Japan Airport Terminal Co., Ltd. Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. Japan Tobacco JFE Holdings JGC Corporation Joyo Bank, Ltd. JS Group Corporation JSR Corporation JTEKT Corporation Jupiter Telecommunications Co., Ltd. Juroku Bank, Ltd. kabu.com Securities Co., Ltd. Kagome Co., Ltd. Kagoshima Bank, Ltd. Kajima Corporation Kakaku.com, Inc. Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Kamigumi Co., Ltd. Kandenko Co., Ltd. Kaneka Corporation Kansai Electric Power Kansai Paint Co., Ltd. KAO Corporation Kawasaki Heavy Ind. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. KDDI Group Keihan Electric Railway Co., Ltd. Keihin Electric Express Railway Co., Ltd. Keio Corporation Keisei Electric Railway Co., Ltd. Keiyo Bank, Ltd. Keyence Corporation Kikkoman Coporation Kinden Corporation Kintetsu Corporation Kirin Holdings Co Ltd Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Kiyo Holdings, Inc. Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Kobe Steel Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Kokuyo Co., Ltd. Company name Komatsu Ltd. Komeri Co., Ltd. Konami Corporation Konica Minolta Holdings Inc KOSE Corporation Kubota Corporation Kuraray Co. Kurita Water Industries Ltd. Kyocera Corporation Kyowa Exeo Corporation Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc LAWSON, Inc. Leopalace21 Corporation Life Corporation Lintec Corporation Lion Corporation Mabuchi Motor Co., Ltd. Makita Corporation Marubeni Corporation Marui Group Co.Ltd, Maruichi Steel Tube Ltd. Matsui Securities Co., Ltd Matsumotokiyoshi Holdings Co., Ltd. Matsuya Co., Ltd. Mazda Motor Corporation McDonald s Holdings Company (Japan), Ltd. Mediceo Paltac Holdings Co., Ltd. Meiji Dairies Corporation Meiji Seika Kaisha, Ltd. Minebea Co., Ltd. Miraca Holdings Inc. Misumi Group Inc. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corporation Status DP Mitsubishi Corporation Mitsubishi Electric Mitsubishi Estate Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Mitsubishi Logistics Corporation Mitsubishi Materials Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Mitsubishi Rayon Company, Limited Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance Co., Ltd. Mitsui & Co Mitsui Chemicals Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd Mitsui Fudosan Mitsui Mining & Smelting Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Mitsumi Electric Co., Ltd. Company name Miura Co., Ltd. mixi, inc. Mizuho Financial Group Mizuho Investors Securities Co., Ltd. Mizuho Trust & Banking Co., Ltd. Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Morinaga Milk Industry Co., Ltd. Murata Mfg. Co. Musashino Bank, Ltd. Nagase & Co., Ltd. Nagoya Railroad Co., Ltd. Namco Bandai Holdings Inc. Nankai Electric Railway Co., Ltd. Nanto Bank, Ltd. NEC Corporation NEC Electronics Corporation Net One Systems Co., Ltd. NGK Insulators NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. NHK Spring Co., Ltd. Nichirei Corporation Nidec Corporation Nihon Unisys, Ltd. Nikon Corporation Nintendo Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd. Nippon Express Co. Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd. Nippon Meat Packer Nippon Mining Holdings, Inc. Nippon Oil Corporation Nippon Paint Co., Ltd. Nippon Paper Group Inc Nippon Sheet Glass Company, Limited Nippon Shokubai Co., Ltd. Nippon Steel Nippon Telegraph & Telephone (NTT) Nippon TV Network Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line Nipponkoa Insurance Co Ltd Nipro Corporation Nishi-Nippon City Bank, Ltd. Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co., Ltd. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. Nissan Motor Nissan Shatai Co., Ltd. Nissay Dowa General Insurance Co., Ltd. Nissha Printing Co., Ltd. Nisshin Foods Holdings Co., Ltd. Nisshin Seifun Group Inc. Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd. Nisshinbo Industries, Inc. Nitori Co., Ltd. Nitto Denko NOK Corporation Status DP 45

46 Carbon Disclosure Project Company name Status Company name Status Company name Status Nomura Holdings Secom Co. Suzuken Co., Ltd. DP Nomura Real Estate Holdings, Inc. Sega Sammy Holdings Inc. Suzuki Motor Corporation Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. Seiko Epson Corporation Sysmex Corporation NSK Ltd. Seino Holdings Co., Ltd. T&D Holdings NTN Corporation Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd. Taiheiyo Cement NTT Data Sekisui House Taisei Corporation NTT DOCOMO Senshu Bank, Ltd. Taisho Pharm Co. NTT Urban Development Corporation Seven & I Holding Taiyo Nippon Sanso Corporation Obayashi Corporation Seven Bank, Ltd. Takara Holdings Inc. OBIC Business Consultans Co., Ltd. Sharp Takara Standard Co., Ltd. OBIC Co., Ltd. Shiga Bank, Ltd. Takashimaya Company, Limited Odakyu Electric Railway DP Shikoku Bank, Ltd. Takeda Pharmaceutical Ogaki Kyoritsu Bank, Ltd. Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc. Takefuji Corporation Oji Paper Co. Shimachu Co., Ltd. TDK Corporation Okasan Securities Group Inc. Shimadzu Corporation Teijin Ltd. Okinawa Electric Power Company, Inc. Shimamura Co.,Ltd Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power) Okumura Corporation Shimano, Inc. Terumo Corporation Olympus Corporation Shimizu Corporation The Japan Steel Works, Ltd. OMRON Corporation Shin Etsu Chemical THK Co., Ltd. Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Shinko Securities Co., Ltd. Tobu Railway Co., Ltd. Onward Holdings Co., Ltd. Shinsei Bank Ltd Toda Corporation DP Oracle Corporation Japan Shionogi & Co., Ltd. Toho Bank, Ltd. Oriental Land Co Ltd. Shiseido Co. Toho Co., Ltd. ORIX Corporation Shizuoka Bank, Ltd. Toho Gas Co., Ltd. Osaka Gas Co. Showa Denko K.K. DP Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc. Osaka Securities Exchange Co., Ltd. Showa Shell Sekiyu K. K. Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd. Osaka Titanium Technologies Co.,Ltd. SKY Perfect JSAT Holdings Inc. Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. Otsuka Corporation SMC Corporation Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. Pacific Metals Co., Ltd. Snow Brand Milk Products Co., Ltd. Tokuyama Corporation PanaHome Corporation SoftBank IN Tokyo Broadcasting System, Inc. Panasonic Corporation Sohgo Security Services Co., Ltd. Tokyo Electron Panasonic Electric Works Co., Ltd. Sojitz Corporation Tokyo Gas Co. Point Inc. Sompo Japan Insurance Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Promise Co., Ltd. DP So-net M3, Inc. Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd. Q.P. Corporation Sony Corporation Tokyu Corporation Rakuten,Inc. Sony Financial Holdings Inc. DP Tokyu Land Corporation Rengo Co., Ltd. Square Enix Co., Ltd. Tonen General Sekiyu K.K. Resona Holdings, Inc. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. Toppan Forms Co., Ltd. Ricoh Co. Sugi Holdings Co., Ltd. Toppan Printing Co. Rinnai Corporation Sumco Corporation Toray Inds. Inc. Rohm Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Bakelite Company Limited Toshiba Rohto Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Chemical Toshiba Plant Systems & Services Corp. Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Corporation Tosoh Corporation Ryoshoku Limited Sumitomo Electric Ind. Toto Ltd. Sagami Railway Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd. Toyo Seikan Saibu Gas Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Heavy Industries. Ltd. Toyo Suisan Kaisha, Ltd. Sangetsu Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Metal Industries. Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd. San-in Godo Bank, Ltd. Sumitomo Metal Mining Toyobo Co., Ltd. Sankyo Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. Sankyu Inc. Sumitomo Osaka Cement Toyota Auto Body Co., Ltd. Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Realty & Development Toyota Boshoku Corporation Sanwa Holdings Corporation Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. Toyota Industries Corporation Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Sumitomo Trust & Banking Toyota Motor Sapporo Hokuyo Holdings, Inc. Sumitomo Warehouse Co., Ltd. Toyota Tsusho Corporation Sapporo Holdings Limited Sundrug Co., Ltd. Trend Micro Incorporated. SBI Holdings, Inc. Suruga Bank Ltd. Tsumura & Co. 46

47 8. Appendix 3: Company Response Status Company name TV Asahi Corporation TV Tokyo Corporation Ube Industries, Ltd. Uni-Charm Corporation Unicharm Petcare Corporation Uny Co., Ltd. Ushio Inc. USS Co., Ltd. Wacoal Holdings Corp. Watami Co., Ltd. West Japan Railway Xebio Co., Ltd. Yahoo Japan Yakult Honsha Co Ltd. Yamada Denki Co., Ltd. Yamagata Bank, Ltd. Yamaguchi Financial Group, Inc. Yamaha Corporation Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. Yamanashi Chuo Bank, Ltd. Yamatake Corporation Yamato Holdings Co., Ltd. Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd. Yamazaki Baking Co., Ltd. Yasukawa Electric Corporation Yokogawa Electric Corporation Yokohama Rubber Company, Limited Status DP Response status : Answered Questionnaire IN: Provided Information DP: Declined to Participate : No Response 47

48 Global Sponsor: Japan Report Sponsors: KPMG AZSA Sustainability Co., Ltd. Our sincere thanks are extended to the following Advisors: Amory Lovins, Andrew Dlugolecki, Bill Thomas, Bob Monks, Colin Maltby, Hidemi Tomita, Hisakazu Okamura, Jane Ambachtscheer, Jeremy Oppenheim, Jon Johnson, Kathryn Murdoch, Kim Carstensen, Marc Fox, Martin Whittaker, Martin Wise, Masao Seki, Masaru Arai, Masayuki Itou, Ryuji Matsuhashi, Tim Weller, Tsuyoshi Mizuguchi Organizations: British Embassy Tokyo, Hermes, IBM Japan, Ltd. KPMG AZSA Sustainability Co., Ltd., Accounting for Sustainability, Allen & Overy, Association of British Insurers, Brooklyn Bridge, Ceres, Clinton Global Initiative, Confederation of British Industry, Development Bank of Japan, Environmental Research Group of the UK Faculty and Institute of Actuaries, EPA Energy Star, EPA Climate Leaders, Forest Footprint Disclosure Project, GHG Protocol, Global Reporting Initiative, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Investor Group on Climate Change, Principles for Responsible Investing, Skadden Arps, The Climate Group, UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, United Nations Global Compact, United Nations Principles for Responsible Investing, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, World Economic Forum, World Resources Institute, WWF. Supporters:

49 CDP Contacts Paul Dickinson Chief Executive Officer Paul Simpson Chief Operating Officer Nigel Topping Chief Development Officer Daniel Turner Head of Disclosure Zoe Riddell Head of CDP Institutional Investors Take Sueyoshi Chair, CDP Japan Michiyo Morisawa Director Japan Miyako Enokibori Project Manager Pedro Faria CDP Technical Director Sue Howells Head of Global Partnerships Kate Levick Head of Government Partnerships Frances Way Head of CDP Supply Chain Joanna Lee Director, Communications & Corporate Partnerships Tom Carnac Head of CDP Cities and Public Procurement Carbon Disclosure Project 40 Bowling Green Lane London, EC1R 0NE United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) CDP Secretariat Japan 8th Pacific Century Place Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Japan Tel: +81 (0) [email protected] CDP Board of Trustees Chair: Robert Napier The Met Office Jeremy Smith Berkeley Energy Takejiro Sueyoshi Tessa Tennant The Ice Organization Alan Brown Schroders Christoph Schroeder TVM Capital James Cameron Climate Change Capital The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project. This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP and presented in this report. If you intend to do this, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so. CDP prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2009 information request. CDP do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this information. CDP make no representation or warranty, express or implied, and accept no liability concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and opinions contained herein. All opinions expressed herein by CDP are based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report reflect the views of their respective authors. CDP and their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/or employees, may have a position in the securities discussed herein. The securities mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates. Carbon Disclosure Project and CDP refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number Carbon Disclosure Project.