On behalf of 722 investors representing US$87 trillion in assets

Transcription

1 P Australia and New Zealand Climate Change Report 23 On behalf of 722 investors representing US$87 trillion in assets December 23 Scoring Partner

2 The evolution of P With great pleasure, P announced an exciting change this year. Over ten years ago P pioneered the only global disclosure system for companies to report their environmental impacts and strategies to investors. In that time, and with your support, P has accelerated climate change and natural resource issues to the boardroom and has moved beyond the corporate world to engage with cities and governments. The P platform has evolved significantly, supporting multinational purchasers to build more sustainable supply chains. It enables cities around the world to exchange information, take best practice action and build climate resilience. We assess the climate performance of companies and drive improvements through shareholder engagement. Our offering to the global marketplace has expanded to cover a wider spectrum of the earth s natural capital, specifically water and forests, alongside carbon, energy and climate. For these reasons, we have outgrown our former name of the Carbon Disclosure Project and rebranded to P. Many of you already know and refer to us in this way. Our rebrand denotes our progress as we continue to catalyze action and respond to business, finance, investment and environmental needs globally. We now have a bolder, more dynamic look and logo that reflects the scale of the work we must undertake in the coming years to move the markets ahead of where they would otherwise be on these issues and realize truly sustainable economies. Over 5, companies from all over the world have been asked to report on climate change through P this year; 8% of the world s 5 largest public companies listed on the Global 5 engage with P to enable effective measurement of their carbon footprint and climate change action; P is a not-for-profit organization. If you would like to support our vital work through donations or sponsorship opportunities, please [email protected] or telephone +6 ()

3 Contents 3 2 The evolution of P 4 CEO Foreword 5 Key Findings 2 Response Analysis 4 Climate disclosure scores and climate performance bands 5 P 23 ASX2 and NZX5 Climate Performance Leadership Indices 6 Commentary on performance scores by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 9 P 23 ASX 2 and NZX 5 Climate Disclosure Leadership Indices 2 Commentary on disclosure scores by FirstCarbon Solutions 22 Key disclosure statistics 23 Key emission statistics Scope emissions 24 Key emission statistics Scope 2 emissions 25 Key emission statistics Scope 3 emission and verification/assurance 26 Key governance, management and communication statistics 27 Key emission reduction statistics 28 Investor members 29 Investor signatories Global Key Trends 34 Appendix I Non-responding companies 35 Appendix II Responding companies, scores and emissions data Important Notice The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project (P). This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to P or the contributing authors and presented in this report. If you intend to repackage or resell any of the contents of this report, you need to obtain express permission from P before doing so. P and FirstCarbon Solutions have prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the P 23 climate change information request. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given by P or FirstCarbon Solutions as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained in this report. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, P and FirstCarbon Solutions do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. All information and views expressed herein by P and/or FirstCarbon Solutions is 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; their inclusion is not an endorsement of them. P, FirstCarbon Solutions 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 of the companies discussed herein. The securities of the companies 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 P refer to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 2233, and Carbon Disclosure Project Limited, an Australian company limited by guarantee, ACN registered as a Charitable Institution. 23 Carbon Disclosure Project. All rights reserved. This report and all of the public responses from companies are available to download from

4 4 CEO Foreword As countries around the world seek economic growth, strong employment and safe environments, corporations have a unique responsibility to deliver that growth in a way that uses natural resources wisely. The opportunity is enormous and it is the only growth worth having. New York State Hurricane Sandy Damage Assessment; Governor Andrew Cuomo; November 2, 22 governor.ny.gov/ press/2622- damageassessment 2 net/presults/3- percent-solution-report.pdf 3 Based on findings from the report Natural Capital at Risk: The Top Externalities of Business, published by TEEB for Business Coalition in April 23 This year we passed a significant landmark of 4ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and are rapidly heading towards 45ppm, accepted by many governments as the upper limit to avoid dangerous climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th assessment report (AR5) strengthens the scientific case for action. Fears are increasing over future climate change impacts as we see more extreme weather events, Hurricane Sandy the most noted with damages totalling some $42 billion. The unprecedented melting of the Arctic ice is a clear climate alarm bell, while the first years of this century have been the world s hottest since records began, according to the World Meteorological Organization. The result is a seismic shift in corporate awareness of the need to assess physical risk from climate change and to build resilience. For investors, the risk of stranded assets has been brought to the fore by the work of Carbon Tracker. They calculate around 8 % of coal, oil and gas reserves are unburnable, if governments are to meet global commitments to keep the temperature rise below 2 C. This has serious implications for institutional investors portfolios and valuations of companies with fossil fuel reserves. The economic case for action is strengthening. This year, we published the 3% Solution 2 with WWF showing that the US corporate sector could reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2 and 22 and deliver $78 billion in savings above costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding to P report higher ROI on emission reduction investments than on the average business investment. Meanwhile, governments are taking new action: The US Administration has launched its Climate Action Plan, with a new emphasis on reducing emissions from utilities; China is developing air pollution measures and moving toward pilot cap and trade schemes; the UK Government has mandated greenhouse gas emissions reporting for all large listed companies; the EU is looking at improving environmental and other reporting. The pressure on corporations, investors and governments to act continues. At P, we have broadened our work to add forests to climate and water so our programs now extend to an estimated 79% of natural capital, by value 3. To reflect this, we rebranded at the start of the year from the Carbon Disclosure Project to P and are increasing our focus on projects to accelerate action. One explores how corporations influence public policy on climate change both positively and negatively. Some corporations are still acting both directly and through trade associations to prevent the inevitable: nations need sensible climate regulation that protects the public interest over the long term. As countries around the world seek economic growth, strong employment and safe environments, corporations have a unique responsibility to deliver that growth in a way that uses natural resources wisely. The opportunity is enormous and it is the only growth worth having. Paul Simpson CEO P

5 Key Findings 5 ASX2 companies reported almost as many high impact risks associated with regulatory uncertainty as they did from carbon pricing Four ASX2 companies rated the risks associated with uncertainty surrounding new regulation as high in 23. This was only one less than the number of ASX2 companies which rated the risks associated with carbon pricing as high. Companies reported a range of risks associated with uncertainty surrounding new regulation, and many were related to the uncertainty surrounding the Coalition s plans to repeal the Clean Energy Future Act if they won government. Company responses to the P 23 climate change investor information request ( P 23 ) were submitted in May 23, well in advance of the 23 Australian federal election. Only 5% of ASX2 responding companies rated the risks associated with carbon pricing as high in 23 These five companies were: Ardent Leisure, Gindalbie Metals, Origin Energy, Qantas Airways and Transpacific Industries Group. The three ASX2 companies which rated the risks associated with carbon pricing as high in 22 Arrium, David Jones and Origin Energy rated them as medium, low and high respectively in 23. Companies reported a wide range of perspectives on carbon pricing through their P responses, which were submitted in response to P s reporting deadline of 3 May 23. The proportion of ASX2 companies reporting risks from carbon pricing continued to fall in 23 The number of ASX2 companies reporting risks from carbon pricing fell a further 9% to 65% in 23, from 74% in 22 and 86% in 2. As P is a global environmental reporting platform, it should be noted that a number of the risks reported related to carbon pricing schemes that are either being proposed or in operation in other countries and regions, e.g., EU, Canada, India and the western states of the USA. This reduction followed an increase in the proportion of ASX2 responding companies that reported that responsibility for climate change rests at Board and executive level to 77% in 23, up from 75% in 22. ASX2 company perspectives on climate change risks associated with regulatory uncertainty GPT Group The absence of an agreed scheme impacts investment decision making in areas such as alternative energy generation (such as renewables and low-carbon co/tri-generation). Santos The existing uncertainty surrounding new regulation in the international and national political environment makes it more difficult to make investment decisions and gives rise to the risk that actual returns will differ from expected. National Australia Uncertainty may defer business decisions in the short term and could result in increased cost over the longer term. Bank UGL As the Australian political climate changes, there is a level of uncertainly around the level of investment and regulation from government. Santos A repeal of the Clean Energy Act 2 and subsequent implementation of an alternative carbon policy could increase compliance costs, holdings of carbon units without value and an unrealised increase in the demand for gas. Westpac Banking Corporation Wesfarmers CFS Retail Trust The Australian Carbon Price Mechanism commenced Jul 22. The Federal Opposition has stated that it will repeal the scheme if they win election (scheduled for September 23). This will have compliance and revenue obligations for market participants. In the face of a change in Federal Government after the September election, the proposed amendments to climate change policy have not been made public and scale of impact to Wesfarmers is not completely understood. Uncertainty relates to the potential impact of the proposed retail mandatory disclosure on CFX shopping centre assets, which the Federal Government has indicated it intends to introduce post 24. It is proposed to be based on NABERS ratings for retail centres. ASX2 company perspectives on risks associated with carbon pricing Leighton Holdings Crown AMP David Jones Asciano Group Boral Woolworths Limited Duet Group There are carbon pricing policies operating in many countries and planned or piloted schemes in others both nationally and targeting specific sectors. As electricity and fuel costs are increasing, and with the introduction of carbon trading, there is a growing need to find ways to reduce energy use. Current or future regulatory interventions such as an ETS or carbon tax may have financial impacts upon some of the investments managed by AMP Capital. carbon pricing... impacts are now embedded in the Company s cost base and any future changes in policy settings are not likely to deliver material increase in costs above this base position. Possible increase in the cost of customer s products that may make them susceptible to competitor or substitute products, including reduced ability to compete with overseas competitors. Boral has been actively working to reduce emissions... through the participation in a number of voluntary energy and emissions reduction schemes over the last ten years. This will reduce the potential cost imposts and enhance Boral s competitiveness. Discretionary spending by consumers has stalled for a number of reasons and the unknown of carbon pricing has been a cause. While the actual carbon tax impost is able to be passed onto customers in the long term, the new legislation has increased the administrative burden on the asset company management teams.

6 6 Key Findings continued Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (27) 2 Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (23), The Physical Science Basis 3 org/facts-and-figures/ international/by-sector 4 P (22) Carbon reductions generate positive ROI, cdp.net/presults/ P-Carbon-Action- Report-22.pdf 5 Energetics and P (23), Closing Australia s carbon chasm, SyWQ49 Carbon reduction targets set by most ASX2 and NZX5 companies are short term and do not yet adequately respond to the scale and long-term nature of the climate change challenge we face Scientific evidence shows that we need to cut global emissions by 8-95% below 99 levels by 25 in advanced economies like Australia and New Zealand if we are to avert dangerous climate change and continued disruption to our weather patterns. The latest IPCC report released in September 23 goes further and recommends that total post-industrial emissions of carbon should be limited to a global carbon budget of trillion tonnes. Over half of this carbon budget though has already been spent, i.e. emitted. 2 The role of business in helping achieve the required emissions reductions is crucial as some three quarters of total global emissions are generated by corporations globally. 3 Carbon reduction targets are significant as they indicate a conscious decision and public commitment by a company to focus on achieving emissions reductions. There are many benefits in setting public carbon reduction targets, especially for high emitting companies, including higher profitability and greater likelihood of achieving higher emissions reductions. P research in 22 found that high emitting companies that set absolute emission reduction targets achieved reductions double the rate of those without targets, with % higher profitability. 4 Research by Energetics and P analysing corporate climate change disclosures from P 22 and earlier found that voluntary carbon reduction targets set by over 3 companies operating and reporting emissions in Australia through P could reduce Australia s national emissions by.4% by 22 if these targets were all met and delivered. 5 Two notable examples of longer-term carbon reduction targets set by ASX2 and NZX5 companies are those set by Commonwealth Property Office Fund and Charter Hall for their Sydney CBD buildings to support the City of Sydney s 23 carbon reduction target. Both of these companies have committed to targets to reduce carbon emissions from their Sydney CBD buildings by 7% below 26 levels by 23. Most carbon reduction targets currently set by ASX2 and NZX5 companies though are short term at present. The average target (completion) year for all emission reduction targets reported by ASX2 and NZX5 companies this year through P is 24. Only four ASX2 (and no NZX5) companies - Charter Hall Group, Commonwealth Property Office Fund, Qantas Airways and Sims Metal Management - reported absolute emission reduction targets with a target year of 26 or beyond. Governments can play an important role in setting expectations and legislating requirements for reducing carbon emissions Many of the notable international examples of corporate carbon reduction targets reported through P 23 (see table on page 8) are from companies headquartered in countries with commitments to reduce their emissions by 8% or more by 25 such as the UK, Germany and Japan. 24 Average target (completion) year for all emission reduction targets reported by ASX2 and NZX5 companies Marshalls carbon target for 25 [8% reduction on 99 emission levels] is in line with the UK Government s carbon budget and current scientific thinking in order to meet the challenge of global climate change. Marshalls a UK construction materials company An MOU has been signed with the Sydney City Council to reduce greenhouse emissions by 7% for Sydney CBD buildings using a 26 base year. Commonwealth Property Office Fund Charter Hall is a founding member of the Better Buildings Partnership, established by the City of Sydney to support the reduction of emissions by 7% in Sydney CBD by 23. Charter Hall Group

7 Key Findings continued 7 The UK and Germany have both legislated to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 99 emission levels by 25, while Japan also has a national target to reduce its emissions by 8% below 99 levels by Many of the notable Australian and international examples of corporate carbon reduction targets suggest that governments city, state, national and regional - can and are playing an important role in setting expectations for companies to reduce their carbon emissions, which in turn should reduce the level of climate change risks that investors are exposed to through their investments. The Australian Government s Climate Change Authority recent draft Targets and Progress Review Report 7 presented two sets of draft options for Australia s 22 carbon reduction target and 23 trajectory range: 5% reduction compared with 2 level emissions by 22, and a trajectory range of 35-5% by 23; 25% reduction by 22 and a trajectory range of 4 to 5% by 23. The Climate Change Authority s final report and recommendations for Australia s national emission reduction targets are due to be presented to the Australian Parliament in February Climate Change Authority (23), Global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climatechangeauthority. gov.au/content/ appendix-b-globalaction-reducegreenhouse-gasemissions 7 Climate Change Authority (23), Reducing Australia s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Targets and Progress Review Draft Report, climatechangeauthority. gov.au/content/targetsand-progress-reviewexecutive-summary Examples of ASX2 and NZX5 carbon reduction targets reported through P in 23 Company Carbon reduction target Target Year Scope/s and description of target* Commonwealth Property Office Fund Charter Hall Sims Metal Management Metcash Insurance Australia Group BHP Billiton AGL Energy 7% reduction from 26 emission levels 7% reduction from 26 emission levels 5% reduction on 29 emission levels 2% reduction from 29 emission levels 5% year on year reduction target 6% reduction on 26 emission levels 3.5% reduction from 22 emission levels 23 Scope +2+3: An MOU has been signed with the Sydney City Council to reduce greenhouse emissions by 7% for Sydney CBD buildings using a 26 base year. 23 Scope +2: Charter Hall is a founding member of the Better Buildings Partnership, established by the City of Sydney to support the reduction of emissions by 7% in Sydney CBD by Scope +2: SimsMM originally chose absolute targets, but as the company continues to expand significantly through acquisition, it is increasingly clear that such an absolute target is not a meaningful measure of our global activities. Accordingly, the company is now leaning towards relative targets that measure our energy use and carbon emissions against the operational metric of sales tonnes. We have however chosen to report both numbers in this submission. 25 Scope +2: An absolute target was selected as an easily understandable, internal, first carbon target. However Metcash is an extremely fluid business, for example 4 major businesses have been purchased since 29, with many of our operations moving to new premises and some parts of our business divesting sites. This makes target setting difficult to show meaningful information over time. For example, in the 2/2 year, we purchased Franklins which temporarily added 88 supermarket retail stores to our operational control. Our business strategy is to on-sell these store to new independent retailers. Therefore we have particularly high emissions for the /2 financial year. 22 Scope +2+3: IAG has a rolling year on year (5%) reduction target for our Australian, New Zealand, Thai and UK businesses. For the first time in FY2, IAG also included the CO2e emissions from our head-office operations in Singapore. IAG has also achieved its carbon neutrality goal for FY2. 22 Scope +2: The target is calculated as the difference in percentage between actual emissions in the assessment year versus the emissions that would have occurred if the same unit rate of emissions for each product from the base year was applied in the assessment year. 23 Scope 3: Investments: The new Macarthur [wind farm] project will produce approximately,47 GWh (based upon an average capacity factor of 4%). Assuming these GWh displace average grid based electricity in Australia (at.9 tonnes per MWh), the completion of this project will displace.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. With the electricity supply footprint (35.6 million tonnes) making up 77% of the total supply footprint, this represents a reduction in supply footprint emissions of 3.5%. Scope is a core concept of corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting standards of which the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard 8 is the most widely adopted standard. Three scopes are defined in the GHG Protocol for GHG emissions accounting. Scope refers to direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. Scope 2 refers to indirect GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company. Scope 3 refers to indirect value chain emissions that are a consequence of the activities of the company, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company. 8 GHG Protocol, GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, files/ghgp/public/ghgprotocol-revised.pdf

8 8 Key Findings continued Notable international examples of corporate carbon reduction targets reported through P in 23 Company Carbon reduction target Target Year Scope/s and description of target Tesco % reduction 25 Scope +2+3: Our target is to be a zero carbon business, without purchasing offsets, by 25. As this is a target to zero, there is no base year. Verbund Casio Computer Konica Minolta EMC National Grid Marshalls Kirin Holdings Konica Minolta United Utilities Casio Computer % reduction on 25 emission levels 8% reduction on 26 emission levels 8% reduction on 25 emission levels 8% reduction on 2 emission levels 8% reduction on 99 emission levels 8% reduction on 99 emission levels 5% reduction on 99 emission levels 6% reduction on 25 emission levels 5% reduction on 26 emission levels 3% reduction on 26 emission levels 25 Scope : VERBUND plans to be carbon neutral by 25. Together with other CEOs of European utilities VERBUND s CEO signed the Declaration by European Electricity Sector Chief Executives Carbon Neutrality 25 in 29 ( Scope +2: Reduce total emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) by 8% by fiscal 25 (compared to fiscal 26). 25 Scope +2+3: 8% reduction of CO2 emissions throughout product lifecycle. 25 Scope +2: This target applies to global Scope and 2 emissions as reported to the P. The scope of this target encompasses all owned and leased worldwide facilities, all divisions, and VMware. 25 Scope +2: National Grid has made a public commitment to achieve a target of 8% greenhouse gas reduction across its businesses by Scope +2: Marshalls carbon target for 25 is in line with the UK Government s carbon budget and current scientific thinking in order to meet the challenge of global climate change. 25 Scope +2+3: We will reduce CO2 emissions generated from our entire global value chain by half from the 99 level by Scope 3: Use of sold products: 6% reduction of CO2 emissions derived from product use. 235 Scope Scope +2: Reduce total emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalent) by 3% by fiscal 22 (compared to fiscal 26).

9 Key Findings continued 9 Big emitters in the ASX2 are responding to market demands for verified climate data 86% of total Scope and Scope 2 GHG emissions reported by ASX2 and NZX5 companies through P 23 had their verification/assurance approved in line with P criteria, a large increase from 53% in 22. This includes over 8% of emissions reported by three of the four most carbon intensive sectors (Energy, Materials and Utilities), and over 9% of emissions in the Consumer Staples, Health Care, Materials, Telecommunications and Utilities sectors. Most of this increase is due to changes in three companies since 22: Rio Tinto, AGL Energy and Origin Energy. Rio Tinto provided higher quality climate change disclosure in P 23 which included 43 million tco 2 -e of their total Scope and 2 emissions being verified and approved in line with P criteria in 23, and their P disclosure score increasing from 82 in 22 to 88 in 23. AGL Energy s verified and approved emissions increased to 22 million tco 2 -e in P 23 from.6m tonnes CO 2 -e in P 22 following its full takeover of Loy Yang A power station. Origin Energy s total Scope emissions of 2.75 million tco 2 -e were also verified and approved in line with P criteria this year. This positive trend will increase trust in climate data and therefore its use. It reflects both the greater emphasis that P has placed on encouraging independent verification and assurance of emissions over the past 2-3 years, as well as changes in mandatory carbon reporting schemes such as NGERS which are increasingly requiring independent, thirdparty verification of carbon emissions. Investors have always demanded accuracy and independent assurance of a company s financial information. Increasingly, they are demanding accuracy and independent assurance of non-financial information as well. However, only 47% of all ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies reported that they had completed verification/ assurance or that it is underway, which was a slight fall from 53% in 22. The sectors which had the lowest levels of emissions verified/assured in line with P criteria were: Information Technology (%), Consumer Discretionary (62%) and Industrials (7%). Furthermore, only 24% of total Scope emissions reported by NZX5 companies had their verification/ assurance approved in line with P criteria, due mostly to the limited disclosure, as well as the low levels of emissions verification achieved by NZX5 companies that are not dual-listed on the ASX. Further work on verification is required by both companies and P to build greater confidence in corporate climate change reporting. Percentage of responding companies Percentage of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies and GHG emissions with approved verification/assurance by sector % of responding companies with verification approved/underway % of total Scope and 2 emissions from sector whose verification/assurance is approved Mechanisms used by ASX 2 and NZX 5 responding companies to directly or indirectly influence policymakers on climate change policy Percentage of responding companies % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % ASX2 and NZX5 companies are providing greater transparency around their engagement with policy makers on climate change P asked a more detailed series of questions around climate change policy engagement in the P 23 climate change questionnaire than it had in previous years. ASX2 and NZX5 company responses to these questions provide greater transparency around what these companies are doing and disclosing on climate change policy engagement. How companies are engaging on climate change policies 56% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies stated that they engaged with policymakers on climate change legislation through their trade associations, and 47% directly engaged with policymakers. 25% of responding companies stated that they had no influence on climate change policy through their engagement with policy makers. By comparison, 7% of responding companies in P s Global 5 sample (the 5 largest listed companies in the world) stated that they engaged with policymakers on climate change legislation through their trade associations, while 6% directly engaged with policymakers. 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % Trade associations 95 4 CS EGY 47 Direct engagement 8 5 FIN 9 7 HC 9 2 Funding research organisations 7 35 IND Other IT 25 No influence MAT 97 5 TC 9 25 UTIL

10 Key Findings continued Climate change legislation on which ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies have been involved in direct engagement with policy makers Some company perspectives on carbon pricing policy engagement Support Percentage of responding companies Not stated Oppose Neutral Support with major exceptions Support 3% with minor exceptions Support 25% 2% 5% % 5% % Energy efficiency Mandatory carbon reporting Carbon tax Cap and trade Clean energy generation 7 Adaptation resiliency Note: Only issues reported by two or more companies are included in this figure 2 Climate finance AGL has strongly argued for Australia s Clean Energy Future carbon pricing framework to adopt a market based cap and trade structure as soon as practically possible. AGL Energy The Qantas Group directly participated in consultations regarding the design and operation of the Australian Government s carbon pricing mechanism. This resulted in the inclusion of an Opt-in Scheme for liquid transport users that enables large users of liquid fuels to directly manage their carbon liability instead of paying for it through an effective carbon price applied to fuel excise Qantas Airways Types of climate change policies the ASX2 and the NZX5 are engaging on Companies reported that they engaged directly or indirectly with policymakers on a wide range of policies. Approximately a quarter of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies engaged with policy makers on energy efficiency and 9% engaged on mandatory carbon reporting. 25% of responding companies disclosed that they engaged directly or indirectly with policy makers on carbon pricing and only 4% of companies reported that they were opposed to these types of legislation. These levels of policy engagement on carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes are surprisingly low given the prominence of the carbon tax debate in Australia in recent years. Compared to their peers in the Global 5, reported levels of policy engagement are relatively low. For instance, over half of the responding Global 5 companies reported through P 23 that they engaged with policymakers on energy efficiency, while over a third reported engaging on clean energy generation, mandatory carbon reporting and cap and trade. Perspectives on direct engagement around carbon pricing policies Only 4% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies reported through P 23 that they were opposed to various carbon pricing (carbon tax and cap & trade) policies in their direct engagement with policy makers. 7% reported that they supported some policies with major exceptions, 7% reported that they supported some carbon pricing policies, and a further 5% supported some with minor exceptions. It should be noted that, as P operates a global reporting platform, a number of these direct engagements around carbon pricing policies reported were outside Australia and NZ, for example in Europe. Support with exceptions News Corporation is supportive of sensible climate change legislation and has lobbied the Australian government on the matter through the Australian Sustainable Industry Business Group. The company has also been vocal on the AU carbon tax/emissions trading scheme. News Corporation Rio Tinto supports the use of market based mechanisms that recognise the vulnerability of the trade exposed sector to international competition and warrant transition assistance until the vast majority of global emissions are covered by comparable policies. Rio Tinto Opposed I think the unilateral imposition of a tax as has occurred in the EU is not the right path forward. Rob Fyfe Then CEO Air New Zealand Arrium directly or through industry associations present a submission identifying any potential issue areas and potential solutions for the Regulator to consider. Arrium

11 Key Findings continued Companies are yet to report emissions from the most relevant parts of their value chains The majority (85%) of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies disclosed scope and 2 emissions from their operations, and 54% of companies disclosed scope 3 emissions from their value chain activities. While companies were able to identify the most carbon intensive activities from their value chains, the emissions of nearly half (47%) of these activities are yet to be quantified. The Bank has begun to determine thresholds for reporting of emissions associated with projects. This includes all projects that meet the Australian Government definition of emissions intensive (used for determining emissions intensive trade exposed industries) but limited reporting to deals closed within the reporting year. This year only one refinancing project met this criteria however in future the Bank will limit reporting to financing of new projects closed within the reporting year. The Bank undertakes responsible lending assessments for all project financing. Before deciding whether to fund a project, the Institutional Banking and Markets team undertakes due diligence on all projects and uses a dedicated Risk Appetite Statement that includes environment, social and governance (ESG) risk mitigation and the impact of carbon on the project. Instead of measuring carbon-intensive activities in their value chain, companies often focus on relatively insignificant opportunities for carbon reductions in their value chains. The disparity in the proportion of companies reporting the different types of scope 3 activities and the actual scope 3 emissions reported for each of these activities. While use of sold products is reported by only 4.5% of companies, it accounts for 76% of reported scope 3 emissions. Meanwhile, 38% of companies report emissions from business travel, which accounts for only.6% of total reported scope 3 emissions. The importance of different scope 3 categories varies between sectors. However, companies do not always report their primary sources of scope 3 emissions. For example, while 67% of responding companies from the Financials sector report emissions associated with business travel, only three (%) Financials sector companies report emissions from their investments, where the significant majority of their scope 3 emissions originate. Similarly, % of Industrials, % of Materials and 22% of Energy sector companies from the ASX2 and NZX5 report emissions from the use of sold products, which is where the majority of their scope 3 emissions are likely to come from. Overall, this suggests that the scope 3 reporting practices of many companies may not reflect the full carbon impact of their activities. In 22 the Bank also developed sector specific policies guiding the assessment of environmental and social risk, for use when financing in the natural resources (mining and oil and gas extraction) and utilities (including renewables) sectors. Commonwealth Bank of Australia Percentage of companies reporting scope 3 categories and disclosed emissions by category Emissions million tco 2 e % %. 26.8% Percentage of responding companies % 6.7.6%..7%.9 5.4% % % %..8%..9%..9%..9% % 7 4% 6 35% Emissions million tc2e % 25% 2% 5% % 5% Business travel Energy-related activities (not included in Scope or 2) Waste generated in operations Purchased goods and services Upstream transportation and distribution Employee commuting Capital goods Downstream transportation and distribution Investments Use of sold products Upstream leased assets Franchises Downstream leased assets End of life treatment of sold products Processing of sold products %

12 2 Response Analysis Breakdown of the ASX2 companies by GICS sector as at 3 December 22 Breakdown of the NZX5 companies by GICS sector as at 3 December 22 Consumer Discretionary Energy Health Care Information Technology Telecommunication Services Consumer Staples Financials Industrials Materials Utilities Consumer Discretionary Energy Health Care Information Technology Telecommunication Services Consumer Staples Financials Industrials Materials Utilities The Australian Securities Exchange ( ASX ) 2 and New Zealand Exchange ( NZX ) 5 are samples representing the 2 and the 5 largest listed companies, by market capitalisation, of the ASX and NZX respectively. Throughout this report, subsets of the ASX2 and NZX5 samples of companies are separately analysed for comparison including the ASX5, the ASX, the ASX2 and the NZX5. Consistent with reports of previous years, the Global Industry Classification Standard ( GICS ) is used to classify companies into sectors. The ASX2 continues to be dominated by the Materials and Financials sectors, which represent approximately 25% and 8% of companies respectively. In comparison, only 8% of the NZX5 companies are from the Materials sector. The Financials (26%) and Consumer Discretionary (22%) are the largest two sectors of the NZX5. The overall response rate for ASX2 and NZX5 companies is 47%. The response rates for the ASX2 and the NZX5 remained unchanged from 22 at 5% and 42% respectively. While the ASX response rate is slightly lower at 69% (down from 7% in 22), this is mainly due to changes in the relative market capitalisation of responding companies such as Aquila Resources, Atlas Iron and David Jones which moved from the ASX into the ASX2 from P The ASX5 response rate increased to 9% in 23 from 84% in 22. As the P provides a valuable medium for companies to disclose their management response to climate change risks and opportunities, there was an expectation that the commencement of the carbon price in Australia would be a driver of a higher ASX2 response rate this year, however this is not the case. Responding companies represent 89% of the ASX2 total market capitalisation (up from 85% in 22), 97% of the ASX5 market capitalisation and 92% (up slightly from 9% in 22) of the NZX5 total market capitalisation. Transparency of responding companies is generally high. The vast majority of responding companies choose to make their responses public (ASX2: 85% (virtually unchanged from 84% in 22), NZX5: 8% (up from 76% in 22)). Fluctuating market capitalisations resulted in a significant change in the companies included in the ASX2 and NZX5 this year. 24 companies invited to respond this year had not been invited to respond to P 22. P welcomes the participation of new responding companies. 8 ASX 2 and NZX 5 companies responded to the P 23 climate change information request after not responding to P 22. Four of these are Financials companies (ASX, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Challenger and Platinum Asset Management), three are Industrials companies (Aurizon Holdings, Freightways and Transpacific Industries), three are retailers (Pumpkin Patch, The Reject Shop and Trade Me), two are Health Care companies (Acrux and ResMed) and two are Telecommunications Services companies (SingTel and Telecom Corporation of New Zealand). 3 companies that responded to P 22 did not do so this year three of these are Industrials companies (ALS, Transurban Group and Virgin Australia Holdings) and three are media companies (Fairfax Media, Sky Network Television and Ten Network Holdings). Response rates within the ASX2 were highest in the Financials (76%), Consumer Staples (7%) and Utilities (57%) sectors.

13 9 new responding companies from ASX 2 and NZX 5 Company Sector Index Acrux Health Care ASX 2 Aristocrat Leisure Consumer Discretionary ASX 2 ASX Financials ASX Aurizon Holdings Industrials ASX Beadell Resources Materials ASX 2 Bendigo and Financials ASX Adelaide Bank Challenger Financials ASX Freightways Industrials NZX 5 IRESS Market Information Technology ASX 2 Technology Lynas Corporation Materials ASX 2 New Zealand Oil Energy NZX 5 & Gas Platinum Asset Financials ASX Management Pumpkin Patch Consumer Discretionary NZX 5 The Reject Shop Consumer Discretionary ASX 2 ResMed Health Care ASX SingTel Telecommunication ASX Services Telecom Telecommunication NZX 5 Corporation of NZ Services Trade Me* Consumer Discretionary NZX 5 Transpacific Industries Group Industrials ASX 2 *Trade Me was not invited to respond to P 22. In the NZX5, a much smaller sample, the largest number of responding companies from one sector is six from the Financials sector. The highest response rates were from the Energy and Telecommunications sectors, but each of these are sectors only comprised of one company. There was no response from Consumer Staples, IT or Utilities companies in the NZX5, a continuing concern to investors seeking to understand the implications of climate change on their investments. ASX2 and NZX5 responses to P 23 by sector ASX2 Public responses Non-Public responses NZX5 Public responses Non-Public responses Percentage response rate (public and private) by sector 23 Percentage response rate (public and private) by sector CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TC UTIL themselves accordingly, however a number of non-responding companies cited a lack of reliable emissions data as a reason for declining to respond to the P questionnaire. Other non-responding companies reported that their 9 operations were currently in start-up phase and the 8 business not yet mature enough to provide a meaningful 5 response. 7 Lack of availability of resources and cost to the 7 business 6 of preparing a response, were also reasons given Some companies choose to focus on other reporting and compliance 3 2 obligations 39such as the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 27 ( NGER ) 33 8 and Energy 2 27 Efficiency 27 Opportunities Act 26 ( EEO ) P remains a critical means for investors to understand climate change risks and opportunities facing companies beyond just compliance to GHG emission reporting or energy efficiency obligations as required under these other schemes, and is unique in the marketplace. CS EGY FIN HC 5 IND IT 5 MAT TC 4 The largest non-responding companies by market capitalisation from the ASX and the NZX5 can be seen in the tables above. Encouragingly, four of the largest non-responding ASX companies from P 22 ASX, Aurizon Holdings, ResMed and SingTel - disclosed through P in 23. ASX2 and NZX5 companies can reasonably expect greater scrutiny of their operations and performance including requests for disclosure and should prepare Largest non-responding ASX companies^ Company Sector Westfield Retail Trust Financials Transurban Group Industrials Ramsay Health Care Health Care Lend Lease Group Financials Sonic Healthcare Health Care Cochlear Health Care James Hardie Industries Materials Iluka Resources Materials SP AusNet Utilities ALS Industrials ^ by market capitalisation, as at 3 December 22. Investors seek disclosure of corporate climate change information through P to gain a deeper understanding of the carbon risks and opportunities facing companies at a consolidated and listed entity level beyond the reporting of quantitative data relating to Scope and Scope 2 emissions data required under NGER. This includes understanding factors such as: offshore emissions (i.e., made outside Australia and/or New Zealand); carbon management strategies employed; climate change governance arrangements; physical risks and market opportunities amongst other issues. Largest non-responding NZX5 companies^ Company Sector Contact Energy Utilities Vector Utilities TrustPower Utilities Sky City Entertainment Group Consumer Discretionary Sky Network Television Consumer Discretionary Port Of Tauranga Industrials Infratil Utilities Mainfreight Industrials Guinness Peat Group Consumer Discretionary OceanaGold Corporation Materials ^ by market capitalisation, as at 3 December 22.

14 4 Climate disclosure scores and climate performance bands Climate performance elements Performance band (A is highest) Each year, company responses to P s climate change information request are analysed and scored against two parallel scoring schemes: disclosure and performance. What does a climate disclosure score represent? The climate disclosure score assesses the completeness and quality of a company s response. A high disclosure score signals that a company provided comprehensive information about the measurement and management Climate disclosure score Low Midrange High (<5) (5-7) (>7) Limited or restricted ability to measure and disclose climate related risks, opportunities and overall carbon emissions Increased understanding and measurement of companyspecific risks and opportunities related to climate change Disclosure score (MAX. ) The journey to leadership Compliance Managing for value Senior management understand the business issues related to climate change and are building climate related risks and opportunities into core business Strategic advantage Band A/A- Fully integrated climate change strategy driving significant maturity in climate change initiatives Band B Integration of climate change recognized as priority for strategy, not all initiatives fully established Band C Some activity on climate change with varied levels of integration of those initiatives into strategy Band D Limited evidence of mitigation or adaptation initiatives and no/limited strategy on climate change Band E Little evidence of initiatives on carbon management potentially due to companies just beginning to take action on climate change No performance band allocated below a disclosure score of 5 of its carbon footprint, its climate change strategy and risk management processes and outcomes. What does a climate performance band represent? Where a company s disclosure score is 5 or more, its performance in contributing to climate change mitigation, adaptation and transparency is assessed and ranked in a climate performance band. Its intent is to highlight positive climate action as demonstrated by a company s P response. Disclosure scores of less than 5 do not necessarily indicate poor performance; rather, they indicate insufficient information to evaluate performance. Performance scores are grouped into six bands: A, A-, B, C, D and E (see boxed text: Climate performance elements). A high performance band signals that a company is measuring, verifying and managing its carbon footprint, for example by setting and meeting carbon reduction targets and implementing programs to reduce emissions in both its direct operations and supply chain. What a climate performance band does NOT represent It is important for investors to keep in mind that the climate performance band is not: A measure of how low carbon a company is An assessment of the extent to which a company s actions have reduced carbon intensity relative to other companies in its sector An assessment of how material a company s actions are relative to the business; the score simply recognises evidence of action Reporting of climate disclosure and performance scores Disclosure and performance scores were combined into one P score in 22, e.g., a company that scored 7 for disclosure and a C band for performance would achieve a P score of 7 C. The scores of all ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies are made publicly available, including companies whose response is non-public and only available to P s investor signatories. A listing of ASX2 and NZX5 companies and their P 23 scores is included in the Responding companies section. Public scores are available in P reports, through the P website, Bloomberg Terminals, Google Finance and Deutsche Boerse s website. P s Climate Leadership Indices The highest scoring companies for disclosure and/or performance in each sample (e.g., ASX2) enter the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (LI) and/or the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI). P: the most credible corporate sustainability ranking in the world P s Climate Leadership Indices were recognised as the most credible corporate sustainability ranking in the world in a global survey of 85 sustainability experts in over 7 countries (GlobeScan/Sustainability, Rate the Raters, Phase Five: Polling the Experts 22).

15 P 23 ASX2 and NZX5 Climate Performance Leadership Indices 5 The Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) includes the companies in the highest performance band (A) and provides a valuable perspective on the range and quality of activities being performed by the ASX2 and NZX5 companies in response to climate change. Eligibility for the CPLI To enter the CPLI (i.e., Performance Band A), a company must: Make its response public and submit via P s Online Response System Attain a disclosure score greater than 5 Attain a performance score greater than 85 Disclose gross global scope and scope 2 figures Score maximum performance points for verification of scope and scope 2 emissions Score maximum performance points on question 2.a for greenhouse gas emissions reductions due to emission reduction actions over the past year (i.e., a minimum of 4% or more in emission reductions achieved due to emission reduction actions) Notes Band A- (A minus) companies are not in the CPLI. They are strong performers, with a performance score high enough to warrant inclusion in the CPLI but they do not meet all other CPLI requirements. There are 4 A- organisations in the ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies in 23. P reserves the right to exclude any company from the CPLI if there is anything in its response or other publicly available information that calls into question its suitability for inclusion. P 23 ASX2 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) Company Performance Band Disclosure Score Sector Consecutive years on the P ASX2 CPLI* Commonwealth Property Office Fund A Financials 4 National Australia Bank A 9 Financials 4 Westpac Banking Corporation A 9 Financials 4 Commonwealth Bank of Australia A 94 Financials David Jones A 9 Consumer Discretionary Dexus Property Group A 94 Financials * Including companies that were previously included on the P ASX2 and NZX5 CPLI, which was combined in one index in 2-. P 23 NZX5 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) Company Performance Band Disclosure Score Sector Consecutive years on the P NZX5 CPLI* Westpac Banking Corporation A 9 Financials 4 Kiwi Income Property Trust A 97 Financials * Including companies that were previously included on the P ASX2 and NZX5 CPLI, which was combined in one index in 2-. Six companies are included on the P 23 ASX2 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI), the same total as in P 22. Two companies are included on the P 23 NZX5 CPLI, an increase of one company from P 22. Of the 243 ASX2 and NZX5 companies that were requested to respond to P 23, seven companies were included in both the ASX2 and NZX5 CPLIs, an increase from six companies in 22. Compared to their peers globally, this is a commendable achievement as: Five companies were included on the P Nordic 26 CPLI in 23 (a sample of 26 companies) Two companies were included on the P Canada 2 CPLI in 23

16 6 Commentary on performance scores by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) The ASX2 and NZX5 had an average performance band of C in 23, which was an increase from a D band average in 22. Companies in P s Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) distinguish themselves by providing transparency to the activities and results from integrating climate mitigation into corporate planning and demonstrating the achievement of emissions reductions. In 23, the ASX2 and NZX5 indices welcome 7 out of 2 (6%) companies to the leadership index, an increase from 6 in 22. Three companies (Commonwealth Property Office Fund, National Australia Bank and Westpac Banking Corporation) were named to the index for the fourth consecutive year and demonstrated a continuing corporate commitment to effective climate management and reducing carbon emissions from their internal operations. Commonwealth Bank of Australia returned to the CPLI in 23, and 3 companies (David Jones, Dexus Property Group, and Kiwi Income Property Trust) are new to the index in 23. What defines a performance leader? From FCS experience in scoring over 5 companies since 2, FCS has noted that a number companies would have achieved inclusion in the CPLI had they strengthened a few key areas in their P response. In 23, the areas that are the most notable in distinguishing leaders from the highest scoring non-cpli companies are: Establishing board-level oversight on climate planning along with monetary incentives for emission reductions Providing substantive detail on how climate change is integrated into risk management and corporate strategic planning Setting Scope and Scope 2 reduction targets Disclosing evidence of Scope & Scope 2 emission reduction activities that delivered significant results (>4% reductions year over year) Providing independent 3rd party assurance of Scope, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions Scoring observations Three companies (Mirvac Group, CFS Retail Property Trust, and Insurance Australia Group) fell out of the CPLI in performance band distribution of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies ASX2 Dual-listed: ASX2 and NZX5 NZX5 (No Band) (Low Band) (Mid Band) (High Band) Number of companies No E D C B A- Band Performance Band No band, Low, Mid and High band group percentage values are rounded to the nearest percentage 3 5 A An additional 8% of responding companies would have reached a performance band A or A- had they achieved deeper emission reductions in the reporting year due to emission reduction initiatives. A further 4% of responding companies would have received a B for performance if they demonstrated additional strength in one or more of the following areas: providing financial incentives, risk management procedures, additional detail on how climate change was integrated into business strategies, or details surrounding intensity targets.

17 Commentary on performance scores by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) continued 7 The combined ASX2 and NZX5 performance leaders outperformed the regional average across all performance categories, but most notably in Emissions Performance and Verification / Stakeholder Engagement. This is largely due to corporate carbon reduction initiatives that achieved significant reductions in carbon emissions, and the independent third-party verification of carbon emissions inventories (Scope, 2, and 3). Areas where ASX2 and NZX5 climate performance leaders excel ASX2 Average Band CPLI Average Band NZX5 Average Band CPLI Average Band Governance Overall the top achieving sectors for Performance in 23 were Financials and Consumer Discretionary, with all of the performance leader index companies coming from these two sectors. The sector with the lowest performance is Information Technology, which had only 2 participating companies. The average performance band for carbon intensive sectors (Energy, Industrials, Materials, and Utilities) was a C with no sector standing out from the others. Amcor is the only company within these sectors that stood out by receiving an A- band. Other companies achieving high performance bands from these carbon intensive sectors included: Qantas Airways, Leighton Holdings, Downer EDI and Brambles, illustrating strong performance scoring in the B band. Eleven () of 5 (22%) high emitting companies failed to achieve a disclosure score above 5, and therefore are ineligible for a performance band. Strategy Emissions Performance Verification / Stakeholder Engagement E D C B A Comparison of ASX2 and NZX5 climate performance by sector (Numbers on the right vertical axis denote number of responding companies in each sector) No Band Band E Band D Band C Band B Band A- Band A 36% 4% 4% 2% 7% 7% 4 CS 6% 4% 5 EGY % % 33% 22% 22% 9 FIN 3% 7% % 7% 4% 7% 7% 3 HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 8% 25% 29% 8% % 83% 29% 24% 5% 2% 5% 5% 25% 25% 25% 25% 24% 24% 25% 7% % 3% Number of responding companies % 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% % Band A Band A- Band B Band C Band D Band E No Band

18 8 Commentary on performance scores by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) continued Sectoral assessment of ASX2 climate performance by category <5 Under performance 5-7 Mid range performance >7 High performance Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Financials Health Care Industrials Information Technology Materials Telecommunication Services Utilities Governance Strategy Emissions Performance Verification / Stakeholder Engagement In 23, only four sectors in the ASX2 showed high performance in Governance and Strategy. All sectors under performed in the Emissions Performance category, with the exception of the Financials sector achieving mid range (C band) performance. Three Financials companies - Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Westpac Banking Corporation and Kiwi Income Property Trust - scored very highly in emissions performance. Overall, 29% of ASX2 and NZX5 companies received a D or E band for Emissions Performance, with another 23% failing to receive a band. With 2 responding companies, the NZX5 did not have a sufficient number of participants to allow significant conclusions around the differences in climate performance by sector to allow significant conclusions to be drawn around the differences in climate performance by sector. In the Materials sector, Fletcher Building was a stand out performer, achieving a high performance (B) band. Sectoral assessment of NZX5 climate performance by category <5 Under performance 5-7 Mid range performance >7 High performance Consumer Discretionary Financials Health Care Industrials Telecommunication Services Governance Strategy Note: only sectors with two or more responding companies are displayed Emissions Performance Verification / Stakeholder Engagement

19 P 23 ASX 2 and NZX 5 Climate Disclosure Leadership Indices 9 P 23 ASX 2 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (LI) Company Disclosure Score Sector Consecutive years on the P ASX2 LI* Commonwealth Property Office Fund Financials 5 CFS Retail Property Trust Financials 4 Amcor 99 Materials 5 News Corporation 97 Consumer Discretionary 6 Woolworths Limited 96 Consumer Staples 6 Commonwealth Bank of Australia 94 Financials 5 Dexus Property Group 94 Financials 3 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group 92 Financials 8 Leighton Holdings 92 Industrials 2 National Australia Bank 9 Financials 8 David Jones 9 Consumer Discretionary Westpac Banking Corporation 9 Financials Qantas Airways 89 Industrials 4 Insurance Australia Group 88 Financials 8 Investa Office Fund 88 Financials Rio Tinto 88 Materials AGL Energy 87 Utilities 7 Santos 85 Energy 5 Metcash 85 Consumer Staples 4 CSL 85 Health Care Westfield Group 85 Financials * Including companies that were previously included on the P ASX 2 and NZX 5 LI, which was combined in one index until 2. P 23 NZX 5 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (LI) Company Disclosure Score Sector Consecutive years on the P NZX5 LI* Kiwi Income Property Trust 97 Financials Australia and New Zealand Banking Group 92 Financials 8 Westpac Banking Corporation 9 Financials 8 Telstra Corporation 83 Telecommunication Services 2 Fletcher Building 82 Materials 2 * Including companies that were previously included on the P ASX 2 and NZX 5 LI, which was combined in one index until 2. Two ASX2 companies achieved the maximum possible disclosure score of in P 23 - Commonwealth Property Office Fund (also the equal highest scorer in 2-2) and CFS Retail Trust. The highest ASX2 score in P 23 is up 3 points from the top score of 97 in P 22. As the P questionnaire and scoring methodology has largely remained unchanged between P 22 and P 23, scores can be compared year on year. The highest NZX5 responding company disclosure score in P 23 is 97, achieved by Kiwi Income Property Trust (KIPT). This is a ten point increase on the highest NZX5 score of 87 in P 22, as well as a significant increase of 28 points on KIPT s P 22 score. The minimum score for inclusion in the ASX2 LI in P 23 is 85, a point lower than is the minimum score for inclusion in the NZX5 LI this year, which is eight points higher than P 22. The ASX2 LI has an average score of 9, which is unchanged from P 22. The NZX5 LI has an average score of 89, which is 8 points higher than P 22.

20 2 Commentary on disclosure scores by FirstCarbon Solutions Number of companies ASX2 and NZX5 companies demonstrated high quality and completeness in their P 23 climate change disclosures, particularly in the categories of Governance and Emissions Reporting. 5 companies that achieved membership of the P 23 ASX2 and NZX5 Climate Disclosure Leadership Indices repeated their achievement for a third consecutive year, demonstrating a consistent commitment to providing high quality climate disclosure. Five companies (Mirvac Group, Spotless Group, Stockland, Transurban Group, and Virgin Australia Holdings) fell out of the LI, two (Rio Tinto and Westfield Group) returned following an absence in 22, and CSL and David Jones returned followed an absence in 2-2. Investa Office Fund is a new addition to the P ASX2 LI in Disclosure Score Distribution of ASX2 and NZX5 Responding Companies ASX2 NZX5 Dual-listed: ASX2 and NZX5 4 6 (Low Score) 24% (Mid Score) 29% (High Score) 47% Disclosure Score Note: Low, Mid and High score group percentage values are rounded 9 The chart above illustrates the distribution of scores by participating ASX2 and NZX5 companies in 23. Two companies achieved perfect disclosure scores of while 24% of responding companies failed to achieve a disclosure score above customers, these companies establish themselves as trusted and responsible organizations. Every year, the minimum disclosure score to achieve LI differs based on the whole group of participating companies. In general, the required disclosure scores increase year over year. This means that companies usually need to continue to maintain and improve their disclosures even at the highest levels to ensure inclusion in the LI. From FCS experience in scoring over 5 companies since 2, FCS has noted that a number companies would have achieved inclusion in the LI had they strengthened a few key areas in their P response. In 23, the areas that were most notable in distinguishing LI members from the highest scoring non-li companies are: Setting and achieving Scope and Scope 2 emission reduction targets Establishing mitigation strategies for the risks and opportunities associated with climate change Demonstrating how climate change is integrated into risk planning and corporate strategy Obtaining independent, third party assurance of Scope, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions according to a standard that complies with P s verification standards In 23: 24% of responding companies that did not achieve LI level scores would have reached LI equivalent disclosure scores had they demonstrated an increased understanding and measurement of company specific exposures to climate-related risks and opportunities. 7% of responding companies that did not achieve LI fell short by failing to provide third party verification of emissions data. 2% of non-li companies missed the LI by failing to clearly define how climate was integrated into corporate planning or providing a specific climate risk management process. 4% of non-li companies failed to achieve LI due to insufficiency in reported Scope 3 emissions or achievement of Scope, 2 or 3 emission reduction targets. What defines a climate disclosure leader? Companies in P s Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (LI) demonstrate the highest level of quality and thoroughness in climate disclosure within their geographic region. To start, LI companies have a strong foundation of internal data management practices that facilitate accurate and complete reporting. Additionally, LI companies demonstrate integrated climate change management in terms of business strategy, risk management, and emission reductions. With established board-level oversight, as well as transparency and outreach with both suppliers and

21 Commentary on disclosure scores by FirstCarbon Solutions continued 2 Areas where ASX2 and NZX5 climate disclosure leaders excel ASX2 Average LI Average NZX5 Average LI Average Comparison of ASX2 and NZX5 climate disclosure by sector <5 Significantly below average 5-7 Average >7 Significantly above average Governance & Strategy Risks Opportunities Emissions Reporting Emissions Management Verification / Stakeholder Engagement The of ASX2 the regional and average NZX5 scores compared climate to disclosure the LI average leaders scores for each disclosure category.) outperformed the average scores in each of these samples across all disclosure categories. Disclosure leaders distinguish themselves from the average responder by effectively communicating how they assess and measure the impact of climate change on their business operations and bottom line. Another category where disclosure leaders distinguish themselves from the average is independent third-party verification of all of their carbon emissions inventories - Scope, 2, and 3 emissions. Comparing the quality of climate change disclosure by sector, all sectors provided high quality disclosure related Average disclosure scores by sector for ASX2 responding companies Climate disclosure score (The Disclosure Comparison Chart denotes a breakdown Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Financials Health Care Industrials Information Technology Materials Telecommunication Services Utilities Governance & Strategy Risks Opportunities Emissions Management Emisions Reporting to governance and strategy, and most performed well in emissions reporting. Four of ten sectors provided significantly above average quality disclosure of their emissions management practices. The Consumer Staples sector provided significantly above average quality disclosure across all disclosure categories, while the Health Care and IT sectors significantly under performed the average in almost all categories of disclosure except Consumer governance and strategy. Discretionary Consumer Staples Disclosure Energy of the risks and opportunities associated with Financials climate change were again the areas in which most sectors under performed on average, and where the Health Care largest number of companies have the most significant Industrials opportunities to improve the quality of their climate change disclosure Technology Information and their P climate disclosure score. Materials The average disclosure score for the ASX2 was 67, Services an increase Utilities of two points since 22, with 38 ASX2 companies (39%) scoring below average, and 8 Governance Risks Opportunities Emissions Emisions & Strategy Management Reporting companies (9%) providing lower quality disclosure and scoring less than 5. Telecommunication The NZX5 average disclosure score was 57 - a significant increase of eight points since of 2 (62%) NZX5 companies scored above the average. Verification / Stakeholder Engagement Verification / Stakeholder Engagement ASX2 Average Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Financials Health Care Industrials Information Technology Materials Telecommunication Services Utilities 67 (97) 56 () 83 (5) 7 (8) 75 (27) 48 (3) 68 (4) 4 (2) 6 (2) 7 (3) 57 (4) Numbers in brackets denote number of responding companies Average disclosure scores by sector for NZX5 responding companies NZX5 Average Consumer Discretionary Energy Financials Health Care Industrials Materials Telecommunication Services 8 (3) 57 (2) 53 (4) 4 () 5 (3) 64 (3) 79 (6) 82 () Numbers in brackets denote number of responding companies

22 22 Key disclosure statistics Figure KS is based on the 99 ASX2 and 2 NZX5 companies that responded to P 23. As this includes six dual-listed companies, it is comprised of 4 unique companies in total. This includes companies that reference a holding company s response. Analysis in the remainder of this report is based on 2 responses received by July 23 and does not include companies that reference a holding company s response or that were late in responding. The number of companies disclosing scope or 2 emissions includes those that have disclosed their emissions as zero. Climate Change Reporting Framework The Climate Disclosure Standards Board (SB), a special project of P, is an international organization committed to the integration of climate change-related information into mainstream corporate reporting. SB s internationally accepted Climate Change Reporting Framework is designed for use by companies in making disclosures in, or linked to, their mainstream financial reports about the risks and opportunities that climate change presents to their strategy, financial performance and condition. Designed in-line with the objectives of financial reporting and rules on non-financial reporting, the Climate Change Reporting Framework offers a leading example of how to apply the principles of integrated reporting with respect to reporting on climate change. Learn more about SB s work and download the Framework from KS. Year on year percentage response rate to P climate change questionnaire ASX2 NZX Response rate Response rate Percentage response rate KS2. ASX2 and NZX5 percentage response rate by sector ASX2 Public responses Non Public responses NZX5 Public responses Non Public responses CS EGY FIN HC IND 5 IT MAT 5 TC 4 43 UTIL KS3. Year on year disclosure of scope and 2 emissions by ASX2 and NZX5 companies KS4. Percentage of responding companies in each sector disclosing scope or 2 GHG emissions ASX2 Public NZX5 Public ASX2 Non Public NZX5 Non Public ASX2 NZX5 ASX2 23 ASX2 22 NZX5 23 NZX Number of responding companies CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TC UTIL

23 Key emission statistics Scope emissions 23 Total Scope emissions for the ASX2 increased from 7 million tco 2 -e in P 22 to 26 million tco 2 -e in P 23. This is largely due to AGL Energy s reported emissions increasing from.6m tonnes CO 2 -e in P 22 to 2.7 million tco 2 -e in P 23 following its full takeover of Loy Yang A power station. It is also partly due to changes in the reporting sample Virgin Australia Holdings reported almost 3 million tco 2 -e in P 22, but did not respond to P 23. This drop in ASX2 Scope emissions was partly compensated for by two new responding companies in P 23 Aurizon Holdings and Transpacific Industries which reported a combined.6 million tco 2 -e in Scope emissions. Total NZX5 Scope emissions were unchanged from P 22 at 3.9 million tco 2 -e. KS5. Total Scope emissions reported by ASX2 responding companies by sector CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 4,896 5,764 3,544,4 2,982,435 7,553,75 9,48,895 98,92 77,483 52,8 57,4 8,557,748 7,8, ,773,475 63,699,525 55,37 64,83 2,278,86 22,,534,, 2,, 3,, 4,, 5,, 6,, 7,, 8,, Scope (metric tonnes CO 2 e) KS6. Total Scope emissions reported by NZX5 responding companies by sector ,364,245 CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 23,73 4,248 35,4,273 55,37 59,77 83, ,236 2,959,72 2,92,56 5,,,,5, 2,, 2,5, 3,, 3,5, Scope (metric tonnes CO 2 e)

24 24 Key emission statistics Scope 2 emissions Due to a change in the approach for scope 2 accounting, scope 2 figures for 23 are not fully comparable with 22 as companies can now incorporate the specific emissions factors associated with renewable energy purchases where supported by appropriate tracking instruments, and also due to changes in the reporting samples. Total Scope 2 emissions reported by ASX2 responding companies declined from 63 million tco 2 -e in P 22 to 6 million tco 2 -e in P 23. Some of the major contributors to this included BHP Billiton s reported Scope 2 emissions dropping by 963, tco 2 -e from P 22-23, and Rio Tinto s Scope 2 emissions dropping by 8, tco 2 -e. KS7. Total Scope 2 emissions reported by ASX2 responding companies by sector Total NZX5 Scope 2 emissions increased slightly to 2.3 million tco 2 -e, an increase of approximately, tonnes. CS EGY FIN 95,48 756,95 5,884,769 5,628,83 5,99 473,354 2,392,562 2,242,263 HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 33,7 56,376,367,333,638,66 2,93,359,25,583,377 2,25,88 2,364,898 48,234,768 45,28,555,, 2,, 3,, 4,, 5,, Scope 2 (tonnes CO 2 -e) KS8. Total Scope 2 emissions reported by NZX5 responding companies by sector ,52 2,37 2 CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 6,857 6,327 2,646 42,27 44,922 46, ,75,359,25,422,78 2, 4, 6, 8,,,,2,,4,,6, Scope 2 (metric tonnes CO 2 e)

25 Key emission statistics Scope 3 emission and verification/assurance 25 Scope 3 emissions Only companies reporting scope 3 emissions using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard named categories have been included below. In addition, only those categories for which emissions figures that are greater than zero and identified as relevant have been included. Verification/assurance P has been working to encourage greater levels of third party verification/assurance of data in response to demands for higher levels of data quality. The term reported and approved refers to the fact that the number of companies with verification is based on the scoring of the verification statements attached to their response. Where companies report verification/ assurance of more than one scope, they are counted only once in the statistic provided below. KS9. Number of ASX2 and NZX5 companies reporting relevant and calculated scope 3 categories KS. Most common types of scope three categories reported by ASX2 and NZX5 companies (with emissions data) Business travel Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope or 2) Waste generated in operations Purchased goods and services 2 Upstream transportation and distribution Employee commuting Capital goods 2 Downstream transportation and distribution Investments 3 Use of sold products Upstream leased assets 8 Franchises Downstream leased assets 3 End of life treatment of sold products Processing of sold products KS. Percentage of companies with reported and approved verification/assurance by sector 2 % 9% 3 8% Percentage of responding companies 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % 2 4 CS 33 EGY 5 FIN 7 HC 35 IND IT 43 MAT 5 TC 25 UTIL Analysis covers scope 3 emissions categories that have been calculated and are considered relevant by the responding companies, indicated by the relevant, calculated option in question 4. of the P climate change questionnaire.

26 26 Key governance, management and communication statistics KS2. ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies with Board or other senior management oversight by sector Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board Senior Manager/Officer or Other Manager/Officer KS3. ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies rewarding climate change progress by sector Monetary incentives Non-monetary incentives only Percentage of responding companies % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % CS EGY 23 7 FIN 7 5 HC IND 5 IT 5 86 MAT TC UTIL Percentage of responding companies % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % 43 CS 56 EGY 7 63 FIN 7 HC 8 4 IND IT 43 MAT 75 TC 5 UTIL KS4. ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies demonstrating climate change being integrated into overall business strategy KS5. ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies with evidence of disclosure of climate change information in mainstream filings or other external communications by sector Percentage of responding companies % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % 57 8 CS 89 EGY 83 FIN 33 HC 7 IND IT 57 MAT 5 TC 75 UTIL Percentage of responding companies % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % 57 CS 89 EGY 73 FIN HC IND IT MAT TC UTIL

27 Key emission reduction statistics 27 KS6. ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies with absolute emission reduction targets by sector KS7. ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies ahead or having met targets to reduce emissions by sector All targets met At least one but not all targets met % % 9% 9% 8% 8% Percentage of responding companies 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % CS EGY FIN 7 HC 24 IND IT MAT 25 TC 25 UTIL Percentage of responding companies 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % CS 44 EGY 2 37 FIN 7 HC 8 IND IT 9 5 MAT TC 25 UTIL KS8. ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies with targets to reduce the intensity of emissions by sector KS9. ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies achieving emission reductions due to implementation of emission reduction activities by sector % 9% 8% % 9% 8% Percentage of responding companies 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % 7 6 CS 33 EGY 37 FIN HC IND IT MAT TC UTIL Percentage of responding companies 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% % % 36 4 CS EGY 67 FIN 7 HC 35 IND IT 9 MAT 5 TC 25 UTIL Companies disclosing absolute or intensity targets have been included in this section only where they have been fully described, providing base year, target year, percentage reduction and for intensity targets, target metric. Companies may report multiple emissions reductions due to implementation of activities, targets and reward incentives. In all of these cases, companies are counted only once in the statistics presented above, with the exception of the statistics on absolute and intensity targets where companies that have both types of target will be counted once in each type.

28 28 Investor members P works with investors globally to advance the investment opportunities and reduce the risks posed by climate change by asking over 5, of the world s largest companies to report their climate strategies, GHG emissions and energy use through P s standardized format. To learn more about P s member offering and becoming a member, please contact us or visit the investor pages at Pages/investors.aspx ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A. Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Morgan Stanley ATP Group National Australia Bank Aviva Investors Neuberger Berman Bank of America Newton Investment Management Limited Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Nordea Bank BlackRock Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Boston Common Asset Management, LLC Northwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEI California Public Employees' Retirement System Investments) (CalPERS) PFA Pension California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) Robeco Calvert Group, Ltd. RobecoSAM AG Capricorn Investment Group Rockefeller Asset Management Catholic Super Royal Bank of Scotland Group CCLA Investment Management Ltd Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Schroders Generation Investment Management Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB) Henderson Global Investors Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. HSBC Holdings plc Standard Chartered Legg Mason, Inc. Sun Life Financial Inc KLP Sustainable Insights Capital Management London Pensions Fund Authority TD Asset Management Mobimo Holding AG The Wellcome Trust P INVESTOR SIGNATORIES & ASSETS (US$ TRILLION) AGAINST TIME INCREASING NUMBER OF INVESTORS REQUESTING CLIMATE DATA THROUGH Investor P Signatories Investor P Signatory Assets Investor signatory assets Number of investor signatories Number of Signatories Assets (US$ Trillions) 23 INVESTOR SIGNATORY BREAKDOWN - Region Africa (5) America - Latin & Caribbean (7) America - North (74) Asia (7) Australia and New Zealand (6) Europe - North & Western (294) Europe - Southern & Eastern (39) INVESTOR SIGNATORY Breakdown - Type 247 Mainstream Asset Managers 67 Pension funds 6 Banks 5 Insurance 39 SRI Asset Managers 34 Foundations 27 Other

29 Investor signatories financial institutions with assets of US$87 trillion were signatories to the P 23 climate change information request dated February st 23 3Sisters Sustainable Management LLC Aberdeen Asset Management Aberdeen Immobilien KAG mbh ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Achmea NV Active Earth Investment Management Acuity Investment Management Addenda Capital Inc. Advanced Investment Partners Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd Aegon N.V. AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd AFP Integra AIG Asset Management AK PORTFÖY YÖNETİMİ A.Ş. AKBANK T.A.Ş. Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Alcyone Finance AllenbridgeEpic Investment Advisers Alliance Trust Allianz Elementar Versicherungs-AG Allianz Global Investors AG Allianz Group Altira Group Amalgamated Bank Amlin AMP Capital Investors AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Amundi AM ANBIMA Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos Mercados Financeiro e de Capitais Antera Gestão de Recursos S.A. APG Group AQEX LLC Aquila Capital Arisaig Partners Arkx Investment Management ARMA PORTFÖY YÖNETİMİ A.Ş. Armstrong Asset Management ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. ASN Bank Assicurazioni Generali ATI Asset Management Atlantic Asset Management ATP Group Auriel Capital Management Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Australian Ethical Investment AustralianSuper Avaron Asset Management AS Aviva Aviva Investors AXA Group Baillie Gifford & Co. BaltCap Banco Bradesco S/A Banco Comercial Português SA Banco de Credito del Peru BCP Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Banco do Brasil Previdência Banco do Brasil S/A Banco Espírito Santo SA Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social (BNDES) Banco Popular Espanol Banco Sabadell Banco Santander Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social Banesto BANIF SA Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA Bank Leumi Le Israel Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of Montreal Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) Bank Sarasin & Cie AG Bank Vontobel Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.h. Bankia Bankinter BankInvest bankmecu Banque Degroof Banque Libano-Francaise Barclays Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank BASF Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Basler Kantonalbank Bâtirente Baumann and Partners S.A. Bayern LB BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh BBC Pension Trust Ltd BBVA Bedfordshire Pension Fund Beetle Capital Befimmo SA Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Bentall Kennedy Berenberg Bank Berti Investments BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Terceiros Ltda BlackRock Blom Bank SAL Blumenthal Foundation BNP Paribas Investment Partners BNY Mellon BNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft mbh Boston Common Asset Management, LLC Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. Breckinridge Capital Advisors British Airways Pensions British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcimc) Brown Advisory BT Financial Group BT Investment Management Busan Bank CAAT Pension Plan Cadiz Holdings Limited CAI Corporate Assets International AG Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Caisse des Dépôts Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Caixa Econômica Federal Caixa Geral de Depósitos CaixaBank California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) California State Treasurer Calvert Investment Management, Inc Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) Canadian Labour Congress Staff Pension Fund CAPESESP Capital Innovations, LLC Capricorn Investment Group CARE Super Carmignac Gestion Caser Pensiones E.G.F.P Cathay Financial Holding Catherine Donnelly Foundation Catholic Super CBF Church of England Funds CBRE Group, Inc. Cbus Superannuation Fund CCLA Investment Management Ltd Celeste Funds Management Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Ceres CERES-Fundação de Seguridade Social Change Investment Management Chinatrust Financial Holding Co Limited Christian Brothers Investment Services Inc. Christian Super Christopher Reynolds Foundation Church Commissioners for England Church of England Pensions Board CI Mutual Funds' Signature Global Advisors City Developments Limited ClearBridge Investments Climate Change Capital Group Ltd CM-CIC Asset Management Colonial First State Global Asset Management Comerica Incorporated Comgest Commerzbank AG CommInsure Commonwealth Bank of Australia Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Compton Foundation, Inc. Concordia Versicherungs-Gesellschaft a.g. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Conser Invest Co-operative Asset Management Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) Credit Suisse Daegu Bank Daesung Capital Management Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Dalton Nicol Reid Danske Bank A/S de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A. DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Delta Lloyd Asset Management Desjardins Financial Security Deutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbh Deutsche Bank AG Deutsche Postbank AG Development Bank of Japan Inc. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Dexia Asset Management Dexus Property Group DLM INVISTA ASSET MANAGEMENT S/A DNB ASA Domini Social Investments LLC Dongbu Insurance Doughty Hanson & Co. DWS Investments DZ Bank Earth Capital Partners LLP East Sussex Pension Fund Ecclesiastical Investment Management Ecofi Investissements - Groupe Credit Cooperatif Edward W. Hazen Foundation EEA Group Ltd Eko Elan Capital Partners Element Investment Managers ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência Environment Agency Active Pension fund Epworth Investment Management Equilibrium Capital Group equinet Bank AG Erik Penser Fondkommission Erste Asset Management Erste Group Bank AG Essex Investment Management Company, LLC ESSSuper Ethos Foundation Etica SGR Eureka Funds Management Eurizon Capital SGR S.p.A. Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Evangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern Canada Evli Bank Plc F&C Asset Management FACEB Fundação de Previdência dos Empregados da CEB FAELCE Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade Social

30 3 Investor signatories continued FAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária da Extensão Rural do Rio Grande do Sul FASERN - Fundação COSERN de Previdência Complementar Fédéris Gestion d'actifs FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH FIM Asset Management Ltd FIM Services Financiere de l'echiquier FIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementar dos Empregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPq FIRA. - Banco de Mexico First Affirmative Financial Network, LLC First Commercial Bank First State Investments First State Superannuation Scheme First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP) Firstrand Limited Five Oceans Asset Management Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) Folketrygdfondet Folksam Fondaction CSN Fondation de Luxembourg Forma Futura Invest AG Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft mbh Friends Fiduciary Corporation Fubon Financial Holdings Fukoku Capital Management Inc FUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários Federais Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Brasiletros Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Fundação Attilio Francisco Xavier Fontana Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Fundação BRDE de Previdência Complementar - ISBRE Fundação Chesf de Assistência e Seguridade Social Fachesf Fundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da Companhia Riograndense de Saneamento Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES - FAPES FUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROS Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social - FORLUZ Fundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e Assistência Social FUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCO Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Fundação Rede Ferroviaria de Seguridade Social Refer FUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA E ASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL - FUSAN Fundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel) Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIA FUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIA COMPLEMENTAR DA CAESB Futuregrowth Asset Management GEAP Fundação de Seguridade Social General Equity Group AG Generali Deutschland Holding AG Generation Investment Management Genus Capital Management German Equity Trust AG Gjensidige Forsikring ASA Global Forestry Capital S.a.r.l. GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eg Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale Vermögensentwicklung mbh Governance for Owners Government Employees Pension Fund ( GEPF ), Republic of South Africa GPT Group Greater Manchester Pension Fund Green Cay Asset Management Green Century Capital Management GROUPAMA EMEKLİLİK A.Ş. GROUPAMA SİGORTA A.Ş. Groupe Crédit Coopératif Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. GROUPE OFI AM Grupo Financiero Banorte SAB de CV Grupo Santander Brasil Gruppo Bancario Credito Valtellinese Gruppo Monte Paschi Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Hang Seng Bank Hanwha Asset Management Company Harbour Asset Management Harrington Investments, Inc Hauck & Aufhäuser Asset Management GmbH Hazel Capital LLP HDFC Bank Ltd Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Henderson Global Investors Hermes Fund Managers HESTA Super HIP Investor Holden & Partners HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbH HSBC Holdings plc HSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Humanis Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. IBK Securities IDBI Bank Ltd IDFC Ltd Illinois State Board of Investment Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company Impax Group plc Independent Planning Group Indusind Bank Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. Industrial Bank Industrial Bank of Korea Industrial Development Corporation Industry Funds Management Inflection Point Partners ING Group Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREV Instituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - SEBRAEPREV Insurance Australia Group IntReal KAG Investec Asset Management Investing for Good Irish Life Investment Managers Itaú Asset Management Itaú Unibanco Holding S.A. Janus Capital Group Inc. Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation JOHNSON & JOHNSON SOCIEDADE PREVIDENCIARIA JPMorgan Chase & Co. Jubitz Family Foundation Jupiter Asset Management Kaiser Ritter Partner Privatbank AG (Schweiz) KB Kookmin Bank KBC Asset Management NV KBC Group KCPS and Company KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. KDB Daewoo Securities Co. Ltd. KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m. b. H. KEVA KeyCorp KfW Bankengruppe Killik & Co LLP Kiwi Income Property Trust Kleinwort Benson Investors KlimaINVEST KLP Insurance Korea Investment Management Korea Technology Finance Corporation KPA Pension La Banque Postale Asset Management La Financiere Responsable Lampe Asset Management GmbH Landsorganisationen i Sverige LaSalle Investment Management LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbh LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond Legal & General Investment Management Legg Mason, Inc. LGT Capital Management Ltd. LIG Insurance Co., Ltd. Light Green Advisors, LLC Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. Lloyds Banking Group Local Authority Pension Fund Forum Local Government Super LOGOS PORTFÖY YÖNETIMI A.Ş. London Pensions Fund Authority Lothian Pension Fund LUCRF Super Macquarie Group MagNet Magyar Közösségi Bank Zrt. MainFirst Bank AG Malakoff Médéric MAMA Sustainable Incubation AG Man Group plc Mandarine Gestion MAPFRE Maple-Brown Abbott Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. Maryland State Treasurer Matrix Asset Management Matrix Group McLean Budden MEAG MUNICH ERGO Asset Management GmbH Mediobanca Meeschaert Gestion Privée Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Mendesprev Sociedade Previdenciária Merck Family Fund Mercy Investment Services, Inc. Mergence Investment Managers MetallRente GmbH Metrus Instituto de Seguridade Social Metzler Investment Gmbh MFS Investment Management Midas International Asset Management Miller/Howard Investments Mirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd. Mirae Asset Securities Mirvac Group Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Mistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Mn Services Momentum Manager of Managers (Pty) Ltd Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A. Morgan Stanley Mountain Cleantech AG MTAA Superannuation Fund Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia Nanuk Asset Management Natcan Investment Management Nathan Cummings Foundation, The National Australia Bank National Bank of Canada National Bank Of Greece National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme National Grid UK Pension Scheme National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) Nativus Sustainable Investments Natixis SA Natural Investments LLC Nedbank Limited Needmor Fund Nelson Capital Management, LLC Nest Sammelstiftung Neuberger Berman New Alternatives Fund Inc. New Amsterdam Partners LLC New Forests New Mexico State Treasurer New York City Employees Retirement System New York City Teachers Retirement System New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF) Newton Investment Management Limited NGS Super NH-CA Asset Management Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Nipponkoa Insurance Company, Ltd Nissay Asset Management Corporation NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG Nordea Bank Norfolk Pension Fund

31 Investor signatories continued 3 Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) North Carolina Retirement System Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) Northern Star Group Northern Trust Northward Capital Northwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEI Investments) Nykredit OceanRock Investments Inc. Oddo & Cie oeco capital Lebensversicherung AG ÖKOWORLD Old Mutual plc OMERS Administration Corporation Ontario Pension Board Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan OP Fund Management Company Ltd Oppenheim & Co Limited Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment) OPSEU Pension Trust (OP Trust) Oregon State Treasurer Orion Energy Systems Osmosis Investment Management Panahpur Park Foundation Parnassus Investments Pax World Funds Pensioenfonds Vervoer Pension Denmark Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists Pension Protection Fund Pensionsmyndigheten Perpetual Investments PETROS - Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Social PFA Pension PGGM Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd. PhiTrust Active Investors Pictet Asset Management SA Pinstripe Management GmbH Pioneer Investments Piraeus Bank PKA Pluris Sustainable Investments SA PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Pohjola Asset Management Ltd Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation Portfolio 2 Investments Porto Seguro S.A. POSTALIS - Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos Power Finance Corporation PREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTAR PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Brasil PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Prologis Provinzial Rheinland Holding Prudential Investment Management Prudential PLC Psagot Investment House Ltd PSP Investments Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd QBE Insurance Group Rabobank Raiffeisen Fund Management Hungary Ltd. Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.h. Raiffeisen Schweiz Rathbone Greenbank Investments RCM (Allianz Global Investors) Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência Social REI Super Reliance Capital Ltd Representative Body of the Church in Wales Resolution Resona Bank, Limited Reynders McVeigh Capital Management River Twice Capital Advisors, LLC RLAM Robeco RobecoSAM AG Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation Rockefeller Asset Management Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment Rothschild Royal Bank of Canada Royal Bank of Scotland Group RPMI Railpen Investments RREEF Investment GmbH Russell Investments Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Samsung Life Insurance Samsung Securities Sanlam Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda Santam Ltd Sarasin & Partners SAS Trustee Corporation Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG Schroders Scottish Widows Investment Partnership SEB Asset Management AG Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Sentinel Funds SERPROS - Fundo Multipatrocinado Service Employees International Union Benefit Funds Servite Friars Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) Shiga Bank, Ltd. Shinhan Bank Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Signet Capital Management Ltd Skandia Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB) Smith Pierce, LLC SNS Asset Management Social(k) Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - Prevdata Socrates Fund Management Solaris Investment Management Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Sonen Capital LLC Sopher Investment Management Soprise! LLP SouthPeak Investment Management SPF Beheer bv Spring Water Asset Management, LLC Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Standard Chartered Standard Chartered Korea Limited Standard Life Investments State Bank of India State Street Corporation StatewideSuper Stockland Storebrand ASA Strathclyde Pension Fund Stratus Group Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc. Sun Life Financial Inc. Superfund Asset Management GmbH SUSI Partners AG Sustainable Capital Sustainable Development Capital LLP Sustainable Insight Capital Management Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Svenska Kyrkans Pensionskassa Swedbank Swift Foundation Swiss Re Swisscanto Holding AG Sycomore Asset Management Syntrus Achmea Asset Management T. Rowe Price T.GARANTİ BANKASI A.Ş. T.SINAİ KALKINMA BANKASI A.Ş. Tata Capital Limited TD Asset Management Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund Telluride Association Tempis Capital Management Co., Ltd. Terra Forvaltning AS TerraVerde Capital Management LLC TfL Pension Fund The ASB Community Trust The Brainerd Foundation The Bullitt Foundation The Central Church Fund of Finland The Children's Investment Fund Foundation The Clean Yield Group The Collins Foundation The Co-operators Group Limited The Daly Foundation The Environmental Investment Partnership LLP The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust The Korea Teachers Pension The New School The Oppenheimer Group The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada The Pinch Group The Presbyterian Church in Canada The Russell Family Foundation The Sandy River Charitable Foundation The Sisters of St. Ann The Standard Bank Group The Sustainability Group The United Church of Canada - General Council The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund The Wellcome Trust Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Threadneedle Asset Management Tobam Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Toronto Atmospheric Fund Trillium Asset Management, LLC Triodos Bank Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment Tryg Turner Investments UBS Unibail-Rodamco UniCredit Union Asset Management Holding AG Union di Banche Italiane S.c.p.a Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH Unionen Unipension UNISON staff pension scheme UniSuper Unitarian Universalist Association United Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health Benefits United Nations Foundation Unity Trust Bank Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) Vancity Group of Companies VCH Vermögensverwaltung AG Ventas Inc Veris Wealth Partners Veritas Investment Trust GmbH Vermont State Treasurer Vexiom Capital, L.P. VicSuper Victorian Funds Management Corporation VIETNAM HOLDING ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. Vinva Investment Management Voigt & Collegen VOLKSBANK INVESTMENTS Waikato Community Trust Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust & Investment Management Company WARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbh WARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH Water Asset Management, LLC Wells Fargo & Company West Yorkshire Pension Fund WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM) Westpac Banking Corporation WHEB Asset Management White Owl Capital AG Woori Bank Woori Investment & Securities YES BANK Limited York University Pension Fund Youville Provident Fund Inc. Zegora Investment Management Zevin Asset Management Zurich Cantonal Bank

32 32 23 Global Key Trends Statistic Asia ex-japan Australia ASX 2 Benelux Bonds Brazil Canada Central & Eastern Europe China Emerging Markets Electric Utilities (Global) Europe France Number of companies in sample % sample answering P Number of companies answering P % of responders reporting Board or other senior management responsibility for climate change % responders reporting incentives for the management of climate change issues % of responders reporting climate change as being integrated into their business strategy % of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on climate issues to encourage mitigation or adaptation % of responders reporting emission reduction targets % of responders reporting absolute emission reduction targets % of responders reporting active emissions reduction initiatives in the reporting year % of responders indicating that their products and services directly enable third parties to avoid GHG emissions % of responders seeing regulatory risks % of responders seeing regulatory opportunities % of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope and 2) have decreased compared to last year due to emission reduction activities % of responders reporting any portion of Scope emissions data as independently verified 3 % of responders reporting any portion of Scope 2 emissions data as independently verified % of responders reporting emissions data for or more named Scope 3 categories 4 The statistics presented in this key trends table may differ from those in other P reports for two reasons: () the data in this table is based on all responses received by 28 August 23; (2) it is based on binary data (e.g. Yes/No or other drop down menu selection) reported to P and does not incorporate any validation of the follow up information provided or reflect the scoring methodology. The latter, in particular, is likely to lead to an over-reporting of data in this key trends table.

33 23 Global Key Trends continued 33 DACH (DE, AUT, CH) Global 5 Iberia (ES, PT) India Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latin America New Zealand NZX 5 Nordic Russia South Africa Switzerland Turkey Transport (Global) United Kingdom FTSE 35 United States S&P 5 Overall N/A N/A : This statistic includes those companies that respond by referencing a parent or holding company s response. However the remaining statistics presented do not include these responses. 2: Companies may report multiple targets. However, in these statistics a company will only be counted once. 3: This takes into account companies reporting that verification is complete or underway, but does not include any evaluation of the verification statement provided. 4: Only companies reporting Scope 3 emissions using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard named categories have been included below. Whilst in some cases Other upstream or Other downstream are legitimate selections, in most circumstances the data contained in these categories should be allocated to one of the named categories. In addition, only those categories for which emissions figures have been provided have been included. 5: Includes responses across all samples as well as responses submitted by companies not included in specific geographic or industry samples in 23.

34 34 Appendix I Non-responding companies Appendices Key: AQ(L): Answered questionnaire late, and therefore is not scored DP: Declined to participate IN: Information provided (e.g. CSR report) NR: No response SA(AQ): See another refers to another company response Response : the company responded privately Number of Scope 3 categories: value indicates number of Scope 3 categories that were reported as relevant and calculated Company Listed on Response Status Consumer Discretionary Billabong International ASX DP Breville Group ASX DP Cavalier Corporation NZX DP Echo Entertainment Group ASX NR Fairfax Media ASX DP Flight Centre ASX NR GUD Holdings ASX DP Guinness Peat Group NZX NR Hallenstein Glasson Holdings NZX DP Harvey Norman Holdings ASX DP Michael Hill International NZX DP Myer Holdings ASX DP Navitas ASX DP Pacific Brands ASX DP Restaurant Brands New Zealand NZX NR Seven West Media ASX NR Sky City Entertainment Group NZX NR Sky Network Television NZX DP Southern Cross Media Group ASX NR Super Retail Group ASX DP Tabcorp Holdings ASX DP Ten Network Holdings ASX DP Wotif.com Holdings ASX DP Consumer Staples Goodman Fielder ASX NR GrainCorp ASX NR PGG Wrightson NZX DP Energy Aurora Oil & Gas ASX NR Beach Energy ASX NR Buru Energy ASX DP Coalspur Mines ASX NR Drillsearch Energy ASX NR Karoon Gas Australia ASX NR Maverick Drilling & Exploration ASX DP Paladin Energy ASX DP Senex Energy ASX DP Whitehaven Coal ASX NR Financials Abacus Property Group ASX DP Argosy Property Trust NZX DP Australand Property Group ASX DP Bank of Queensland ASX DP DNZ Property Fund NZX DP Federation Centres ASX DP FKP Property Group ASX NR Flexigroup ASX NR Heartland New Zealand NZX DP Lend Lease Group ASX NR NZX NZX NR Property For Industry NZX DP Shopping Centres Australasia ASX DP Tower NZX DP Vital Healthcare Property Trust NZX NR Westfield Retail Trust ASX NR Health Care Ansell ASX NR Cochlear ASX NR Mesoblast ASX NR Metlifecare NZX NR Primary Health Care ASX NR Ramsay Health Care ASX DP Sigma Pharmaceuticals ASX NR Sirtex Medical ASX NR Sonic Healthcare ASX NR Summerset Group Holdings NZX DP Company Listed on Response Status Industrials ALS ASX DP Ausdrill ASX DP Australian Infrastructure Fund ASX DP Boart Longyear ASX DP Bradken ASX DP Cabcharge Australia ASX DP Cardno ASX DP Decmil Group ASX NR GWA Group ASX IN Macquarie Atlas Roads Group ASX NR Mainfreight NZX DP McMillan Shakespeare ASX DP Mermaid Marine Australia ASX NR Mineral Resources ASX NR NRW Holdings ASX DP Port Of Tauranga NZX DP Qube Logistics Holdings ASX DP SAI Global ASX NR SEEK ASX DP Seven Group Holdings ASX DP Skellerup Holdings NZX NR Skilled Group ASX DP Transurban Group ASX NR Virgin Australia Holdings ASX NR Information Technology Carsales.com ASX NR Diligent Board Member Services NZX DP SMS Management & Technology ASX NR Xero NZX DP Materials Adelaide Brighton ASX DP Alacer Gold ASX DP Bathurst Resources ASX NR BlueScope Steel ASX DP CuDeco ASX NR Discovery Metals ASX DP DuluxGroup ASX DP Evolution Mining ASX NR Gryphon Minerals ASX DP Iluka Resources ASX DP James Hardie Industries ASX DP Kingsgate Consolidated ASX NR Medusa Mining ASX NR Mineral Deposits ASX NR Mirabela Nickel ASX DP Mount Gibson Iron ASX DP Northern Star Resources ASX NR Nufarm ASX DP Nuplex Industries NZX DP OceanaGold Corporation ASX NZX NR Perseus Mining ASX NR Regis Resources ASX NR Resolute Mining ASX NR Sandfire Resources NL ASX DP Saracen Mineral Holdings ASX DP Silver Lake Resources ASX NR St Barbara ASX DP Steel & Tube Holdings NZX DP Troy Resources ASX DP Telecommunication Services IINET ASX DP M2 Telecommunications Group ASX DP TPG Telecom ASX NR Utilities Contact Energy NZX NR Energy World Corporation ASX DP Envestra ASX DP Infratil NZX NR SP AusNet ASX NR TrustPower NZX DP Vector NZX NR

35 35 Appendix II Responding companies, scores and emissions data 35 Company Public Listed on P 23 score Scope Scope 2 Scope 3 categories reported Consumer Discretionary Ardent Leisure Group Public ASX 5 D 2,646 5,94 - Aristocrat Leisure Not public ASX 25 Response Crown Public ASX 75 C 34,2 6,48 David Jones Public ASX 9 A 5,6 93,54 2 Fleetwood Corporation Public ASX InvoCare Public ASX 68 D 5,46 8,243 2 JB Hi-Fi Not public ASX 63 E Response Kathmandu Holdings Public NZX 47-6,968 - News Corporation Public ASX 97 A- 62,36 376,22 6 Pumpkin Patch Not public NZX 23 Response The Reject Shop Public ASX Tatts Group Not public ASX 5 E Response Trade Me Public NZX 62 C Warehouse Group Public NZX 79 C,27 3,399 3 Consumer Staples Coca-Cola Amatil Public ASX 78 C 52,83 32,9 2 Metcash Public ASX 85 C 2,87 59,6 Treasury Wine Estates Public ASX 78 C 6,75 48,5 - Wesfarmers Public ASX 77 B 2,58,924 2,79,55 4 Woolworths Limited Public ASX 96 B 383,87 2,499,5 3 Energy Aquila Resources Public ASX 79 B 66,53 4,565 - AWE Public ASX 68 E 35, Caltex Australia Public ASX 56 D,849,424 33,99 - New Zealand Oil & Gas Public NZX 4 23, Oil Search Not public ASX 63 D Response Origin Energy Public ASX 82 B 2,77,583 47,459 - Santos Public ASX 85 C 3,87,773 37,796 3 Woodside Petroleum Public ASX 72 C 9,889,254 8,455 2 WorleyParsons Public ASX 6 D 39,29 56,959 - Financials AMP Public ASX 77 B 47 22,57 NZX ASX Public ASX 69 D 25,434 3 Australia and New Zealand Public ASX 92 A- 6,428 25,462 5 Banking Group NZX Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Public ASX 68 D 3,747 29,227 3 BWP Trust Public ASX 82 C 72 2 CFS Retail Property Trust Public ASX A- 5,322 9,9 2 Challenger Public ASX Charter Hall Group Public ASX 74 B 5,237 94,48 Charter Hall Retail REIT (see Charter Hall Group) Public ASX SA (AQ) Commonwealth Bank of Australia Public ASX 94 A,6 45,989 9 Commonwealth Property Office Fund Public ASX A 2,394 38,752 2 Dexus Property Group Public ASX 94 A 4,45 7,23 4 Goodman Group Not public ASX 8 B Response Goodman Property Trust Not public NZX 68 D Response GPT Group Public ASX 69 B 9,696 55,55 - Henderson Group Public ASX 8 B 29,644 3 Insurance Australia Group Public ASX 88 B 8,696 37,975 3 Investa Office Fund Public ASX 88 B,63 34,72 IOOF Holdings Public ASX 33,944 - Kiwi Income Property Trust Public NZX 97 A,6 3,336 4 Macquarie Group Public ASX 72 B 46,956 Mirvac Group Public ASX 82 B 9,987 45,228 3 National Australia Bank Public ASX 9 A 25,363 7,767 6 Perpetual Investments Public ASX 69 E 48 4,2 3 Platinum Asset Management Not public ASX 5 Response Precinct Properties New Zealand Public NZX 47 5, 4,5 - QBE Insurance Group Public ASX 52 E,6 36,396 Stockland Public ASX 8 B 26,24 2,2 2 Suncorp Group Public ASX 73 C 6,832 58,667 - Westfield Group Public ASX 85 B 25,87 458,569 4 Westpac Banking Corporation Public ASX NZX 9 A 2,34 76,648 3 Company Public Listed on P 23 score Scope Scope 2 Scope 3 categories reported Health Care Acrux Not public ASX 3 Response CSL Public ASX 85 C 55,383 36,95 2 Ebos Group Public NZX Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Public NZX Corporation ResMed Not public ASX 45 Response Ryman Healthcare Not public NZX 9 Response Industrials Air New Zealand Public NZX 67 D 2,9,4 9,94 Asciano Group Public ASX 5 E,27,562 3,234 - Auckland International Airport Public NZX 69 D 2,52 6,387 2 Aurizon Holdings Public ASX 73 E 676, ,92 3 Brambles Public ASX 8 B 55,57 72,236 - CSR Public ASX 33 37,8 274,95 - Downer EDI Public ASX 78 B 23,25 5,74 2 Emeco Holdings Public ASX 6 E 4,2 3,332 4 Freightways Not public NZX 6 Response Leighton Holdings Public ASX 92 B 73,542 32,56 6 Monadelphous Group Public ASX 69 D 9,85 3,26 2 Qantas Airways Public ASX 89 B 2,493,55 23,374 5 Sydney Airport Not public ASX 48 Response Toll Holdings Public ASX 83 C 594,5 94,86 2 Transfield Services Public ASX 52 D 53,567 43,458 - Transpacific Industries Group Public ASX 8 C 93,637 47,43 - UGL Public ASX 6 D 24,837 3,787 3 Information Technology Computershare Not public ASX 57 E Response IRESS Market Technology Not public ASX 23 Response Materials Alumina Public ASX 72 C 3,52,95 3,27,3 Amcor Public ASX 99 A- 922,758,693,446 4 Arrium Public ASX 77 C 2,963,6,56,5 3 Atlas Iron Not public ASX 62 E Response Beadell Resources Public ASX BHP Billiton Public ASX 75 C 2,2, 2,, 2 Boral Public ASX 65 D 2,8, ,495 - Fletcher Building Public ASX 82 C 848, ,75 NZX Fortescue Metals Group Public ASX 77 D,62,9 57,264 - Gindalbie Metals Public ASX 45 47, Imdex Not public ASX 29 Response Incitec Pivot Public ASX 79 C,967, ,8 - Independence Group Public ASX 46 38,429 5,448 - Lynas Corporation Public ASX Newcrest Mining Public ASX AQ(L) Orica Not public ASX 6 D Response OZ Minerals Public ASX 73 D 83,983 9,89 - PanAust Public ASX 63 D 27,629 35,93 7 Rio Tinto Public ASX 88 B 26,9, 6,4, 6 Sims Metal Management Public ASX 66 B 7,886 38,329 - Sundance Resources Public ASX 43 2, 423 Western Areas NL Public ASX 59 E 23,6 45,69 - Telecommunication Services Chorus Public NZX 58 E,855 6,662 4 SingTel Public ASX 76 C 6,897 77,32 3 Telecom Corporation of New Public ASX 5 D 4,329 3,439 4 Zealand NZX Telstra Corporation Public ASX 83 B 53,587,374,67 3 NZX Utilities AGL Energy Public ASX 87 B 2,74,632 33,574 3 APA Group Public ASX 7 D 327,239 53,937 Duet Group Public ASX Spark Infrastructure Group Not public ASX 54 D Response

36 P Contacts James Day Director - Australia & NZ Sue Howells Co-Chief Operating Officer Daniel Turner Head of Disclosure James Hulse Head of Investor Initiatives P Australia & NZ 33 Alexander St Crows Nest NSW 265 Tel: +6 () P UK 4 Bowling Green Lane London ECR NE United Kingdom Tel: +44 () Fax: +44 () [email protected] Report Team Lead Author James Day Analyst Anna Martinis Scoring Commentary FirstCarbon Solutions FirstCarbon Solutions ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies can request scoring feedback on their climate change response from FirstCarbon Solutions at Our sincere thanks are extended to the following: Advanced Law, Allen & Overy, Board and Technical Working Group of Climate Disclosure Standards Board, European Commission, Freshfields, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Investor Group on Climate Change, Investor Network on Climate Risk, Life+ DG Environment, Ogilvy Earth, Skadden Arps, UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative, UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Global Compact, UN Principles for Responsible Investment, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute.