More at ease: business and carbon pricing

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

Contents Management of reputational risks is becoming increasingly critical as increased focus on climate change issues occurs CFS Retail Property Trust CEO Foreword by Paul Simpson, CEO, Carbon Disclosure Project 3 Executive Summary 4 CDP Investor Members 212 6 CDP Signatory Investors 212 7 Investor Group Perspective 1 Report Writer Perspective 11 Response Analysis 12 Key Themes and Highlights 14 Companies are increasingly comfortable with carbon pricing 14 Action on energy efficiency moves ahead of governance, strategy and targets 17 Consumers have influence and companies are listening, reputation is valuable 2 Innovation is an enabler of market competitiveness 21 Emissions Analysis 23 Direct (Scope 1) emissions 23 Indirect (Scope 2) emissions 25 Corporate Value Chain/Other Indirect (Scope 3) emissions 27 Sector Analysis 28 Verification 32 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Indices 34 Carbon Performance Leadership Indices 38 Appendix I: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company 41 Appendix II: CDP Global Key Trends 48 2

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

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

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

CDP Investor Members 212 6 CDP works with investors globally to advance the investment opportunities and reduce the risks posed by climate change by asking almost 6, of the world s largest companies to report on their climate strategies, GHG emissions and energy use in the standardized Investor CDP format. To learn more about CDP s member offering and becoming a member, please contact us or visit the CDP Investor Member section at https://www.cdproject. net/investormembers 1 CDP INVESTOR SIGNATORIES & ASSETS 2 (US$ CDP TRILLION) Investor AGAINST Signatories TIME & Assets (US$ Trillion) against time Investor CDP Signatories Investor CDP CDP Signatory Signatories Assets Investor CDP Signatory Assets Number of Signatories 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Aegon AKBANK T.A.Ş. Allianz Global Investors Aviva Investors AXA Group Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Blackrock BP Investment Management California Public Employees Retirement System - CalPERS California State Teachers Retirement Fund - CalSTRS Calvert Asset Management Company Catholic Super CCLA Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Generation Investment Management HSBC Holdings Legg Mason London Pension Fund Authority Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S/A 35 95 155 225 315 385 475 534 551 655 4.5 1 21 31 41 57 55 64 71 78 8 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 CDP investor members and signatories headquartered in Australia or New Zealand are marked in red text 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Assets (US$ Trillions) Morgan Stanley National Australia Bank NEI Investments Neuberger Berman Newton Investment Management Ltd Nordea Investment Management Norges Bank Investment Management PFA Pension Robeco Rockefeller & Co. SAM Group Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Schroders Scottish Widows Investment Partnership SEB Sompo Japan Insurance Inc Standard Chartered TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc. The RBS Group The Wellcome Trust 3 212 Signatory Investor Breakdown 259 Asset Managers 22 Asset Owners 143 Banks 33 Insurance 13 Other 39+33+22+4+2 21% 5% 2% 39% 33%

CDP Signatory Investors 212 655 financial institutions with assets of US$78 trillion were signatories to the CDP 212 information request dated February 1st, 212 Aberdeen Asset Managers Aberdeen Immobilien KAG mbh ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Achmea NV Active Earth Investment Management Acuity Investment Management Addenda Capital Inc. Advanced Investment Partners AEGON N.V. AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd AFP Integra AIG Asset Management AK Asset Management Inc. AKBANK T.A.Ş. Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Alcyone Finance AllenbridgeEpic Investment Advisers Limited Allianz Elementar Versicherungs-AG Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Allianz Group Altira Group Amalgamated Bank AMP Capital Investors AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Amundi AM ANBIMA Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos Mercados Financeiro e de Capitais Antera Gestão de Recursos S.A. APG AQEX LLC Aquila Capital Arisaig Partners Asia Pte Ltd Arma Portföy Yönetimi A.Ş. ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. ASN Bank Assicurazioni Generali Spa ATI Asset Management ATP Group Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Australian Ethical Investment AustralianSuper Avaron Asset Management AS Aviva Investors Aviva plc AXA Group Baillie Gifford & Co. BaltCap BANCA CÍVICA S.A. Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena Group Banco Bradesco S/A Banco Comercial Português S.A. Banco de Credito del Peru BCP Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Banco do Brasil S/A Banco Espírito Santo, SA Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social - BNDES Banco Popular Español Banco Sabadell, S.A. Banco Santander Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social Banesto Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A. Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of Montreal Bank Vontobel Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.h. BANKIA S.A. BANKINTER BankInvest Banque Degroof Banque Libano-Francaise Barclays Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank BASF Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Basler Kantonalbank Bâtirente Baumann and Partners S.A. Bayern LB BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh BBC Pension Trust Ltd BBVA Bedfordshire Pension Fund Beetle Capital BEFIMMO SCA Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited Bentall Kennedy Berenberg Bank Berti Investments BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Terceiros Ltda BlackRock Blom Bank SAL Blumenthal Foundation BNP Paribas Investment Partners BNY Mellon BNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage Gesellschaft Boston Common Asset Management, LLC BP Investment Management Limited Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. British Airways Pension Investment Management Limited British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcimc) BT Investment Management Busan Bank CAAT Pension Plan Cadiz Holdings Limited Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Caisse des Dépôts Caixa Beneficente dos Empregados da Companhia Siderurgica Nacional - CBS Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Caixa Econômica Federal Caixa Geral de Depositos CaixaBank, S.A California Public Employees Retirement System California State Teachers Retirement System California State Treasurer Calvert Investment Management, Inc Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) Canadian Labour Congress Staff Pension Fund CAPESESP Capital Innovations, LLC CARE Super Carmignac Gestion Catherine Donnelly Foundation Catholic Super CBF Church of England Funds CBRE Cbus Superannuation Fund CCLA Investment Management Ltd Celeste Funds Management Limited Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Ceres CERES-Fundação de Seguridade Social Change Investment Management Christian Brothers Investment Services Christian Super Christopher Reynolds Foundation Church Commissioners for England Church of England Pensions Board CI Mutual Funds Signature Global Advisors City Developments Limited Clean Yield Asset Management ClearBridge Advisors Climate Change Capital Group Ltd CM-CIC Asset Management Colonial First State Global Asset Management Comerica Incorporated COMGEST Commerzbank AG CommInsure Commonwealth Bank Australia Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Compton Foundation Concordia Versicherungsgruppe Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) Credit Suisse Daegu Bank Daesung Capital Management Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Dalton Nicol Reid CDP investor members and signatories headquartered in Australia or New Zealand are marked in red text de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A. DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Delta Lloyd Asset Management Deutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbh Deutsche Bank AG Development Bank of Japan Inc. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Dexia Asset Management Dexus Property Group DnB ASA Domini Social Investments LLC Dongbu Insurance DWS Investment GmbH Earth Capital Partners LLP East Sussex Pension Fund Ecclesiastical Investment Management Ecofi Investissements - Groupe Credit Cooperatif Edward W. Hazen Foundation EEA Group Ltd Elan Capital Partners Element Investment Managers ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência Environment Agency Active Pension fund Epworth Investment Management Equilibrium Capital Group equinet Bank AG Erik Penser Fondkommission Erste Asset Management Erste Group Bank Essex Investment Management Company, LLC ESSSuper Ethos Foundation Etica Sgr Eureka Funds Management Eurizon Capital SGR Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Evangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern Canada Evli Bank Plc F&C Investments FACEB FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDÊNCIA DOS EMPREGADOS DA CEB FAELCE Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade Social FAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária da Extensão Rural do Rio Grande do Sul FASERN - Fundação COSERN de Previdência Complementar Fédéris Gestion d Actifs FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH FIM Asset Management Ltd FIM Services FIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementar dos Empregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPq FIRA. - Banco de Mexico First Affirmative Financial Network, LLC First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Firstrand Group Limited Five Oceans Asset Management Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) Folketrygdfondet Folksam Fondaction CSN Fondation de Luxembourg Forma Futura Invest AG Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment-Gesellschaft mbh Fukoku Capital Management Inc FUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários Federais Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Brasiletros Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Fundação Attilio Francisco Xavier Fontana Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Fundação BRDE de Previdência Complementar - ISBRE Fundação Chesf de Assistência e Seguridade Social Fachesf Fundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da Companhia Riograndense de Saneamento Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES - FAPES FUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROS Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social - FORLUZ Fundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e Assistência Social FUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCO Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Fundação Rede Ferroviária de Seguridade Social - Refer FUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA E ASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL - FUSAN 7

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

Resolution Resona Bank, Limited Reynders McVeigh Capital Management RLAM Robeco Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation Rockefeller Financial (trade name used by Rockefeller & Co., Inc.) Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment Rothschild Royal Bank of Canada Royal Bank of Scotland Group RPMI Railpen Investments RREEF Investment GmbH Russell Investments SAM Group SAMPENSION KP LIVSFORSIKRING A/S SAMSUNG FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE Samsung Securities Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda Santam Sarasin & Cie AG SAS Trustee Corporation Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG Schroders Scotiabank Scottish Widows Investment Partnership SEB SEB Asset Management AG Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Sentinel Investments SERPROS - Fundo Multipatrocinado Service Employees International Union Pension Fund Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) Shinhan Bank Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Signet Capital Management Ltd Smith Pierce, LLC SNS Asset Management Social(k) Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - Prevdata Socrates Fund Management Solaris Investment Management Limited Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Sopher Investment Management SouthPeak Investment Management SPF Beheer bv Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Standard Bank Group Standard Chartered Standard Chartered Korea Limited Standard Life Investments State Bank of India State Street Corporation StatewideSuper StoreBrand ASA Strathclyde Pension Fund Stratus Group Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc. Sun Life Financial Inc. Superfund Asset Management GmbH SUSI Partners AG Sustainable Capital Sustainable Development Capital Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Swedbank AB Swift Foundation Swiss Re Swisscanto Asset Management AG Syntrus Achmea Asset Management T. Rowe Price T. SINAI KALKINMA BANKASI A.Ş. Tata Capital Limited TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund Telluride Association Tempis Asset Management Co. Ltd Terra Forvaltning AS TerraVerde Capital Management LLC TfL Pension Fund The ASB Community Trust The Brainerd Foundation The Bullitt Foundation The Central Church Fund of Finland The Children s Investment Fund Management (UK) LLP The Collins Foundation The Co-operative Asset Management The Co-operators Group Ltd The Daly Foundation The Environmental Investment Partnership LLP The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust The Korea Teachers Pension (KTP) The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada The Pinch Group The Presbyterian Church in Canada The Russell Family Foundation The Sandy River Charitable Foundation The Shiga Bank, Ltd. The Sisters of St. Ann The United Church of Canada - General Council The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund The Wellcome Trust Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Threadneedle Asset Management TOBAM Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc Toronto Atmospheric Fund Trillium Asset Management Corporation Triodos Investment Management Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment Tryg UBS Unibail-Rodamco UniCredit SpA Union Asset Management Holding AG Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH Unione di Banche Italiane S.c.p.a. Unionen Unipension UNISON staff pension scheme UniSuper Unitarian Universalist Association United Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health Benefits United Nations Foundation Unity Trust Bank Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) Vancity Group of Companies VCH Vermögensverwaltung AG Ventas, Inc. Veris Wealth Partners Veritas Investment Trust GmbH Vermont State Treasurer Vexiom Capital, L.P. VicSuper Victorian Funds Management Corporation VietNam Holding Ltd. Vinva Investment Management Voigt & Coll. GmbH VOLKSBANK INVESTMENTS Waikato Community Trust Inc Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust & Investment Management Company WARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbh WARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH Water Asset Management, LLC Wells Fargo & Company West Yorkshire Pension Fund WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM) Westpac Banking Corporation WHEB Asset Management White Owl Capital AG Winslow Management, A Brown Advisory Investment Group Woori Bank Woori Investment & Securities Co., Ltd. YES BANK Limited York University Pension Fund Youville Provident Fund Inc. Zegora Investment Management Zevin Asset Management Zurich Cantonal Bank CDP investor members and signatories headquartered in Australia or New Zealand are marked in red text CalSTRS (California State Teachers Retirement System) CalSTRS board has made climate risk management the signature issue in our corporate governance engagement program. CDP data is an essential input and is reviewed prior to meeting with companies on any issue to ensure that the discussion covers climate risk if warranted. CDP data is also very important to CalSTRS as we develop and execute our shareholder resolutions. Jack Ehnes, CEO 9

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

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

Response Analysis Fig 1 Breakdown of the ASX2 companies by GICS sector as at 3 December 211 27 Consumer 7 Consumer Staples 2 Energy 35 Financials 1 Health Care 32 Industrials 4 Information Technology 53 Materials 4 Telecommunication Services 8 Utilities 4 32 53 4 8 27 1 7 2 35 Fig 2 Breakdown of the NZX5 companies by GICS sector as at 3 December 211 11 Consumer 3 Consumer Staples 2 Energy 13 Financials 3 Health Care 6 Industrials 1 Information Technology 4 Materials 3 Telecommunication Services 4 Utilities 22+6+4+26+6+12+2+8+6+8 1 6 4 3 3 4 13 11 2 3 12 The Australian Securities Exchange ( ASX ) 2 and New Zealand Exchange ( NZX ) 5 is a sample representing the 2 and the 5 largest listed companies, by market capitalisation, of the ASX and NZX respectively. Throughout this report, subsets of the ASX2 and NZX5 universe of companies are separately analysed for comparison including the ASX1, the ASX2 and the NZX5. Consistent with reports of previous years, the Global Industry Classification Standard ( GICS ) is used to classify companies into sectors. The ASX2 continues to be dominated by the Materials and Financials sectors, which represent approximately 27% and 18% of companies respectively. In comparison, only 8% of the NZX5 companies are from the Materials sector. The Financials (26%) and Consumer (22%) are the largest two sectors of the NZX5. The overall response rate for ASX2 and NZX5 companies is 48%. The response rates for the ASX2 and the NZX5 remained static from 211 at 5% and 42% respectively. Whilst the ASX1 response rate was higher at 71%, it is still lower than the Global 5 response rate of 81% and virtually unchanged from 73% in 211 and 72% in 21. Responding companies represent 85% of the ASX2 total market capitalisation and 91% of the NZX5 total market capitalisation. As the CDP provides a valuable medium for companies to disclose their management response to climate change risks and opportunities, there was an expectation that the commencement of the carbon price in Australia would be a driver of increased disclosure through the CDP, however this was not the case. Transparency of responding companies is generally high, with the majority of those companies that do respond choosing to make their responses public (ASX2: 84%, NZX5: 76%). More companies are also reporting verification of their emissions see Verification section for further information. However, fluctuating market capitalisations did result in a significant change in the companies included in the ASX2 and NZX5 this year. 32 companies invited to respond this year had not been invited to respond in either of the prior two years, 6 of which answered the questionnaire. In addition, 7 companies responded to the CDP 212 questionnaire having not responded to an invitation in the prior two years. Only 6 companies that responded to CDP 211 did not do so this year. Response rates within the ASX2 were highest in the Consumer Staples (71%) Financials (69%) and Utilities (5%) sectors. Table 3 Companies who responded to CDP 211 but not to CDP 212 Company Sector Index Adelaide Brighton Materials ASX2 Bank of Queensland Financials ASX1 Contact Energy Utilities NZX5 New Zealand Oil & Gas Energy NZX5 PGG Wrightson Consumer Staples NZX5 Singapore Telecom Telecommunication Services ASX2

In the NZX5, all three Health Care sector companies responded, as did the single Telecommunications sector company. However there was no response from Energy or Consumer Staples companies, a continued concern to investors seeking to understand the implications of climate change for their investment decisions. Table 4 Largest non-responding ASX1 companies^ Company Singapore Telecom QR National Westfield Retail Trust Iluka Resources ASX Sonic Healthcare Lend Lease Group Ramsay Health Care ResMed Cochlear ^ by market capitalisation, as at 3 December 211. Table 5 Sector Telecommunication Services Industrials Financials Materials Financials Health Care Financials Health Care Health Care Health Care Largest non-responding NZX5 companies^ Company Sector Telecom Corporation Telecommunication Services of New Zealand Contact Energy Utilities Vector Utilities TrustPower Utilities Sky City Entertainment Group Consumer Port Of Tauranga Industrials Goodman Fielder Consumer Staples Mainfreight Industrials Guinness Peat Group Consumer New Zealand Refining Company Energy ^ by market capitalisation, as at 3 December 211. ASX2 and NZX5 companies can reasonably expect greater scrutiny of their operations and performance including requests for disclosure and should prepare themselves accordingly, however a number of nonresponding companies cited a lack of reliable emissions data as a reason for declining to respond to the CDP questionnaire. Encouragingly, the majority of these companies indicated that they are moving to address this. Other non-responding companies reported that their operations were currently in start-up phase and the business not yet mature enough to provide a meaningful response. Lack of availability of resources and cost to the business of preparing a response, were also reasons given. Certainly, for some companies, the focus is on other reporting and compliance obligations such as the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 27 ( NGER ) and Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 26 ( EEO ). However the Investor CDP climate change disclosure program remains a critical means for investors to understand climate change risks and opportunities facing companies beyond just compliance to GHG emission reporting or energy efficiency obligations as required under these other schemes, and is unique in the marketplace. Investors seek disclosure of corporate climate change information through CDP to gain a deeper understanding of the carbon risks and opportunities facing companies at a consolidated and listed entity level beyond the reporting of quantitative data relating to Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data required under NGER. This includes understanding factors such as: offshore emissions (i.e., made outside Australia and/or New Zealand); carbon management strategies employed; climate change governance arrangements; physical risks and market opportunities amongst other issues. Fig 3 ASX2 and NZX5 responses to CDP 212 by sector ASX2 NZX5 Public responses Non Public responses Percentage response rate (public and private) by sector 212 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 19 3 CD 71 CS 1 45 EGY 3 69 FIN 1 HC 13 38 IND 25 IT 6 34 MAT 25 TCOM 13 5 UTIL Percentage response rate (public and private) by sector 212 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 9 18 CD CS EGY 15 46 FIN 33 67 HC 33 IND 1 IT 25 MAT 67 TCOM 25 UTIL 13

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

Australia s Clean Energy Future Legislation More than 2 separate Clean Energy Bills passed the Senate in November 211 and received Royal Assent by December 211. Commencing 1 July 212 the carbon pricing mechanism is an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price of $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) (indexed annually by 2.5%) for the first 3 years. On the 1 July 215 the ETS converts to a flexible, market-based mechanism. Generally, a threshold of 25, tonnes of direct CO 2 e emissions applies for determining whether a facility will be covered by the carbon pricing mechanism. The sectors covered are stationary energy, industrial processes, fugitive processes (other than decommissioned coal mines), non-legacy waste and limited coverage of the transport sector. Airline, mining and rail transport companies may opt in to manage their carbon costs themselves rather than pay the equivalent carbon price under the fuel tax or excise systems. Agriculture and land-use emissions are excluded. The scheme covers four of the six greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from aluminium smelting. Synthetic greenhouse gases such as hydrofluorocarbon, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride have an equivalent carbon price applied through increased levies via the existing Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989. New Zealand offers a similar picture, with only 24% of NZX5 responding companies participating in at least one ETS. Since its commencement in 28 and then subsequent amendment in 29 following the election of the National Party led coalition Government, the NZETS was subject to independent review in 211. The Government has recently released its planned amendments, with a consultation period underway. Amongst the proposed amendments are an extension to the transitional arrangements beyond 212 including the one for two NZU surrender deal and a deferral to the start date for surrender obligations for biological emissions from agriculture such as methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from animal excrement and the use of nitrogen fertiliser. The Prime Minister also signalled that he would wait for action from the rest of the world before putting a cost on biological agricultural emissions. Current New Zealand economic conditions are driving Government action to minimise the cost of the scheme on businesses and consumers. New Zealand s Emissions Trading Scheme Commenced in 28 Covers all sectors of the economy, yet individual sectors of the economy have different entry dates for when obligations for voluntary reporting, mandatory reporting and surrendering of New Zealand Units ( NZU ) take effect A fixed price option of NZ$25 per tonne, but one NZU may be surrendered for two tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, making the effective price NZ$12.5 per tonne. In discussion of risks and opportunities, many responding companies have used the terms carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes or ETS interchangeably and as such have been combined for analysis in this report. Overall, 69% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies identified a risk to their business from carbon pricing down from the 81% 211, illustrating that companies are feeling increasingly comfortable with carbon pricing. The risk perception is higher in ASX1 responding companies (83%), being more likely to be directly impacted. By contrast, the risk perception is significantly lower amongst NZX5 companies (52%), where perhaps companies who have had a longer time to participate in an active scheme have adapted to carbon price risk. Of those companies that identified a risk to their business from carbon pricing only 3% (3) responding companies consider this a high risk. These are the same three companies as in 211 - David Jones, Origin Energy and OneSteel. Unsurprisingly given their higher likelihood of direct impact, the Industrial, Utilities and Energy sectors have the highest percentage of members identifying risks from carbon pricing. Obvious concerns about indirect impacts are coming through from the Financials and Consumer Staples sectors, perhaps reflecting a belief that discretionary spending may decrease if household budgets are under pressure. Amongst the ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies that identified a risk from carbon pricing, the most commonly stated risks were increased operational cost (88% of companies identifying risks due to carbon pricing) followed by reduced demand for goods and services (14%). Amongst Airlines and Airport Services companies Auckland International Airport, Qantas Airways and Virgin Australia Holdings all identified this risk of reduced demand for goods and services as customers may seek lower cost and lower emission transport options. 15

Despite being a perceived risk of increased operational cost, many responding companies (35%) reported that carbon pricing was also a driver of business opportunites. Although down from 211 (56%), this may be an indication that companies are adopting a business as usual approach now that the scheme is better understood. ASX1 responding companies were more frequently reporting opportunities (46%), whilst only 14% of NZX5 responding companies did so. The Energy sector, the sector with the largest percentage of members identifying risks from carbon pricing, also had a high percentage identifying opportunities (7%). Respondents commonly identified an increase in economic attractiveness of gas compared to coal, thereby increasing the demand for gas resources for electricity generation. The Industrials sector, whilst lower at 5% identifying opportunities was focussed on reducing operational costs through process and energy efficiency improvements. Within those companies that identified a carbon pricing opportunity, the most common opportunity drivers were new products and services (28%) or increased demand for existing products and services (26%). AGL Energy predict the carbon price will increase wholesale electricity prices allowing opportunities to develop new gas fired and renewable generation facilities and Aquila Resources predict opportunities to develop local power generation from coal seam gas. From a business perspective, carbon pricing brings with it a multitude of opportunities and risks, and regardless of which sector the company is in, the key will be to understand and minimise the risks, while maximising the new and existing array of opportunities. Fig 4 ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies identifying risks and opportunities from carbon pricing BHP Billiton maintains an internal mechanism for costing carbon and determining carbon price impacts on greenfield and brownfield developments and on mergers and acquisitions BHP Billiton A price of $23 per tonne of carbon (for FY13) will affect input costs to our manufacturers, suppliers and the business direct Woolworths Limited The changing political landscape regarding an impending carbon pricing scheme in Australia will affect Mirvac in the near future. For new-build project, we estimate the cost increase to be 1-1.5% Mirvac Group % responding companies reporting carbon price risks % responding companies reporting carbon price opps 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 56 8 9 7 64 89 67 5 5 5 83...the carbon price will tend to increase the economic attractiveness of gas as a fuel for generation compared to coal Origin Energy 3% 2% 32 24 33 1% 13 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 16 opps

Action on energy efficiency moves ahead of governance, strategy and targets In CDP 211 it was clear that the business focus on climate change was strengthening, however whilst there have been improvements in some areas this year, evidence of continuous improvement in governance, strategy and targets is not a strong trend. Despite this, companies are taking action to reduce their GHG emissions particularly through the implementation of energy efficiency initiatives. Governance There has been no significant improvement in the number of responding companies reporting climate change issues to the Board and executive, which remained stable at 72% (from 73% in 211). The proportion of companies that reported having no individual or committee with overall responsibility for climate change has encouragingly decreased from 6% in 211 to 4%. With the increase of new responding companies to CDP 212, that the levels of Board and executive oversight have remain stable is an indication that companies are thinking of climate change impacts on their business and establishing the necessary governance structures earlier in their growth phase. Within ASX2 responding companies, 75% reported that responsibility for climate change rests at Board and executive level. Perhaps surprisingly given their likely carbon pricing liabilities, not all ASX2 Materials sector responding companies make climate change a Board, executive or senior management issue. This is a possible indicator that carbon pricing risks may not be being appropriately managed by these some companies in the Materials sector. Board and executive responsibility for climate change in NZX5 companies also needs to be strengthened with only 67% appointed at this level. Encouragingly, the number of responding companies linking climate change related performance metrics with remuneration has increased. Of the 63% of ASX2 and 48% of NZX5 responding companies that provided any form of incentive (an increase from 53% and 45% respectively in 211), 58% of ASX2 and NZX5 respondents offered monetary incentives, up from 44% in 211. For example, Environmental Managers at Telstra Corporation have the delivery of targets and programs included in their Performance Development Plans. Embedding climate change performance metrics within remuneration is a strong indication of the increasing level of importance the issue is receiving. Fig 5 Board or other senior management oversight by sector in 212 for ASX1, ASX2 & NZX5 responding companies ASX1 Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board ASX1 Senior Manager/Officer ASX2 Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board ASX2 Senior Manager/Officer NZX5 Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board NZX5 Senior Manager/Officer 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 17 33 1 1 17 3 17 37 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 25 2 1 23 3 19 83 83 83 85 87 14 81 8 76 75 69 7 67 65 67 63 5 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 ASX1 ASX2 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 17

Strategy Responding companies continue to report greater integration of climate change into the company business strategy (88% of ASX2 and NZX5, 96% of ASX1, 89% of ASX2 and 86% of NZX5 responding companies). A 21% increase in integration by NZX5 companies is hopefully an early indication that the performance score of NZX5 companies will improve over the coming years. The continued focus on integration is encouraging as it shows companies are considering climate change alongside core business drivers. However, responding companies overall need to provide greater clarity on the material effect of this on their business. Targets From 4% in 21 and 45% in 211, 52% of ASX2 responding companies report that they have absolute and/or intensity emission reduction targets. However the increase is not universal, with the NZX5 dropping to 43% from 5% in 211, a surprising outcome given the expectation that the NZETS, now in its fourth year, should be a driver for companies to implement emissions reduction targets. A variety of reasons were given for the absence of targets, including waiting for policy certainty, a lack of reliable baseline information and an expectation that future business strategy will see GHG emissions increase. A number of companies also stated that their GHG emissions were so low that targets were not warranted. Highly efficient buildings encourage greater demand from tenants, lower vacancy rates and stronger rental growth. This results in assets with a lower risk profile and ultimately higher valuations. Commonwealth Property Office Fund Of continuing concern is the continuing low number of responding companies in high emitting sectors with absolute and/ or intensity emission reduction targets. Only 2% of Utilities, 33% of Materials and 4% of Energy ASX2 responding companies disclose an absolute and/or intensity emissions reduction target. This was an area where improvement was expected in line with the commencement of the carbon price, perhaps it will require the financial effects to be felt before the majority of companies in these sectors take action. Encouragingly, the Industrial sector has demonstrated a step change in the number of companies disclosing targets since 211, with an increase of 28% up to 67% of responding companies. Fig 6 climate change integrated into overall business strategy for ASX1, ASX2 & NZX5 responding companies ASX1 ASX2 NZX5 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 83 77 67 1 1 1 1 9 91 1 1 1 67 1 1 1 1 92 94 93 1 1 1 1 1 1 81 5% 4% 5 3% 2% 1% CD CS NA EGY NA FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 18 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 X1 X2 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5 X1 X2 ZX5

Fig 7 Companies with emission reduction targets by sector Absolute & intensity targets Absolute targets Intensity targets No targets % of responding companies in sector with any target % of sector with any target No. of companies 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 1 11 31% 4 13% CD 1% 14 67% 61% 11 56% 5% 5% 4% 33% 7 7 33% 6 32% 6 5 5 25% 5 5 18% 2% 2% 3 3 13% 2 8% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM 17% 8% UTIL 5 1% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % of sector Taking into account the non-responders, 92% of all Utilities companies (85% in 211), 82% of all Energy companies (83% in 211) and 87% of all Materials companies (82% in 211) did not have any GHG emission reduction targets. This general level of unresponsiveness to GHG emissions management is problematic and demonstrates a continued lack of preparedness to respond to carbon pricing and economy wide emission reduction targets. Companies with targets are not setting the bar particularly 14 high for themselves. Of the absolute GHG emission reduction targets reported to include at least 12 8% of Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions, the average percentage 1 target reduction across all periods reported was just 12%, although a slight increase on 11% reported in 8CDP 211. 16 Action on energy efficiency Companies are perhaps adopting an actions speak louder than words approach, given that whilst only 48% of all ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies had emission reduction targets in place, 8% had at least one NTemission reduction initiative active within the reporting year. Energy efficiency initiatives are emerging as the preferred AT approach to emissions reduction, with 6% (up from 5% NT in 211) of reported initiatives relating to energy AIT efficiency (37%: energy efficiency of building IT services, 21% energy efficiency of operational processes, 3% energy efficiency of building fabric). A possible indication AT that rising electricity prices are increasing management focus and improving investment returns on energy efficiency AIT initiatives. IT Table 6 Average percentage reduction for absolute targets for ASX2 4 and NZX5 responding companies 6 2 Average % CD reduction CS EGY FIN Sector 211 212 Consumer 1% 7% Consumer Staples 2% 1% Energy 4%.2% Financials 17% 14% Industrials 13% 33% Materials 12% 13% Utilities 3%.2% Average across all responding companies 11% 12% * average percentage reduction is applied only to those ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies with targets covering more than 8% of either Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions, and is independent of base year. This is supported by the quantum of monetary savings from energy efficiency initiatives reported, increasing from AU$75 million in 211 to AU$166 million this year. This represents 71% of all emission reduction monetary savings reported. HC IND IT MATTCOMUTIL On a sector basis, 39% of the AU$272 million of reported annual monetary savings were from the Materials sector. Rio Tinto alone reported AU$68 million in annual monetary savings from improvements in the energy efficiency of its processes from a AU$112 million investment, a payback of less than 2 years. This is typical of the average payback period of emissions reductions initiatives of 1-3 years, consistent with 211. However, other sectors are clearly prepared to take a longer term view of payback periods. Within the Financials sector, Real Estate companies reported AU$9 million in annual monetary savings from energy efficiency initiatives from 19

AU$166 million invested, corresponding to a payback of approximately 18 years. This is a possible reflection of lengthy building life expectancy and accrual of energy savings to the tenant, but the long payback does indicate that additional Government incentives may be required to mobilise wholesale building energy performance improvements across the sector. Whilst there was a strong focus on energy efficiency initiatives, 22% of responding companies were undertaking initiatives relating to behavioural change, evidence that people are critical to long term GHG emission reduction. Initiatives relating to low carbon energy installation remain a small proportion of initiatives being undertaken (8% in 212 from 6.5% in 211), however total investment of $1.2 billion in these initiatives represents 68% of all investment, an indication of significant barriers to wholesale adoption. With the onset of the carbon price and favourable payback periods in evidence, it could be expected to see a step change in annual monetary savings next year as proactive companies look to minimise the direct or indirect impacts of the carbon price. However the disconnect between setting targets and implementing emission reduction initiatives could indicate a less than strategic approach by the majority of companies, possibly contributing to delayed action and higher than necessary costs of implementation. Consumers have influence and companies are listening, reputation is valuable Companies are increasingly identifying and considering, climate change risks and opportunities for their business from areas often considered less tangible; reputation and changing consumer behaviour. 37% of ASX2 and NZX5 companies report reputational risks, an increase from 34% in 211. Reporting of risks from changing consumer behaviour also increased to 29% from 27% in 211. Similarly, the identification and management of these same drivers are driving opportunities for an increasing number of responding companies, with 3% (up from 25% in 211) reporting that changing consumer behaviour in response to climate change issues has provided them with new opportunities. Reputation impacts remained static at 25%. At times, it was the management of an identified risk that created the opportunity. Table 7 ASX2 and NZX5 companies reporting risks and opportunities from reputation and changing consumer behaviour Reputation % identifying risks % identifying opportunities Changing Consumer Behaviour % % identifying identifying risks opportunities ASX1 49% 37% 31% 39% ASX2 4% 3% 29% 32% NZX5 33% 24% 29% 9% Fig 8 ASX2 and NZX5 companies reporting risks and opportunities from changing consumer behaviour by sector Companies reporting reputational risks Companies reporting reputational opportunities Companies reporting risks from changing consumer behaviour Companies reporting opportunities from changing consumer behaviour 1% 9% 8% 7% 8 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 25 CD 31 6 CS EGY 57 5 5 39 39 36 33 3 3 29 29 29 22 17 17 14 1 1 FIN HC IND IT MAT 5 TCOM 5 UTIL 5 2

Changing consumer behaviour was a driver of risk and opportunity for the vast majority (8%) of the Consumer Staples responding companies, where there is an expectation of reduced demand for products if companies themselves or their products are perceived to be unresponsive on climate change. Similarly, there is an opportunity to capture new customers by diversifying into new low carbon products and services. This shift to offer new products and services is not limited to the Consumer Staples sector, for example, Spotless Group who specialise in outsourcing facilities management services sees climate change as an opportunity to further develop services. In the Financial sector, where 57% of responding companies reported reputational risks, there is a growing trend of investment funds considering sustainability metrics in their valuations. Companies such as the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Perpetual highlighted the need to respond to stakeholder driven pressures due to a perceived lack of commitment on climate change, which in turn could trigger reduced demand for the company s products and services. Similarly, real estate companies including Dexus Property Group and GPT Group cited the possibility of poor occupancy rates, low rental income and devaluation of properties if they did not respond to customer demand for greener properties. A lack of action on climate changes is also seen as a reputational risk affecting a company s ability to attract and retain staff. However, in taking action, there is an opportunity to differentiate in the competitive marketplace and increase employee engagement and loyalty. Institutional and retail investors increasingly demand banks and other financial institutions to demonstrate their continued commitment to the environment and the communities in which they operate Commonwealth Bank of Australia There is a risk that our response to climate change does not engage our current or future employees but contributes to dissatisfaction that leads to employees leaving the company or decreases our ability to attract talented new employees. National Australia Bank Climate change issues are expected to have sustained media interest in the long term continuing to influence customers, investors and other company stakeholders. It can therefore be expected that reputation and consumer behaviour considerations are of growing importance for companies in the future Those with a strong reputation for being environmentally conscious and involved in climate change activities appear to be placing themselves in a competitively advantageous position. Innovation is an enabler of market competitiveness Companies appear to be embracing innovation as a means to manage and capitalise on climate change business impacts. 44% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies mention the word innovation in their CDP questionnaire responses. ASX1 responding companies are particularly focussed on innovation with 54% making it part of their CDP 212 questionnaire response. Innovation tends to be presented as an action or initiative that is new to the responding company and possibly also new to the sector. The most commonly discussed areas for innovation were plant and machinery, and products and services. The public disclosure of these innovations through the CDP provides a valuable learning opportunity for other companies. 21

Sustainability in general, and climate change in particular, have become major influences in research, innovation and product development within Fletcher Building. Fletcher Building Westpac s Energy Efficiency Lease applies the standard features of a lease to energy efficiency assets making it easier and more cost effective for large firms to reduce their carbon emissions and to cut energy costs. Westpac Banking Corporation Companies are developing innovative production processes to significantly improve energy efficiency; for example, Rio Tinto s US$ 2.7 billion capital investment in modernising the Kitimat aluminium smelter will combine use of the latest smeltering technology with power exclusively from hydroelectric power to reduce the smelter s carbon dioxide emissions intensity by approximately 5%. New products and services are also entering the marketplace to reduce emissions and cater to a customer that is increasingly making lifestyle choices based on sustainability; for example, Boral have developed a range of Envirocrete products in response to a growing demand in green buildings. Fletcher Building also have developed products and building solutions designed to reduce energy consumption with a number gaining certification in recognition of their environmental attributes. These new products and services are a strong indicator of a company s ability to adapt to climate change impacts and maintain market competiveness in the longer term. That both Telecommunication Services responding companies discuss innovation is unsurprising given the rapid rate of technological change within the sector. Telecommunications companies are part of the digital transformation of our economy, which in itself provides opportunities for efficiency as we work from home, shop online and engage with our friends electronically. Innovation is particularly key to the Financial sector, with Banks reporting growth in the development of financial products to help companies manage carbon price risk and the physical risks from extreme weather events. Amongst Real Estate Investment Trusts ( REIT ), companies such GPT are adopting low carbon building technologies such as gas fired co-generation. Others such as CFS Retail Property Trust are exploring new avenues such as Environmental Upgrade Agreements for funding building energy efficiency projects. It could be considered that innovative companies such as these are at the vanguard of the drive for climate change mitigation and adaptation. They are prepared to diversify from tried and tested products and services to new higher risk solutions in response to evolving regulation and consumer behaviour, and in so doing drive forward the market for sustainable goods and services. Investors may wish to monitor these companies as innovation is likely to increase as climate change issues continue to attract the attention of Governments, regulators and the public over the coming years. 22

Emissions Analysis More than 95% of the Group s 211 [greenhouse gas] inventory is measured each month. Rio Tinto Direct (Scope 1) emissions Total direct onsite emissions (Scope 1) of 11 million tco 2 e were reported by the 84% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies that disclosed their emissions. This is a slight decrease of 4 million tons (3.4%) from 211 predominately due to one company that responded to CDP 211 not responding to CDP 212. Whilst 12 million tco 2 e (93%) of emissions were reported by ASX1 companies, this is a reflection of the emissions intensive nature of a number of sectors. A large market capitalisation is not necessarily reflective of high emissions. 91% of ASX2 companies are disclosing Scope 1 emissions, however only 57% of NZX5 responding companies are doing so, a difference possibly driven by Australia s regulated reporting environment for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Fig 9 ASX2 and NZX5 companies disclosing Scope 1 GHG emissions by sector Public responses Non Public responses Percentage of each sector disclosing Scope 1 GHG emissions (212) 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 19 56 CD 1 CS 1 11 8 79 EGY FIN 25 HC 11 78 IND 5 IT 1 86 MAT 5 TCOM 17 5 UTIL Emissions for dual listed companies are included in analysis of both the ASX2 and the NZX5. As such, reported total emission figures for breakdowns of the ASX2 and the NZX5 should not be summed to avoid double counting of emissions. Year on year GHG emissions within the ASX1 and ASX2 were stable, increasing only 2% and decreasing only 1% respectively. More sizeable year on year changes were evident in the NZX5 decreasing 33%, primarily due to Contact Energy Ltd not responding to CDP 212. 3 responding companies reported a decrease in Scope 1 emissions, although in only one-third of cases were the reductions primarily due to the implementation of emissions reductions initiatives. More common was a change in output or other changes in the business structure. The Materials sector remains by far the largest single sector GHG emitter, representing 6% (65 million tco 2 e) of all ASX2 Scope 1 reported emissions, relatively consistent with 62% in 211. Of this, 47 million tco 2 e (73%) were reported by only two companies BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. Reductions seen in the Financial sector were primarily due to a recategorisation of Wesfarmers from the Financial sector to the Consumer Staples sector, which has seen a corresponding increase. The reduction in the Materials sector can be primarily attributed to one company that responded to CDP 211 not responding to CDP 212. The NZX5 Scope 1 emissions profile is dominated by two companies; Air New Zealand and Fletcher Building that together account for 97% of total NZX5 Scope 1 emissions in 212. This is primarily due to the relatively limited disclosure of GHG emissions by NZX5 companies through CDP, especially in the Energy and Utilities sectors. 23

Fig 1 Scope 1 emissions for 212 and 211 212 211 ASX2 ASX1 17,155,225 18,286,656 12,494,918 1,926,842 ASX2ex1 4,66,38 7,359,813 NZX5 3,861,522 5,78,44 2,, 4,, 6,, 8,, 1,, 12,, Scope 1 (metric tons CO 2 e) Fig 11 Total Scope 1 emissions reported by ASX2 responding companies by sector 212 211 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 141,896 129,924 3,544,41 6,824 17,553,75 17,113,28 198,192 2,873,181 52,8 51,46 18,557,748 17,848,177 64,773,475 67,186,136 55,137 13,968 2,278,186 2,379,958 1,, 2,, 3,, 4,, 5,, 6,, 7,, 8,, Scope 1 (metric tons CO 2 e) 212 211 24 Fig 12 Total Scope 1 emissions reported by NZX5 responding companies by sector 212 211 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 1,364 1,239 8,72 41,248 28,693 1,273 56 55,137 81,83 83,428 839,47 1,95,2 Scope 1 (metric tons CO 2 e) 2,959,72 2,915,251 5, 1,, 1,5, 2,, 2,5, 3,, 3,5, 212 211

Fig 13 ASX2 and NZX5 companies disclosing Scope 2 GHG emissions by sector Public responses Non Public responses Percentage of each sector disclosing Scope 2 GHG emissions 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 19 56 CD 1 CS 1 11 8 79 EGY FIN 25 HC 11 78 IND 5 IT 1 86 MAT 5 TCOM 17 5 UTIL Indirect (Scope 2) emissions Total indirect emissions (Scope 2) of 63 million tco 2 e were reported by 84% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies that disclosed their emissions, 62 million (99%) of this is represented by ASX1 companies again reflecting the emission intensive nature of few sectors. This is a significant decrease of 65 million tco 2 e (51%) from 211, predominantly due to OM Holdings Ltd (with 211 Scope 2 emissions of 6 million tco 2 e) falling out of the ASX 2 and not being formally requested to respond to CDP 212. BHP Billiton reported a 5 million tco 2 e (-2%) Scope 2 GHG emission reduction, with the purchase of zero carbon emissions hydro-electricity to power the Mozal aluminium smelter contributing to this improvement. Significant Scope 2 emission reductions were reported by Mirvac Group (-25%) and Leighton Holdings Limited (-23%) due to the implementation of emissions reductions initiatives. As for Scope 1, the Materials sector is by far the largest single Scope 2 emitting sector, representing (77%) of all ASX2 Scope 2 GHG emissions reported. Of this, 38 million tco 2 e (79%) were in relation to two companies BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. 1 8 Public responses NZX5 Scope 2 emissions were 2.22 million tco 2 e in 212 consistent with 2.2 million tco 2 e in 211. 61% of total NZX5 Scope 2 emissions in 212 were reported by Telstra Corporation. Non Public responses Fig 14 Scope 2 emissions for the ASX2 and NZX5 in 212 and 211 6 212 211 4 2ASX2 63,15,537 127,323,496 ASX1 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MATTCOMUTIL 62,24,361 66,266,421 ASX2ex1 NZX5 19 3 775,177 71 3 69 2,218,886 1 2,2,14 13 61,57,75 13 5 2,, 45 38 4,, 6 6,, 8,, 1,, 12,, 14,, 34 Scope 2 (metric tons CO 2 e) 25 25 1 212 211 25

Fig 15 Total Scope 2 emissions reported by ASX2 responding companies by sector 212 211 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 915,481 86,331 5,884,769 2,785,14 511,919 487,398 2,392,562 5,299,875 133,7 133,858 1,367,333 1,519,38 48,234,768 112,433,491 1,359,125 1,848,751 2,215,881 2,9,65 2,, 4,, 6,, 8,, 1,, 12,, Scope 2 (tonnes CO 2 -e) Fig 16 Total Scope 2 emissions reported by NZX5 responding companies by sector 212 211 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 11,52 13,45 2,178 16,857 16,48 2,646 3,834 594 412,27 48,781 416,936 354,133 1,359,125 1,4,69 2, 4, 6, 8, 1,, 1,2, 1,4, 1,6, Scope 2 (metric tons CO 2 e) 26

Corporate Value Chain/Other Indirect (Scope 3) emissions In 212, 54% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies disclosed data on at least one Scope 3 emission source. This was higher for ASX1 responding companies at 66%. The increase in Scope 3 emissions reporting this year may be partly attributable to the publication of the GHG Protocol s Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard in October 211, and further increases in the number of companies reporting Scope 3 emissions are expected in the future given the evolution of standard frameworks for reporting of Scope 3 emissions. The Financials sector had the highest percentage (71%) of responding companies providing data on at least one Scope 3 emission source. Only 48% of Materials sector responding companies provided data on at least one Scope 3 emission source, which given the potentially significant number and scale of Scope 3 emissions sources for the sector is an area where improved measurement and disclosure should be encouraged. Business travel was the most frequently cited Scope 3 emission source, possibly a reflection of corporate travel providers readily providing data to their corporate clients. In a change from prior years reporting, the focus of Corporate Value Chain/Other Indirect (Scope 3) analysis this year is on the number of Scope 3 categories reported by companies and those most commonly reported rather than total Scope 3 emissions reported. Scope 3 emissions disclosed by responding companies have not been summed to avoid potentially misleading comparisons between companies. For example, a larger Scope 3 figure may not necessarily indicate higher Scope 3 emissions, but rather that the company with a higher total may be more advanced in its understanding of Scope 3 emissions accounting or simply have a larger definition of Scope 3 emissions. Further, only companies reporting Scope 3 emissions using the GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard named categories have been included in the analysis. Scope 3 emissions reported against Other upstream or Other downstream have been excluded to encourage responding companies to use specific categories where appropriate. In addition, only those categories for which emissions figures have been provided have been included. Fig 17 Number of Scope 3 categories reported by ASX2 and NZX5 companies with emissions data 7 5+ categories 5 5 categories 4 4 categories 6 3 categories 16 2 categories 23 1 category Fig 18 commonly reported Scope 3 categories by ASX2 and NZX5 companies with emissions data provided 66 Business travel 37 Fuel-and energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) 28 Waste generated in operations 24 Purchased goods & services 9 Upstream transportation & distribution 7 Downstream transportation & distribution 5 Use of sold products 4 Employee communting 2 Processing of sold products 1 Capital goods 5 4 2 1 23 7 9 7 5 24 4 6 28 66 16 37 27

Sector Analysis New Metronode data centres will utilise 9 per cent less electrical energy than our existing data centres. Swanbank Landfill [harvests] methane gas to power 3,44 houses each year, representing GHG reduction of 133,28 metric tonnes of CO 2 e annually. Leighton Holdings More detailed sector specific analysis has been included for the first time for the ASX2 and NZX5 highest Scope 1 GHG emitting sectors - the Materials, Energy and Industrial sectors. This deeper sector analysis provides insights into the key risks and opportunities facing each of these sectors in the market today as well as common and contrasting best practice initiatives that are being adopted. Fig 19 Percentage of Scope 1 GHG emissions from the Energy, Materials and Industrial sectors EGY, IND, MAT Other Fig 2 Market capitalisation^ of responding companies in the Energy, Materials and Industrial sectors as a percentage of total ASX2 and NZX5 responding company market capitalisation EGY, IND, MAT Other ASX2 94% 6% ASX2 $489 bn $591 bn NZX5 97% 3% NZX5 $7 bn $183 bn 2% 4% 6% 8% 1% 2% 4% 6% 8% 1% ^US $billion as at 3 December 211 28 EGY, IND, MAT

Energy Number of companies in sector: 22 ASX2 response rate: 55% (11 of 2) NZX5 response rate: % ( of 2) Key GICS Industries with the sector: Energy, Equipment & Services, Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels Top 3 largest non-respondents (market capitalisation): Whitehaven Coal, Extract Resources, Aurora Oil & Gas Fig 21 ASX2 Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 211 and 212 212 211 Fig 22 Responding companies implementing best practices All sectors Energy Verification of Scope 1 emissions 3% 3% Monetary incentives 5% 58% Board or other senior management oversight 88% 9% 95% Integration of climate change into overall business strategy 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% Scope 1 Scope 2 511,919 487,398 17,553,75 17,113,28 Fig 23 Disclosure score versus performance band 5,, 1,, 15,, 2,, (metric tons CO 2 e) No Scope 1 GHG emissions are shown for NZX5 as no Energy sector companies responded. 1 9 8 Origin Energy Santos Woodside Petroleum Verification Opportunities of Scope reported 1 emissions The Australian cap and trade scheme and the NZETS may 3% increase the economic attractiveness of gas compared to coal thereby 3% increasing the demand for gas resources for Monetary electricity incentives generation 58% The emerging regulatory landscape is expected to 5% stimulate a demand for biofuels as well as drive the Board implementation or other senior of management energy efficiency oversight projects and development of renewable technologies 95% 1% Risks reported Integration An increase of climate in extreme change weather into overall events business could damage strategy assets directly and result in operational delay. 88% This may affect the ability to supply customers with 9% energy % The 1% introduction 2% 3% of 4% the carbon 5% 6% price 7% may 8% increase 9% 1% operational cost due to system changes, compliance costs and pass through from suppliers Disclosure Score 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No band E D C B A- 211 A ASX2 Performance 94% Band 6% 212 NZX5 Gloucester Coal WorleyParsons AWE Karoon Gas Australia Oil Search Aquila Resources 97% Caltex Australia 3% % 2% 4% 6% 8% 1% 29

Industrials Number of companies in sector: 38 ASX2 response rate: 5% (16 of 32) NZX5 response rate: 33% (2 of 6) Key GICS Industries with the sector: Commercial Services & Supplies, Airlines, Construction & Engineering, Transportation Infrastructure. Top 3 largest non-respondents (market capitalisation): QR National, Mineral Resources, SEEK Fig 24 ASX2 Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 211 and 212 212 211 Scope 1 Scope 2 1,367,333 1,519,38 18,557,748 17,848,177 5,, 1,, 15,, 2,, (metric tons CO 2 e) Fig 25 NZX5 Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 211 and 212 212 211 Scope 1 Scope 2 16,857 16,48 2,959,72 2,915,251 1,, 2,, 3,, (metric tons CO 2 e) Opportunities reported Carbon pricing presents the business case to reduce operational cost through process and energy efficiency improvements Predicted changes to precipitation patterns may provide new opportunities to construct and operate resilient infrastructure, e.g., transmission networks and water systems Improved Air Traffic Management is seen as an opportunity by the Airline industry as it will increase fuel efficiency Risks reported Carbon pricing is predicted to have multiple impacts on the Industrial sector through direct liabilities, supply chain costs including increased cost of production inputs and reduced demand for goods and services from customer impacts Fig 26 Responding companies implementing best practices All sectors Industrials Verification of Scope 1 emissions Fig 27 Disclosure score versus performance band 2 % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% Campbell Brothers All Sectors Industrials 1 211 No band E D C B A- A Performance Band 212 ASX2 3% 33% Monetary incentives 58% 94% 72% Board or other senior management oversight 88% 94% 95% Integration of climate change into overall business strategy 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% Verification 1 of Scope 1 emissions 3% 9 33% Monetary incentives Toll Holdings Spotless Group 8 58% 7 Air New Zealand Downer EDI 72% UGL Board or other senior management oversight Brambles Auckland International 6 Airport Emeco Holdings 95% 5 Transfield Services Sydney Airport 1% Integration of climate change into overall business strategy Asciano Group 4 88% 3 94% Disclosure Score CSR Monadelphous Group Transurban Group Virgin Australia Holdings Qantas Airways Leighton Holdings 6% Extreme NZX5 weather events may directly 97% impact buildings 3% and infrastructure but also disrupt transport of raw materials, machinery % and goods 2% 4% 6% 8% 1% A lack of action on climate change creates a reputational risk through negative perceptions of customers, lobbyists and suppliers. It also affects the ability to attract investors and retain employees 211 212 3

Materials Number of companies in sector: 55 ASX2 response rate: 4% (21 of 53) NZX5 response rate: 25% (1 of 4) Key GICS Industries with the sector: Chemicals, Construction Materials, Containers & Packaging, Metals & Mining Top 3 largest non-respondents (market capitalisation): Iluka Resources, James Hardie Industries, Alacer Gold Fig 28 ASX2 Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 211 and 212 212 211 Scope 1 Scope 2 Fig 29 NZX5 Scope 1 and 2 emissions in 211 and 212 212 211 Scope 1 Scope 2 48,234,768 64,773,475 67,186,136 416,936 354,133 112,433,491 5,, 1,, 15,, (metric tons CO 2 e) 83,428 839,47 2, 4, 6, 8, 1,, (metric tons CO 2 e) Opportunities reported The onset of the carbon price coupled with increasing consumer demand could lead to increased demand for low carbon products The carbon price may act as a driver for the Materials sector to implement energy efficiency projects to reduce emissions and operational cost Risks reported Direct regulatory and financial impacts for emissions intensive trade exposed companies Extreme weather could constrain operations, disrupt energy and transport routes, and negatively impact supplier and customer base, particularly those dependent on the agricultural sector Fig 3 Responding companies implementing best practices All sectors Materials Verification of Scope 1 emissions 24% Fig 31 Disclosure score versus performance band 211 No band E D C B A- A Performance Band 212 ASX2 NZX5 3% Monetary incentives 48% 58% Board or other senior management oversight 94% 97% 81% 9% 88% 95% Integration of climate change into overall business strategy 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% Disclosure Score 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Aquarius Platinum Orica Newcrest Mining Atlas Iron Gindalbie Metals Imdex OZ Minerals Independence Group OneSteel Western Areas NL Sundance Resources PanAust Incitec Pivot Alumina Boral Rio Tinto Fletcher Building Fortescue Metals Group Amcor BHP Billiton Sims Metal Management 6% 3% % 2% 4% 6% 8% 1% 211 212 31

Verification More investors are considering assessments like the Carbon Disclosure Project to provide assurance that companies they are investing in are identifying and mitigating carbon risk. Woolworths Limited 32 CDP has been working to encourage greater levels of third party verification/assurance of data in response to demands for higher levels of data integrity by investors. In 211, a number of criteria were introduced to determine what is accepted as verification/assurance within CDP s scoring methodology. It requires that a verification statement: 1. Is related to the relevant emission scope 2. Uses a verification standard that complies with CDP criteria 3. Clearly states the type of verification that has been given and the verification standard used 4. Covers the correct reporting year 5. Is undertaken by an independent third party 6. Contains an opinion or finding In the CDP Australia and New Zealand Report 211, statistics on responding companies with verification/assurance was based on information reported which refers to the information that a company submitted to CDP, however the validity of the reported information was not checked. For 212, the term reported and approved refers to a scored response where the organisation has met the verification/assurance criteria of the CDP. As such, comparisons between 211 and 212 levels of verification/ assurance should not be made. The CDP s increasingly stringent criteria for the scoring and reporting of verification/assurance claims by responding companies is intended to build trust in corporate GHG emissions reporting and lead to an increase in the use of the data in analysis and decision making by investors, customers, regulators, NGOs and other stakeholders. Verification/assurance is a key driver of improved internal management processes that can be harnessed for competitive advantage. All CDLI and CPLI companies and 53% (Scope 1) and 51% (Scope 2) of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies reported that they had completed verification/assurance or that is was underway but incomplete at the time of responding, but that last year s statement was available. However, only 3% of companies, representing 53% of Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions, had their verification/ assurance approved in line with CDP criteria, a result of failure to include statements with the CDP questionnaire or including statements that do not meet CDP requirements. This may indicate that the verification/assurance approach may need to be reviewed and companies should discuss this with their verification/assurance provider. A further 4% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies had verification/assurance as underway, this being the first year it has taken place for both Scope 1 and Scope 2. ASX1 companies had a higher proportion of responding companies with verification/assurance approved (4% for both Scope 1 and Scope 2), whilst NZX5 companies lagged at 29%. The Consumer Staples sector had the highest proportion (6%) of responding companies with verification/assurance of Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions approved. No companies in the Health Care or Information Technology sectors verified or assured their emissions.

Verification/assurance approved for Scope 3 GHG emissions was lower at 19% of ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies. However both the Financials and Telecommunications sectors had equivalent levels of verification/assurance approved for Scope 3 as for Scope 1 and Scope 2, indicative of more mature Scope 3 emissions accounting and a broader assurance approach. Further work on verification/assurance is required by both companies and CDP to strengthen confidence in corporate GHG emissions reporting. For further information on what constitutes an acceptable verification/assurance process visit https://www.cdproject.net/verification to find out more. Fig 32 ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies with verification/assurance approved (complete or underway with last year s statement available) for at least a proportion of their emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 6 5 3% 2% 1% 31 CD 25 CS 2 36 3 EGY FIN HC 33 IND 11 24 1 IT MAT TCOM 17 UTIL Fig 33 ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies with verification/assurance reported as underway, first year it has taken place Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 25 6 4 6 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 3% 25% 2% 25% 33

Carbon Disclosure Leadership Indices Each year, company responses are reviewed, analysed and scored for the quality of disclosure and performance on actions taken to mitigate climate change. This results in a carbon disclosure score and, where sufficient disclosure exists, a carbon performance score. What does a CDP carbon disclosure score represent? The carbon disclosure scores assess companies on the quality and completeness of their disclosures. It is important to note that the carbon disclosure score is not a metric of a company s performance in relation to climate change management, because the score does not make any judgment about mitigation actions. A company s disclosure score is based solely on the information disclosed in the company s CDP response. Generally, companies scoring within a particular range suggest levels of commitment to, and experience of, carbon disclosure. The indicative description of each level is provided below for guidance only; CDP signatory investors should read individual company responses to understand the context for each business. How is the disclosure score determined? In determining the disclosure score for each company, we assess the following: The level of understanding and disclosure of companyspecific exposure to climate-related risks and opportunities The level of strategic focus and commitment to understanding the business issues related to climate change, emanating from the top of the organisation The extent to which a company has measured its carbon emissions The extent of the internal data management practices for understanding GHG emissions, including energy use The frequency and relevance of disclosure to key corporate stakeholders Whether the company uses third party for external verification of emissions data to promote greater confidence and usage of the data Fig 34 Carbon 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 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 Disclosure score (MAX. 1) Strategic advantage Eligibility for the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) In order to be included in the CDLI companies must: Respond using the Online Reporting System (ORS) prior to the deadline Provide a public response Score within the top 1% of the reporting population. More information on the CDLI can be found in the information request, supporting methodology and guidance documents at www.cdproject.net Changes to ASX2 and NZX5 CDLI Last year companies with the top 1% of disclosure scores in the ASX2 and NZX5 reporting population were included in the ASX2 and NZX5 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI). This year, separate CDLIs have been created for the ASX2 and the NZX5, consistent with CDP s practices in other reports, to include a total of 2 companies in the ASX2 CDLI and five in the NZX5 CDLI. 34

Table 8 CDP 212 ASX2 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) Company Sector Disclosure Score 212 Disclosure Score 211 Consecutive years on the CDLI* Commonwealth Property Office Fund Financials 97 96 4 Qantas Airways Industrials 97 92 3 News Corporation Consumer 95 93 5 CFS Retail Property Trust Financials 95 96 3 Amcor Materials 94 85 4 Woolworths Limited Consumer Staples 93 8 5 Mirvac Group Financials 92 81 2 Transurban Group Industrials 91 92 7 National Australia Bank Financials 91 91 7 AGL Energy Limited Utilities 91 92 6 Spotless Group Industrials 91 69 1 Virgin Australia Holdings Industrials 91 58 1 Insurance Australia Group Financials 9 82 7 Leighton Holdings Industrials 9 69 1 Metcash Consumer Staples 89 74 3 Dexus Property Group Financials 89 81 2 Commonwealth Bank of Australia Financials 88 89 4 Santos Energy 88 87 4 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Financials 87 89 7 Stockland Financials 86 9 5 * Including companies that have previously been in the ASX2 and NZX5 CDLI Table 9 CDP 212 NZX5 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) Company Sector Disclosure Score 212 Disclosure Score 211 Consecutive years on the CDLI* Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Financials 87 89 7 Telstra Corporation Telecommunication Services 84 7 1 Westpac Banking Corporation Financials 83 96 7 Fletcher Building Materials 77 7 1 AMP Financials 74 74 2 * Including companies that have previously been in the ASX2 and NZX5 CDLI The highest carbon disclosure score for CDP 212 amongst ASX2 and NZX5 companies is 97, up from the CDP 211 highest score of 96. As the CDP questionnaire and scoring methodology has remained largely unchanged between CDP 211 and CDP 212, scores can be compared year on year. This year, two companies have achieved this top score Commonwealth Property Office Fund (also the equalhighest scorer in 211) and Qantas Airways. The highest NZX5 responding company disclosure score in 212 is 87, achieved by Australian and New Zealand Banking Group. Amongst New Zealand headquartered NZX5 companies, the highest disclosure score of 77 was achieved by Fletcher Building, an increase on their CDP 211 score of 7. The minimum score for inclusion in the ASX2 CDLI in 212 was 86 - a significant increase on the CDP 211 ASX2 and NZX5 CDLI minimum score of 74. 74 was the minimum score for inclusion in the NZX5 CDLI this year. The ASX2 CDLI has an average disclosure score of 91, while the NZX5 CDLI average disclosure score was lower at 81. Airlines and retailers have made significant improvements in their CDP climate change disclosures this year. Qantas Airways achieved the equal highest carbon disclosure score across the ASX2 and NZX5. Virgin Australia Holdings achieved membership of the ASX2 CDLI for the first time after a very significant improvement in its disclosure score, and Air New Zealand also significantly increased its disclosure score this year. 35

Fig 35 Percentage of ASX2 companies in the CDLI by industry sector % of ASX2 companies on the 212 ASX2 CDLI from sector % of ASX2 companies in sector % of Global 5 companies on the 212 Global 5 CDLI from sector % of Global 5 companies in sector 5% 5% 1% 5% 45% % 25% % 5% % 5% 16% 12% 6% 12% 4% 1% 14% 12% 4% 12% 45% 4% 35% 3% 25% 2% 15% 1% 5% 14 12 4 9 1 11 18 22 5 8 CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 16 1 27 8 8 2 2 6 4 6 36 A number of large Australian retailers have also made By way of comparison, the minimum disclosure score noticeable 5% improvements 1% in the quality 5% of their 45% climate % required 25% for companies % to be 5% included on % the Global 5% change disclosures 5% 14% through 4% CDP in 1% 212, including: 18% David 5% 5 Carbon 16% CDLI 2% this year increased 27% to 94, 2% while the 4% Jones, Metcash, Wesfarmers and Woolworths Limited. minimum disclosure score required for US (S&P5) and 45% UK (FTSE35) companies to enter their Carbon Disclosure Banks and property companies continue to dominate the Leadership Indices this year was 92 and 88 respectively. 4% Numbers now correct but graph supplied ASX2 and the NZX5 CDLI and CPLI, possibly a result While ASX2 climate change leaders are to be of 35% an increased focus on performance and disclosure doesn t represent commended value for of continuing number, to shall improve I change the quality of their associated with concern over reputations and customer climate change disclosure, the standard remains higher expectations. 3% This is unusual by international standards as amongst Global 5, S&P5 and FTSE35 leaders. companies from the Financials sector are under-represented 25% 12 in other CDP indices such as the CDP Global 5 CDLI. The average disclosure score for all ASX2 and NZX5 Consumer 2% Staples and Industrials sector companies 22 are also responding companies was virtually unchanged between over-represented in the ASX2 CDLI. 15% 12 211 and 212 (at 61 in CDP 212 and 6 in CDP 211) 1 16 Fig 1% 36 Average 12 disclosure 9 6scores 11 in the ASX2 Fig 37 number 1 of ASX2 responding companies 5% and NZX5 in 211 and 212 8 by score range 8 8 4 14 4 6 12 12 6 212 211 Number of companies CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 25 Low score Midrange High score ASX2 61 (21%) % of ASX2 companies (31%) in sector (48%) 1% 6 % of Global 5 companies in sector & NZX5 2 % of ASX2 companies on the 212 ASX2 CDLI from sector 9% % of Global 5 companies on the 212 Global 5 CDLI from sector ASX2 8% 65 15 7% 62 1 6% 6% 47 NZX5 5 5% 49 1 5% 4 5 4 6 15 15 21 13 12 4% NZX5 37 (ex-dual 36% 31% 3% 3% 33% -listed) 25% 42 24% 2% 2% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11% 1% 1% % % % 17% CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL the graphic lines and bar/coloumns to represent the number 1-1 11-2 21-3 31-4 41-5 51-6 61-7 71-8 81-9 91-1

with improvements in the ASX2 offset by a fall in the average disclosure score of non-dual listed NZX5 companies from 42 to 37. ASX2 companies are generally performing well, with 48% of responding companies receiving a carbon disclosure score above 7, although 21% received a low disclosure score (less than 5), indicating there is still much room for improvement. Fig 39 Average carbon disclosure scores by sector for ASX2 responding companies (Numbers in brackets denote number of responding companies) ASX2 65 (99) Overall, the 21 NZX5 responding companies have scored considerably lower than ASX2 responding companies, with 28 ASX2 responding companies scored higher than the highest scoring, New Zealand headquartered NZX5 company. CD CS EGY 56 62 (13) 8 (1) (5) The distribution of disclosure scores for NZX5 responding companies is more erratic as can be expected with a smaller sample size where trends are less dominant. 48% of NZX5 responding companies received a low score and no company scored in the highest range category from 9-1. FIN HC IND IT 43 6 63 (1) 77 (1) (16) (23) Within the ASX2, the Telecommunications, Consumer Staples and Financials sectors have the highest average disclosure scores of 84, 8 and 77 respectively. However, there was only one responding company in the Telecommunications sector; Telstra Corporation. The Information Technology sector average disclosure score of just 43 is the lowest in the ASX2. Given this sector is often cited as a key enabler of many solutions to climate change, Information Technology companies should be encouraged to better articulate their approach to market. Furthermore, the Healthcare and Information Technology sectors were not represented in the ASX2 or NZX5 CDLI in 212 or 211. The average carbon disclosure score for the NZX5 responding companies is just 47 compared to the ASX2 average score of 65. Excluding companies that are duallisted on the ASX and NZX, the average disclosure score of responding companies drops further to 37, demonstrating a clear distinction between the reporting quality of Australian and New Zealand companies. MAT TCOM UTIL Fig 4 Average carbon disclosure scores by sector for NZX5 responding companies (Numbers in brackets denote number of responding companies) NZX5 CD CS EGY () () 47 5 51 61 (5) (21) (3) (21) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 84 (1) Fig 38 number of NZX5 responding companies by score range FIN HC 16 (3) 52 (8) Number of companies 5 Low score (48%) 4 3 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 1-1 11-2 21-3 31-4 41-5 Midrange (29%) 51-6 61-7 71-8 High score (24%) 81-9 91-1 IND IT ASX2 MAT & NZX5 TCOM ASX2 UTIL NZX5 NZX5 (ex-dual -listed) 65 (2) 5 (1) 61 77 6 (1) 59 (2) 65 6 (1) 62 1 2 3 4 5 47 6 7 8 9 49 37 42 212 211 37

Carbon Performance Leadership Indices 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 carbon performance band. Disclosure scores of less than 5 do not necessarily indicate poor performance; rather, they indicate insufficient information to evaluate performance. Performance is grouped into six bands: A, A-, B, C, D and E (see Figure 41: Carbon performance elements). The Carbon 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 (Band A) Attain a disclosure score of 5 or above Attain a performance score greater than 85 Score maximum performance points on question 13.1a (absolute emissions performance); at least a 3% reduction in carbon emissions must have been achieved as a result of emissions reduction activities over the last year Fig 41 Carbon performance elements Performance band (A is highest) Band A/A- (>85) Fully integrated climate change strategy driving significant maturity in climate change initiatives Band B (61-85) Integration of climate change recognized as priority for strategy, not all initiatives fully established Band C (41-6) Some activity on climate change with varied levels of integration of those initiatives into strategy Band D (21-4) Limited evidence of mitigation or adaptation initiatives and no/limited strategy on climate change Band E (-2) 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 Disclose gross global Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures Score maximum performance points for verification of Scope 1 and Scope 2 Notes: The performance score requirement to be eligible for a Band A rating has increased from 7 in CDP 211 to 85 in CDP 212. This reflects the significant increase in company performance over the past year and is consistent with CDP s scoring policy internationally. 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 no A- organisations in the ASX2 and NZX5 responding companies in 212. CDP reserves the right to exclude a company from the CPLI if there is anything in its response that calls into question its suitability for inclusion Performance scoring is an instructive exercise for all stakeholders. The score provides an indication of the extent to which companies are addressing the potential opportunities and risks presented by climate change. CDP recognises that this is a process that will evolve over time. It is important for investors to keep in mind that the carbon 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 It is possible to review individual company disclosures in addition to performance rankings in order to gain the most comprehensive understanding of company performance. A listing of companies and their bands is included in Appendix I. Companies that did not qualify for a performance band appear in Appendix I with a dash (-) in the performance band column. More information can be found in the information request, supporting methodology and guidance documents, as well as within individual company responses at www.cdproject.net 38

Table 1 CDP 212 ASX2 Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) Company Sector Performance Band Disclosure Score CFS Retail Property Trust Financials A 96 1 Commonwealth Property Office Fund Financials A 97 3 Insurance Australia Group Financials A 9 1 Mirvac Group Financials A 92 2 National Australia Bank Financials A 91 3 Westpac Banking Corporation Financials A 83 3 * Including companies that have previously been in the ASX2 and NZX5 CPLI Consecutive years on the CPLI* Table 11 CDP 212 NZX5 Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) Company Sector Performance Band Disclosure Score Westpac Banking Corporation Financials A 83 3 * Including companies that have previously been in the ASX2 and NZX5 CPLI Consecutive years on the CPLI* Last year the highest performing companies of the ASX2 and NZX5 that met the Carbon Performance Leadership Index ( CPLI ), criteria were included in the ASX2 and NZX5 CPLI. This year, separate leadership indices have been created for the ASX2 and the NZX5. From the 96 ASX2 companies that responded to CDP 212, six companies were included in the ASX2 CPLI, as was the case in 211. This is a commendable achievement given the increase in minimum performance score from 7 to 85 between CDP 211 and CDP 212. All CPLI companies are in the Financial Sector which is a similar trend to that found in 211 where five of the six CPLI companies were from the Financials sector. The continued strong performance of this sector is perhaps indicative of the high value that companies in this sector place on the risks and opportunities associated with reputation identified previously. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia and AGL Energy Limited dropped out of the CPLI in 212, not meeting the increased performance score required to obtain an A band rating. Two other ASX companies, CFS Retail Property Trust and Insurance Australia Group joined the CPLI in 212. Fig 42 Number of ASX2 responding companies by performance band Number of Companies Fig 43 Number of NZX5 responding companies by performance band Number of Companies Category A 6 Category A 1 Category B 21 Category B 2 Category C 18 Category C 2 Category D 19 Category D 6 Category E 12 Category E 1 5 1 15 2 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39

79% of ASX2 responding companies received a carbon performance band which is encouraging since it shows that actions are being implemented to manage the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. Although only 8% of these obtained a Band A rating, this is not surprising due to the increase in minimum performance score required to obtain a Band A rating this year. In the NZX5, 57% of responding companies received a carbon performance band and half of these received Band D showing there is significant room for improvement. It is important to note however that performance improvements take longer to implement and often lag behind improvements in disclosure since identification and implementation of emission reduction initiatives is a prerequisite to subsequent improvement of performance. Therefore, there is an expectation that companies performance will continue to improve over the coming years. In the ASX2, the Financial sector is the best performing with 26% of its respondents achieving a Band A rating, the only sector to achieve this. Furthermore, only 4% of companies in the Financial sector do not have a performance band showing that overall, ASX2 responding companies in the Financial sector are leading the way. Although this is a similar trend to 211, it is surprising that the Energy, Materials and Industrial sectors are not demonstrating stronger performance given that these are high emitting sectors (see Sector Analysis) and likely to be liable under the carbon price. However, it is important to account for a lag in the market, so we would expect these sectors to improve performance over the next 2-4 years as the effect of the carbon price takes hold. The Utilities and Information Technology sectors have greater than 5% of companies with no performance band. Whilst this is partly because these sectors have low representation on the ASX2 and NZ5, this also suggests these sectors have the greatest room for improvement. Although Band A ratings are restricted to the Financial sector only, there is strong representation of Band B ratings across the majority of sectors. There is also a significant proportion of companies without a performance band indicative of divergent approaches to management of climate change risks within sectors. Similar to the ASX2, in the NZX5 the Financial sector is the strongest performing with 13% of its respondents achieving a Band A rating, again the only sector to achieve this. Five of the eight NZX5 sectors that responded to CDP 212 did not have any companies that achieved a Band C rating or higher. Fig 44 Performance band breakdown by sector in the ASX2 (Numbers on the right vertical axis denote number of responding companies in each sector) Band A Band B Band C Band D Band E No band CD 38% 8% 23% 15% 15% 13 CS 2% 2% 6% 5 EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL 1% 4% 9% 25% 24% 2% 17% 19% 19% 6% 2% 17% 1% 13% 1% 24% 1% 26% 13% 4% 2% 24% 31% 26% 2% 1% 1% 1 23 1 16 1 21 1 5 Number of responding companies 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% No band Band E Band D Band C Band B Band A 4

Appendix I Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company Please refer to the Key on p47 for further explanation of the abbreviations used Company Name Primary Expansion Sector 212 Response Status 212 Score 211 Score Public / Non- Public Total Scope 1 + Scope 2 emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Number of Scope 3 categories reported with data Verification / Assurance status Targets reported Abacus Property ASX2 Financials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Group Acrux ASX2 Health Care NR - - - - - - - Adelaide Brighton ASX2 Materials NR - 52 D - - - - - AGL Energy ASX1 Utilities AQ 91 B 92 A P 1,596,34 1,545,278 51,62 4 VAA S1, S2, Abs, Int S3 Air New Zealand NZX5 Industrials AQ 69 D <5 P 2,967,855 2,956,92 1,953 - Abs Alacer Gold ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Alumina ASX1 Materials AQ 58 D 64 C P 6,65,178 3,61,538 3,3,64 - VAR S1, S2 Int Amcor ASX1 Materials AQ 94 B 85 B P 2,775,648 1,4,655 1,734,993 5 VAA S1, S2, Int S3 AMP ASX1, Financials AQ 74 C 74 C P 18,828 163 18,665 1 Abs NZX5 AMP NZ Office NZX5 Financials AQ 17 <5 P - - - - Ansell ASX1 Health Care NR - - - - - - - APA Group ASX1 Utilities AQ 72 D 66 C P 452,668 297,99 155,569 1 APN News & Media ASX2 Consumer AQ 2 <5 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Aquarius Platinum ASX1 Materials AQ 75 E 65 C P 635,445 38,94 597,351 1 Aquila Resources ASX2 Energy AQ 68 C 69 D P 53,224 47,961 5,263 - Abs Ardent Leisure Group Argosy Property Trust ASX2 Consumer AQ 4 <5 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NZX5 Financials AQ 12 - P - - - - Aristocrat Leisure ASX2 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Asciano Group ASX1 Industrials AQ 42 <5 P 1,124,36 986,2 138,34 - Aston Resources ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - ASX ASX1 Financials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Atlas Iron ASX1 Materials AQ 56 E - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Auckland NZX5 Industrials AQ 6 D 69 C P 8,74 2,17 5,94 2 Int International Airport Aurora Oil & Gas ASX2 Energy NR - - - - - - - Ausdrill ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Austar United Communications Australand Property Group Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Australian Infrastructure Fund ASX2 Consumer NR - - - - - - - ASX2 Financials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP ASX1, NZX5 Financials AQ 87 B 89 B P 224,422 18,22 26,22 1 VAA S1, S2, S3 ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - AWE ASX2 Energy AQ 55 E <5 P 23,566 23,286 28 - VAR S1, S2 Int Bank of Queensland ASX1 Financials NR - 63 D - - - - - Bathurst Resources ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Beach Energy ASX2 Energy DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Beadell Resources ASX2 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Bendigo and ASX1 Financials NR - - - - - - - Adelaide Bank BHP Billiton ASX1 Materials AQ 71 B 73 B P 4,826, 19,863, 2,963, 2 VAA S1, S2, Int S3 Billabong ASX2 Consumer AQ 69 D 63 C P 29,53 1,792 27,711 2 VAR S1, S2 International BlueScope Steel ASX1 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Boart Longyear ASX1 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Boral ASX1 Materials AQ 58 D 74 D P 3,369,19 2,764,755 64,435 1 VAF S1, VAR S2 Bradken ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Brambles ASX1 Industrials AQ 61 D 57 C P 137,99 6,6 77,93 - VAR S1, S2 Abs BWP Trust ASX2 Financials AQ 73 D 74 D P 78-78 2 Abs, Int 41

Company Name Primary Expansion Sector 212 Response Status 212 Score 211 Score Public / Non- Public Total Scope 1 + Scope 2 emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Number of Scope 3 categories reported with data Verification / Assurance status Targets reported 42 Cabcharge Australia ASX2 Industrials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Caltex Australia ASX1 Energy AQ 6 C <5 P 2,184,441 1,869,326 315,115 - VAA S1, S2 Campbell Brothers ASX1 Industrials AQ 15 - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Carsales.com ASX2 Information NR - - - - - - - Technology Cavalier Corporation NZX5 Consumer NR - - - - - - - CFS Retail Property ASX1 Financials AQ 95 A 96 A- P 12,26 5,94 97,166 2 VAA S1, S2, Abs, Int Trust S3 Challenger ASX1 Financials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Charter Hall Group ASX2 Financials AQ 72 C <5 P 11,232 4,858 96,374 1 VAR S1, S2 Abs, Int Charter Hall Office ASX1 Financials SA - 63 C - - - - - REIT Charter Hall Retail ASX2 Financials SA - 52 E - - - - - REIT Chorus NZX5 Telecommunication AQ 34 - P - - - - Services Coalspur Mines ASX2 Energy NR - - - - - - - Coca-Cola Amatil ASX1 Consumer Staples AQ 78 C 73 C P 175,54 52,463 122,591 - Int Cochlear ASX1 Health Care DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Commonwealth Bank of Australia Commonwealth Property Office Fund ASX1 Financials AQ 88 B 89 A P 233,468 13,289 22,179 7 VAR S1, S2, S3 ASX1 Financials AQ 97 A 96 A P 58,35 3,179 55,171 2 VAA S1, S2, S3 Computershare ASX1 Information AQ 43 <5 P - - - - Technology Contact Energy NZX5 Utilities NR - 73 C - - - - - Crown ASX1 Consumer AQ 77 D 7 D P 199,921 35,584 164,337 1 CSL ASX1 Health Care AQ 6 D 72 D P 186,5 52,8 133,7 2 VAF S1, VAR Int S2 CSR ASX1 Industrials AQ 27 <5 P 686,724 394,398 292,326 - VAR S1, S2 Int CuDeco ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Dart Energy ASX2 Energy NR - - - - - - - David Jones ASX1 Consumer AQ 83 B 71 C P 16,611 5,9 11,62 2 VAA S1, S2 Abs Dexus Property Group ASX1 Financials AQ 89 B 81 B P 132,955 4,77 128,185 9 VAR S1, S2 VAA S3 Discovery Metals ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - DNZ Property Fund NZX5 Financials NR - - - - - - - Downer EDI ASX1 Industrials AQ 75 C 67 D NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Duet Group ASX1 Utilities AQ 24 <5 P - - - - DuluxGroup ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Ebos Group NZX5 Health Care AQ 19 <5 P - - - - Echo Entertainment ASX1 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Group Emeco Holdings ASX2 Industrials AQ 56 E 59 E P 6,447 2,954 3,493 5 Energy Resources ASX2 Energy SA - - - - - - - of Australia Energy World ASX2 Utilities NR - - - - - - - Corporation Envestra ASX2 Utilities AQ 23 <5 P 43,744 43,693 51 - VAR S1 Extract Resources ASX2 Energy NR - - - - - - - Fairfax Media ASX1 Consumer AQ 73 C - P 93,951 9,78 84,873 - Fisher & Paykel Appliances Holdings Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corporation NZX5 Consumer DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP NZX5 Health Care AQ 18 <5 P - - - - FKP Property Group ASX2 Financials NR - - - - - - - Abs Abs, Int Abs

Company Name Primary Expansion Sector 212 Response Status 212 Score 211 Score Public / Non- Public Total Scope 1 + Scope 2 emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Number of Scope 3 categories reported with data Verification / Assurance status Targets reported Fleetwood Corporation Fletcher Building ASX2 ASX2, NZX5 Consumer AQ 17 - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Materials AQ 77 C 7 C P 1,22,364 83,428 416,936 - VAA S1, S2 Abs, Int Flight Centre ASX2 Consumer AQ 9 - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Fortescue Metals ASX1 Materials AQ 72 C 71 C P 641,775 61,533 4,242 * VAA S1, S2 Group Freightways NZX5 Industrials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Gindalbie Metals ASX2 Materials AQ 36 - P 39,234 39,234 - - Gloucester Coal ASX2 Energy AQ 57 E - P 83,46 61,811 21,235 - Goodman Fielder ASX1, Consumer Staples NR - - - - - - - NZX5 Goodman Group ASX1 Financials AQ 76 D 55 E NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Goodman Property NZX5 Financials AQ 69 D - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Trust GPT Group ASX1 Financials AQ 75 B 72 C P 172,775 8,533 164,242 11* VAA S1, S2, Int S3 GrainCorp ASX1 Consumer Staples DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Gryphon Minerals ASX2 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP GUD Holdings ASX2 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Guinness Peat Group NZX5 Consumer NR - - - - - - - GWA Group ASX2 Industrials IN - - P - - - - Hallenstein Glasson NZX5 Consumer DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Holdings Harvey Norman Holdings Hastings Diversified Utilities Fund Heartland New Zealand ASX1 Consumer DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP ASX2 Utilities NR - - - - - - - NZX5 Financials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Henderson Group ASX2 Financials AQ 72 B 67 D P 2,36 119 2,241 3 VAR S1, S2, Int S3 Iluka Resources ASX1 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Imdex ASX2 Materials AQ 25 - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Incitec Pivot ASX1 Materials AQ 62 D 57 D P 2,171,314 1,845,333 325,981 - Independence ASX2 Materials AQ 49 <5 P 54,27 32,675 21,595 - VAR S1, S2 Group Industrea ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Infratil NZX5 Utilities AQ 6 - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Insurance Australia Group ASX1 Financials AQ 9 A 82 B P 49,74 8,294 41,446 5 VAA S1, S2, S3 Integra Mining ASX2 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Intrepid Mines ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Investa Office Fund ASX1 Financials AQ 76 C - P 26,43 1,555 24,848 - VAF S1, VAR Int S2 InvoCare ASX2 Consumer AQ 66 D 61 C P 12,724 5,55 7,669 2 Abs IOOF Holdings ASX2 Financials AQ 36 - P 2-2 - IRESS Market ASX2 Information NR - - - - - - - Technology Technology James Hardie ASX1 Materials NR - - - - - - - Industries JB Hi-Fi ASX1 Consumer AQ 67 E 61 E NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Kagara ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Karoon Gas Australia ASX2 Energy AQ 2 <5 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Kathmandu Holdings NZX5 Consumer AQ 29 <5 P - - - - Abs 43

Company Name Primary Expansion Sector 212 Response Status 212 Score 211 Score Public / Non- Public Total Scope 1 + Scope 2 emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Number of Scope 3 categories reported with data Verification / Assurance status Targets reported 44 Kingsgate ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Consolidated Kiwi Income NZX5 Financials AQ 69 D 63 C NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Property Trust Leighton Holdings ASX1 Industrials AQ 9 B 69 D P 963,328 775,441 187,887 2 VAA S1, S2 Abs Lend Lease Group ASX1 Financials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Linc Energy ASX2 Energy NR - - - - - - - Lynas Corporation ASX1 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP MacMahon ASX2 Industrials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Holdings Macquarie Atlas ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Roads Group Macquarie Group ASX1 Financials AQ 68 C 66 C P 52,497-52,497 1 VAA S1, S2, Int S3 Mainfreight NZX5 Industrials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Medusa Mining ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Mermaid Marine ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Australia Mesoblast ASX2 Health Care NR - - - - - - - Metcash ASX1 Consumer Staples AQ 89 B 74 C P 12,638 12,396 9,242 1 VAA S1, S2 Abs Methven NZX5 Industrials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Michael Hill International NZX5 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Mineral Deposits ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Mineral Resources ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Mirabela Nickel ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Mirvac Group ASX1 Financials AQ 92 A 81 A P 189,528 13,635 175,893 3 VAA S1, S2, Int S3 Monadelphous ASX1 Industrials AQ 22 <5 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Group Mount Gibson Iron ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Myer Holdings ASX1 Consumer DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP National Australia ASX1 Financials AQ 91 A 91 A P 2,125 25,688 174,437 15 VAA S1, S2, Abs, Int Bank S3 Navitas ASX2 Consumer NR - - - - - - - New Zealand Oil NZX5 Energy NR - <5 - - - - - & Gas New Zealand NZX5 Energy NR - - - - - - - Refining Company Newcrest Mining ASX1 Materials AQ 58 E 59 E P 2,241,783 1,483,32 758,481 1 VAR S1, S2 News Corporation ASX1 Consumer AQ 95 B 93 A- P 477,553 76,548 41,5 1 VAA S1, S2, S3 NRW Holdings ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Nufarm ASX2 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Nuplex Industries NZX5 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP NZX NZX5 Financials NR - - - - - - - OceanaGold ASX2, Materials IN - - P - - - - Corporation NZX5 Oil Search ASX1 Energy AQ 58 D 58 B NP NP NP NP NP NP NP OneSteel ASX1 Materials AQ 66 D 55 C P 4,262,25 2,622,75 1,639,95 1 VAR S1, S2 Orica ASX1 Materials AQ 48 51 C P 2,552, 2,35, 517, - Int Origin Energy ASX1 Energy AQ 76 C 76 C P 2,891,249 2,832,948 58,31 2 VAR S1 Abs, Int OZ Minerals ASX1 Materials AQ 68 D 7 C P 331,983 146,422 185,561 - VAA S1, S2 Pacific Brands ASX2 Consumer DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Paladin Energy ASX1 Energy NR - - - - - - - PanAust ASX1 Materials AQ 7 C - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Panoramic Resources ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Abs, Int

Company Name Primary Expansion Sector 212 Response Status 212 Score 211 Score Public / Non- Public Total Scope 1 + Scope 2 emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Number of Scope 3 categories reported with data Verification / Assurance status Targets reported Perpetual ASX2 Financials AQ 51 E 72 D P 4,12 85 4,35 2* Perseus Mining ASX1 Materials NR - - - - - - - PGG Wrightson NZX5 Consumer Staples DP - <5 NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Platinum Asset ASX2 Financials NR - - - - - - - Management Port Of Tauranga NZX5 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Primary Health Care ASX1 Health Care NR - - - - - - - Property For NZX5 Financials NR - - - - - - - Industry Pumpkin Patch NZX5 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Qantas Airways ASX1 Industrials AQ 97 B 92 B P 12,64,493 12,387,552 216,941 1 VAA S1, S2, Int S3 QBE Insurance ASX1 Financials AQ 51 E <5 P 38,584 1,241 37,343 1 Group QR National ASX1 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Qube Logistics ASX2 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Holdings Rakon NZX5 Information AQ 5 E <5 P 3,919 1,273 2,646 - Abs Technology Ramelius Resources ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Ramsay Health ASX1 Health Care DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Care Regis Resources ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Reject Shop, The ASX2 Consumer NR - - - - - - - ResMed ASX1 Health Care DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Resolute Mining ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - Restaurant Brands NZX5 Consumer NR - - - - - - - New Zealand Rio Tinto ASX1 Materials AQ 82 C 86 B P 44,7, 27,5, 17,2, 8 VAR S1, S2 Int Ryman Healthcare NZX5 Health Care AQ 1 - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Sandfire Resources ASX2 Materials NR - - - - - - - NL Santos ASX1 Energy AQ 88 C 87 B P 3,619,88 3,579,414 4,466 1 VAA S1, S2 Saracen Mineral ASX2 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Holdings SEEK ASX1 Industrials NR - - - - - - - Seven Group Holdings ASX2 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Seven West Media ASX1 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Sigma ASX2 Health Care NR - - - - - - - Pharmaceuticals Silver Lake Resources ASX2 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Sims Metal Management ASX1 Materials AQ 69 C 74 C P 37,335 149,94 157,395 - VAF S1, VAR S2 Singapore Telecom ASX2 Telecommunication IN - 55 E P - - - - Services Skellerup Holdings NZX5 Consumer Staples NR - - - - - - - Sky City Entertainment Group Sky Network Television SMS Management & Technology NZX5 NZX5 ASX2 Consumer Consumer Information Technology NR - - - - - - - AQ 7 D 6 D P 1,85 318 1,532 4 VAA S1, S2, S3 NR - - - - - - - Sonic Healthcare ASX1 Health Care NR - - - - - - - Southern Cross ASX2 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Media Group SP AusNet ASX2 Utilities NR - - - - - - - Abs, Int 45

Company Name Primary Expansion Sector 212 Response Status 212 Score 211 Score Public / Non- Public Total Scope 1 + Scope 2 emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Number of Scope 3 categories reported with data Verification / Assurance status Targets reported Spark Infrastructure ASX1 Utilities AQ 42 <5 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Group Spotless Group ASX2 Industrials AQ 91 B 69 C P 91,161 42,51 49,11 1 VAA S1, S2 St Barbara ASX2 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Steel & Tube NZX5 Materials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Holdings Stockland ASX1 Financials AQ 86 B 9 B P 158,367 28,71 13,296 2 VAA S1, S2, Int VAR S3 Suncorp Group ASX1 Financials AQ 64 D <5 P 73,938 7,443 66,495 - VAR S1, S2 Sundance ASX2 Materials AQ 35 - P 3,198 2,9 298 1 Resources Sydney Airport ASX1 Industrials AQ 54 E - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Tabcorp Holdings ASX1 Consumer DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Tatts Group ASX1 Consumer AQ 42 5 E P 28,642 3,873 24,769 1 Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Telstra Corporation Ten Network Holdings ASX2, NZX5 ASX1, NZX5 ASX2 Telecommunication Services Telecommunication Services Consumer IN - - P - - - - AQ 84 B 7 D P 1,414,262 55,137 1,359,125 3 VAA S1, S2, S3 AQ 75 C 73 B P 13,577 1,537 12,4 3 VAA S1, S2, S3 Toll Holdings ASX1 Industrials AQ 82 C 76 C P 671,28 575,214 96,66 1 VAA S1, S2 Int Tower NZX5 Financials NR - - - - - - - TPG Telecom ASX2 Telecommunication NR - - - - - - - Services Transfield Services ASX1 Industrials AQ 54 E 59 D P 67,845 2,929 46,916 1 VAF S1, VAR S2 Transpacific ASX2 Industrials DP - - NP DP DP DP DP DP DP Industries Group Transurban Group ASX1 Industrials AQ 91 B 92 B P 63,48 5,193 58,287 5* VAA S1, S2, Abs S3 Treasury Wine ASX1 Consumer Staples AQ 65 D - P 61,137 1,86 5,278 - VAR S1, S2, Int Estates S3 TrustPower NZX5 Utilities NR - - - - - - - UGL ASX1 Industrials AQ 64 D <5 P 58,735 16,999 41,736 2 Int Vector NZX5 Utilities NR - - - - - - - Virgin Australia ASX2 Industrials AQ 91 B 58 D P 2,991,486 2,976,751 14,735 3 VAA S1, S2 Abs Holdings Vital Healthcare NZX5 Financials AQ 6 - P - - - - Property Trust Warehouse Group NZX5 Consumer AQ 53 D - NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Wesfarmers ASX1 Consumer Staples AQ 77 B 66 B P 6,16,3 3,69,669 3,9,631 5 VAA S1, S2, Int S3 Western Areas NL ASX2 Materials AQ 57 E <5 P 69,957 28,373 41,584 - Westfield Group ASX1 Financials AQ 78 D 74 C P 51,911 31,126 479,785 4 VAF S1, VAR S2 Westfield Retail Trust ASX1 Financials NR - - - - - - - Westpac Banking Corporation White Energy Company ASX1, NZX5 Financials AQ 83 A 96 A P 21,125 21,463 179,662 9 VAA S1, S2, S3 ASX2 Energy NR - - - - - - - Whitehaven Coal ASX1 Energy NR - - - - - - - Woodside ASX1 Energy AQ 79 B 68 B P 7,898,63 7,89,419 8,184 1 VAA S1, S2 Abs, Int Petroleum Woolworths Limited ASX1 Consumer Staples AQ 93 B 8 B P 2,929,68 398,653 2,531,27 2 VAA S1, S2, Abs, Int VAR S3 WorleyParsons ASX1 Energy AQ 63 D <5 P 97,84 34,774 63,66 - Wotif.com Holdings ASX2 Consumer NR - - - - - - - Int Abs Abs 46

Key for Appendix 1 Sector CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL Consumer Consumer Staples Energy Financials Health Care Industrials Information Technology Materials Telecommunications Utilities Response Status AQ DP NR IN SA Answered Questionnaire Declined to Participate Not Responded Information Provided See Another Targets Reported ABS INT Absolute target Intensity target Verification / Assurance status VAA Verification/Assurance approved VAR Verification/Assurance reported VAF Verification/Assurance reported as underway, first year S1 Scope 1 S2 Scope 2 S3 Scope 3 Number of Scope 3 categories reported * Company has reported using other upstream or other downstream in scope 3 categories. This has not been included in the count of categories and, instead, denoted by an *. 47

Appendix I I CDP 212 Global Key Trends The statistics presented in this key trends table may differ from those in other CDP reports for two reasons: (1) the data in this table is based on all responses received by 3rd September 212; (2) it is based on binary data (e.g. Yes/No or other drop down menu selection) reported to CDP 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. Statistic Asia ex-japan Australia Benelux Brazil Canada Central & Eastern Europe China Emerging Markets Electric Utilities (Global) Europe Number of companies in sample 4 2 15 8 2 1 1 8 25 3 Number of companies answering CDP 212 1 129 99 57 52 17 23 23 291 11 275 % sample answering CDP 212 1 32 5 38 65 54 23 23 36 4 92 % of responders reporting Board or other senior 9 96 98 91 87 1 7 9 96 99 management responsibility for climate change % responders reporting incentives for the management of 65 63 65 51 51 75 3 66 64 77 climate change issues % of responders reporting climate change as being 9 89 96 81 77 1 78 86 94 91 integrated into their business strategy % of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on 75 72 81 77 69 25 48 77 9 85 climate issues to encourage mitigation or adaptation % of responders reporting emission reduction targets 2 64 52 72 36 43 75 3 63 64 82 % of responders reporting absolute emission reduction 34 28 43 26 21 5 17 37 38 44 targets 2 % of responders reporting active emissions reduction 32 84 98 81 81 75 83 86 89 97 initiatives in the reporting year % of responders indicating that their products and services 26 6 76 74 6 75 61 62 85 7 directly enable third parties to avoid GHG emissions % of responders seeing regulatory risks 8 84 81 81 75 75 52 87 93 84 % of responders seeing regulatory opportunities 76 68 87 79 65 5 48 78 87 83 % of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope 1 and 32 29 48 15 2 25 4 35 27 59 2) have decreased compared to last year due to emission reduction activities % of responders reporting any portion of Scope 1 emissions 5 61 74 53 37 5 4 57 64 81 data as independently verified 3 % of responders reporting any portion of Scope 2 emissions 5 59 72 55 24 5 4 55 42 75 data as independently verified 3 % of responders reporting emissions data for 2 or more named Scope 3 categories 4 26 36 46 74 25 25 4 39 39 55 48

FTSE All-World France DACH (DE,AU,CH) Global 5 Iberia India Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latin America New Zealand Nordic Russia South Africa Turkey Transport (Global) United Kingdom FTSE All-Share United States S&P 5 Overall 5 8 25 35 5 125 2 4 1 5 25 5 5 26 5 1 1 1 615 5 N/A 625 81 193 45 5 52 17 46 227 99 32 21 148 4 78 17 54 329 343 2418 78 32 55 81 4 26 43 46 45 4 64 42 57 8 78 17 54 53 69 N/A 95 95 83 96 98 9 1 95 97 87 1 9 92 67 96 93 93 96 92 91 77 7 44 82 71 64 59 53 76 65 5 48 58 33 65 87 8 65 69 61 92 88 73 95 94 86 65 79 92 86 79 86 9 33 81 8 91 84 83 84 83 78 64 87 85 79 59 65 78 7 82 57 74 33 84 73 83 73 7 71 8 71 57 82 75 6 65 58 96 72 39 43 71 67 59 47 72 68 7 65 46 33 31 49 46 12 41 4 71 44 21 29 32 67 28 33 3 35 39 37 96 91 83 98 94 88 76 81 99 74 86 67 72 67 96 8 93 88 92 87 72 75 66 74 83 55 41 65 79 61 71 48 88 67 56 67 74 58 62 64 81 69 58 91 9 86 76 72 94 85 86 62 83 33 99 93 78 82 69 78 78 83 67 79 94 86 59 74 84 76 79 57 77 33 92 73 7 72 64 73 54 4 36 59 58 19 35 28 56 45 18 14 47 33 57 27 39 48 49 44 7 71 47 77 83 52 71 67 42 73 61 33 49 33 64 33 69 54 53 52 66 65 4 72 77 48 59 6 42 72 54 33 45 63 33 59 51 48 47 45 53 37 5 63 38 35 35 34 2 5 29 48 68 2 26 36 33 37 1: 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 212. 49

5

Important Notice The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP and presented in this report. If you intend to do this, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so. Deloitte and CDP prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the 212 Investor CDP climate change information request. Deloitte and CDP relied on the accuracy and completeness of this information and did not undertake any independent audit or verification of the responses. Deloitte and CDP do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this information and Deloitte will not provide any audit or attest opinion or other form of assurance. Deloitte and CDP make no representation or warranty, express or implied, and accept no liability concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and opinions contained herein or for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. All information and views expressed herein by CDP and Deloitte are based on their judgement 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. Deloitte and CDP and their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/or employees, may have a position in the securities 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. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. In Australia, the member firm is the Australian partnership of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Carbon Disclosure Project and CDP refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 112233, and Carbon Disclosure Project Limited, an Australian company limited by guarantee, ACN 148 974 323 registered as a Charitable Institution. This report and all of the public responses from companies are available to download from www.cdproject.net

CDP Contacts James Day Director - Australia & New Zealand Paul Simpson Chief Executive Officer Sue Howells Co-Chief Operating Officer Daniel Turner Head of Disclosure Marcus Norton Head of Investor Initiatives and Water Carbon Disclosure Project Limited 133 Alexander Street Crows Nest NSW 265 Australia Tel: +61 ()2 8213 2452 australianz@cdproject.net Carbon Disclosure Project 4 Bowling Green Lane London EC1R NE United Kingdom Tel: +44 ()2 797 566 Fax: +44 ()2 7691 7316 www.cdproject.net info@cdproject.net Deloitte Contacts Brad Pollock Lead Partner Sustainability & Climate Change Tel: +61 ()2 9322 7 bpollock@deloitte.com.au Deloitte Australia Grosvenor Place Level 9, 225 George Street Sydney NSW 2 Australia www.deloitte.com.au Our sincere thanks are extended to the following: DLA Piper Australia, Global Reporting Initiative, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Investor Network on Climate Risk, Regnan, UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative, UN Principles for Responsible Investment, UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Global Compact, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute. Cover image: Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre Courtesy and Peter Bennetts - www.peterbennetts.com 212 Carbon Disclosure Project. All rights reserved. Printed on 1% post-consumer recycled paper Australia & NZ Investor Relations Partner Australian Communications Partner