Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 The Netherlands 50 Report

Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 The Netherlands 50 Report On behalf of 534 investors with assets of US$64 trillion Carbon Disclosure Project info@cdproject.net +44 (0) 20 7970 5660 www.cdproject.net Report written for the Carbon Disclosure Project by

Contents Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 Members and Signatories 4 1. Introduction / Commentary 8 Foreword by Paul Dickinson, Executive Chairman, Carbon Disclosure Project 8 Introduction by Hugo von Meijenfeldt, Deputy Director General of the Environment Netherlands 9 Sponsor commentary by Accenture 10 Sponsor commentary by ING 10 2. Executive summary 11 3. Carbon disclosure and reporting 13 Overview of CDP 13 Highlights in carbon regulation and reporting standards 14 Global agreement on GHG emissions 15 Dutch progress on GHG emission reductions 17 Carbon Disclosure Project 2011 Netherlands outlook 18 4. 2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores 19 2010 CDP Scores introduction to the CDLI 19 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) for the Netherlands 50 20 Case study: Philips as highest ranked discloser 22 5. 2010 Carbon Performance Scores 23 Importance of sustainability reporting in the market 23 2010 Carbon Performance scores 26 Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) for the Netherlands 50 27 Case study: KPN as high performer 28 6. Response outcomes and trends 29 Responses 29 Netherlands 50 Scorecard 2010 32 7. Appendix 34 Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company 34 2 3

Carbon Disclosure Project CDP Signatories 2010 Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 This report and all of the public responses from corporations are available to download free of charge from www.cdproject.net. 4 ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Aegon N.V. Akbank T.A.. Allianz Global Investors AG ATP Group Aviva Investors AXA Group Banco Bradesco S.A. Bank of America Merrill Lynch BBVA BlackRock BP Investment Management Limited California Public Employees Retirement System California State Teachers Retirement System Calvert Group Catholic Super CCLA Investment Management Ltd Co-operative Asset Management Essex Investment Management, LLC Ethos Foundation Generation Investment Management HSBC Holdings plc ING KLP Insurance Legg Mason, Inc. The London Pensions Fund Authority Mergence Africa Investments (Pty) Limited Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Morgan Stanley National Australia Bank Limited Neuberger Berman Newton Investment Management Limited Nordea Investment Management Northwest and Ethical Investments LP PFA Pension Raiffeisen Schweiz RBS Group Robeco Rockefeller & Co. SRI Group Russell Investments Schroders Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Standard Chartered PLC Sun Life Financial Inc. TD Asset Management Inc. TDAM USA Inc. The Wellcome Trust Zurich Cantonal Bank Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 534 financial institutions with assets of over US$64 trillion were signatories to the CDP 2010 information request dated February 1st, 2010, including: Aberdeen Asset Managers Aberdeen Immobilien KAG Active Earth Investment Management Acuity Investment Management Addenda Capital Inc. Advanced Investment Partners Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd AEGON Magyarország Befektetési Alapkezelo Zrt. Aegon N.V. AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd Aeneas Capital Advisors AGF Management Limited AIG Asset Management Akbank T.A.S. Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Alcyone Finance Allianz Global Investors AG Allianz Group Altshuler Shaham AMP Capital Investors AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Amundi Asset Management ANBIMA - Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association APG Asset Management Aprionis ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance) Arma Portföy Yönetimi A.S. ASB Community Trust ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. ASN Bank Assicurazioni Generali Spa ATP Group Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Australian Central Credit Union incorporating Savings & Loans Credit Union Australian Ethical Investment Limited AustralianSuper AVANA Invest GmbH Aviva Investors Aviva plc AvivaSA Emeklilik ve Hayat A.S. AXA Group Baillie Gifford & Co. Bakers Investment Group Banco Bradesco S.A. Banco de Crédito del Perú BCP Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Banco do Brazil Banco Santander Banco Santander (Brasil) Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social Banesto (Banco Español de Crédito S.A.) Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd Bank Vontobel Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.h. BANKINTER S.A. BankInvest Banque Degroof Barclays Group BBC Pension Trust Ltd BBVA Bedfordshire Pension Fund Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Terceiros Ltda BlackRock Blue Marble Capital Management Limited Blue Shield of California Group Blumenthal Foundation BMO Financial Group BNP Paribas Investment Partners BNY Mellon Boston Common Asset Management, LLC BP Investment Management Limited Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcimc) BT Investment Management The Bullitt Foundation Busan Bank CAAT Pension Plan Cadiz Holdings Limited Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Caisse des Dépôts Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Caixa Econômica Federal Caixa Geral de Depósitos Caja de Ahorros de Valencia, Castellón y Valencia, BANCAJA Caja Navarra California Public Employees Retirement System California State Teachers Retirement System California State Treasurer Calvert Group Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) CAPESESP Capital Innovations, LLC CARE Super Pty Ltd Carlson Investment Management Carmignac Gestion Catherine Donnelly Foundation Catholic Super Cbus Superannuation Fund CCLA Investment Management Ltd Celeste Funds Management Limited The Central Church Fund of Finland Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Ceres, Inc. Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP Christian Super Christopher Reynolds Foundation CI Mutual Funds Signature Advisors CIBC Clean Yield Group, Inc. ClearBridge Advisors Climate Change Capital Group Ltd Close Brothers Group plc The Collins Foundation Colonial First State Global Asset Management Comite syndical national de retraite Bâtirente Commerzbank AG CommInsure Companhia de Seguros Aliança do Brasil Compton Foundation, Inc. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Co-operative Asset Management Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) The Co-operators Group Ltd Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. Bhd. Crédit Agricole S.A. Credit Suisse Daegu Bank Daiwa Securities Group Inc. The Daly Foundation de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A. DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Deutsche Asset Management Deutsche Bank AG Deutsche Postbank Vermögensmanagement S.A., Luxemburg Development Bank of Japan Inc. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Dexia Asset Management DnB NOR ASA Domini Social Investments LLC Dongbu Insurance Co., Ltd. DWS Investment GmbH Earth Capital Partners LLP East Sussex Pension Fund Ecclesiastical Investment Management Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social The Edward W. Hazen Foundation EEA Group Ltd Element Investment Managers ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência Environment Agency Active Pension Fund Epworth Investment Management Ltd Equilibrium Capital Group Erste Group Bank AG Essex Investment Management, LLC Ethos Foundation Eureko B.V. Eurizon Capital SGR Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Evli Bank Plc F&C Management Ltd FAELCE - Fundação Coelce de Seguridade Social FASERN Fundação Cosern de Previdência Complementar Fédéris Gestion d Actifs FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH FIM Asset Management Ltd Financière de Champlain FIRA. - Banco de Mexico First Affirmative Financial Network First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) FirstRand Ltd. 5

Carbon Disclosure Project CDP Signatories 2010 Five Oceans Asset Management Hermes Fund Managers Local Government Super Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Rei Super Sun Life Financial Inc. Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) HESTA Super Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie Nissay Asset Management Corporation Resona Bank, Limited Superfund Asset Management GmbH Folketrygdfondet Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) The London Pensions Fund Authority NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG Reynders McVeigh Capital Management Sustainable Capital Folksam Fondaction CSN Fondation de Luxembourg Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites FRR Forward Management, LLC Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) Frankfurter Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft mbh FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft mbh Friends Provident Holdings (UK) Limited Front Street Capital Fukoku Capital Management, Inc. Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Brasiletros Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Fundação Codesc de Seguridade Social - FUSESC Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES - FAPES Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Fundação São Francisco de Seguridade Social Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIA FUNDIÁGUA - Fundação de Previdência da Companhia de Saneamento e Ambiental do Distrito Federal Futuregrowth Asset Management Gartmore Investment Management Limited Generali Deutschland Holding AG Generation Investment Management Genus Capital Management Gjensidige Forsikring GLG Partners LP GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eg, Germany Goldman Sachs & Co. GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale Vermögensentwicklung mbh Governance for Owners LLP Government Employees Pension Fund ( GEPF ), Republic of South Africa Green Cay Asset Management Green Century Funds Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. GROUPE OFI AM Grupo Banco Popular Gruppo Monte Paschi Guardian Ethical Management Inc Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Guosen Securities Co., LTD. Hang Seng Bank HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbH Harbourmaster Capital Harrington Investments, Inc The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Hastings Funds Management Limited Hazel Capital LLP HDFC Bank Ltd Health Super Fund Henderson Global Investors 6 HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbH HSBC Holdings plc HSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance IDBI Bank Limited Illinois State Treasurer Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company Impax Asset Management Ltd Industrial Bank Industrial Bank of Korea Industry Funds Management Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd. (IDFC) ING Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos - Postalis Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREV Insurance Australia Group Investec Asset Management Irish Life Investment Managers Itaú Unibanco Banco Múltiplo S.A. J.P. Morgan Asset Management Janus Capital Group Inc. The Japan Research Institute, Limited Jarislowsky Fraser Limited The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Jubitz Family Foundation Jupiter Asset Management K&H Investment Fund Management / K&H Befektetési Alapkezelo Zrt KB Asset Management KB Financial Group KB Kookmin Bank KBC Asset Management NV KCPS and Company KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, LP KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.h. KfW Bankengruppe KLP Insurance Korea Investment & Trust Management Korea Technology Finance Corporation KPA Pension Kyobo AXA Investment Managers La Banque Postale Asset Management La Financière Responsable Landsorganisationen i Sverige LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbh LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond Legal & General Group plc Legg Mason, Inc. Lend Lease Investment Management Light Green Advisors, LLC Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. Local Authority Pension Fund Forum The Local Government Pensions Institution Lothian Pension Fund Macif Gestion Macquarie Group Limited Magnolia Charitable Trust Maine State Treasurer Man Group plc Maple-Brown Abbott Limited Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. Maryland State Treasurer Matrix Asset Management McLean Budden MEAG Munich Ergo Asset Management GmbH Meeschaert Gestion Privée Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Merck Family Fund Mergence Africa Investments (Pty) Limited Meritas Mutual Funds MetallRente GmbH Metzler Investment GmbH MFS Investment Management Midas International Asset Management Miller/Howard Investments Mirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd. Mistra, The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Mn Services Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Morgan Stanley Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia Natcan Investment Management The Nathan Cummings Foundation National Australia Bank Limited National Bank of Canada National Bank of Kuwait 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 Nedbank Limited Needmor Fund Nelson Capital Management, LLC Nest Sammelstiftung Neuberger Berman New Amsterdam Partners LLC New Jersey Division of Investment 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 NFU Mutual Insurance Society NGS Super NH-CA Asset Management Nordea Investment Management Norfolk Pension Fund Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Norinchukin Zenkyouren Asset Management Co., Ltd North Carolina State Treasurer Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) Northern Trust Northwest and Ethical Investments LP Oddo & Cie Old Mutual plc OMERS Administration Corporation Ontario Teachers Pension Plan OP Fund Management Company Ltd Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment) OPSEU Pension Trust Oregon State Treasurer Orion Asset Management LLC OTP Fund Management Plc. Pax World Funds Pensioenfonds Vervoer Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada Pension Protection Fund Pensionsmyndigheten PETROS - The Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Social PFA Pension PGGM Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd. PhiTrust Active Investors Pictet Asset Management SA The Pinch Group Pioneer Alapkezelo Zrt. PKA Pluris Sustainable Investments SA Pohjola Asset Management Ltd Portfolio 21 Investments Portfolio Partners Porto Seguro S.A. PRECE Previdência Complementar The Presbyterian Church in Canada PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Brasil PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Principle Capital Partners Psagot Investment House Ltd PSP Investments Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd QBE Insurance Group Limited Rabobank Raiffeisen Schweiz Railpen Investments Rathbones / Rathbone Greenbank Investments RBS Group Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência Social Rhode Island General Treasurer RLAM Robeco Robert Brooke Zevin Associates, Inc Rockefeller & Co. SRI Group Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment Royal Bank of Canada RREEF Investment GmbH The Russell Family Foundation Russell Investments SAM Group Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Samsung Life Insurance Sanlam Investment Management Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda 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 Benefit Funds Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) The Shiga Bank, Ltd. Shinhan Bank Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Signet Capital Management Ltd SIRA Asset Management SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD Smith Pierce, LLC SNS Asset Management Social(k) Sociedade Ibgeana de Assistência e Seguridade (SIAS) Solaris Investment Management Limited Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Sopher Investment Management SPF Beheer bv Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Standard Bank Group Standard Chartered PLC Standard Life Investments State Street Corporation Storebrand ASA Strathclyde Pension Fund Stratus Group Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., Ltd Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Sumitomo Trust & Banking Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Swedbank Ab (publ) Swiss Reinsurance Company Swisscanto Holding AG Syntrus Achmea Asset Management TD Asset Management Inc. TDAM USA Inc. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) Tempis Capital Management Co., Ltd. Terra Forvaltning AS TfL Pension Fund The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Threadneedle Asset Management Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Toronto Atmospheric Fund The Travelers Companies, Inc. Trillium Asset Management Corporation TRIODOS BANK TrygVesta UBS AG Unibanco Asset Management UniCredit Group Union Asset Management Holding AG Unipension UNISON staff pension scheme UniSuper Unitarian Universalist Association The United Church of Canada - General Council United Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health Benefits United Nations Foundation Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) Vancity Group of Companies Veritas Investment Trust GmbH Vermont State Treasurer VicSuper Pty Ltd Victorian Funds Management Corporation VietNam Holding Ltd. Visão Prev Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Waikato Community Trust Inc Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust and Investment Management Company WARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbh WARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH The Wellcome Trust Wells Fargo West Yorkshire Pension Fund WestLB Mellon Asset Management Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh (WMAM) The Westpac Group Winslow Management Company Woori Bank YES BANK Limited York University Pension Fund Youville Provident Fund Inc. Zegora Investment Management Zurich Cantonal Bank 7

1 Introduction / Commentary Foreword Paul Dickinson, Executive Chairman, Carbon Disclosure Project Introduction Hugo von Meijenfeldt, Deputy Director General of the Environment Netherlands This year began with the clouds of global recession hanging over the economy. It was tainted with heavy disappointment at the failure to reach agreement on a global deal at Copenhagen and smears against climate change science. Many asked us whether this would decrease corporate engagement in climate change. Would companies abandon commitments to carbon reporting and management to focus instead on shorter term wins? Would companies throw out their carbon reduction plans due to the lack of a global framework? The answers to these questions lie in CDP s 2010 dataset and I am delighted to say, that the answer is a categorical no. Fuelled by opportunities to reduce energy costs, secure energy supply, protect the business from climate change risk and damaged reputation, generate revenue and remain competitive, carbon management continues to rise as a strategic priority for many businesses. Companies globally are seizing commercial carbon opportunities, often acting ahead of any policy requirements. More companies than ever before are reporting through CDP and measuring and reporting their emissions. The demand for primary corporate climate change data is growing too it is now accessed through Bloomberg and Google Finance. It is used by an increasing number of investment research providers and sell-side brokers to generate new insights into the impacts of climate change on global industry and to highlight the associated opportunities. The demand for analysis of CDP data is growing and this year we launch a new performance score, which identifies companies who exhibit leadership in managing their carbon risks and exposures. We have launched two index products based on CDP data the FTSE CDP Carbon Strategy Index series and the Markit Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index. These products give investors exposure to companies better positioned in the transition to a lowcarbon economy. CDP has set three key focus areas for the immediate future. One is to work with companies and the users of our data to continue improving quality and comparability. Data that supports action is central to fulfilling CDP s mission, to accelerate solutions to climate change by putting relevant information at the heart of business, policy and investment decisions. We have given greater weighting within our scoring to verification this year and advancing reporting consistency is crucial. In addition, we are launching a new package, Reporter Services, exclusively for responding companies, to help them develop their carbon management strategies through increased data quality, deeper analysis and the sharing of best practice. Never forget that climate change is a global problem and we need a global solution. That is why our second key focus is on globalising CDP s programmes in all major economies in the coming years. Beyond CDP s Investor program, which sits at the heart of CDP, we intend to grow our Supply Chain and Public Procurement programmes, as well as CDP Water Disclosure, to ensure that we maximise the fulfilment of CDP s mission. Our third key focus is mitigation and emissions reduction. The number of companies within the Global 500 (FTSE Global Equity Series) reporting reduction targets has already increased fourfold since CDP s first reporting year. But this is just the first step. We know that we can do far more to help advance emissions reductions and are fully committed to working with investors and industry to achieve this. In 2011 we re very pleased to be planning a CDP Dutch office, which will enable us to increase our work with Dutch investors and companies. It is through partnerships that we can achieve the largest impact. We re delighted to be working with our global advisor, PricewaterhouseCoopers and our global sponsor Bank of America, as well as Accenture, Microsoft and SAP to accelerate our mission and highlight the huge opportunities for business to capitalise on the transition to a low-carbon economy. These are exciting times for business, with significant changes coming to the way we produce and consume energy. New power from low or zero emissions sources is an urgent priority for climate change policy that simultaneously helps deliver energy security. New technologies such as smart grids, electric vehicles, alternative fuel sources, advanced telepresence video conferencing, are showing a clear case for business growth with reduced emissions. The opportunities for business are enormous it is through the intelligent investment of capital into the right solutions, identified by the business community that we will achieve the low-carbon future we need. In the face of climate change, Europe is committed to transforming itself into a highly energy-efficient, low-carbon economy. International negotiations are under way to draw up a United Nations agreement to govern global action on climate change after 2012. The December 2009 Copenhagen Accord is a step towards an agreement, followed by next steps to be expected in Mexico (2010) and South Africa (2011). EU Heads of State and Government have set a series of demanding climate and energy targets for Europe to be met by 2020. This EU climate and energy package also contains an upgrade of the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the EU s key tool for cutting emissions costeffectively. The Netherlands is committed to making a significant contribution to this transformation. The Dutch government has the ambitious target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 by the EU s stated target. At the moment there is still a gap between the NL reduction target and the latest emissions projections. In the coming years, it will be a challenge to realise this ambitious reduction target of 30%, but great challenges also bring great opportunities for the Dutch government, corporations and citizens. In the aftermath of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, the pressure has increased to address climate change. Tackling this challenge successfully will require actions on all fronts and the involvement of the Dutch public and private sectors. The new government has the challenge of creating economically sustainable policies in a complex economic and financial context. Government must improve renewable energy policies to meet increasing energy demands and to make sure that industry takes advantage of the business opportunities it will bring. Corporations need to create more effective and efficient techniques to reduce energy use. Innovation will be key to realising shared ambition in carbon reduction. Carbon awareness is also growing amongst the public: consumers are more aware with regards to sustainability and increasingly use this information to influence their purchase decisions. The new Dutch government has committed to the 20% EU greenhouse gas reduction target and the 30% reduction target as part of a global agreement. At the current pace of change, the Netherlands won t be able to comply with the carbon reduction target it has committed to. We all need to speed up the transformation of the Netherlands into an energy efficient and low-carbon economy. The public and private sector has a shared responsibility in realising our Dutch target reduction ambition. The Carbon Disclosure Project plays an important role in raising awareness about the importance of greenhouse gas emissions performance. It helps corporations to report, monitor and ultimately manage carbon performance. CDP s research and standard carbon reporting framework for corporations helps investors assess the current and potential carbon exposure of companies, and to benchmark enterprises to their peers. By knowing their current carbon footprint, corporations are better able to adapt to future regulations and business contexts and search for ways to efficiently decrease emissions. This report shows that the leading companies are integrating climate risk management into their strategies, are innovative in their peer groups and see business opportunities in the challenge of reducing their carbon footprint. They have a competitive advantage on sustainability and are considered role models. Carbon accounting and disclosure are powerful tools to improve climate risk management and promote sustainable economic growth. The market shows that companies are increasingly focusing on their emissions but we are still in early times. More companies in the Netherlands should disclose their carbon performance management as it will continuously challenge the Dutch private sector to think and work on their greenhouse gas emissions. 8 9

Sponsor commentaries Partner commentary Anja Groenewoud Country Managing Director, Accenture Netherlands 2 Executive summary The challenges businesses will face to mitigate climate change over the next two decades are likely to be monumental. During this time, the journey to a low-carbon economy will be game-changing for most companies. As the carbon agenda takes its place on the corporate agenda, Accenture recognises the impact this has on both our internal operations and the services we provide to our clients. Through Accenture Sustainability Services, we support our clients in achieving their carbon targets by establishing partnerships with clients and NGOs, developing thought leadership and delivering consultancy services. Partner commentary Dailah Nihot Global Head Corporate Responsibility, ING As a founding signatory and long term partner of the Climate Disclosure Project, ING appreciates the vital role CDP plays in gathering climate related data for an accurate assessment of climate risks. As the rest of the global economy, we have a challenging path ahead of us to minimise our environmental footprint. However, the span and character of our operations also presents us with opportunities to facilitate change towards a low carbon economy across the globe. Recognising the urgent need for solutions to the multi dimensional issue of environmental degradation and climate change, we have endorsed the Global Investor Statement on Climate Change. Together with other global financial institutions, we acknowledge the importance of a crucial climate accord as an outcome of the 2010 COP16 climate conference in Cancun. Our global partnership with CDP, providing the disclosure technology platform together with SAP and Microsoft, is a demonstration of how we support non-profit organisations in expanding their global footprint and developing new services. In addition to this global partnership, we are also proud to be a strategic partner in the Netherlands for the first year. This report is the first product of a collaboration that we hope will intensify in the coming years. Accenture is looking forward to expanding the reach of the Carbon Disclosure Project in the Netherlands and promote other initiatives such as CDP s Supply Chain In our operations, we start with striving to keep our own house in order and have been 100% climate neutral since 2007. We have maintained this status by lowering our energy consumption, using green energy and offsetting carbon emissions. As a multi national financial institution, involved in almost all sectors of the economy, assessing and addressing carbon risk in our portfolio is something we look at very seriously. On the other hand, we are increasingly able to proactively contribute to bridging the gap in climate investments, through investments and products that present climate solutions. Our role as financial partner to the award winning Luz Verde project is one such example. As in previous years, we look forward to forging alliances with other organisations, and constantly refine our own approach to adapt to the ever changing needs and requirements of the world around us. programme. The 2010 Netherlands 50 Carbon Disclosure Project report clearly identifies a gap between the target set within the EU and the current performance in the Netherlands. Closure of this gap will require clear and ambitious regulation from the government and commitment, transparency and innovation from Dutch companies. I want to thank the team for writing this report in close harmony with the Carbon Disclosure Project. For the third time since 2007, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) has invited the 50 largest companies by market capitalisation in the Netherlands (Netherlands 50) 1 to respond to the CDP investor information request. This report, prepared by CDP s local partner Accenture, analyses the responses to the 2010 CDP questionnaire and presents an analysis of how companies react to climate change. Climate change has become a returning item on the agendas of worldwide leaders and corporate executives. Corporations are exposed to increasing risks and opportunities, because of expected regulatory and physical changes (e.g. legislation to reduce emissions, depleting natural resources and increasingly extreme weather conditions) in the near future. Investors are increasingly interested in high quality information that helps them to recognise the leading companies in tomorrow s business world. CDP meets this investor request by facilitating one of the leading tools for corporations to report on their emissions and reactions to climate change, thereby providing comparable information to investors. The main objective of this report is to present a view of the Netherlands largest 50 companies regarding their ability to provide information about their approach towards climate change, their transparency, and their undertaking of positive actions on carbon reduction. Furthermore, this research provides insight into the readiness of these corporations in dealing with risk and opportunities invoked by climate change. Carbon development The world is negotiating the rules and regulations around greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The challenge is to reach one global agreement accepted by developed, emerging and developing economies. The European Union (EU-27) has taken the lead by committing to an emission reduction of 20% in 2020 compared to base year 1990. The Netherlands has set an even more ambitious reduction target of 30%. Current projections indicate that we are not on track to reach this target in 2020, meaning further actions are necessary. In the coming years, it will be increasingly challenging for corporations to deal with the potential costs of regulatory, physical, and other risks associated with climate change. However, leading companies will anticipate and react to the risk of climate change. In 2009 we evaluated our sustainability strategy and resolved to fully leverage sustainability as an integral part of our overall strategy and an additional driver of growth, as reflected in the Philips Management Agenda. Philips DSM has a tradition in benchmarking itself against competition in terms of energy efficiency for our main processes. We are applying world wide equal standards for environment and safety and therefore are in most regions outside USA and EU ahead of regulations. DSM 10 1 Netherlands 50 refers to the 50 largest public companies listed on Euronext Amsterdam 11

Executive summary The energy and climate policy of KPN focuses on energy efficiency and energy saving. That s the top priority. We have energy efficiency and energy saving targets for the network (fixed and mobile), the data centres, the offices and the ICT-equipment at the customers premises...at the end we want to be 100% green for KPN in the Netherlands. KPN As part of our early efforts to manage CO 2, raise the profile of the issue within the company and show how business could respond we established a long term greenhouse gas target for the company. The direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from facilities we operate were 67 million tonnes on a CO 2 -equivalent basis in 2009...putting us well on track to meet our voluntary target for 2010 of 5% lower GHG emissions than our comparable 1990 level. Highlights from 2010 Netherlands 50 disclosures 62% (31 of 50) of largest 50 Dutch companies reported to CDP in 2010, compared to a slightly higher 64% (32 of 50) in 2009. This response rate is lower than the Global 500 2 response rate of 82% (410 of 500 companies). The Global 500 companies are presumably under more pressure to report and disclose on their carbon performance. The carbon disclosure scores of the top three companies are listed in table 1 below 3 (ranked by disclosure score). Philips and Royal Dutch Shell also scored as two of the industry leaders in the CDP 2010 Global 500 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index. The questionnaire responses indicate that top scoring companies have a considerable focus on climate change risk management and have integrated this into their overall corporate strategy, facilitating the identification of potential opportunities. Top scoring companies tend to have better GHG emission management processes and systems, enabling the collection and distribution of corporate climate change data (e.g. carbon emission data) to various stakeholders. Table 1 Table 2 Company Sector 2010 Performance band KPN Telecommunications A Philips Electronics Industrials A Highlights from 2010 Netherlands 50 carbon performances The carbon performance bands were introduced by CDP in 2010. In the Netherlands 50 sample, 25 of the 31 respondents received a performance score. The distribution of the allocated performance scores is as follows: 12% (3 out of 25) are listed in performance band A ; 60% (15 out of 25) fall into performance band B ; and 28% (7 out of 25) belong to performance band C. The carbon performance scores of the top three companies are listed in alphabetical order in table 2 below 4. The top scoring companies are leaders in taking positive actions towards a low-carbon economy. Performance leaders are identifying climate changerelated risks and opportunities and are using this knowledge to gain competitive advantage on their peers. This heightened awareness helps to create economically healthy and sustainable corporations. Company Sector 2010 Disclosure score Philips Electronics Industrials 94 Royal Dutch Shell Energy 89 DSM Materials 88 3 Overview of CDP The Carbon Disclosure Project is a recognised global organisation that drives forward detailed corporate reporting on GHG emissions data and the corporate approach to climate change. CDP s mission is to accelerate solutions to climate change by putting relevant information at the heart of business, policy and investment decisions. The CDP s detailed reporting aims to persuade companies throughout the world to measure, manage, disclose and ultimately reduce their GHG emissions. The value of this information will continue to grow as countries scale up their efforts to build a greener global economy through tackling the challenge of emissions reductions. To realise its mission, CDP focuses on improving data quality and comparability, executing CDP s programmes in all major economies and helping corporations reduce emissions. It is expected that CDP Water Disclosure and CDP s Investor, Supply Chain, and Public Procurement programmes will contribute to a better understanding of corporate impact on the climate. Carbon disclosure and reporting Since the launch of the Carbon Disclosure Project, the quality and quantity of reporting on climate change has increased dramatically. The number of global companies responding to the CDP questionnaire has increased from 235 companies (in 2003) to 2500 companies last year. In 2010, CDP sent questionnaires to the 50 largest Dutch corporations, requesting information on GHG emissions, significant risks and opportunities related to climate change, and actions companies take to manage those risks and opportunities. The report will be launched in the Dutch market in partnership with CDP s local partner ING that hosts the 2010 Netherlands CDP launch event. This CDP 2010 Netherlands 50 report, prepared by CDP s local partner Accenture, presents an analysis of the answers from responding companies and the way they respond to climate change. New additions in the 2010 report include: Netherlands 50 2010 Scorecard Two cases that illustrate how high scoring corporations have integrated the risks and opportunities of climate change in their reporting and business strategies As an investor... AEGON believes that climate change is important, and could have an effect on the companies in which we invest. AEGON takes this risk very seriously. For that reason, we are signatories to the Carbon Disclosure Project. AEGON Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell Energy A 12 2 Global 500 refers to the 500 largest public companies in the FTSE Global Equity Index Series. The complete report is available at www.cdproject.net 3 The entire list of all Netherlands 50 companies is presented in the Appendix 4 All 3 companies are in the highest performance score band (A), and are listed in alphabetical order. The entire list of all Netherlands 50 companies is presented in the Appendix 13

Carbon disclosure and reporting Policy, based on risks and/or opportunities from subjects like climate change and the assessment of the degree to which they could affect the business, is determined at Group level by the Executive Board in consultation with the Director of Corporate Social Responsibility, for example, and the strategic agenda is set in consultation with senior management. BAM Group We share good practice with peers and other companies and our participation in indices such as the Carbon Disclosure Project provide a transparent benchmark for our activities. REED Elsevier Highlights in carbon regulation and reporting standards Carbon regulation is on the agenda of global leaders. National governments have the responsibility to provide a regulatory framework and set up and enact legislation aiming to reduce GHG emissions. To create well thoughtout policies governments need high quality information. However, GHG emissions reporting standards are still under development. Reporting needs to be more detailed, reliable and sophisticated it needs to be Measured, Reported & Verified (MRV). Higher reporting quality favours innovation in emissions abatement and enables executives to incorporate climate change risks and opportunities into their strategic planning. CDP has set the tone in providing higher quality data about the disclosure of GHG emissions and has broadened its scope with carbon performance scoring. Additionally a consistent reporting standard is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from like-forlike comparisons. In order to achieve such a consistent global framework, CDP is leading the work of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB). The CDSB is a consortium of seven business and environmental organisations that aims to support, harmonise and strengthen climate change-related reporting initiatives. To develop and advocate a generallyaccepted consistent global framework the consortium works with leading professionals in accountancy, business, standard-setting and regulation. The framework is constructed by assembling and enhancing best practices. Corporations can use this framework to disclose climate changerelated information in mainstream reports. Global agreement on GHG emissions In December 2009 during the dying hours of the UNFCCC conference after two weeks of intense political negotiations, the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa shaped the non-legally binding Copenhagen Accord 5. Although often dismissed as a failure (the Accord was not adopted by the UN plenary but simply noted ), the Accord is in reality a step forward, especially considering the group of countries that produced the agreement. In addition to eliciting emissions reduction pledges from developed countries, the Accord aims to limit temperature increases to two degrees centigrade; requests developing countries to communicate their efforts to limit GHG emissions and to list voluntary reduction pledges; establishes short and long term finance for adaptation and mitigation; suggests the pursuit of various approaches in terms of policy mechanisms such as markets, incentives and technology transfer. Figure 1 Iceland Monaco Norway Japan -40% -30% -30% -30% -25% In the months after the conference over 120 countries had officially expressed their support for the Accord and most developed countries reported reduction targets to the UN. 6-7 As part of the Accord, the EU reiterated its internally-binding target of reducing emissions by 20% in 2020 against base year 1990, and promised to strengthen that objective to 30% if other developed countries made comparable efforts 8. The US has committed to decrease emissions by 17% in 2020 relative to 2005 levels, which translates to a 3% reduction relative to 1990 levels. Japan pledged under the Accord to a 25% emissions cut by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. China pledged to decrease carbon intensity by 40-45% and to have a non-fossil fuel share of 15% in 2020. Overall, most developed countries and dozens of developing countries submitted quantitative or qualitative pledges to reduce or lower the growth of their emissions. However, given the non-binding nature of the Accord the pledges contained therein are unlikely to be enforceable. For that to happen, an agreement under the UN process is required. 5 Copenhagen climate summit held to ransom Gordon Brown (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ politics/8423831.stm) 6 International climate policy post-copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate global action on climate change Staff working document (European Commission) 7 From Copenhagen to Cancun: Climate Finance (http:// www.wri.org/stories/2010/06/copenhagen-cancun-climatefinance) 8 Compilation of pledges for emission reductions and related assumptions provided by Parties to date and the associated emission reductions ( UNFCCC) Pledge under the Accord Conditional Pledge under broader climate deal *Base year deviates from 1990, target adjusted for comparison purposes Source: UNFCCC Liechtenstein -20% Russia -25% -15% New Zealand Belarus -20% -10% -5% Croatia -5% United States* -3% Canada* 3% Australia* EU-27 Netherlands -30% -30% -20% -20% -11% 13% 14-40 -35-30 -25-20 -15-10 -5 0 5 10 15 15

Carbon disclosure and reporting Philips participated in the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, seeking dialogue with organisations including the Corporate Leadership Group, Responding to Climate Change and the Climate Summit for Mayors, and calling upon government worldwide to set ambitious targets for emission reductions with efficient technologies available today. Philips Progress towards transforming the Copenhagen Accord into a treaty under the UN system has so far been very limited in 2010, even after several meetings over the course of the year. At the time of writing, few were holding their breath for a breakthrough agreement at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010. However, it is likely that progress will be made at the conference on technical matters around financing, technology and forestry, for example. These are necessary foundations for a global agreement to be struck, perhaps in COP17 in South Africa, but potentially beyond. From my point of view, the coming 3 to 5 years will see global climate change policies converge in three different directions, jointly driven by two separate drivers: the speed of economic recovery, and the degree of success in industry sectors and trade negotiations. Scenario 1. No binding targets for 2020 will be adopted outside the EU, a scenario we call Cacophony (40% chance of occurrence) 9. Scenario 2. There will be a binding 2050 target, but no binding intermediate targets and a patchwork of unilateral national/ regional 2020 targets and policies, a Jazz scenario (50% chance of occurrence). Scenario 3. Binding targets for 2020 & 2050 will be adopted within a comprehensive global framework, the least likely Symphony scenario (10% chance of occurrence). Cancun, in addition to the progress on the technical elements of the agreement it may produce, will in the best case increase our insight as to which direction the world will go. M. Bermudez Neubauer, Carbon Markets Lead, Accenture Consulting 250 Dutch progress on GHG emission reductions In 2007, the Dutch Government announced the ambition to reduce GHG emissions by 30% in 2020 compared to base year 1990 in their working programme Clean and efficient 10. This ambition goes beyond the current EU directives to decrease GHG emissions by 20% compared to base year 1990 11. Since the ratification of Kyoto, the Netherlands have realised an emissions reduction of 2.4% 12, so larger efforts are necessary. The Clean and efficient working programme consists of a broad package of measures to reinforce the ambition of the Dutch Government. It is hard to estimate the effectiveness of these policies, because GHG emissions data by country are only known up to 2008. However, estimates indicate that by executing current and planned policies the Netherlands will not reach their targets (figure 2). The figure shows that a gap exists between the projected emission reduction and the Dutch target of 30% reduction. New measures, plans and actions are necessary to close this gap. A successful implementation of the extra intended policies of the Balkenende IV cabinet would reduce the Dutch GHG emissions by 19.3% 13 in 2020. So far the new government (Rutte I) has accepted the EU reduction target of 20% 14 and has not commited to a 30% reduction target. One of the opportunities available 15 for bridging the emission reduction gap is renewable energy. This option is in line with a European directive which obliges the Netherlands to increase the share of renewable energy from 2.4% in 2005 to 14% in 2020. 16 Figure 2: Projected emission reduction level and deficit compared to targets The Air France-KLM group actively defends its positions with the French and Dutch governments and European institutions directly or through industry bodies such as the Association of European Airlines (AEA) regarding both changes in European and national regulations and a reasonable and balanced allocation of traffic rights to non- European airlines. Air France - KLM TNT is responding proactively and is closely monitoring the implementation of its carbon efficiency improvement programmes and initiatives and ongoing global developments in this field. 200 TNT 150 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 16 9 Percentages are based on personal estimates Emission development No policy Current policies Intended policies Committed target (20% reduction) NL Ambition (30% reduction) Source: EEA, ECN 10 Nieuwe energie voor het klimaat - Werkprogramma Schoon en Zuinig (VROM) 11 Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 (UNFCCC) 12 Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory, 1990 2008 and inventory report 2010, June 2010 (EEA) 13 Referentieraming energie en emissies 2010-2020 (ECN) 14 Governmental agreement - Regeerakkoord Rutte I (www.rijksoverheid.nl) 15 Aanvullende beleidsopties Schoon en Zuinig (ECN/PBL) 16 DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF the European Parliament and of the Council - on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Official Journal of the European Union) 17

Carbon disclosure and reporting Carbon Disclosure Project 2011 Netherlands outlook The Carbon Disclosure Project has put into place a European strategy to expand CDP activities in various European countries. Part of the strategy is to divide the European activities in four regions: Nordics Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark Europe 1 Austria, Switzerland and Germany Europe 2 Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and France Southern Europe Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece To support the growth ambitions, a Dutch office is scheduled to open in 2011. CDP will extend its presence in the Dutch market by developing existing and new partnerships in the Netherlands. This expansion accompanies the increasing responsibility of corporations to achieve the GHG emissions reduction target set by the EU and the Netherlands. CDP has planned the following activities for next year: Increase the number of Dutch respondents in 2011 (CDP 2011 Netherlands 50 Report). Expand Dutch corporations awareness of climate change through activities such as CDP workshops, climate awareness events and research. Introduce other CDP programmes in the Netherlands (e.g. CDP Supply Chain) Interact with Dutch legislation bodies around carbon policies. Introduce CDP products and services in the Dutch market, for example CDP Reporter Services which launched in 2010. 4 2010 CDP Scores Introduction to the CDLI The carbon disclosure scores assess companies on the quality and completeness of their disclosures and consider factors including: Clear consideration of businessspecific risks and potential opportunities relating to climate change Good internal data management practices for understanding GHG emissions, including energy use 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. The score does not make any judgment about mitigation actions, but is based solely on the information disclosed in the company s CDP response. 2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores What does a CDP carbon disclosure score represent? The carbon disclosure score is normalised to a 100-point scale. Generally, companies scoring within a particular range suggest levels of commitment to, and experience of, carbon disclosure. Indicative descriptions of these levels are provided below for guidance only; investors should read individual company responses to understand the context for each business. High (>70) A higher score typically indicates one or more of the following: Strong understanding and management of company-specific exposure to climate-related risks and opportunities Strategic focus and commitment to understanding the business issues related to climate change, emanating from the top of the organisation Ability to measure and manage the company s carbon footprint Regular and relevant disclosure to key corporate stakeholders Midrange (50 70) A midrange score typically indicates one or more of the following: Growing maturity in understanding and managing company-specific risks and potential opportunities related to climate change Good evidence of ability to measure and manage carbon footprint across global operations Commitment to the importance of transparency Low (<50) A lower score typically indicates one or more of the following: Relatively new commitment to understanding climate-related issues Limited ability to disclose known risks or potential opportunities related to climate change Limited ability to measure and manage the company s carbon footprint Possible reluctance to disclose certain requested information due to commercial sensitivity 18 19

2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) for the Netherlands 50 The Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) includes companies with the highest disclosure scores and provides a valuable perspective on the range and quality of responses to CDP s questionnaire. This year s Netherlands 50 CDLI includes the ten top scoring companies in the Netherlands 50. To qualify for this leadership index, a company must respond to CDP prior to the deadline by using the Online Response System and must make its response public. Table 2 Company Name Sector 2010 Netherlands 50 Disclosure score Table 1 shows a list of the top ten scoring companies in the Netherlands 50 sample (ranked by disclosure score). Based on the results the following observations and conclusions can be drawn: The top ten scoring companies represent six out of nine sectors in the 2010 Netherlands 50 sample. The unrepresented sectors are Healthcare, Consumer Staples, and Consumer Discretionary. This indicates effort is being made in most sectors to disclose carbon emissions and companies reactions towards climate change. Furthermore, provision of all relevant data indicates a proper data management system and process. 2009 Netherlands 50 CDLI 2008 Netherlands 50 CDLI Philips Electronics Industrials 94 Ç Ç Ç Royal Dutch Shell Energy 89 Ç Ç Ç DSM Materials 88 Ç Ç Air France - KLM Industrials 87 Logica Information Technology 87 Ç Ç Draka Holding Industrials 84 Ç Ç TNT Industrials 81 Ç Ç AEGON Financials 81 2010 Global 500 CDLI Eight out of the ten top scoring companies in the 2010 Netherlands 50 have successfully achieved a position in the CDLI for two consecutive years and six of them are in the CDLI for the third time. This shows that companies remain devoted and focused on climate change issues. Two out of the Netherlands 50 top ten scoring companies (Philips and Royal Dutch Shell) have been listed in the Global 500 CDLI as well. This suggests that these firms are capable of competing with their international peers in terms of disclosing their GHG emissions. 100 The CDP 2010 questionnaire is divided into ten disclosure categories 17 that make up the final disclosure scores. Figure 3 represents a breakdown of the disclosure scores per category and provides the following insights: The average Global 500 and Netherlands 50 companies score significantly lower than the top scoring Global and Netherlands companies, especially in disclosing the assessment of risks and opportunities of climate change. While sustainability and climate change are increasingly important in the present business world, it is absolutely key for firms to acknowledge potential risks and identify opportunities relating to future challenges. Another area where Global 500 and Netherlands 50 companies are behind their leading peers is in Communications. This could be caused by lack of data availability or lack of action in publishing climate change information. Furthermore, top scoring companies are probably under more pressure to report their emissions and their climate change policies. Additionally, they may have better data management processes and systems in place and, consequently, more reliable information. Finally, high scoring companies seem to take advantage of this capability in their communication to investors and other external parties. The responses to the CDP 2010 questionnaire indicate that top scoring companies have a more comprehensive integration of climate change risks and opportunities into their business strategies. This suggests that many companies are still in the stage of realising the importance of climate change and its effects on their business. The Global 500 and the Netherlands 50 companies score well on disclosing emission trading details. Companies that are obliged to trade in emissions certificates have mandatory trading administrations, and are therefore able to disclose their emissions relatively easily. The Netherlands 50 companies score less on emissions reporting parameters compared to the Global 500 CDLI companies. This category is an indicator of good reporting procedure and accuracy. This suggests that Dutch companies are at the beginning of establishing a clear and consistent process to report their GHG emissions. Figure 3: Score breakdown overall versus CDLI averages All operating companies are required to report quarterly - coinciding with their financial report - on progress in respect of GHG emissions, based on a number of KPI s for energy use and CO 2 emissions. BAM Group With a sustainability strategy and targets clearly defined in 2008, Océ has been structurally integrating its ambitions towards sustainability into its business model, its strategic planning process and its dayto-day operations and started monitoring progress. Progress reporting is embedded within the established management reporting systems KPN Telecommunication Services 80 Ç Oce Information Technology 79 Ç 80 Océ 60 20 Governance Risks Opportunities Strategy and targets NL50 CDLI (Top 10 Companies) NL50 Average Global 500 CDLI (Top 10% companies) Global 500 Average Achievements Emissions trading Emission reporting parameters Scope 1,2 & 3 reporting Emissions intensity and history Communications 17 The corresponding categories and questions are listed in the Appendix 21

2010 Carbon Disclosure Scores Based on ongoing trend analysis and stakeholder input, we identify the key material issues for our company. We have mapped relevant risks and opportunities, taking into account: - the level of concern to society at large and stakeholders, versus impact on Philips, or - the level of control or influence we can have on an issue through our operations and products/solutions. This is a dynamic process, as we continuously monitor the world around us. Philips Progress on our sustainability strategy and related KPIs is monitored quarterly in the Board of Management. The Supervisory Board of Philips is informed on the progress of our sustainability strategy and related KPIs on a quarterly basis as well. This clearly demonstrates the way sustainability has been embedded in our organisation. Case: Philips as highest ranked discloser Philips is one of the largest electronics companies in the world, with sales of over 23 billion in 2009 and a presence in over 60 countries. Philips has a diversified portfolio of products, in three major sectors: Healthcare, Lighting, and Consumer Lifestyle. Philips sustainability strategy is at the centre of their corporate strategy. Philips aims to be a global leader in health and well-being and to grow through its ability to make a difference to people s lives with meaningful, sustainable innovations. This year, Philips achieved a top position in the CDP Netherlands 50 report with a disclosure score of 94, after being listed in the Netherlands 50 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) for three consecutive years since CDP started in the Netherlands. Philips started with the external reporting of environmental data in 1999, ahead of most of its peers. Since then, its reporting model has matured steadily, allowing the organisation to become accustomed to the developed framework and templates. Philips already had an internally developed system to report carbon data on factories and, in steps, it expanded its carbon data management system into a wider carbon scope. This approach helped the organisation to steadily expand its carbon reporting capabilities and move Philips into a leading position with regard to carbon disclosure. In order to increase commitment, the data was fed back consistently to the organisation, demonstrating the use of the data and providing insight on individual performance against the rest of the organisation. In 2007, Philips launched its EcoVision4 programme, committing to reducing carbon emissions by 25% by 2012 compared to 2007, a 30% sales target of green products and a cumulative 1 billion fund to improve green investments by 2012. As the EcoVision4 programme was delivered ahead of schedule on two of the three parameters, Philips launched their EcoVision5 programme in February 2010, defining an even more challenging set of targets for 2015: Improve energy efficiency of its overall portfolio by 50% compared to 2009 Bring care to more than 500 million people Close the materials loop, and double global collection, recycling amounts and recycled materials in products Philips has made two significant scope additions compared to Ecovision4. The first focuses on further building on the full life cycle view on the energy consumption of products. Since the majority of energy is consumed during the usage phase of a product, rather than during the manufacturing process, Philips focuses increasingly on reducing energy consumption related to product use. For the second edition, Philips is expanding the scope of carbon emissions reporting in its supply chain. The electronics division is challenging suppliers to report on their carbon performance, to improve the data quality and to increase reporting frequency. Philips helps suppliers review their production and logistics processes and assists these companies by innovating and reducing their carbon footprint. Philips active participation in the CDP Supply Chain programme reflects the company s ambition to reduce emissions in the supply chain. 5 Importance of sustainability reporting in the market Sustainability is becoming increasingly important for corporations around the world who are looking into understanding, measuring and managing the impact of sustainability initiatives. Regulatory requirements are no longer the only driver for corporations to manage their carbon performance, as sustainability has moved from politics and public debates to the heart of business. Sustainability initiatives are considered valuable actions in their own right, spurring innovations and capabilities that can lead to revenue growth, cost reduction, better risk management, and an enhanced brand and reputation. More and more businesses are assessing the impact of initiatives on their companies success. Companies are increasingly required to capture and report carbon performance metrics for inclusion in customer proposals, shareholder reports, and assessments. The Carbon Disclosure Project helps corporations to differentiate themselves by responding to the CDP questionnaires, by demonstrating capability and professionalism on carbon performance management, and by sharing their developments and progress with rest of the world. 2010 Carbon Performance Scores 2010 Carbon Performance scores In the ten years that CDP has monitored disclosure practices, corporate activity has advanced to a stage where performance analysis can aid investors who want to identify leading companies in carbon management. In 2009, CDP piloted a performance component in an effort to respond to investor requests for this analysis. For the first time this year the carbon performance score has been introduced in the Netherlands. All companies with a minimum disclosure score of 50 that gave permission to make their responses publicly available received a performance score. Disclosure scores lower than 50 do not necessarily indicate poor performance; rather, they indicate insufficient information to evaluate performance. While performance scoring is an instructive exercise for all stakeholders, CDP recognises that this is a process that will evolve over time. CDP recommends that investors 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 scores is included in the Appendix. Companies that did not qualify for a performance score appear in the Appendix with a dash in the Performance Score column. Overall, AEGON believes that business success is not incompatible with respect for the environment, human rights and the broader communities in which it operates. Indeed, the company recognises that creating a sustainable business means taking into account the interests of all its stakeholders, including customers, employees, business partners and investors. AEGON Philips 22 23

2010 Carbon Performance Scores While clear indicators of good performance emerge from the results, there are several factors to consider when evaluating where a company is ranked in comparison to its peers. Carbon performance ranking is based solely on information disclosed in a company s CDP response. Any additional negative or positive actions that are not disclosed in a company s CDP response are not considered in the application of the performance score methodology. CDP performance results should be considered in conjunction with other carbon metrics to provide a more comprehensive picture of a company s performance on mitigating climate change. The relative weighting of performance indicators within the Rating Methodology does not take into consideration certain sectorspecific issues and challenges, such as customer expectations, regulatory requirements, or cost of doing business. It is important for investors to keep in mind that the CDP carbon performance score is not: 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 or to climate mitigation; the score simply recognises evidence of forward action A comprehensive measure of how green or low-carbon a company is but, rather, an indicator of the extent to which a company is taking action to manage its impacts on, and from, climate change Carbon performance scores form the basis for determining the Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) the companies with the highest performance scores. As with the CDLI, a company s response must be publicly available to be eligible for the CPLI. The 2010 carbon performance scores are measured with four performance bands (A to D) which are explained on the following page. They provide an illustrative example of the potential profiles of the companies that may be included in each band. The key indicators that identify the characteristics of 2010 s performance leaders are outlined in Figure 4. Investors are encouraged to read individual company responses in order to gain further context for a company s carbon performance score. Care should be taken when comparing performance across companies. More information can be found at www.cdproject.net in the questionnaire, supporting methodology and guidance documents, as well as within individual company responses. Figure 4: What are the characteristics of carbon performance leadership in 2010? Strategy Integrate climate change risks and opportunities into overall company strategy Establish GHG emissions reduction target Engage with policy makers on climate policy Governance Identify formal accountability for oversight and management Establish incentives for climate-change-related activities Stakeholder Communications Communicate in mainstream reporting or other regulatory filings Verify emissions data through an external third party Achievements Implement energy or emissions reduction initiatives Achieve significant emissions reduction Capitalise on opportunities as sources of business value Sustainability is a core part of our business strategy as delivering sustainable products and services is high on the list of our client s requirements. We are helping multiple industries including Energy and Utilities, Transport and Automotive and the Public Sector, among others, over the short and long term to reduce their carbon emissions and environmental footprint. Logica ING believes it has a broader role to play in combating climate change than just managing the carbon dioxide emissions from its own operations. We want to go a step further by seeking ways to further incorporate climate change into our business activities. ING 24 25

2010 Carbon Performance Scores The CDP 2010 carbon performance bands The carbon performance score is given as a banded score. Indicative descriptions of the bands follow and are for guidance only. The drivers of any individual company score may vary across a number of different indicators. As such, investors should read individual company responses to understand the context for each business. Band A (Leading): Companies with scores greater than 80 Companies in this band excel for overall performance relative to those in other bands indicating both higher degrees of maturity in their climate change initiatives and achievement of their objectives. Companies in this band demonstrate the following characteristics. Strategy: With the highest number of significant risks and opportunities identified, companies in this group were the most likely to demonstrate integration of their climate-related priorities into their overall business strategy. They frequently disclose targets aligned with those ambitions and emission reduction initiatives. Governance: These companies demonstrate the most structured and most defined climate change management mechanisms by frequently reporting formalised accountability, incentives and oversight from the board or executive level. Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) for the Netherlands 50 Three companies in the Netherlands 50 achieved a Carbon Performance Score in band A, shown in Table 3. All three top scoring companies (KPN, Philips, and Royal Dutch Shell) are listed in the Netherlands 50 CDLI as well. 81% (25 of 31) of the disclosing companies in the Netherlands 50 sample received performance scores. Of the companies that received a performance score, 12% (3 out of 25) are included in performance band A ; 60% (15 out of 25) in performance band B ; and 28% (7 out of 25) in performance band C. Table 3 shows the top scoring companies in the Netherlands 50 2010 in alphabetical order. The complete list of companies with a performance band can be found in the Appendix. Disclosure and performance are measures of good carbon management and transparency, and positive action on mitigation. The two areas are strongly linked and complement each other. Little can be said about the relationship regarding sectors and performance due to the small number of companies included in the CPLI. The top scoring companies are active in different sectors including Telecommunication Services, Energy, and Industrials. Stakeholder communications: These companies also recognise the importance of providing transparent and quality disclosure for their stakeholders by taking steps to verify data and report climate-related information in their external communications. Achievements: In support of their commitment to reduce emissions, these companies disclose the highest number of actions taken to reduce their emissions, and most report success in achieving emissions reductions. Band B (Fast following): Companies with scores of 51 to 80 Table 3: The Netherlands 50 CPLI 2010 Company Sector 2010 Performance band KPN Telecommunications A Philips Electronics Industrials A Royal Dutch Shell Energy A Companies in band B also recognise the importance of climate change and are quickly following in the footsteps of the leading companies. While the majority of companies in band B note climate change as a priority, their responses indicate that actions and initiatives may not be as established or as well integrated into the companies overall structures and strategies compared with those in band A. However, there may be a broad spectrum of performance maturity within this tier, because some seemingly higher-performing companies in this band may have provided limited information for certain key performance areas, thereby constraining the ability to fully evaluate them. Band C (On the journey): Companies with scores of 21 to 50 Companies in band C indicate some activity on climate change. Most companies in this group identify at least one risk from climate change and accordingly exercise some degree of oversight to monitor the progress of their climate change initiatives. The levels of integration and maturity of those initiatives tend to vary according to disclosure of emissions reduction targets, implementation of emissions reduction activities, employee incentives and verification of emissions information. This group represents a variety of companies, including those that are new to taking action on climate change, those that do not have climate change objectives as strategic actions for the organisation, and those that do not believe the agenda to be a shorter-term priority. Band D (Just starting): Companies with scores of 20 or below Companies in this band recognise the importance of participating in CDP, and they have therefore achieved reasonable levels of disclosure (i.e., a disclosure score >50). However, they have disclosed limited evidence of actions taken on mitigation or adaptation. Companies in this band may include (1) those that believe that issues regarding climate change are not relevant to them and (2) those that are beginning to take action on climate change. As such, no further assertions can be made about their performance. 26 27

2010 Carbon Performance Scores 6 Response outcomes and trends Case: KPN as High Performer Introduction: Royal KPN NV is an international Telecommunications and IT services supplier with over 41.2 million customers and reported revenue of 13.5 billion in 2009. In the 2010 Netherlands 50 report, KPN scored in the highest performance group, band A. This score demonstrates the company has implemented or planned actions in favour of carbon reduction. KPN s sustainability strategy consists of three themes: 1. Responsible Energy, reducing the energy consumption in telephone networks and data centres 2. The New Way of Working, focused on improving the work/life balance by allowing people to choose where or when they want to work 3. People Connected, focused on making social contact possible and natural for all by stimulating employees to work on re-establishing the links to the outside world for people in danger of falling into social isolation, through the Finest Contact Foundation of KPN A key driver for sustainability is stakeholder dialogue, which allows KPN to identify trends within the society, both on environmental and social issues. These trends are subsequently matched with the core capabilities of KPN to identify where KPN can contribute. As this has great relevance for the portfolio of products and services, KPN established a sustainability board in 2009 which includes business owners of all major divisions. Another major driver is the increased focus of governments and large corporations to include sustainability requirements in its ICT procurement policies. These requirements were driven by sustainability, a focus on energy and cost reduction, and the ambition to lower resource dependency. To meet these requirements KPN set up an ambitious and concrete climate change programme, which was a key factor in winning several additional bids. For KPN, sustainability has transformed in many cases from a license to operate to a differentiator in the ICT market. KPN Sustainability report 2009: Our CSR activities keep us attuned to what is going on, both in the community at large and in the market. We are convinced that the social projects that we organise and that KPN people take part in as volunteers reinforce KPN s culture of providing service. Key success factors Three distinct success factors can be identified when analysing KPN s sustainability execution. The first is a strong alignment (if not integration) of internal and external activities, which is often referred to as practice what you preach. By the end of 2009, KPN had implemented the New Way of Working to 3600 of their Dutch workstations which they also offer to clients. This allows employees to fully understand the impact of their services and products on the carbon performance of KPN and its clients. The second success factor is the focus on business relevance. As KPN went through some difficulties after the internet bubble splashed, the need for increased control and disciplined financial management is reflected in KPN sustainability activities. In developing KPN s sustainability strategy, a strong business framework needed to be developed, along with a set of measurable KPIs. This required a critical view of the business relevance of sustainability activities, ensuring they would be able to resist challenging times because they added structural value to the business activities. Finally, in order to realise the organisational change, all levels needed to be committed to the sustainability goals and customise the programme to KPN s organisational culture. This was neither a top-down, nor a bottom-up driven process, but a simultaneous process throughout the company. Sven Drillenburg Lelijveld, KPN s CSR manager: You need to inspire people, sustainability should not be forced. However, not only a carrot but also a stick is sometimes needed to change the way we are doing business... Impact on products and services By integrating sustainability in its organisation and processes, KPN has identified opportunities to create new sustainability services. For example, KPN and Getronics (100% KPN subsidiary) offer sustainably-driven ICT assessment and solution services contributing to carbon reductions. Together they review and optimise the complete ICT value chain of the client (e.g. connectivity, data centre, work station management and systems). Sustainability for the corporate market is often financially driven. Green thinking not only leads to energy- and cost reductions, but also to technical innovation, which is a critical capability in its line of business. Responses In 2010, CDP invited the 50 largest companies in the Netherlands to disclose their GHG emissions and their approach towards climate change. In the analysis of this year s Netherlands 50 report 31 companies that submitted the questionnaire on time are included. One company submitted past the deadline and has been left out of the analysis. Although last year the response rate increased from 26 companies (52%) in 2008 to 32 (64%) in 2009, this year s number of responses decreased slightly to 31 (62%). The Global 500 response rate of 82% (410 of 500 companies) is higher, perhaps because the Global 500 companies are under more pressure to disclose their carbon performance management. The overall number of respondents could potentially be increased by inviting more Dutch companies to participate. Figure 5: Comparison of responses in 2009 and 2010 Response rate GHG Emissions disclosure CDP response open to public Report on GHG Emissions in annual corporate report Board responsibility Emissions reduction targets disclosure Emission verification The responses indicate that these companies are taking climate change seriously. Figure 5 demonstrates that 29 of the 31 companies state a board member or other executive body to be responsible for climate change. The same figure shows the focus level is lower in disclosing emissions reduction targets and external verification of emissions. Further actions should be taken to improve the level of disclosure. 36% 40% 40% 44% 62% 64% The company s progress and status regarding climate change is reviewed by the CSR-steering group, which is chaired by Board Member Baptiest Coopmans. In the Board the CSRprogress is periodically reviewed. Energy and environmental strategy is embedded in the CSR-pillar Responsible Energy. Each CSRpillar has a program director. The Manager of the Corporate Energy Management Group is the program director for Energy Responsible. The CSR-steering group meets every 6 weeks. KPN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 54% 56% 56% 54% 54% 54% 58% 60% 2010 2009 28 29

Response Outcomes and Trends Draka has seen financial savings from the opportunities identified by carrying out assessment of our environmental impacts. We will continue to expand the scope of these assessments in order to pinpoint further opportunities. Draka Scope 1 emissions Scope 2 emissions As GHG reporting is developing, the number of companies reporting scope 19 1, 2, and 3 emissions has increased in 2010. Figure 6 shows that the number of companies disclosing scope 3 emissions rose strongly, from 14 companies last year to 19 this year. The amount of disclosed scope 1 and scope 2 emissions decreased slightly compared to 2009 (see Figure 7). However, the figure presents a significant drop in disclosed scope 3 emissions. To explain this remarkable decrease further research is required. It is difficult to compare GHG emissions data across different years, because the scope of disclosure might have changed. Furthermore, companies boundaries stretch across geographies where GHG emissions accounting is in an early stage of development. Figure 6: Number of companies that disclosed emissions per scope Performance Overall the Netherland 50 companies score lower than the Global 500 companies across the eight performance categories. Dutch companies have room to improve in reporting on their carbon performance management. The Dutch response outcomes and trends are visualised in the Netherlands 50 Scorecard 2010. Imtech is doing a baseline measuring of its emissions. Based on these measurements it will develop a strategy and targets to achieve further reductions. Meanwhile, Imtech already started various initiatives to reduce the emissions, like for example use of green energy in own offices, use of green petrol in cars and use of green labelled cars. Imtech Initiatives related to improving our carbon footprint and environmental impact is much higher on the agenda, although we need to continue to ensure that all our employees remain focused and implement the most efficient best practices across our portfolio. Therefore we will continue to work with the Sustainable Attitude Programme, which is our internal programme that focuses on smart, innovative solutions and on the most effective actions which could support us in achieving our long term targets. Scope 3 emissions Unibail-Rodamco 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2010 2009 Figure 7: Total emissions (t CO 2 -e) per scope Scope 1 300,826,809 242,142,683 Scope 2 47,837,194 45,273,672 Scope 3 948,967,233 1,263,187,487 0 500 1000 1500 2010 2009 30 19 Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions from sources controlled or owned by the company; Scope 2: Emissions from the generation of purchased energy, consumed in its owned or controlled equipment or in its operations; Scope 3: GHG emissions arising as a consequence of the activities of the company but occurring from sources not owned or controlled by the company; thus, emissions that are outside the consolidation boundary. 31

Response Outcomes and Trends Netherlands 50 Scorecard 2010 Response rate 1 : Global 500: 410 of 500 (82%) Netherlands 50: 31 of 50 (62%) Key sectors within the Netherlands 50 sample: Industrials: 11 of 31 (35%) Financials: 6 of 31 (19%) Total emissions 2 (million ton CO 2 -e) Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Opportunities: Increase demand from customer for low carbon offerings Reputation improvement through sustainability Product innovations supporting carbon reduction Risks: Increased cost of compliance resulting from potential carbon reduction regulations and targets, cap and trade schemes Increased cost of operations incurred by extreme weather conditions and scarcity of natural resources Carbon disclosure score breakdown NL 50 versus Global 500 100 48 242 0 200 400 600 800 1000 949 NL50 Leaders Carbon performance score Philips A 94 Royal Dutch Shell A 89 KPN A 80 DSM B 88 Air France - KLM B 87 Performance scorecard Strategy Integration of climate change risks or opportunities into overall business strategy Implementation of emissions reduction targets Governance Board or executive-level oversight Carbon disclosure score Global 500 NL 50 2 48% 34% 65% 48% 85% 73% Monetary incentives 49% 40% Stakeholder communications Verification of emissions 61% 51% Disclosure of climate change information in mainstream filings or other external communications 60% 64% Achievements Progress toward meeting targets Significant emissions reduction in the past year 55% 38% 19% 19% At ING we believe that we have a role to play in managing climate related challenges and opportunities. Many valid Kyoto Protocol emission reduction projects, for example, don t get off the ground because few financial institutions are willing to take the risk in providing upfront finance for the project development. However with its combination of carbon market knowledge and project finance expertise ING was able to provide an innovative carbon credit-based project finance loan to the Luz Verde programme. Developed by Australian company Cool nrg, Luz Verde is the first CDM Programme of Activities to be registered under the Kyoto Protocol. This ground breaking initiative involves the distribution of energy saving light bulbs, free of charge, to low and middle income households in Mexico, significantly reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable development. The first project under the Luz Verde programme, in which families in the Puebla region of Mexico exchanged 1 million incandescent light bulbs with energy saving light bulbs, has been successfully implemented. It was made possible by an alliance of Dutch companies: Philips who supply the energy saving light bulbs, Eneco who buy the carbon credits created by the project and ING as project loan provider. Luz Verde was awarded the 2010 Carbon Finance Deal of the Year by Environmental Finance magazine, and is reported to be the first Kyoto Protocol project of any kind to be debt-financed purely on the basis of the future revenue from carbon credits. The ambition of the Luz Verde partnership doesn t stop here. The plan is to expand the programme to distribute up to forty-five million energy saving light bulbs to other Mexican families over the next two years. ING 80 60 Governance Risks Opportunities Strategy and targets NL50 CDLI (Top 10 Companies) NL50 Average Global 500 CDLI (Top 10% companies) Global 500 Average Achievements Emissions trading Emission reporting parameters Scope 1,2 & 3 reporting Emissions intensity and history Communications 1 Response rate refers to the percentage of companies includes in the analysis of the specific report 2 Calculation based on number of questions relevant for the specified category (see table at end of this report) 32 33

Appendix Company 34 Sector 2010 Response Status) 4 Aalberts Industries Industrials DP NR 2009 Response Status Carbon Disclosure Score Carbon Performance Score Non-public Aegon Financials AQ AQ 81 C 80,388 10,492 69,896 12,339 Tr Ahold Consumer Staples AQ AQ 55 B 2,681,665 1,259,093 1,422,572 Air France - KLM Industrials AQ AQ 87 B 25,433,892 25,353,000 80,892 130,500 Tr Akzo Nobel Materials AQ AQ 78 B 4,600,000 1,900,000 2,700,000 18,300,000 AS USP DSP TSP AMG Advanced Metallurgical Group NV Materials AQ NR 55 C 108,688 33,942 74,746 Arcadis Industrials AQ NR 48-15,000 15,000 29,000 Arcelor Mittal Materials AQ AQ 59 B 166,116,000 137,955,000 28,161,000 ASM International ASML Holding Information Technology Information Technology NR DP DP AQ Bam Groep Industrials AQ AQ 75 B 268,124 223,614 44,510 21,921 Tr EC BinckBank Financials DP NR Corio Financials AQ AQ 77 B 55,495 14,717 40,778 506 Tr Crucell Health Care AQ AQ 62 - NP CSM Consumer Staples NR NR Draka Holding Industrials AQ AQ 84 B 192,489 31,154 161,335 DSM (Konin) Materials AQ AQ 88 B 6,629,840 4,656,611 1,973,229 11,115,000 Tr AS TSP Eurocommerci-Cva Financials DP IN Fugro Energy DP IN Heijmans Nv-Cva Industrials AQ AQ 79 B 46,405 35,327 11,078 18,077 Heineken NV Consumer Staples AQ(L) AQ Imtech Industrials AQ AQ 26 - ING Group Financials AQ AQ 54 B 280,596 35,775 244,821 42,284 Logica Information Technology Mediq NV Health Care DP X Total emissions) 1 AQ AQ 87 B 94,575 35,030 59,545 46,722 Oth Nutreco Holding Consumer Staples AQ AQ 67 B 259,468 108,713 150,755 Océ Ordina NV Philips Electronics Prologis European Properties Information Technology Information Technology Consumer Discretionary AQ AQ 79 B 88,144 43,661 44,483 NR NR Financials SA NR AQ AQ 94 A 1,083,700 434,717 648,983 300,835,981 TI Tr USP Randstad Industrials AQ AQ 61 C 22,231 9,253 12,978 58,932 Tr EA Scope 1 Scope 2 Grid average) 2 Scope 3) 3 Scope 3 source type Company Reed Elsevier Royal Boskalis Westminster Consumer Discretionary Industrials DP DP AQ AQ 77 B 143,748 18,587 125,161 32,753 Tr EC Oth S1 Royal Dutch Shell Energy AQ AQ 89 A 78,000,000 67,000,000 11,000,000 616,588,000 Oth Tr Royal KPN Royal Ten Cate Telecommunication Services Consumer Discretionary AQ AQ 80 A 559,618 84,909 474,709 17,700 Tr EA USP EC DSP Wa TI TSP DP NR SBM Offshore Energy AQ AQ 64 C 1,949,075 1,944,962 4,113 Smit Internationale Industrials DP NR SNS Reaal Financials AQ NR 65 - NP TNT Industrials AQ AQ 81 B 982,849 883,982 98,867 1,710,396 EC Oth Tom Tom NV Consumer Discretionary NR AQ Unibail-Rodamco Financials AQ AQ 61 C 104,100 8,106 95,994 Unilever Nv Cva Consumer Staples SA AQ USG People Industrials IN DP VastNed Groep Financials NR NR Vopak Industrials AQ AQ 29 - NP Wavin Industrials AQ AQ 52 C 183,502 61,858 121,644 7,061 TSP Tr Wa Wereldhave Financials AQ AQ 58 C 254 161 93 52 Tr Lr Wessanen Nv Consumer Staples AQ X 43-31 19 12 9 Tr TSP Wolters Kluwer Sector Consumer Discretionary IN 2010 Response Status) 4 Response Status key: AQ Answered questionnaire SA Company is either a subsidiary or has merged during the reporting process. AQ(L) Answered questionnaire late IN Provided information DP Declined to participate NP Answered questionnaire but response not made publicly available NR No response Company did not meet carbon disclosure score threshold of 50 to receive carbon performance score Scope 3 Source Key: AS Purchased goods and services - emissions of all upstream suppliers - tier 1 and beyond EA Energy-related activities not included in Scope 2 TI Transportation and distribution of inputs (goods and services) and waste generated in own operations Tr Business travel Wa Waste generated in operations Fr Franchises (Scope 1 emissions of the franchisor) Lr Leased assets (Scope 1 emissions of the lessor) In Investment (Scope 1 emissions of the company receiving investment) Fe Franchises (Scope 1 emissions of the franchisee) Le Leased assets (Scope 1 emissions of the lessee) TSP Transportation and distribution of sold products inc. warehousing and retail USP Use of sold goods and services DSP Disposal of sold products at the end of their life EC Employee commuting and teleworking Oth Other 2009 Response Status NR Carbon Disclosure Score Carbon Performance Score Non-public Total emissions) 1 Scope 1 Scope 2 Grid average) 2 Scope 3) 3 Scope 3 source type Only companies which allow making their response available for public use will receive a performance score 1 Scopes 1 and 2 grid averaged reported emissions. 2 Where there is a * in this column, the company did provide detail in relation to its contractual scope 2 emissions. Please refer to the company s response. 3 Where there is a ^ in this column the company provided an Other Scope 3 source type which was adjusted to be included in one of the main scope 3 source types. A ~ indicates that no adjustment has been made. 4 Those companies marked AQ(L) in 2010 submitted responses after the analysis cut off date of July 1, 2010. These companies responses are not included in the analysis of this report. 35

Our sincere thanks are extended to the following: Accenture, ING, the Holland Financial Centre, the European Climate Foundation, APG, Stichting Doen and Robeco CDP has been made possible through the generous funding of:

CDP contacts Carbon Disclosure Project 40 Bowling Green Lane London, EC1R 0NE United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7970 5660 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7691 7316 www.cdproject.net info@cdproject.net Paul Dickinson Executive Chairman Paul Simpson Chief Executive Officer Nigel Topping Chief Innovation Officer Joanna Lee Chief Partnerships Officer Sue Howells Head of Global Operations sue.howells@cdproject.net Caspar von Blomberg Managing Director, CDP Europe caspar.blomberg@cdproject.net Marianne Gillis Account Manager marianne.gillis@cdproject.net Report writer contacts Accenture Gustav Mahlerplein 90 1082 MA Amsterdam +31(0)20 4938573 Jeroen van Heiningen Accenture Sustainability Services NL Lead jeroen.van.heiningen@accenture.com CDP Board of Trustees Chair: Robert Napier The Met Office Martin Wise Relationship Capital Partners Jeremy Smith Berkeley Energy Christoph Schröder TVM Capital Alan Brown Schroders James Cameron Climate Change Capital Chris Page Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Tessa Tennant The Ice Organisation Takejiro Sueyoshi Important Notice The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project. This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP and presented in this report. If you intend to do this, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so. CA Cheuvreux and CDP prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2010 information request. CA Cheuvreux and CDP do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this information. CA Cheuvreux and CDP make no representation or warranty, express or implied, and accept no liability of any kind in relation to the report including concerning the fairness, accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained herein. All opinions expressed herein by CDP and/or CA Cheuvreux are based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report reflect the views of their respective authors. CA Cheuvreux 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 discussed herein. The securities mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates. Carbon Disclosure Project and CDP refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330. 2010 Carbon Disclosure Project.