Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 The Netherlands 50
On behalf of 475 investors with assets of US $55 trillion
Report written for the Carbon Disclosure Project by Marianna Herold Carbon Disclosure Project [email protected] +44 (0) 20 7970 5660 www.cdproject.net
1 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 CDP Members 2009 Generation Investment Management UK This report and all of the public responses from corporations are Grupo Santander Brasil Brazil available to download free of charge from www.cdproject.net. ING Netherlands ABRAPP - Associação KLP Insurance Norway Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Legg Mason, Inc. US Complementar Brazil Libra Fund, L.P. US Aegon N.V. Netherlands London Pensions Fund AIG Investments US Authority UK APG Investments Mistra, Foundation for Netherlands Strategic Environmental Research Sweden ASN Bank Netherlands Mitsubishi UFJ Financial ATP Group Denmark Group (MUFG) Japan Aviva Investors UK Morgan Stanley Investment AXA Group France Management US Bank of America Corporation National Australia Bank US Limited Australia BBVA Spain Neuberger Berman US BlackRock US Newton Investment BP Investment Management Limited UK Management Limited UK Northwest and Ethical Caisse de dépôt et Investments LP Canada placement du Québec Pictet Asset Management SA Canada Switzerland California Public Employees’ Rabobank Netherlands Retirement System US Robeco Netherlands California State Teachers Russell Investments UK Retirement System US Schroders UK Calvert Group US Second Swedish National Catholic Super Australia Pension Fund (AP2) Sweden CCLA Investment Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Management Ltd UK Japan CIBC Canada Standard Chartered PLC UK Daiwa Asset Sun Life Financial Inc. Management Co. Ltd Japan Canada Essex Investment Swiss Reinsurance Company Management, LLC US Switzerland Ethos Foundation Switzerland The RBS Group UK Folksam Sweden The Wellcome Trust UK Fortis Investments Belgium Zurich Cantonal Bank Switzerland
2 CDP Signatories 2009
CDP Signatories 2009 BlackRock US DB Advisors Deutsche Asset Management Germany Blue Marble Capital Management Limited Canada 475 institutional investors with assets DEFO – Deutsche Fonds für BMO Financial Group Canada of over US$55 trillion were signatories Immobilienvermögen GmbH Germany BNP Paribas Investment Partners France to the CDP 2009 information request DEGI Deutsche Gesellschaft für dated 1st February 2009, including: Boston Common Asset Management, LLC US Immobilienfonds mbH Germany BP Investment Management Limited UK Deka FundMaster Investmentgesellschaft mbH Germany Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. Brazil Deka Investment GmbH Germany Aachener Grundvermögen British Columbia Investment Management Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Germany Corporation (bcIMC) Canada DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Germany Aberdeen Asset Managers UK BT Financial Group Australia Deutsche Bank Germany Acuity Funds Canada BT Investment Management Australia Deutsche Postbank Privat Investment Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Germany Addenda Capital Inc. Canada Busan Bank South Korea Development Bank of Japan Japan Advanced Investment Partners US CAAT Pension Plan Canada Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd South Africa Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Canada Philippines Aegon N.V. Netherlands Caisse des Dépôts France Dexia Asset Management France Aeneas Capital Advisors US Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco DnB NOR ASA Norway AGF Management Limited Canada do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Brazil Domini Social Investments LLC US AIG Investments US Caixa Econômica Federal Brazil DPG Deutsche Performancemessungs- Caixa Geral de Depósitos Portugal Alberta Investment Management Corporation Gesellschaft für Wertpapierportfolio mbh Germany (AIMCo) Canada California Public Employees’ East Sussex Pension Fund UK Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Canada Retirement System US Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social Brazil Alcyone Finance France California State Teachers Retirement System US ELETRA – Fundação Celg de Seguros e California State Treasurer US Allianz Group Germany Previdência Brazil Calvert Group US Altshuler Shacham LTD Israel Environment Agency Active Pension fund UK Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Canada AMP Capital Investors Australia Epworth Investment Management UK Canadian Friends Service Committee AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Germany Erste Group Bank AG Austria (Quakers) Canada APG Investments Netherlands Essex Investment Management, LLC US CAPESESP Brazil ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance) Ethos Foundation Switzerland Australia Capital Innovations, LLC US Eureko B.V. Netherlands Arkitekternes Pensionskasse Denmark CARE Super Pty Ltd Australia Eurizon Capital SGR Italy Artus Direct Invest AG Germany Carlson Investment Management Sweden Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Carmignac Gestion France ASB Community Trust New Zealand Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Canada Catherine Donnelly Foundation Canada ASN Bank Netherlands Evli Bank Plc Finland Catholic Super Australia ATP Group Denmark F&C Management Ltd UK Cbus Superannuation Fund Australia Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Faelba Brazil Limited Australia CCLA Investment Management Ltd UK FAELCE – Fundação Coelce de Seguridade Social Australian Ethical Investment Limited Australia Central Finance Board of the Brazil Methodist Church UK AustralianSuper Australia Fédéris Gestion d’Actifs France Ceres, Inc. US Aviva Investors UK First Affirmative Financial Network US Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP UK Aviva plc UK First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Sweden CI Mutual Funds’ Signature Advisors Canada AXA Group France FirstRand Ltd. South Africa CIBC Canada Baillie Gifford & Co. UK Fishman & Co. Israel Clean Yield Group, Inc. US Bakers Investment Group Australia Five Oceans Asset Management Pty Limited Banco Sweden ClearBridge Advisors, Socially Aware Investment Australia US Banco Bradesco S.A Brazil Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) US Close Brothers Group plc UK Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Argentina Folksam Sweden Colonial First State Global Asset Management Fondaction CSN Canada Banco do Brazil Brazil Australia Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites – FRR France Banco Santander, S.A. Spain Comite syndical national de retraite Bâtirente Banesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Canada Fortis Bank Nederland Netherlands Social Brazil Commerzbank AG Germany Fortis Investments Belgium Bank of America Corporation US CommInsure Australia Forward Management, LLC US Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd Switzerland Companhia de Seguros Aliança do Brasil Brazil Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) Sweden Bank Vontobel Switzerland Compton Foundation, Inc. US Frankfurter Service Kapitalanlagegesellschaft BANKINTER S.A. Spain Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds US mbH Germany Barclays Group UK Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) UK FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. mbH Germany Germany Bhd. Malaysia Franklin Templeton Investment Services Gmbh BBC Pension Trust Ltd UK Crédit Agricole Asset Management France Germany BBVA Spain Credit Suisse Switzerland Frater Asset Management South Africa Bedfordshire Pension Fund UK Daegu Bank South Korea Friends Provident UK Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd Canada Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Japan Front Street Capital Canada
3 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Fukoku Capital Management Inc Japan Infrastructure Development Finance Company MEAG Munich Ergo Asset Management GmbH Ltd. (IDFC) India Germany Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social – Brasiletros Brazil ING Netherlands MEAG Munich Ergo Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Germany Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Brazil Inhance Investment Management Inc Canada Meeschaert Gestion Privée France Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Brazil Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd UK Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Japan Fundação CEEE de Seguridade Social – Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e ELETROCEEE Brazil Telégrafos- Postalis Brazil Merck Family Fund US Fundação Codesc de Seguridade Social – Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social – Mergence Africa Investments (Pty) Limited FUSESC Brazil INFRAPREV Brazil South Africa Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do Insurance Australia Group Australia Meritas Mutual Funds Canada BNDES – FAPES Brazil Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Metzler Investment Gmbh Germany Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social – Germany Midas International Asset Management FORLUZ Brazil Investec Asset Management UK South Korea Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Brazil Itaú Unibanco Banco Múltiplo S.A. Brazil Miller/Howard Investments US Fundação São Francisco de Seguridade Social J.P. Morgan Asset Management US Mirae Investment Asset Management Brazil South Korea Janus Capital Group Inc. US Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social Mistra, Foundation for Strategic – VALIA Brazil Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Canada Environmental Research Sweden FUNDIÁGUA - Fundação de Previdência da Jubitz Family Foundation US Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Japan Companhia de Saneamento e Ambiental do Jupiter Asset Management UK Distrito Federal Brazil Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd. Japan K&H Investment Fund Management/K&H Gartmore Investment Management Ltd UK Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Japan Befektetési Alapkezelö Zrt Hungary Generation Investment Management UK Mn Services Netherlands KB Kookmin Bank South Korea Genus Capital Management Canada Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Germany KBC Asset Management NV Belgium Gjensidige Forsikring Norway Morgan Stanley Investment Management US KCPS and Company Israel GLG Partners LP UK Motor Trades Association of Australia KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. South Korea Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd Australia Goldman Sachs & Co. US Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, LP US MP Pension – Pensionskassen for Magistre Governance for Owners UK KfW Bankengruppe Germany og Psykologer Denmark Government Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”), Kibo Technology Fund South Korea Munich Re Group Germany Republic of South Africa South Africa KLP Insurance Norway Mutual Insurance Company Green Cay Asset Management Bahamas Pension-Fennia Finland Korea Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd. Green Century Funds US South Korea Natcan Investment Management Canada Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. Canada KPA Pension Sweden Nathan Cummings Foundation, The US GROUPE OFI AM France Kyobo Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd. National Australia Bank Limited Australia GrowthWorks Capital Ltd. Canada South Korea National Bank of Canada Canada Grupo Banco Popular Spain La Banque Postale Asset Management France National Bank of Kuwait Kuwait Grupo Santander Brasil Brazil La Financiere Responsable France National Grid Electricity Group of the Gruppo Monte Paschi Italy LBBW – Landesbank Baden-Württemberg Electricity Supply Pension Scheme UK Germany Guardian Ethical Management Inc Canada National Grid UK Pension Scheme UK LBBW Asset Management GmbH Germany Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland Ireland New Zealand LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond Denmark Natixis France Hang Seng Bank Hong Kong Legal & General Group plc UK Needmor Fund US HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbH Legg Mason, Inc. US Nest Sammelstiftung Switzerland Germany Lend Lease Investment Management Australia Neuberger Berman US Harrington Investments US Libra Fund, L.P. US New Alternatives Fund Inc. US Hastings Funds Management Limited Australia Light Green Advisors, LLC US New Jersey Division of Investment US Hazel Capital LLP UK Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. New Mexico State Treasurer US Health Super Fund Australia Switzerland New York City Employees Retirement System US Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Local Authority Pension Fund Forum UK Germany New York City Teachers Retirement System US Local Government Superannuation Scheme Henderson Global Investors UK Australia New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF) US Hermes Fund Managers UK Local Super SA-NT Australia Newton Investment Management Limited UK HESTA Super Australia Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie Switzerland NFU Mutual Insurance Society UK Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) London Pensions Fund Authority UK Canada NH-CA Asset Management South Korea Lothian Pension Fund UK HSBC Holdings plc UK Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Japan Macif Gestion France Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co, Ltd Nissay Asset Management Corporation Japan Macquarie Group Limited Australia South Korea Nordea Investment Management Sweden Magnolia Charitable Trust US IDBI Bank Limited India Norfolk Pension Fund UK Maine State Treasurer US Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Finland Man Group plc UK Norway Impax Group plc UK Maple-Brown Abbott Limited Australia Norinchukin Zenkyouren Asset Industrial Bank China Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. US Management Co., Ltd Japan Industry Funds Management Australia Maryland State Treasurer US North Carolina State Treasurer US McLean Budden Canada Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) UK
4 CDP Signatories 2009
Northern Trust US SEB Sweden The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust UK Northwest and Ethical Investments LP Canada SEB Asset Management AG Germany The Local Government Pensions Insitution (LGPI) (keva) Finland Oddo & Cie France Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) Sweden The Presbyterian Church in Canada Canada Old Mutual plc UK Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Finland The RBS Group UK OMERS Administration Corporation Canada Sentinel Funds US The Russell Family Foundation US Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Canada SERPROS Fundo Multipatrocinado Brazil The Shiga Bank, Ltd. Japan Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment) Norway Service Employees International Union The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited Benefit Funds US South Africa Oregon State Treasurer US Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) The Sustainability Group at the Loring, Orion Asset Management LLC US Sweden Wolcott & Coolidge Office US Pax World Funds US Shinhan Bank South Korea The Travelers Companies, Inc. US PBU – Pension Fund of Early Childhood Teachers Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust The United Church of Canada – General Council Denmark Management Co., Ltd South Korea Canada Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Japan The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund UK Denmark Shinsei Bank Limited Japan The Wellcome Trust UK Pension Protection Fund UK Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Germany Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Pensionskassen for Jordbrugsakademikere Sweden og Dyrlæger Denmark Signet Capital Management Ltd Switzerland Threadneedle Asset Management UK PETROS – The Fundação Petrobras Skandia Nordic Division Sweden de Seguridade Social Brazil Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD Japan Japan PFA Pension Denmark Smith Pierce, LLC US Toronto Atmospheric Fund Canada PGGM Netherlands SNS Asset Management Netherlands Trillium Asset Management Corporation US Phillips, Hager & North Investment Social(k) US Management Ltd. Canada Triodos Bank Netherlands Société Générale France PhiTrust Active Investors France TrygVesta Denmark Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Japan Pictet Asset Management SA Switzerland UBS AG Switzerland Souls Funds Management Limited Australia Pioneer Alapkezelö Zrt. Hungary Unibanco Asset Management Brazil SPF Beheer bv Netherlands Pioneer Investments UniCredit Group Italy Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Germany Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Canada Union Asset Management Holding AG Germany PKA Denmark Standard Chartered PLC UK Union Investment Institutional GmbH Germany Portfolio 21 Investments US Standard Life Investments UK Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH Germany Portfolio Partners Australia State Street Corporation US Union Investment Service Bank AG Germany Porto Seguro S.A. Brazil Statewide Superannuation Trust Australia Union PanAgora Asset Management GmbH PPM Premiepensionsmyndigheten Sweden Storebrand ASA Norway Germany PRECE Previdência Complementar Brazil Strathclyde Pension Fund UK UniSuper Australia PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários Stratus Group Brazil Unitarian Universalist Association US do Banco do Brasil Brazil Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Japan United Methodist Church General Board of Principle Capital Partners Limited UK Pension and Health Benefits US Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited Japan PSP Investments Canada United Nations Foundation US Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., Ltd QBE Insurance Group Limited Australia Japan Universal Investment Gesellschaft mbH Germany Q Capital Partners South Korea Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Japan Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) UK Railpen Investments UK Sumitomo Trust & Banking Japan Vancity Group of Companies Canada Rathbones/Rathbone Greenbank Investments UK Sun Life Financial Inc. Canada VERITAS SG INVESTMENT TRUST GmbH Germany Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Superfund Asset Management GmbH Germany Vermont State Treasurer US Assistência Social Brazil Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Sweden VicSuper Pty Ltd Australia Rei Super Australia Swedbank Sweden Victorian Funds Management Corporation Rhode Island General Treasurer US Australia Swiss Reinsurance Company Switzerland RLAM UK Visão Prev Sociedade de Previdencia Swisscanto Holding AG Switzerland Complementar Brazil Robeco Netherlands Syntrus Achmea Asset Management Netherlands Waikato Community Trust Inc New Zealand Rose Foundation for Communities and TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc. the Environment US Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Canada Trust and Investment Management Company US Royal Bank of Canada Canada Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – Warburg-Henderson Kapitalanlagegesellschaft RREEF Investment GmbH Germany College Retirement Equities Fund für Immobilien mbH Germany (TIAA-CREF) US Russell Investments UK West Yorkshire Pension Fund UK Tempis Capital Management South Korea SAM Group Switzerland WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM) Terra Forvaltning AS Norway Sanlam Investment Management South Africa Germany TfL Pension Fund UK Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda Brazil Westpac Investment Management Australia The Bullitt Foundation US Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen Germany Winslow Management Company US The Central Church Fund of Finland Finland Savings & Loans Credit Union (S.A.) Limited. WOORI BANK South Korea Australia The Collins Foundation US YES BANK Limited India Schroders UK The Co-operators Group Ltd Canada York University Pension Fund Canada Scotiabank Canada The Daly Foundation Canada Youville Provident Fund Inc. Canada Scottish Widows Investment Partnership UK The Dreyfus Corporation US Zurich Cantonal Bank Switzerland The Japan Research Institute, Limited Japan
5 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Introduction to the CDP 2009 Netherlands Report
The fight against climate change is one of the biggest battles in history. To win this fight we all need to do our share: governments, business, NGOs and the public. It must be a collective effort. Climate change offers an enormous challenge for everyone. Solutions are at hand, if we work together.
An effective climate policy is in everyone’s interest. Doing nothing is not an option. Action is needed now because in the long-term the consequences of climate change will be disastrous and unaffordable. There is no room for delay. Delay will increase the risks of global warming, delay will increase the negative impacts on nature and people and delay will increase the costs of adaptation. The costs of doing nothing will be far higher than those of combating climate change.
The disastrous effects of climate change on nature, people and society are becoming increasingly visible worldwide and pose a threat to global stability. The longer we wait, the fewer possibilities we will have to adapt in a sustainable and cost-effective manner.
Urgent action is needed to ensure a transition to a low carbon economy. This requires a fundamental shift in our consumer and investment pattern. Cooperation between governments and the private sector is essential to make this transition as soon as possible.
Climate change is a global problem that calls for global solutions. This is why the Netherlands is contributing actively to a new global climate agreement in Copenhagen. To make the consequences of climate change controllable, its is necessary to limit the worldwide temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. To achieve this the global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced with at least 50% in 2050. This requires ambitious emission targets for developed countries, a contribution of more advanced developing countries to slow down their emissions and sufficient new and additional funding for climate policy in developing countries.
6 The Netherlands is committed to combatting climate change and has set out ambitious national emissions and energy targets; 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, a rise in energy efficiency of 2% per year and 20% renewable energy in 2020. The Netherlands is willing to do its share and to show that an ambitious climate and energy policy can and must be developed. The Dutch government wants to make the Netherlands one of Europe’s cleanest and most energy efficient countries.
Corporations and investors play a crucial role in realizing the shift to a low carbon economy. This is why the Carbon Disclose Project is so important: it challenges the world’s largest corporations to measure and report their carbon emissions, providing an incentive for investors and corporations to address the challenges of climate change.
Achieving a low carbon economy is not only an absolute necessity, it also brings in new chances for technological advancement and innovation, new markets and investment opportunities, more efficiency and and lower bills. Companies and investors that lead the way should grasp that opportunity!
Hugo von Meijenfeldt Deputy Director General of the Environment Dutch Special Envoy for Climate Change
7 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Foreword
APG is one of a growing number of institutional investors that is concerned with climate change and climate policy, because these will have an impact on the global economy as well as on individual assets we invest in.
We see investment opportunities in renewable energy and energy efficiency but also assess the impact climate change can have on our other investments. For this analysis we depend on reliable, comparable and quantifiable information concerning companies’ emissions and reduction targets. In addition, for energy intensive industries a geographical breakdown is important in order to be able to assess the potential impact of existing and future carbon markets.
The CDP has played a vital role in providing a global platform for reporting carbon data and through its annual reports has encouraged companies to improve their reporting practices.
We have always encouraged CDP’s mission and are pleased to see that the initiative is moving into a new phase as carbon risks start to materialise, driven by legislation and newly emerging carbon markets.
In recent months, we have been pleased to see that CDP data are finding their way into the largest information provider to the financial sector (Bloomberg) and that it has formed the basis for detailed analysis by highly rated research analysts (Goldman Sachs) and that IBM used CDP data in its research report on the resilience of electric utilities.
We believe that data reported through the CDP will continue to gain in importance as climate policies become more stringent, and we encourage companies to support the initiative by providing high quality carbon data.
Paul Spijkers Acting Chief Investment Officer APG
8 Introduction Executive Summary
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) The NL 50 companies fared well in increased discussions on reducing approached the 50 largest companies by many parts of the Questionnaire customer’s emissions however point to market capitalisation in the Netherlands compared to their peers in other a trend towards taking responsibility for (NL 50) for the second time in 2009. This regional samples. They especially emissions that are not under the direct report presents an analysis of how they stand out in how they have embraced control of the company. are responding to climate change. climate change organizationally, incorporating it into employee A high level of the NL 50 companies The CDP 2009 Questionnaire incentives and having reduction plans report emissions data. 90 % of the 2009 is a key year in climate change in place. respondents provide quantitative data policy due to the United Nations for both Scope 1 and 2 emissions. This Climate Change Conference in NL 50 companies see climate is one of the highest rates across the Copenhagen in December (COP change regulation as an regional samples. Only the UK FTSE 100 15). Consequently many countries opportunity. 90% of the respondents has a significantly higher rate (95%). including the US are in the process see regulation as a way to increase of setting targets and climate change demand and to benefit from their Emissions trading is increasingly policies. Morover droughts and achievements in energy efficiency. on the agenda. 42% (18) of extreme weather pose challenges for This rate is the second highest responding companies are involved companies globally. It is important that amongst regional samples. Many of in or considering involvement in investors understand how companies the respondents also have products emissions trading. This is up by 19 are pre-pared and how they see the geared at helping their customers percentage points from last year and future impacts on their operations. The manage the physical effects of climate it is set to increase further as another CDP Questionnaire responds to this change. eight companies are expecting to be need for information and it consists of involved in it within the next two years. four groups of questions: Scope 3 reporting has increased • Risks and Opportunities significantly compared to CDP A remarkable 97% of the • GHG Accounting 2008. Disclosure of supply chain respondents assign board level • Performance emissions increased from 4% to 19% responsibility for climate change. • Governance along with the disclosure of external This has increased by 20 percentage distribution/logistics from 11% to 35%. points compared to CDP 2008 and Key findings Overall disclosure of scope 3 emissions it is the highest rate across the CDP The NL 50 2009 Response rate is is still low due to the challenging nature samples. The NL 50 companies are 64%. A total of 32 NL 50 companies of calculating these emissions. The also comparatively strong in other responded to CDP 2009.The response areas of governance. rate increased by 12 percentage points from CDP6 (2008). Compared interna- Figure 1: Key changes CDP 2008 vs CDP 2009 tionally this response rate is average. Several other regional samples have 2009 62% higher rates: UK FTSE 100 (95%), Response rate 2008 Brazil (76%), US S&P 500 (66%), South 52% Africa 100 (68%) and Nordic 200 (65%). The Global 500 response rate is Board level 97% 81%. Considering how environmentally responsibility for advanced Dutch companies are there is climate change 77% ample room for improvement.
90% The responses improved in all Scope 1 & 2 emissions reporting categories compared to CDP 2008. 73% The most significant changes were in the number of companies assigning 42% board level responsibility (97%, up by Participation in 20 percentage points), the number of emission trading 23% companies with reduction plans (81%, up by 19 percentage points), and the number Emissions 81% of companies participating or considering reduction/ energy participation in emissions trading (42%, reduction plan 62% up by 19 percentage points). 0 20 40 60 80 100 9 % of respondents Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 Executive Summary Contents
CDP Signatories 3
Introduction by Hugo von Meijenfeldt at VROM 6
Foreword by Paul Spijkers at APG 8
Executive Summary 9
1 Overview of CDP 10
2 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index 15
3 Response Trends 17
4 Appendix 27
10 1 Overview of CDP
The turmoil in the financial markets This year has seen considerable CDP now works with more than 55 and the global economy over the last growth in responses from emerging organizations including Dell, Unilever, year has highlighted the importance economies such as China, South Africa Wal-Mart Stores and departments of effective disclosure and high-quality and Korea, and CDP expanded in of the British Government to measure risk management. The financial crisis Russia in 2009 where major companies and assess climate change risk and of 2008 suggests we need to better such as Gazprom and Novatek opportunity through the supply chain. understand systemic risks that can reported. CDP’s reach continues to More than 800 companies report their cause significant de-stabilizing impacts grow with the launch of the first CDP climate change strategies through in the global economy. Climate change Europe report, covering the largest 300 the CDP system to their customers has the potential to cause disruption European listed companies, as well as and as a result we have seen a in the form of unforeseen, high-impact expansion into countries within Central significant increase in the use of CDP events (such as extreme weather) as and Eastern Europe. We have also data in procurement operations. well as a longer term re-assignment opened new offices in Germany and Now procurement professionals can of value across countries, industries Brazil, both key economies in the fight understand how their supply chains and corporations. against climate change. may be impacted and as a result begin to future-proof their procurement The Intergovernmental Panel on While the quantity and quality of data systems against climate change. Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that available has increased significantly, so ‘future climate impacts show that has the use of the data, which is acting The process of measuring emissions is the consequences could vary from as a catalyst for changing business central to emissions management and disruptive to catastrophic’3. So it is behavior. CDP data is increasingly being reduction. As regulatory frameworks vital that policymakers, companies and integrated into mainstream financial develop to mandate emission investors have a full understanding of analysis, is available through Bloomberg reductions, CDP’s role will expand. We the associated risks and opportunities. Professional Services, and used to will continue to work with corporations, According to HSBC research4, provide sector based analysis to CDP policymakers and information users to governments around the world have signatory members. A recent report produce practical and robust results allocated US$430 billion in fiscal produced by Mercer supports this view. that complement the development of stimulus to key climate change themes. mandatory reporting rules. Those providing the low carbon Some CDP signatories, such as solutions are very well positioned to CalSTRS are going a step further, In order to continue to provide the benefit, while those who ignore the using shareholder resolutions to global hub for carbon reporting, CDP risks gamble on being left behind. encourage companies to report is currently undergoing a significant through CDP and implement climate systems upgrade, designed to By convening the collective power of change management strategies. We improve data comparability, facilitate the investment community, represented are also working with the Principles benchmarking services and ultimately in 2009 by more than 475 investors, of Responsible Investment (PRI) to deliver data that is appropriate for with US$55 trillion in assets under drive awareness and improve climate investment analysis and regulatory management, CDP motivates more change reporting. CDP has recently submissions. In countries like the than 1800 companies globally to report entered a new partnership with financial US and UK, where mandatory their climate change strategies and information services company Markit carbon reporting is on the horizon, greenhouse gas emissions. This global to build a suite of indices based on the CDP’s systems will help companies system provides the market, investors, Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index, prepare for such requirements policymakers and procurement which will be licensed to exchange- and will eventually integrate with directors with a clear understanding of traded fund (ETF) and structured existing national registries to enable how companies are positioned as we product providers. corporations to disclose more detailed move towards a low carbon economy and standardized data. Climate change and ensures corporations provide full is a global problem, which requires transparency on climate change. a global solution and by bridging the gaps between national governments and international businesses across the globe, CDP will help to connect the national and international climate 3 http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/ change ecosystem. items/2905.php 4 HSBC Global Research: A Climate for Recovery The colour of stimulus goes green. 11 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Figure 2: Key trends snapshot5 This table outlines some of the key findings from CDP 2009 by geography and industry data-set.6 7
Sample: geography/
number of companies % of sample answering CDP 2009 % of sample answering CDP6 (2008) level with Board % of responders for climate change responsibility seeing % of responders risks regulatory seeing regulatory % of responders opportunities seeing physical risk % of responders seeing physical % of responders opportunities disclosing % of responders Scope 1 emissions disclosing % of responders Scope 2 emissions externally % of responders verifying emissions disclosures engaged/considering % of responders participation in emissions trading with an emissions % of responders plan reduction reduction/energy engaging with policy % of responders makers on climate change Asia-ex JICK 1008 31 [35] 76 55 76 66 55 66 69 31 17 59 62 Australia 200 52 48 80 79 81 82 56 81 83 46 50 67 73 Brazil 80 76 [83] 49 61 73 73 53 61 55 22 25 61 49 Canada 200 49 55 70 57 68 56 46 81 76 27 34 49 61 Central & Eastern Europe 100 8 - 75 50 50 75 25 75 25 75 50 100 50 China 100 10 5 56 67 78 67 44 22 22 22 11 67 44 Europe 300 82 - 85 80 90 75 63 91 85 77 58 89 79 France 120 58 63 77 69 84 66 61 79 77 63 47 81 66 Germany 200 51 55 65 58 70 44 47 63 57 45 33 63 55 Global 500 81 77 80 78 84 78 63 85 80 63 54 80 74 Global Electric Utility 250 49 52 71 79 84 75 62 81 50 61 57 60 77 Global Transport 100 67 58 84 81 84 79 50 79 68 50 43 72 74 India 200 18 19 52 14 66 62 48 48 48 17 17 55 38 Ireland 40 33 - 71 71 71 64 43 71 50 50 43 57 43 Italy 60 35 [46] 52 67 86 67 48 81 62 71 33 67 57 Japan 500 37 [72] 85 87 83 80 64 77 72 33 90 49 49 Korea 100 50 [32] 61 67 76 69 57 55 55 33 35 63 55 Latin America 50 50 [52] 58 79 79 58 47 79 68 37 26 47 58 Netherlands 50 62 52 97 74 90 65 61 90 90 58 42 81 71 New Zealand 50 52 50 65 69 77 69 65 58 54 35 27 58 54 Nordic 200 65 [58] 77 76 81 63 54 83 77 46 33 78 59 Portugal 20 38 - 75 88 75 88 63 100 88 88 25 63 75 Russia 50 13 - 33 0 33 33 33 33 33 0 33 33 33 South Africa 100 68 58 86 73 86 89 68 83 86 38 33 68 65 Spain 85 41 [71] 80 66 77 63 54 91 83 86 34 80 74 Switzerland 100 56 57 74 44 72 48 48 72 67 35 19 65 43 UK FTSE 100 95 90 83 89 91 83 66 98 95 73 77 88 79 UK FTSE 250 57 58 79 78 76 72 53 81 80 36 43 61 49 US S&P 500 66 64 68 70 77 70 52 77 74 41 31 65 61
5 The numbers in this table are based on the total respondents at 10th July 2009. They may therefore vary from numbers in the rest of the report which are based on the number of companies who responded on time (e.g. 30th June for Global 500). 6 In some cases, the number of responses analyzed is slightly less than the number answering CDP 2009 due to takeovers, mergers and acquisitions. 7 Percentages in square brackets reflect a different sized sample in 2008, e.g.: in 2008 we wrote to 75 companies in Brazil, not 80; and in Japan we wrote to 150 companies in 2008, not 500. A dash (-) shows that sample was not in CDP6 (2008). 8 Asia excluding Japan, India, China and Korea.
12 Overview of CDP
Highlights in carbon system beginning in 2012. The bill Progress on reporting regulation and outlook will pass through various Senate standards for Copenhagen Committees where amendments will be debated, before being put to a vote; While CDP has set the tone on matters 2009 has witnessed significant most likely in October. of disclosure over the years and, for the progress in the global approach first time this year, is now widening its to climate change. The Obama In Australia, further work has approach to encompass performance, administration has introduced a new progressed on the detail of the Carbon there are other valuable and era in climate change policy in the Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) complementary initiatives underway US and, as a result, a global deal in despite political challenges over to address the clear requirement Copenhagen this December appears possible competitive impacts in the for the creation of a global carbon more tangible. China, so integral to the face of the economic downturn. The measurement and reporting system. success of Copenhagen, is set to meet Scheme, which would cover around ambitious renewable energy and energy 75% of total Australian emissions, is While the financial accounting system efficiency targets and hosts some of due to face a key vote later this year. has taken several hundred years the world’s largest renewable energy to develop, carbon accounting is companies. Brazil entered the new year Given the multinational nature of many in its infancy. In order to achieve a with a new National Plan on Climate companies, the evolution of these coherent global system CDP is leading Change and national governments in policies is likely to have significant the work of the Climate Disclosure industrialized countries including Japan implications on strategic direction and Standards Board (CDSB), working with and Australia are introducing new operations and many of the world’s Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and legislation to reduce emissions. largest companies want to seize early PricewaterhouseCoopers to develop mover advantage. robust accounting standards to enable Whilst the July G8 meeting agreed carbon reporting through annual to prevent global temperatures rising Of course, the role of government financial reports. CDP and CDSB will beyond 2º Celsius (3º-4º Fahrenheit) is crucial in providing the regulatory also work with the World Economic against pre-industrial levels, and frameworks. But investors and Forum to advise the G20 group of agreed on aims to cut greenhouse gas businesses will also play an essential nations on climate change accounting emissions by between 50 and 80% role by driving capital flows towards the in 2010. by mid-century they disappointed technologies which will allow economies many by ducking the issue of medium to flourish and innovation to thrive as we The CDP process demonstrates that term targets. Although the multilateral transition to a low carbon economy. corporations can lead the way in taking architecture still needs work, there is action that can be Measured, Reported much to report on at a regional level. Already these same investors and & Verified (MRV). It also shows how businesses are being directly affected international companies can reduce In Europe, the Energy and Climate by climate change. Many companies their emissions across the entirety of Change package was approved in report to CDP the material impacts of their operations on a global basis, even December 2008 which sets out the climate change on their operations, when subject to a range of different policy framework and accompanying through increased flooding, water regulatory requirements. As more measures to reduce emissions through shortage, spread of disease and and more countries introduce climate the continuation (and expansion) of changing local weather patterns. change regulation, the CDP system the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Within the public sector, cities reporting supports companies by bridging the (EU ETS); targets for non-ETS sectors through CDP also explain how they gap between international business and new targets for the promotion of are planning to adapt to changes in and national reporting requirements renewable energy. weather patterns such as extreme heat and helps reduce the reporting burden and extreme precipitation. on companies. In the US, the Obama administration moved early to set out its ambitions Investors, policymakers, procurement The CDP Global Forum was part of the around climate change mitigation: directors and other stakeholders need inaugural Climate Week NYC, when “We will harness the sun and the to build up the necessary comparable business leaders, heads of state and winds and the soil to fuel our cars datasets in order to monitor and the world’s major investors congregate and run our factories.9” analyze changes; both in terms of the in New York to prepare for negotiations response to mitigation measures (such at COP15. An agreement there will The Waxman-Markey bill was finally put as carbon regulation) and adaptation be a vital step towards success, but before the House of Representatives in policies and programmes. Integral to it is just as important to look beyond June and passed by a narrow margin. the success of the deal in Copenhagen Copenhagen and to build the global The proposed legislation would commit will be the availability of this accurate systems required to combat dangerous the US to reduce greenhouse gas reported data: if businesses don’t climate change. CDP remains focused emissions by 17% below 2005 levels measure current emissions now, it will on and dedicated to this work and by 2020 through a cap-and-trade be impossible for them to manage and thanks all of the organizations that reduce them in the future. This is where work with us to help realize this goal. CDP’s role is crucial. 9 (Obama inauguration speech, January 21st, 2009) 13 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
CDP 2009 Netherlands This report contains three chapters: Report Chapter 1 introduces the CDP and this report. It also discusses global trends 2009 is the second year for CDP in in both the responses and the policy the Netherlands. The purpose of this environment. report is to present an analysis of NL 50 companies’ responses to the CDP Chapter 2 presents the results from 2009 Questionnaire. As in 2008, the the Carbon Disclosure Leadership CDP Questionnaire was sent to the 50 Index (CDLI). The CDLI recognises companies that compose the AEX and companies for good quality disclosure, AMX indexes. This year the CDP has but the ranking does not evaluate 15 Dutch Signatory Investors including the companies climate change four new ones, three of which are performance or strategies. public: Fortis Bank Nederland, Mn Services, and Syntrus. The CDP also Chapter 3 highlights overall has six Dutch Members. disclosure trends and it contains six sections: Response Rate, 2009 is an interesting year for NL 50 Risks and Opportunities, GHG companies because of the significant Emissions, Performance, Governance progress that has been made in the and Conclusions. Quotes have global approach to climate change. been included from responses of In addition to the EU approving the corporations that indicated that their Energy and Climate Package in responses could be shared pub-licly. December 2008, key markets for These quotes have been selected the NL 50 companies, including to support the text. No additional China and the USA, are starting to judgment can be made based on implement policy measures to combat them. Differences to CDP6 (2008) and climate change. Moreover 2009 is the the CDP 2009 Global 500 response year of the United Nations Climate trends are discussed throughout the Change Conference in Copenhagen in chapter. December (COP 15), which will act as a basis for future regulation in the area.
14 1 Overview of CDP Carbon Disclosure 2 Leadership Index
All the NL 50 respondents were scored In contrast to CDP 2008, this year’s because the total available score against on the quality of their disclosure using CDLI makes no distinction between which the companies in non-carbon- a standardized methodology (see companies in carbon-intensive or non- intensive sectors have been assessed www.cdproject.net). The ten highest carbon-intensive sectors. The ra-tionale in CDP 2009 is greater than the total scoring companies form the Carbon behind the transition is that, as the available score that was available for Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI). wide-ranging implications of climate ‘comprehensive’ questions in CDP 2008. change become clearer for companies A high score in the CDLI reflects a and all sectors develop a response, However, it is important to note that company’s ability to manage and there is a less clear distinction between although absolute scores may differ, report on carbon and climate change disclosure expectations of companies in the transition should have little effect in relation to their business. The different sectors. on companies’ relative performance relevance and meaning of the CDLI within their respective sectors. Globally can be summarized as follows: Due to this change some companies this resulted in an average fall in scores in non-carbon-intensive sectors may of 13% to 17% for carbon-intensive • It is based entirely on the disclosure have received a lower overall score and non-carbon-intensive companies information provided in the (in absolute terms) than they did in respectively. company’s CDP response; CDP 2008, notwithstanding that the • It suggests good internal data standard of their response may have The 2009 NL 50 CDLI is displayed in management and understanding of improved or remained the same. This is Figure 3. the issues climate change presents to the company’s business; • It does not consider other efforts Figure 3: The NL 50 CDLI 2009 undertaken by companies to provide carbon or wider sustainability disclosure such as corporate responsibility reporting, Sector Company CDLI Scope 1 Scope 210 Scope 311 environmental statements in annual reports, or through meetings and Tele- Royal KPN 73 87,829 447,000 engagement with stakeholders and communications policymakers; and • It is not a complete metric of a Materials Royal 79 4,792,148 2,732,074 123,627 company’s performance in relation DSM to climate change management, as it does not currently make any Information Océ 75 48,279 50,298 judgement over absolute levels Technology of emissions, emission reduction achievements, or carbon intensity. Industrials Logica 77 45,814 51,854 46,158
Draka 73 27,976 109,356 Holding
Philips 73 483,584 805,081 308,443,296 Electronics
TNT 71 960,700 147,700 1,580,100
Energy Royal 75 75,000,000 10,000,000 691,401,000 Dutch Shell
Consumer Unilever 76 1,167,662 1,618,220 240,600,000 Staples 10 Only Scope 2 grid average data is included here. See Appendix 1 for data on Scope 2 contractual arrangements 11 The scope 3 figure is the sum of data given in answer to questions 13.1-13.4. Information in response to 13.5 was Consumer Reed 76 18,559 107,653 131,703 not included in this figure Discretionary Elsevier 15 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Compared to last year two new scoring consistently scored higher companies have made it into the Index, than the others in GHG accounting Océ and Royal KPN. Wereldhave, and Performance Sections of the Crucell and Wavin scored very well questionnaire. for first-time respondents, a few points from being included in the CDLI. NL 50 companies also fared well in the Global 500 CDLI. Unilever, The highest scoring respondent is Philips and Royal Dutch Shell were Royal DSM with 79 points. As a recognized for their continued strong comparison the highest score in the efforts. Although it didn’t make the Global 500 was 95. The average NL Global 500 CDLI, Royal KPN has CDLI score was 60 and the lowest the highest CDLI score within the score was 31. Figure 4 shows how the telecommunications sector of the NL 50 companies fared in the CDLI Global 500. by sector against the Global 500. In most sectors Dutch companies had The CDP 2009 scoring methodology the same average scores or slightly included a pilot scoring for higher than the Global 500. Many of performance12. The Global 500 were the sectors however only included one assessed not only for their disclosure company in the NL 50 sample. quality but also for the actions taken by companies to respond to, and reduce Figure 5 compares average their contribution to, climate change. scores across the sections of This helps provide investors insight the questionnaire. The level of into the extent to which companies are disclosure was especially good preparing to transition to and compete in the Verification and Trading in a low carbon economy. Royal and the Governance sections of Dutch Shell and Unilever ranked the questionnaire. Moreover the among the top ten globally in this pilot companies that did well in the CDLI exercise.
Figure 4: Average NL CDLI Score by Sector
100
80
60
40
20
0 Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Financials Health Care Industrials Information Technology Materials Telecommunication Utilities
12 This performance score is a pilot initiative to assess the impact of climate change actions/activities and is distinct from the CDP Questionnaire’s Section 3 (which queries respondents on how they track their perform-ance to stated goals and objectives). 16 Global Average Highest Score Globally NL Average Highest Score NL 3 Response Trends
Dutch Response to CDP 2009 Only four companies that responded Reflecting the international nature of to the Questionnaire opted to make the NL 50 companies, 17 of them are This chapter discusses the key trends their responses not public. This is also included in one or more other of the NL 50 responses to the CDP an improvement from last year when CDP samples including the Global 500 2009 Questionnaire. It is divided into eight companies submitted non-public (10), Euro 300 (15), Transport 100 (3) six sections: Response Rate, Risks responses. Three companies declined and France 120 (2). and Opportunities, GHG Accounting, to participate: ASM International, Performance, Governance and Royal Boskalis Westminster and The responding companies represent Conclusions. USG People. Two of them say this is a diverse group of industry sectors. due to restructuring efforts. Eleven NL As displayed in Figure 6, Industrials Response Rate 50 companies did not respond to the and Consumer Staples are the biggest The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) CDP Information Request. groups amongst the responding approached the 50 largest companies companies. The majority of companies in the Netherlands to gather Considering how advanced Dutch included in the NL 50 are from non- information on their GHG emissions companies are in managing carbon intensive sectors. Interestingly and how they approach climate environmental issues, it is surprising only one out of six Consumer change. This is the second time these that the NL 50 does not have a Discretionary companies responded. companies have been approached higher response rate. While the NL 50 This number is low compared to by the CDP and the response rate response rate compares favourably to the global Consumer Discretionary has increased considerably: from the Germany 200 (51%) and France response rate, 66%. The number of 52% (26) in 2008 to 64% (32) in 120 (58%) samples, it is lower than the responding companies is too low to 20094. Appendix 1 lists the companies Europe 300 rate (82%) and the Global allow for further meaningful sector- that were approached and their final 500 rate (82%). Moreover several other based analysis in this report. response status. regional and country samples have significantly higher response rates: UK FTSE 100 (95%), Brazil (76%), US S&P 500 (66%), and South Africa 100 (68%).
Figure 5: CDLI Scores by Questionnaire Section Figure 6: NL 50 Industry Sectors
100
80
60
40
20
Consumer Discretionary 7% Consumer Staples 17% Energy 7%
0 Risks and Opportunities GHG Accounting Verification and Trading Performance Governance Total Financials 14% Health Care 4% Industrials 28% Information Technology 3% Materials 14% Telecommunications 3% Utilities 3% Highest Score Average Score 17 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Figure 7c compares the NL 50 Figure 7a: Proportion of NL 50 at each disclosure level responses to the Global 500 sample. The NL 50 sample shows signs of catching up to the Global 500 sample CDP 2009 in many aspects when compared to Total population 50 (100%) CDP 2008. The main performance gaps are the response rate and the percentage of companies that disclose emissions forecasts. Otherwise the NL 50 is lagging behind at an average Responses 32 (64%) response difference of 5 to 15%. Publicly available 27 (54%) Disclose GHG emissions 28 (56%) Report on GHG emissions in Figure 7a and 7b further highlight annual corporate reporting 25 (50%) the performance gaps of the NL 50 companies compared to the Global Disclose emissions Verify emissions 18 (36%) 500 companies. reduction targets 16 (32%)
As the absolute number of responding companies is still low, absolute figures are always displayed next to percentages throughout this chapter. Disclose forecasts 5 (10%)
“As any company, Heineken will face regulatory risks due to the expected Copenhagen treaty and the preluding targets that the EU has set Figure 7b: Proportion of Global 500 at each disclosure level* on reduction of CO2 emissions.” CDP 2009 Total population 500 (100%) Heineken NV Responses 409 (82%) Report on GHG emissions in annual corporate reporting 349 (70%) Publicly available 345 (69%)
“Wereldhave Disclose GHG emissions 339 (68%) Disclose emissions may benefit from reduction targets 257 (51%) Verify emissions 247 (49%) regulatory changes Disclose forecasts 224 (45%) in requirements since the properties recently added to our portfolio meet ‘above legal’ requirements and therefore have a high competitiveness. These opportunities may affect our business worldwide.”
Wereldhave
18 Response Trends
Risks and Opportunities 74% (23) of the respondents see The first set of questions in the CDP regulatory risks related to climate “From a business Questionnaire examines the drivers change. 29% (12) expect some perspective, climate behind involvement in climate change. mandatory reduction targets to apply The CDP Questionnaire divides risks to them either through the EU ETS or change is viewed as a and opportunities into three categories: through regulations arising from the commercial opportunity regulatory, physical and other. 97% (30) COP 15 meeting. Interestingly, 26% for Philips for value of the responding NL 50 companies (8) of the respondents are expecting creation, particularly for have analysed risks and opportunities the biggest regulatory impacts to be related to climate change. Similarly to the implications of rising electricity its Lighting business but last year, most companies saw more and energy prices that they and their also for the Healthcare opportunities than risks. In fact three suppliers will be exposed to, rather and Lifestyle sector. companies do not see any climate than direct restrictions on their own Philips promotes and change related risks: Aegon, Philips emissions. Electronics, and Wereldhave. Figure stimulates harmonized 6 displays the types of risks and legislation for switching opportunities that the respondents to energy efficient perceive. Lighting specifically and for electronic equipment in general as a supportive – and sometimes necessary – boundary condition for its commercial activities in the area of energy efficient electronic equipment.”
Philips Electronics
Figure 7c: NL 50 compared to Global 500
64% NL 50 Response rate Global 500 81%
Board level 60% responsibility for climate change 64%
56% Disclose emissions 67%
External 36% verification 50%
Emissions trading 26% (participating and considering) 42%
Emissions 50% reduction/ energy reduction plan 63% 0 20 40 60 80 100
% of total sample
19 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
Most NL 50 companies are quite “Although the timescales are very hard “The physical risks confident that the net financial to predict, Draka has already initiated Heineken is exposed impacts of legislation will be limited. measures to attempt to reduce the In fact, 90% (28) of the respondents risks. By sourcing the vast majority of to, mainly deal with the see regulation as an opportunity to raw materials from within the same long-term availability of benefit from their accomplishments in region as our production sites, the water, both for brewing energy efficiency or as an opportunity supply chains are kept as short as purposes as for growing to increase sales. This figure is high possible. This means that the risks to internationally; the second highest out the secure and consistent provision crops we need for our of all the samples after UK FTSE 100. of these goods are diminished. brewing activities. We This may relate to the Netherlands’ Furthermore the carbon footprint are in the process of long history of environmental associated with our products is kept mapping these risks awareness and the capabilities that to a minimum. Also, Draka has also companies have built over the years. further diversified these risks by using a and therefore it is too number of different suppli-ers for each early to say something Many companies also identify raw material.” Draka Holding of the possible effects. significant threats in the category of physical risks. 65% (20) of the 35% (11) of respondents estimate that In March 2009, respondents feel that climate change scarcity of fuel and other raw materials Heineken signed poses physical threats to their will increase their costs moving the UN CEO Water activities. 33% (10) respondents forward. This is especially the case with Mandate as a vehicle to mention disruption to supply and companies that depend on crop-based operations. Physical risks have turned raw materials, but many companies mitigate future risks of into reality for several companies also report concerns about access to operating in a number having experienced disruptions from electricity. of water stressed hurricanes, droughts and heavy areas. Furthermore, rain. Draka Holding, Heineken NV Another factor viewed as a risk is and Unilever report that they have the availability of freshwater. Dutch it is expanding its changed their sourcing processes to companies are well-known in the raw material base to take these risks into account. Mainly water management field and the allow for a greater it is a question of increasing the level scarcity has led to innovation in a few of diversification in their supply base in cases. Unilever for example discusses geographical spread to order to be less vulnerable to changes how the scarcity of water in many become less vulnerable in specific geographies. developing countries has motivated to bad harvests caused them to develop more water-efficient by climate change.” products. Figure 8: Risks and Opportunities Heineken NV
Opportunities Risks
28 Regulatory 23
19 Physical 20
25 Other 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of companies
20 Response Trends
“In developing countries, water scarcity Almost the same number of companies is a growing concern. As a result it is report physical changes as an “AkzoNobel believes often costly for consumers to purchase opportunity 61% (19) and as a risk that next to financial water, which has an impact on the 65% (20). The number of respondents affordability of using our products. Our that see physical opportunities is drivers towards design efforts will increasingly take this up by 10 percentage points from carbon efficient into account. Successful innovations 2008 reflecting the many programs solutions (caused by include Surf Excel Quick Wash in India, that companies are involved in to government’s concern which aims to save as much as two understand impending changes. buckets of water per wash for Indian These companies anticipate that their for climate change) also consumers. The brand has seen a 20% products are well placed to help their the concern for climate increase in sales during 2008. Our One customers deal with physical changes. change by NGO’s and Rinse Comfort fabric conditioner also consumers drives requires less water per wash and in “Environmental issues and climate Vietnam sales rose by nearly 30% in change have become more important business in the direction 2008.” Unilever to car leasing customers. In the past of carbon efficient three years, ING Car-Lease has solutions. Climate Finally, a handful of companies report responded by offering several new that growing customer awareness solutions. In 2007, ING Car Lease change presents presents risks to their business. introduced the Ecolease product. It general opportunities Companies are especially concerned includes the leasing of an energy- for the company by about not delivering on technological efficient car, a customer training providing access to new changes expected of them. course on how to improve automobile safety and adopt a more efficient, markets e.g. renewable “Royal BAM Group is exposed to environmentally friendly driving style energy sector, and general risks because contractors and a CO2 emission compensation consumer demands are in many cases selected by service.” ING Group for steel products that clients following a transparent and standardised procedure. In such a minimise the impacts selection process questions are asked of climate change such about the companies’ attitude and as lighter steels for the practice related to environmental/ automotive sector.” CO2 issues. We have found that the weighting placed on environmental/ CO2 issues as part of tenders and bids Akzo Nobel is increasing. The importance of these issues is expected to grow in the near future and Royal BAM Group has to comply with expectations of clients” Royal BAM Group
21 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
GHG Accounting disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions13 “We undertook a The GHG Protocol, used by 77% data compared to 73% (19) in CDP6 project mapping (24) of the respondents, is the most (2008). This figure is also compares widely used emissions calculation highly internationally. The rate of 2 the CO emissions methodology. An additional six disclosure of Scope 2 emissions is throughout the entire companies use it in combination with the second highest after the UK FTSE supply chain (from raw other methodologies such as ISO 100 sample (95%). Figure 9 and materials until delivery 14064-1 and industry guidelines. Figure 10 display emissions disclosed Similarly to last year the largest by the respondents in non-carbon at the customer) for emitters are using the tailored intensive and carbon-intensive sectors four pilot products. approaches. respectively. The goal of the project was to identify the Companies can report data according Although emissions disclosure to two boundaries: financial and has improved, the percentage of largest sources of CO2 operational control. Most companies respondents that have their emissions emissions for each of are split evenly between reporting independently verified has stayed the products and find emissions according to financial (42%, the same at 57% (18). Out of these 12) and operational control (42%, companies, 11 are required to have levers to reduce these 13). Six companies have changed their emissions verified by a mandatory emissions. The findings from the financial to the operational or voluntary emissions trading scheme. of this project were the boundary compared to last year. Using Emissions verification is mediocre basis for the estimation different reporting boundaries reduces compared to other regional samples. comparability between emissions For example 77% of the respondents of 7.5 million tons of figures. For example leased assets are in the Europe 300 sample have their CO2 emissions for our included in the operational but not the emissions independently verified. entire supply chain.” financial boundary. However different There is clear room for improvement boundaries help companies report their as having emissions verified by a third carbon footprints more accurately. party lends credibility to reduction Philips Electronics exercises. It is also quite likely that third Disclosure related to emissions party verification will be mandatory accounting shows significant progress once strict national reduction targets compared to CDP 2008. 90% (28) are set.
Figure 9: Scope 1 and 2 Emissions Non Carbon-Intensive Sectors
Unilever Royal Ahold Heineken NV Philips Electronics Royal KPN Nutreco Holding Wavin Draka Holding Royal BAM Group ING Group Reed Elsevier Unibail-Rodamco Océ Logica Aegon Heijmans Scope 1 Emissions Crucell Scope 2 Emissions Wereldhave
13 The WBCSD/WRI GHG Protocol encompasses three 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 groups of emissions: Scopes 1, 2, and 3. Scope 1 represents direct emissions from power generated by the corporation. Scope 2 indirect emissions through consumption of electricity, heat, cooling or steam and Scope 3 includes all other indirect emissions that are a consequence of a company’s activities. 22 tonnes CO2 Response Trends
Scope 3 reporting also shows The variety of trading programs significant improvements. Scope 3 has also increased. In 2008, one “To monitor progress, includes emissions from business respondent was considering AkzoNobel will: travel, external distribution and participation in the CCX, otherwise logistics, use and distribution of companies only mentioned the EU - Measure cradle-to- products and the company’s supply ETS. This year, in addition to the gate carbon footprint chain. Scope 3 reporting shows a EU ETS, respondents named the of its key value chains similar increase in the global sample. UK Carbon Reduction Commitment in 2009 and update (CRC) and the Australian CPRS. The number of respondents reporting Royal Dutch Shell anticipates trading these measurements emissions related to employee travel is in multiple programmes in the US, every 3 years, similar to last year, but an increasing Canada and New Zealand. Philips - Measure and report number of companies disclose and Royal Dutch Shell also report on total company figures for external distribution/ involvement in CDM and JI projects logistics and supply chain. Akzo related to generating renewables. cradle-to-gate Nobel even sets its targets in terms footprint, of cradle-to-gate footprint. The actual Performance - Measure and report figures given for supply chains are The performance section addresses just estimates but they indicate that reduction targets and plans to meet on the reduction of companies are taking responsibility for them. 81% (25) of the respondents cradle-to-gate emissions that lie outside their direct have GHG reduction plans in place company carbon control. Scope 3 emissions disclosure and half of the companies (16) disclose footprint per metric however remains low due to the quantitative GHG reduction targets challenges involved in estimating them. (see Figure 12 and Figure 13). Some of ton of product. We the disclosed GHG reduction targets will reduce this metric 29% (9) of the respondents are are indirect and relate to e.g. energy by 10% by 2015 involved in trading emissions consumption or energy efficiency. compared to 2009” through the EU ETS. Eight Additionally several companies companies expect to be involved disclose targets related to purchasing in emissions trading initiatives other green energy, carbon neutrality and Akzo Nobel than the EU ETS within the next two business travel. The NL 50 companies years. Compared to 2008, the number fared well internationally in this area. In of companies involved in emissions the Europe 300 sample 89% have a trading has increased from 23% (6). reduction plan and in the Global 500 “In the UK, BAM will be sample 80% have a reduction plan. taking part in the newly introduced Carbon Figure 10: Scope 1 and 2 Emissions Carbon-Intensive Sectors Reduction Commitment (CRC). CRC is the first carbon cap and trade Arcelor Mittal scheme for large non- Royal Dutch Shell intensive energy users Air France - KLM Royal DSM and has been developed Akzo Nobel out of the UK Climate Scope 1 Emissions SBM Offshore Scope 2 Emissions Change Act. When Royal TNT
0 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 BAM Group has more experience with the reporting system on CO2 emissions it will also be tonnes CO2 investigated whether the company will participate Figure 11: Scope 3 Emissions in any other emissions trading scheme (EU Business Travel 11 13 External Distribution/Logistics ETS or another trading 4 10 2008 Use and Disposal scheme).” 3 5 2009 Supply Chain 11 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Royal BAM Group number of responding companies 23 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
The NL 50 companies are working six companies, Draka Holding, ING “In our efforts to reach towards their reduction targets, Group, Unilever, Philips, Royal our target, we maintain with 48% (15) stating that they are BAM Group and Royal DSM, report improving energy efficiency, and that their emissions have decreased a three step approach. 35% (11) investing in new production significantly due to renewable energy We firstly focus our technology. Purchasing green purchases and successful energy efforts in reducing our energy and improving measurement reduction initiatives. energy consumption were also mentioned by several companies. Interestingly a number “In total, based on extrapolated and CO2 emissions. of companies mention reducing figures and including factors for Next, the focus is on customers’ emissions as part of their uncertainty, ING emitted 212,871 generating renewable reduction plans. This highlights the tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2008, a energy on site. Finally, trend that companies are taking more reduction of 20% compared to 2007. responsibility for emissions that lie We encourage our business units we consider purchasing outside their direct control. worldwide to purchase renewable of green electricity.” energy if, and where, available and The NL 50 companies are also feasible. Many business units do. starting to report progress towards Our green energy consumption Philips Electronics their reduction targets. 46% (14) of increased by 33% in 2008. In the the responding companies report Netherlands, the US and Belgium, that their emissions have significantly 100% of all electricity purchased is changed from 2008. 32% (10) report green. Taking ING as a whole, 63% of a decrease. These are mostly due the electricity we purchase worldwide to acquisitions and divestments or is derived from wind, solar and water changes in the emissions covered. A power. 57% percent of all business few companies mention that reduced units implemented additional energy- production levels due to the recession efficiency measures in 2008.” have reduced their emissions. However ING Group
Figure 12: Absolute GHG Emissions Reductions Targets
Company Base year CO2 Reduction target Target year
Air France-KLM yearly Reducing CO2 emissions by 300,000 tons / year from 2012 and 2012/2020 500,000 tons / year from 2020 thanks to the “fuel action plan”
Draka Holding 2007 10% Scope 1 and 2 emissions 2009
Logica 2008 6% in 2009 contributing to a reduction of 50% by 2020. 2020
Philips Electronics 2007 Reduction of absolute CO2 emission of 25% 2012
Reed Elsevier 2003 10% absolute reduction in CO2 emissions 2010
Royal DSM 2005-2008 2005-2010 target for GHG-emissions is 15% reduction of scope 2010-2020 1 and 2 emissions and 25% reduction of greenhouse gases 2008- 2020
Royal Dutch Shell 1990 Reduce CO2 emissions from operations by at least 5% 2010
Royal KPN 2005 Network and Offices 20% absolute energy reduction 2020
TNT 2006 Reduce CO2 emissions from its company car fleet by 6% 2011
24 Response Trends
“Shell has developed a carbon Governance “The Board of Management is management system that it uses in all The governance section of the responsible for all Corporate CO2-related business processes and Questionnaire addresses how Responsibility (CR) issues such decision making, and that is supported companies manage responsibility, as climate change. In April 2008, by a dedicated team at corporate incentives and communication the Group Risk Management and level. The system prices CO2 emission related to climate change. Effective Internal Control department became consistently into project economics governance is a crucial step to responsible for reporting and a whilst recognizing that each investment significant emissions reductions. dedicated committee of senior is unique. It is underpinned by a metric management chaired by the CFO for valuing CO2 emissions that is built The NL 50 respondents show has been created to evaluate and on corporate strategic objectives, significant improvement compared improve the metrics used to monitor and a view on how regulations (such to CDP 2008 in their approach to TNT’s CR performance. The Board as cap-and-trade, taxes, well-to- governance. Figure 13 summarizes of Management has also instructed wheel intensity standards) will evolve these differences. The prevalence of existing TNT Group Policies on CR to regionally and with time. The resulting assigning board level responsibility be reviewed and up-dated. The new CO2 valuation has 3 components for climate change is striking. 97% strategy will result in the appointment specified for each project; a cost (30) of the respondents have a of a group director CR who will report penalty (‘price’) for CO2 emissions; the board member with responsibility to the CEO.” TNT way the CO2 price evolves with time; for climate change. This is up 20 and the volumes of emitted CO2 to percentage points from CDP6 (2008) which the price should be applied.” and it is the highest rate across all Royal Dutch Shell international CDP samples. As a comparison, 80% of the Global 500 respondents assigned board level responsibility.
Figure 13: Intensity-Based GHG Emissions Reduction Targets
Company Base year CO2 Reduction target Timescale
Air France-KLM rolling 2% yearly improvement in energy efficiency 2020
Akzo Nobel 2008/2009 10% reduction of Carbon Intensity for the year 2015 2009-2015 (target) compared to base year 2009 (target) 2009-2020 (ambition) 20/25% reduction of Carbon Intensity for the year 2020 compared to base year 2009 (ambition)
Arcelor Mittal 2007 8%, 170 kg per ton of steel produced. 2020
Océ several The average emissions for European lease cars will be 2012 reduced to 130gCO2/km.
Philips Electronics 2007 Improvement of energy efficiency (energy/sales) of 25% 2012
Royal Ahold 2008 Reduction of CO2 emissions per square meter of sales area 2008-2015 by 20% by 2015
Royal KPN 2005 Datacenters 20% more energy efficient 2020
Unibail-Rodamco 2006 and Reduce the carbon intensity with 25% (Carbon emissions per 2006-2016 (ongoing for square meter for Scope 1 and Scope 2) new assets)
Unilever 2004 Reduce CO2 from energy in manufacturing operations by 2010 25% (CO2 per tonne production)
25 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009
The improvement in climate change The NL50 companies communicate “For the first time in governance is also evident in providing primarily through their sustainability 2009, the long term incentives to executives. A majority of reports and dedicated webpages. respondents, 58% (18), now provide financial incentive individual incentives and 39% (12) Conclusions scheme of AkzoNobel have linked them to remuneration. The NL 50 response to the CDP executives will be This is up from 44% (11) in 2008. Most 2009 Questionnaire shows significant linked to AkzoNobel’s of the companies (14 out of 18) report progress compared to last year. that the programs concern a variety of With an increasing number of Dutch ranking on the Dow senior managers and not only those Signatories supporting CDP in the Jones Sustainability focused primarily on the sustainability Netherlands, the response rate will Indexes. This ranking agenda. Providing incentives to a broad hopefully be higher again next year. is also dependent group of employees helps embed actions in the organisation making What is most promising about the on performance climate change another aspect of responses this year is the degree to regarding the criteria: business. which they show that organisations Climate Strategy have embraced climate change as a “KLM has included sustainable business issue. Almost all companies and Operational development objectives in the action have very high level involvement in Eco-efficiency, the plans of all its business lines and climate change, most of them have set latter including operations. All senior management reduction targets and an increasing carbon efficiency levels have specific individual CSR number provide executives throughout targets included in their annual target the organisation with incentives to performance.” setting. Building this priority into all reduce emissions. corporate projects has an extremely Akzo Nobel shaping effect since it forces each More companies need to set ambitious department and entity to align its quantitative targets to reduce their action plans on the project priorities. absolute emissions in line with the Each department is responsible for scientific requirements. To increase “In general, implementing the plans and achieving credibility more companies should sustainability metrics the targets set.” KLM AirFrance consider third party verification. and corresponding The NL 50 companies are also Finally it is also encouraging that so KPIs are embedded in well established in voluntary many of the NL 50 companies see the general corporate communication. 90% (28) of the climate change as an opportunity. This indicators more and NL 50 respondents indicated that proactive stance should help them they communicate climate change respond to any regulation that comes more as a result of information voluntarily. This is up from COP 15. our embedded model, considerably from last year 80% (21). where sustainability is integrated into all Figure 14: Governance questions 2008 vs. 2009 functional disciplines (for example, Consumer 30 Assigned board Lifestyle’s businesses responsibility 20 also have CO2 reduction targets on Individual 18 incentives their Management 11
Agenda).” Publish information on risks and 27 opportunities of Philips Electronics climate change 17 Voluntary communication 28 on climate change 21
Participation 22 in policy 2009 development 16 2008 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Number of respondents 26 1 Overview of CDP 4 Appendix
Figure 15: Summary Table in Alphabetical Oder 2 1 3 Sector Company 2009 2008 CDLI Non public Emissions Total Scope 1 Scope 2 Grid Average Scope 2 Contract Arrangements Scope3 Supply chain & Services Use & Disposal of Products Logistics and Distribution Business Travel Other Industrials Aalberts NR DP Industries Industrials Aegon AQ AQ 58 88,953 10,244 78,709 15,521 x Industrials Air France - AQ - 68 27,680,314 27,596,144 84,170 17,500 130,500 x KLM Materials Akzo Nobel AQ AQ 62 4,640,000 1,600,000 3,040,000 * 20,600,000 x x x Industrials AMG NR NR Advanced Metallurgical Group Consumer Arcadis NR - Discretionary Materials Arcelor Mittal AQ AQ 35 207,799,000 184,408,000 23,391,000 Industrials ASM DP DP International Information ASML AQ NR 7 NP Technology Holding Financials BinckBank NR - Financials Corio AQ AQ 46 NP Health Care Crucell AQ DP 65 12,856 7,186 5,670 Consumer CSM NR AQ Staples (NP Industrials Draka AQ AQ 73 137,332 27,976 109,356 Holding Financials Euro- IN IN commercial Prop. Consumer Fugro IN NR Discretionary Industrials Heijmans AQ IN 56 53,100 21,100 32,000 * Consumer Heineken NV AQ AQ 42 1,986,800 1,238,000 748,800 Staples (NP) Utilities Imtech AQ NR 41 - - Financials ING Group AQ AQ 56 126,868 34,085 92,783 53,245 x Industrials Logica AQ AQ 77 97,668 45,814 51,854 46,158 x x
27 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 2 1 3 Sector Company 2009 2008 CDLI Non public Emissions Total Scope 1 Scope 2 Grid Average Scope 2 Contract Arrangements Scope3 Supply chain & Services Use & Disposal of Products Logistics and Distribution Business Travel Other Consumer Nutreco AQ AQ 60 257,606 122,366 135,240 78,921 Staples Holding Information Oce AQ AQ 75 Technology 98,577 48,279 50,298 48,198 Health Care OPG Group NR AQ Telecom- Ordina NR DP munications Industrials Philips AQ AQ 73 1,288,665 483,584 805,081 720,509 308,443,296 x x x x Electronics Financials Prologis NR - European Properties Consumer Randstad AQ AQ 52 NP Discretionary Consumer Reed AQ AQ 76 126,212 18,559 107,653 93,512 131,703 x x x Discretionary Elsevier Consumer Royal Ahold AQ IN 45 2,474,427 1,150,964 1,323,463 Staples Industrials Royal BAM AQ AQ 66 134,242 96,940 37,302 30,392 51,606 x x x Group Industrials Royal DP DP Boskalis Westminster Materials Royal DSM AQ AQ 79 7,524,222 4,792,148 2,732,074 * 123,627 x x Energy Royal Dutch AQ AQ 75 85,000,000 75,000,000 10,000,000 * 691,401,000 x x x Shell Telecom- Royal KPN AQ AQ 73 534,829 87,829 447,000 * munications Materials Royal Ten NR - Cate Materials Royal Vopak AQ NR 55 NP NV Consumer Royal AQ AQ 42 NP Staples Wessanen Energy SBM AQ AQ 53 1,741,398 1,737,389 4,009 Offshore (NP) Consumer Smit NR - Discretionary Internation- ale Financials SNS Reaal NR NR Industrials TNT AQ AQ 71 1,108,400 960,700 147,700 * 1,580,100 x x Information Tom Tom AQ AQ 31 NP Technology
28 2 1 3 Sector Company 2009 2008 CDLI Non public Emissions Total Scope 1 Scope 2 Grid Average Scope 2 Contract Arrangements Scope3 Supply chain & Services Use & Disposal of Products Logistics and Distribution Business Travel Other Financials Unibail- AQ DP 53 102,220 10,124 92,096 * Rodamco Consumer Unilever AQ AQ 76 2,785,882 1,167,662 1,618,220 240,600,000 x x x x Staples Consumer USG People DP DP Discretionary Financials VastNed NR NR Retail Industrials Wavin AQ NR 63 208,547 69,444 139,103 10,688 x x x Financials Wereldhave AQ NR 70 267 176 91 * 43 x Consumer Wolters NR AQ Discretionary Kluwer (NP)
Glossary of Terms
CCX Chicago Climate Exchange CDLI Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index CDM Clean Development Mechanism, arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol CDP Carbon Disclosure Project CEO Chief Executive Officer CFO Chief Financial Officer CPRS Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by the Australian government COP 15 15th Conference of the Parties – UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 CRC Carbon Reduction Commitment by the UK government CSR Corporate Social Responsibility EU ETS European Union Emissions Trading Scheme GHG Greenhouse Gas GHG Protocol Greenhouse Gas Protocol prepared by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) JI Joint Implementation, mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol KPI Key Performance Indicator NL 50 The 50 largest companies in the Netherlands, based on market capitalisation VROM Dutch Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning
29 Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 CDP Contacts
Paul Dickinson Sue Howells Marianna Herold Carbon Disclosure Project Chief Executive Officer Head of Global Operations NL Report Writer 40 Bowling Green Lane [email protected] [email protected] London, EC1R 0NE United Kingdom Paul Simpson Zoe Riddell Chief Operating Officer Head of Investor CDP Tel: +44 (0) 20 7970 5660/5667 [email protected] [email protected] Fax: +44 (0) 20 7691 7316 www.cdproject.net Daniel Turner Jacob Kislevitz [email protected] Head of Disclosure Project Officer [email protected] [email protected]
CDP Board of Trustees
Chair: Robert Napier Jeremy Smith Takejiro Sueyoshi Tessa Tennant The Met Office Berkeley Energy The Ice Organisation James Cameron Alan Brown Christoph Schroeder Climate Change Capital Schroders TVM Capital
The CDP Netherlands expansion and report were made possible through the generous funding of:
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. CDP prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2009 information request. CDP do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this information. CDP makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, and accept no liability concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and opinions contained herein. All opinions expressed herein by CDP are based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report reflect the views of their respective authors. CDP and their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/or employees, may have a position in the securities discussed herein. The securities mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates.
‘Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330. © 2009 Carbon Disclosure Project. 30