MEMBER 2010
Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 Turkey 50 Report
On behalf of 534 investors with assets of US$64 trillion
CDP Partner Key Sponsor Report Sponsor Carbon Disclosure Project
Carbon Disclosure Project 2010
This report and all of the public MEMBER 2010 responses from corporations are available to download free of charge ABRAPP - Associação KLP Insurance from www.cdproject.net. Brasileira das Entidades Legg Mason, Inc. Fechadas de Previdência The London Pensions Complementar Fund Authority Aegon N.V. Mergence Africa Investments Akbank T.A. . (Pty) Limited
Allianz Global Investors AG Mitsubishi UFJ Financial ATP Group Group (MUFG)
Aviva Investors Morgan Stanley AXA Group National Australia Bank Limited
Banco Bradesco S.A. Neuberger Berman Bank of America Merrill Lynch Newton Investment BBVA Management Limited
BlackRock Nordea Investment Management BP Investment Management
Limited Northwest and Ethical Investments LP California Public Employees’ Retirement System PFA Pension Raiffeisen Schweiz California State Teachers’ Retirement System RBS Group Calvert Group Robeco
Catholic Super Rockefeller & Co. SRI Group CCLA Investment Russell Investments
Management Ltd Schroders Co-operative Asset Second Swedish National Management Pension Fund (AP2)
Essex Investment Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Management, LLC Standard Chartered PLC Ethos Foundation Sun Life Financial Inc. Generation Investment TD Asset Management Inc. Management TDAM USA Inc. HSBC Holdings plc The Wellcome Trust ING Zurich Cantonal Bank
1 CDP Signatories 2010
Carbon Disclosure Project 2010 Bank Vontobel Climate Change Capital Group Ltd Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Close Brothers Group plc 534 financial institutions with assets Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H. The Collins Foundation of over US$64 trillion were signatories BANKINTER S.A. Colonial First State Global Asset Management to the CDP 2010 information request BankInvest Comite syndical national de retraite Bâtirente dated February 1st, 2010, including: Banque Degroof Commerzbank AG Barclays Group CommInsure
BBC Pension Trust Ltd Companhia de Seguros Aliança do Brasil Aberdeen Asset Managers BBVA Compton Foundation, Inc. Aberdeen Immobilien KAG Bedfordshire Pension Fund Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Active Earth Investment Management Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd Co-operative Asset Management Acuity Investment Management BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) Addenda Capital Inc. Terceiros Ltda The Co-operators Group Ltd Advanced Investment Partners BlackRock Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. Bhd. Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd Blue Marble Capital Management Limited Crédit Agricole S.A. AEGON Magyarország Befektetési Alapkezelo´´ Zrt. Blue Shield of California Group Credit Suisse Aegon N.V. Blumenthal Foundation Daegu Bank AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd BMO Financial Group Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Aeneas Capital Advisors BNP Paribas Investment Partners The Daly Foundation AGF Management Limited BNY Mellon de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A. AIG Asset Management Boston Common Asset Management, LLC DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Akbank T.A.S. BP Investment Management Limited Deutsche Asset Management Alberta Investment Management Corporation Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. (AIMCo) Deutsche Bank AG British Columbia Investment Management Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Corporation (bcIMC) Deutsche Postbank Vermögensmanagement S.A., Luxemburg Alcyone Finance BT Investment Management Development Bank of Japan Inc. Allianz Global Investors AG The Bullitt Foundation Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Allianz Group Busan Bank Dexia Asset Management Altshuler Shaham CAAT Pension Plan DnB NOR ASA AMP Capital Investors Cadiz Holdings Limited Domini Social Investments LLC AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Dongbu Insurance Co., Ltd. Amundi Asset Management Caisse des Dépôts DWS Investment GmbH ANBIMA - Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco Association do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Earth Capital Partners LLP APG Asset Management Caixa Econômica Federal East Sussex Pension Fund Aprionis Caixa Geral de Depósitos Ecclesiastical Investment Management ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance) Caja de Ahorros de Valencia, Castellón y Valencia, Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social Arma Portföy Yönetimi A.S. BANCAJA The Edward W. Hazen Foundation ASB Community Trust Caja Navarra EEA Group Ltd ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. California Public Employees’ Retirement System Element Investment Managers ASN Bank California State Teachers’ Retirement System ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência Assicurazioni Generali Spa California State Treasurer Environment Agency Active Pension Fund ATP Group Calvert Group Epworth Investment Management Ltd Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Equilibrium Capital Group Australian Central Credit Union incorporating Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Savings & Loans Credit Union CAPESESP Erste Group Bank AG Australian Ethical Investment Limited Capital Innovations, LLC Essex Investment Management, LLC AustralianSuper CARE Super Pty Ltd Ethos Foundation AVANA Invest GmbH Carlson Investment Management Eureko B.V. Aviva Investors Carmignac Gestion Eurizon Capital SGR Aviva plc Catherine Donnelly Foundation Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers AvivaSA Emeklilik ve Hayat A.S. Catholic Super Evli Bank Plc AXA Group Cbus Superannuation Fund F&C Management Ltd Baillie Gifford & Co. CCLA Investment Management Ltd FAELCE - Fundação Coelce de Seguridade Social Bakers Investment Group Celeste Funds Management Limited FASERN Fundação Cosern de Previdência Banco Bradesco S.A. The Central Church Fund of Finland Complementar Banco de Crédito del Perú BCP Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Fédéris Gestion d’Actifs Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Ceres, Inc. FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH Banco do Brazil Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP FIM Asset Management Ltd Banco Santander Christian Super Financière de Champlain Banco Santander (Brasil) Christopher Reynolds Foundation FIRA. - Banco de Mexico Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social CI Mutual Funds’ Signature Advisors First Affirmative Financial Network Banesto (Banco Español de Crédito S.A.) CIBC First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Bank of America Merrill Lynch Clean Yield Group, Inc. FirstRand Ltd. Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd ClearBridge Advisors 2 Carbon Disclosure Project
Five Oceans Asset Management Hermes Fund Managers Local Government Super Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) HESTA Super Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie Folketrygdfondet Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) The London Pensions Fund Authority Folksam HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) Lothian Pension Fund Fondaction CSN GmbH Macif Gestion Fondation de Luxembourg HSBC Holdings plc Macquarie Group Limited Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites – FRR HSBC INKA Internationale Magnolia Charitable Trust Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Forward Management, LLC Maine State Treasurer Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) Man Group plc IDBI Bank Limited Frankfurter Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft Maple-Brown Abbott Limited Illinois State Treasurer mbH Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft Maryland State Treasurer mbH Impax Asset Management Ltd Matrix Asset Management Friends Provident Holdings (UK) Limited Industrial Bank McLean Budden Front Street Capital Industrial Bank of Korea MEAG Munich Ergo Asset Management GmbH Fukoku Capital Management, Inc. Industry Funds Management Meeschaert Gestion Privée Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Infrastructure Development Finance Company Brasiletros Ltd. (IDFC) Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social ING Merck Family Fund Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Mergence Africa Investments (Pty) Limited Fundação Codesc de Seguridade Social - Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Meritas Mutual Funds FUSESC Telégrafos - Postalis MetallRente GmbH Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - Metzler Investment GmbH BNDES - FAPES INFRAPREV MFS Investment Management Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social Insurance Australia Group Midas International Asset Management Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Investec Asset Management Miller/Howard Investments Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Irish Life Investment Managers Mirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd. Fundação São Francisco de Seguridade Social Itaú Unibanco Banco Múltiplo S.A. Mistra, The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social J.P. Morgan Asset Management Environmental Research - VALIA Janus Capital Group Inc. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) FUNDIÁGUA - Fundação de Previdência da The Japan Research Institute, Limited Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd Companhia de Saneamento e Ambiental do Distrito Federal Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Futuregrowth Asset Management The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Mn Services Gartmore Investment Management Limited Jubitz Family Foundation Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Generali Deutschland Holding AG Jupiter Asset Management Morgan Stanley Generation Investment Management K&H Investment Fund Management / K&H Motor Trades Association of Australia Befektetési Alapkezelo Zrt Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd Genus Capital Management KB Asset Management Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia Gjensidige Forsikring KB Financial Group Natcan Investment Management GLG Partners LP KB Kookmin Bank The Nathan Cummings Foundation GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG, Germany KBC Asset Management´´ NV National Australia Bank Limited Goldman Sachs & Co. KCPS and Company National Bank of Canada GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale Vermögensentwicklung mbH KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. National Bank of Kuwait Governance for Owners LLP Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, LP National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme Government Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”), KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H. Republic of South Africa KfW Bankengruppe National Grid UK Pension Scheme Green Cay Asset Management KLP Insurance National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland Green Century Funds Korea Investment & Trust Management National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. Korea Technology Finance Corporation Natixis GROUPE OFI AM KPA Pension Nedbank Limited Grupo Banco Popular Kyobo AXA Investment Managers Needmor Fund Gruppo Monte Paschi La Banque Postale Asset Management Nelson Capital Management, LLC Guardian Ethical Management Inc La Financière Responsable Nest Sammelstiftung Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Landsorganisationen i Sverige Neuberger Berman Guosen Securities Co., LTD. LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg New Amsterdam Partners LLC Hang Seng Bank LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft New Jersey Division of Investment HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbH mbH New Mexico State Treasurer Harbourmaster Capital LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond New York City Employees Retirement System Harrington Investments, Inc Legal & General Group plc New York City Teachers Retirement System The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Legg Mason, Inc. New York State Common Retirement Fund Hastings Funds Management Limited Lend Lease Investment Management (NYSCRF) Hazel Capital LLP HDFC Bank Ltd Light Green Advisors, LLC Newton Investment Management Limited Health Super Fund Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. NFU Mutual Insurance Society Henderson Global Investors Local Authority Pension Fund Forum NGS Super The Local Government Pensions Institution NH-CA Asset Management 3 CDP Signatories 2010
Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Rei Super Sun Life Financial Inc. Nissay Asset Management Corporation Resona Bank, Limited Superfund Asset Management GmbH NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG Reynders McVeigh Capital Management Sustainable Capital Nordea Investment Management Rhode Island General Treasurer Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Norfolk Pension Fund RLAM Swedbank Ab (publ) Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Robeco Swiss Reinsurance Company Norinchukin Zenkyouren Asset Management Co., Robert Brooke Zevin Associates, Inc Swisscanto Holding AG Ltd Rockefeller & Co. SRI Group Syntrus Achmea Asset Management North Carolina State Treasurer Rose Foundation for Communities and the TD Asset Management Inc. TDAM USA Inc. Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Environment Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) Royal Bank of Canada College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) Northern Trust RREEF Investment GmbH Tempis Capital Management Co., Ltd. Northwest and Ethical Investments LP The Russell Family Foundation Terra Forvaltning AS Oddo & Cie Russell Investments TfL Pension Fund Old Mutual plc SAM Group The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund OMERS Administration Corporation Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Threadneedle Asset Management OP Fund Management Company Ltd Samsung Life Insurance Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH Sanlam Investment Management Toronto Atmospheric Fund Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda The Travelers Companies, Inc. Church Endowment) Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG Trillium Asset Management Corporation OPSEU Pension Trust Schroders TRIODOS BANK Oregon State Treasurer Scotiabank TrygVesta Orion Asset Management LLC Scottish Widows Investment Partnership UBS AG OTP Fund Management Plc. SEB Unibanco Asset Management Pax World Funds SEB Asset Management AG UniCredit Group Pensioenfonds Vervoer Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) Union Asset Management Holding AG Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Unipension The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada Sentinel Investments UNISON staff pension scheme Pension Protection Fund SERPROS Fundo Multipatrocinado UniSuper Pensionsmyndigheten Service Employees International Union Benefit Unitarian Universalist Association Funds PETROS - The Fundação Petrobras de The United Church of Canada - General Council Seguridade Social Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) United Methodist Church General Board of PFA Pension The Shiga Bank, Ltd. Pension and Health Benefits PGGM Shinhan Bank United Nations Foundation Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) Ltd. Management Co., Ltd Vancity Group of Companies PhiTrust Active Investors Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Veritas Investment Trust GmbH Pictet Asset Management SA Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Vermont State Treasurer The Pinch Group Signet Capital Management Ltd VicSuper Pty Ltd Pioneer Alapkezelo´´ Zrt. SIRA Asset Management Victorian Funds Management Corporation PKA SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD VietNam Holding Ltd. Pluris Sustainable Investments SA Smith Pierce, LLC Visão Prev Sociedade de Previdência Pohjola Asset Management Ltd SNS Asset Management Complementar Portfolio 21 Investments Social(k) Waikato Community Trust Inc Portfolio Partners Sociedade Ibgeana de Assistência e Seguridade Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston (SIAS) Trust and Investment Management Company Porto Seguro S.A. Solaris Investment Management Limited WARBURG - HENDERSON PRECE Previdência Complementar Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbH The Presbyterian Church in Canada Sopher Investment Management WARBURG INVEST PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH SPF Beheer bv Banco do Brasil The Wellcome Trust Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Wells Fargo Standard Bank Group Principle Capital Partners West Yorkshire Pension Fund Standard Chartered PLC Psagot Investment House Ltd WestLB Mellon Asset Management PSP Investments Standard Life Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH (WMAM) Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd State Street Corporation The Westpac Group QBE Insurance Group Limited Storebrand ASA Winslow Management Company Rabobank Strathclyde Pension Fund Woori Bank Raiffeisen Schweiz Stratus Group YES BANK Limited Railpen Investments Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation York University Pension Fund Rathbones / Rathbone Greenbank Investments Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited Youville Provident Fund Inc. RBS Group Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., Ltd Zegora Investment Management Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Zurich Cantonal Bank Assistência Social Sumitomo Trust & Banking 4 Carbon Disclosure Project
5 CDP Signatories 2010
MEMBER 2010
Foreword by Paul Dickinson, CEO Carbon Disclosure Project
This year began with the clouds of global recession hanging over the economy. It was also 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 also 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 also 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 also 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 low carbon 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 also 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 globalizing CDP’s programs 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 programs, as well as CDP Water Disclosure, to ensure that we maximize 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.
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 capitalize 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 videoconferencing, 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.
Paul Dickinson CEO, Carbon Disclosure Project
6 Carbon Disclosure Project
Foreword by Climate Change Department, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF)
Climate change is one of the most urgent and greatest challenges that humankind faces today. We are facing a problem that will ultimately affect everyone and future generations. Combating climate change is a long term responsibility that requires the international community as a whole to take efficient measures to ensure sustainable development and prosperity around the globe.
Since green growth is directly linked to the development of new green industries, jobs and technologies as well as greening the more traditional sectors, the costs of transformation in the economic sectors and the time that countries will need to develop new technologies products and demand patterns should be taken into account in the future work. We should have a clear understanding of the size of such transition.
Turkey aims to integrate low carbon development principles into its development policies and plans to build resilience through managing impacts of climate change and encourage mitigation and adaptation through realistic commitments to international agreements in order to create more sustainable, less greenhouse gas intensive development paths. With this intention, Turkey became a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as of 24 May 2004 with the ratification by the Turkish Grand National Assembly. As least development Turkey will be a party to the Kyoto Protocol on 26 August 2009.
We believe Turkey will be a part of the new regime and make important steps with her new generation, governmental organizations and dynamic private sector for an effective and constructive cooperation. Biggest corporations in Turkey committing to do greenhouse gas emission reporting in global standards to the only global climate change reporting system under the Carbon Disclosure Project, aimed to gather the information needed for governments and investors to act against climate change, is a major step forward for private sector to take a part of this global challenge.
All activities are being closely followed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and we would like to express that we are open for any collaboration.
7 7 CDP Signatories 2010
MEMBER 2010
Key Sponsor Foreword by Suzan Sabancı Dinçer The Chairman and Executive Board Member, Akbank
The history of civilization has gone through a period of outstanding development in the last 100 years. Scientific, social and cultural leaps, as well as increasing technological innovation, testify that we are experiencing perhaps the most advanced period in our history.
However, the cost of this rapid and intense development has been high, particularly over the last 30 years.
As the industrial and technological development continues, the natural resources of our world are being adversely affected and the results threaten the future of our planet. The latest scientific research is increasingly showing alarming data about resource deficiency and climate change.
According to the results of a survey of 100 countries conducted by the acclaimed international think tank, the Global Footprint
Network, the speed of resource consumption and CO2 production by human beings is 44% above the production and CO2 absorption capacity of the Earth. (1)
The urgency of the matter has elevated the importance of finding climate change solutions higher in the political agenda. The activities that are led by the initiatives of scientists, volunteer organisations and non-governmental organisations for raising environmental awareness with the aim of making our world habitable in the longer term, are now being conducted under the responsibility of states, governments, international institutions and adopted within their legal frameworks.
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), is the only global climate change reporting system requesting climate change information from companies on behalf of 534 institutional investors with US$64 trillion dollars-in assets under management.
Through the CDP, some 3,000 organisations measure their greenhouse gas emissions in approximately 60 countries all over the world and then disclose their climate change mitigation and adaption strategies.
We are all delighted to be part of Turkey’s involvement in such a giant project and believe that it should be our utmost priority to take responsibility for Global Climate Change, which threatens our near future and poses a great danger for the future generations.
We consider this responsibility a duty and Akbank is proud to support and pioneer the implementation of the Carbon Disclosure Project in Turkey. I believe that the steps which are taken in this area are not only very important but also very urgent for our country and for our world.
I thank everyone for taking part in this invaluable project and for the dedicated efforts of those working hard to make our planet a habitable place.
We hope that the important research to mitigate environmental destruction and the negative impact of Global Climate Change continues and that our planet is as clean and healthy tomorrow as it was yesterday.
Resources: 1 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
8 Executive Summary
Introduction Since CDP acts on behalf of 534 This report presents the highlights of institutional investors, holding US$64 company responses, and sheds light The Carbon Disclosure Project, trillion in assets under management, on challenges affecting the disclosure launched in 2000 in London, aims CDP Turkey respondents have the of corporate actions on climate change to accelerate solutions to climate unique opportunity to communicate in Turkey. change by putting relevant information their climate change policies to at the heart of business, policy and international institutional investors Turkey’s Specific Challenges investment decisions. To achieve through a proper platform, together Most of the invited companies such a mission, CDP requests carbon with some 60 countries, including both were not yet fully aware of the and climate change information from developing and developed countries. consequences of climate change for the largest companies globally, as Such an opportunity will enable their businesses. The reasons for such measured by market capitalisation, responding companies to be more unawareness include: and suppliers of major purchasing visible to international investors and organisations. increase investments in Turkey. • The uncertainty of Turkey’s position As climate change is a global CDP Turkey is an attempt to fill- with respect to international problem, CDP was established as an in the current information gap and agreements international initiative, which collects vague atmosphere regarding Turkey’s • The absence of a national climate data from organisations all around climate change policies. Such change response strategy. the world and develops international information is crucial to investors for carbon reporting standards. It is assessing a company’s commitment • The absence of emissions calculation currently the only global climate and performance in dealing with the standards for Turkey. change reporting system in place. implications of climate change and Unique mission for CDP Since CDP sent out the first request thus should be integrated within for climate change information in a company’s risk management Turkey strategies. 2003, not only has the number of In addition to being a data and disclosing companies grown more The information request sent out to information broker, CDP Turkey than tenfold, but also the global reach ISE-50 companies through CDP 2010 had to facilitate a dialogue between expanded to some 60 countries and included five major aspects: companies, help the emerging 3000 organisations around the world. consulting firms to become more • Governance CDP Turkey visible, help the government’s efforts to • Risks and Opportunities be communicated, educate and inform Sabanci University became the local • Strategy companies about the likely benefits of partner of CDP in Turkey with the responding to the CDP’s invitation and • GHG Accounting sponsorship of Akbank. The project share good practices. was launched in January 2010. The • Communications range of programmes carried out within the CDP framework includes Table 1: Summary of CDP 2010 Responses of ISE-50 Companies Supply Chain, Cities, Water Disclosure, (calculated over 10 responding companies excluding the voluntary Public Procurement, and Investor CDP. responses) Currently, Turkey is implementing the Investor CDP programme, which provides climate change data from the ReResponsesponse Ra ratete 20%20% world’s largest corporations to inform Board or otherBo arexecutived level the global market place on investment body levelre responsibilitysponsibility fo forr 73%80% risk and commercial opportunity. clclimateimate ch changeange
Scope 1 &Sc 2 opemissionse 1 & 2 In the first year of the Project in Turkey, 50% 80% the companies that are included in the emissions rereportingporting
Istanbul Stock Exchange 50 (ISE-50) EmissionsEmission s/reductionenergy index representing 50 of the largest reductiotargetsn plan 45%50% companies by market capitalisation in EnEngagementgagement wi withth Turkey were invited to respond to the 30% 40% CDP information request. popolicylicy ma makerskers
0% 10%20% 30%40% 50%60% 70%80% 9 Executive Summary
Key Findings awareness. The ISE-50 2010 response rate is 80% of the respondents have 20%. A total of 10 ISE-50 companies emissions reduction targets either respond to CDP 2010. There is one in place or in the development voluntary response from a non-ISE-50 phase. Among ISE-50 respondents, 20% company. There are also companies in five already have emissions targets which CDP’s questionnaire triggered in place, and three reports that they A total of 10 ISE-50 climate change projects and who have are in the development phase for Companies responded committed to report in 2011 even setting targets. Such high rates are though they could not this year. satisfying given the lack of regulatory to CDP 2010. There is obligations. Targets are mostly defined one vountary response Response rates to CDP 2010 as percentage reductions from base from a non ISE-50 across developing countries: year emissions. Low-carbon policies Even though the number might seem focus primarily on energy efficiency and Company. low at a first glance, it actually is a renewable energy options. successful rate compared to the CDP 2010 response rates of other Relatively low engagement levels developing countries, especially with policy makers. 40% of the Of the 10 banks that considering 2010 is Turkey’s first year respondents engage with policy were included in ISE- with CDP. When we look at CDP 2010 makers on possible responses to 50, 5 responded to CDP response rates, Russia has an 8% climate change. Such levels highlight response rate in its 2nd year, China the importance of CDP Turkey’s role as 2010. has 11% in its 3rd year, India has 21% a dialogue facilitator. in its 4th year, Asia excluding JICK has 50% (5) of the respondents already 32% in its 5th year, and Brazil has 72% publish information about their in its 6th year. company’s response to climate change Outlook for 2011 Furthermore, unlike Turkey, most of the and GHG emissions. We have doubled our work for 2011: developing countries within CDP have Turkey’s Carbon we will expand our invitation to include already established climate change ISE-100 and increase our awareness- policies and national emissions targets, Performance Leadership: raising programmes in order to reach as well as emissions measurement Banks out to more companies for Turkey standards. A rapid increase in the The response rate for banks in the to become increasingly visible to response rates is expected in Turkey international institutional investors. once rigorous national policies are ISE-50 is 50% (5). Board or other implemented. executive level responsibility for climate The CDP Scoring change issues drives leadership in ISE-50 companies see climate governance for climate change related Methodology change regulation as an issues. The number of responding The CDP scoring methodology opportunity. 70% of the respondents banks with climate change as (previously known as the Carbon see regulation as a way to increase board or other executive level Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) demand and to benefit from their responsibility is 4. Communication is methodology) has been developed by achievements in energy efficiency. also closely connected to governance PricewaterhouseCoopers and CDP and 4 of the banks do publish their and is applied in most of the CDP 80% of the respondents assign climate change policies. Such high board or other executive level reports. The methodology scores performance in the financial sector companies separately for disclosure responsibility for climate change. is a reflection of their high sensitivity Assignment of board or other executive and performance. However, Turkish for investor concerns. Furthermore 3 Respondents were not scored in level responsibility for climate change engages with policy makers. issues proves that companies take 2010, since more respondents from the issue seriously. Despite such each sector are needed for healthy interest and support, the lack of action assessment and ranking. It is intended in Turkey points to the huge need that CDP Disclosure and Performance for nation-wide policies, improved scores will be incorporated in the CDP communication within the climate 2011 Turkey Report. change community, and increased
10 Carbon Disclosure Project
CDP Signatories 2010 1
Contents Foreword by Paul Dickinson 5
Foreword by Climate Change Department, MoEF 6
Foreword by Suzan Sabancı Dinçer 7
Executive summary 9
1 Overview of CDP Turkey 12
2 Key Trends in Turkey 13
3 The Global Key Trends Table 20
4 Company Responses Overview and Key Findings 21
5 Closing and Observations 27
Appendix I: Company Response Status Table 31
Appendix II: CDP Information Request (Questionnaire) 33
11 ChapterOverview Title of ChapterCDP Turkey Title 11 Chapter Title
Carbon Disclosure Project- and the absence of a national climate lived. Companies who have benefited The Beginning in Turkey change response strategy. Furthermore, from Voluntary Mechanisms companies were puzzled because presented their experiences. In many cases, the causes of Turkey had not yet developed emissions • We issued three newsletters to share environmental problems lie in a market calculation standards .This was a major our progress with the project. failure brought about by information concern for the companies since reports asymmetries reflecting the cognitive based on different emissions factors and • We collected information on service defects of the market participants. different calculation methods would not firms that offer training, consulting Our interest in the Carbon Disclosure be comparable. and certification services related Project (CDP) is rooted in our deep to emissions reporting and climate Turkey’s business group structures change response. We shared the appreciation of the importance of posed another challenge for the corporate disclosure and transparency information and the contact details of project. Boundary selection and the firms with the invitee companies, in curing market failures; externalities consolidation of emissions within can only be managed if the nature helping the emerging companies to business groups which include both become visible. and the magnitude of their effects are listed and unlisted companies was known. CDP complements our previous a novelty for the emissions reporting • We drafted a guideline for boundary research and advocacy programmes standard setters. selection and consolidation to help focused on corporate disclosure and business groups organised as transparency and relies on the founding These issues assigned a new and Holdings to make sense of global philosophy of Sabanci University which unique mission to the project in consolidations standards. puts the societal needs at the centre of Turkey; in addition to being a data all of our activities. and information broker, CDP Turkey • We participated in workshops, had to facilitate a dialogue between conferences and seminars organised We launched the CDP in Turkey as the companies, help the emerging by other initiatives and shared our the local partner of CDP on 11 of consulting firms become more visible, knowledge, experience and thoughts January 2010 with a press conference help the government’s efforts to be with the public. organised by the British Embassy communicated, educate and inform • We made hundreds of calls to the in support of the project. The press the companies about the likely benefits conference was followed by the official invitee companies, met with their of responding to CDP’s information managers in charge, tried to convince launch at which Professor Nicholas request and share good practices. Stern delivered an eye opening them to be a part of the project, speech highlighting the far reaching • We organised a workshop on 27 answered their questions and helped consequences of climate change for February 2010. It attracted 50 the internal advocates to be heard the global economy, the quality of participants and focused on the by their top managers. On numerous life on earth and more specifically for reporting process and the technicalities occasions, we have seen our alumni Turkey. The overwhelming interest of reporting through CDP. Included in positions responsible for investor in the conference reassured us that in the programme was a training relations, corporate communications, the project was very timely. Since session on generally accepted global and risk management. They were the then, CDP Turkey has been covered emissions calculation standards transformational managers in their many times by the daily press, sector and methodologies. That workshop organisations. magazines and news bulletins of convinced us that we had to focus At the end of the ‘beginning’, we various civil society organisations. on the opportunities rather than the have 11 companies who reported risks which were perceived to be In the first year of the project, we invited their emissions and climate change unpredictable and unquantifiable by response strategies through CDP. the companies that are included in many companies. ISE-50 index to respond to the CDP We have four investors who became information request. Despite the • We organised our second signatories to CDP Turkey. We have overwhelming support by all of the workshop on 28 April 2010 with triggered projects in other companies stakeholders to the project, we did face 80 participants. Representatives that could not report through CDP serious challenges; most of the invitee from the Ministry of Environment- this year, but are committed to do so companies were not yet fully aware of Climate Change Department clarified in 2011. We are encouraged by the the consequences of climate change for Turkey’s commitments stemming pioneering companies to expand our their businesses. In our view, the most from international treaties and the EU invitation to include ISE-100 in 2011. important reason for this ignorance was accession process and assured the We will double our work in 2011, but the uncertainty of Turkey’s position with participants that any void in national with more confidence, more partners, respect to international agreements policy or standards would be short more allies and more insight.
12 Carbon Disclosure Project Key trends 2 in Turkey
Global Frameworks for Annex I countries are required to “F&C actively evaluates Climate Change adopt policies and measures to limit their emissions to less than their 1990 its investment portfolios In 1992 the Framework Convention levels. Annex II countries, composed to determine where on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of the Organisation for Economic climate change may was adopted as an international Cooperation and Development present a material environmental Treaty in the United (OECD) members and the EU, are Nations Conference on Environment further required to provide funding and risk, or opportunity, to and Development (Rio Summit). technology to ‘developing countries’ to its investments. As The objective of this treaty is the reduce their emission levels and adapt an investor supporter ‘stabilisation of greenhouse gas to climate change. concentrations in the atmosphere at of the CDP, we value a level that would prevent dangerous The convention sets no mandatory the clear disclosure anthropogenic interference with the limits on the Parties’ greenhouse and comparability climate system’ . Since the UNFCCC gas (GHG) emissions and there are responses to the survey was adopted, its Parties have held no enforcement mechanisms under annual meetings, known as the the treaty. Implementation of the provided. We are Conference of the Parties (COP), to Convention is through legally binding disappointed by the low assess their progress in dealing with protocols. The principal protocol is the level of participation climate change, and to establish legally Kyoto Protocol(KP) which was signed in Turkey and would binding ‘Protocols’ to set emissions in 1997 but only entered into force in reduction targets. 2005; it aims to mitigate global GHG like to see many more emissions from Annex I countries Turkish companies Parties to UNFCCC are classified supported by the use of flexibility under three groups: mechanisms (Emissions Trading, respond to the survey Clean Development Mechanism and in future, particularly • Annex I countries: industrialised Joint Implementation). The Protocol those involved in high countries and economies in transition sets emission limits or reduction emission industries. • Annex II countries: a subgroup of commitments for Annex I Parties listed Given F&C’s long- Annex I countries which pay for the in its Annex B. Annex B consists of 39 costs of climate change mitigation industrialised countries as well as the standing commitments and the adaptation strategies of members of the European Community. to both emerging developing countries Furthermore, it sets a collective target market investing and for Annex B parties to reduce their • Non-Annex I countries: Developing aggregate GHG emissions by 5% ESG investing, we and least developed countries. below 1990 levels during the five-year encourage Turkish commitment period between 2008 companies to evaluate and 2012. the impact climate 1 http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php change will have on their business and International Developments and Turkey develop a strategy to June 1992 : The UNFCCC was adopted respond. The CDP is a December 1997 : The Kyoto Protocol was adopted useful tool for achieving May 2004 : Turkey became a party to the Convention this goal.” February 2005 : The Kyoto Protocol entered into force Alexis Krajeski, December 2007 : The Bali Action Plan was adopted by Decision 1/CP.13 of the COP-13 Associate Director of F&C August 2009 : Turkey became a party to the Kyoto Protocol December 2009 : The UN Climate Change Conference was held in Copenhagen - COP-15
13 2
Flexibility Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol “The CDP plays a • Emissions Trading allows countries with emissions-reduction or key role in providing emissions-limitation commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B investors with access Parties), which have emissions units to spare (emissions permitted to to information on how them but not used), to sell this excess capacity to countries that have companies around the exceeded their targets. world are responding • The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows a country with an to climate-related risks emissions-reduction or emissions-limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emissions-reduction and opportunities. project in Non- Annex I countries. Such projects can earn saleable Signatories to certified emissions reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one the Principles for metric ton of CO ; these credits may be counted towards meeting that 2 Responsible Investment country’s Kyoto targets. have supported investor • Joint Implementation allows a country with an emissions reduction or limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to engagement initiatives earn emissions reduction units (ERUs) from an emissions-reduction on CDP, including or emissions removal project in another Annex B Party; each ERU is encouraging non- equivalent to one metric ton of CO , which may be counted towards 2 responding companies meeting its respective Kyoto target. to participate, and encouraging better To participate in the Flexibility Mechanisms, Annex 1 Parties must quality responses meet the following eligibility requirements: from those that do. • They must have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. We expect to see • They must have calculated their assigned amount, as referred to in many more investor Articles 3.7 and 3.8 and Annex B of the Protocol in terms of tonnes of collaborations in the CO2-equivalent emissions. future around pressing • They must have established a Designated National Authority (DNA) for companies to be more estimating emissions and the removal of greenhouse gases within their transparent in how territory. they address climate • They must have established a national registry to record and track the creation and movement of Emission Reduction Units, Certified change.” Emission Reductions, Assigned Amount Units and Removal Units (RMU’s) and report such information to the secretariat annually. Dr James Gifford, • They must report information on emissions and removals to the Executive Director, secretariat annually. Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI)
Turkey under the UNFCCC and the KP • A Party to the UNFCCC since May 2004 as an Annex 1 Party subject to a specific COP Decision (Decision 26/CP.7, at COP7 in Marrakech, 2001) which classifies Turkey differently to the other Annex-I Parties and excludes Turkey’s name from Annex-II Parties. • A Party to the Kyoto Protocol as of 26 August 2009, but not included in Annex B Parties which have emission reduction commitments for the initial period ending at 2012.
14 Carbon Disclosure Project
Turkey was included both in the In August 2010, the Ministry of approved a comprehensive package Annex I and Annex II countries when Environment and Forestry (MoEF) of emissions-cutting measures aimed the UNFCCC was adopted in 1992; took a key step to integrate the newly at reducing greenhouse gases by at however, Turkey only ratified the established ‘National Carbon Registry least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, Convention in 2004 after reaching System’ with global carbon markets. raising renewable energy’s share of an agreement in Marrakesh (2001) to Under the new registry system, the market to 20% and cutting overall remove Turkey from the Annex II list projects developed and executed to energy consumption by 20% (based and recognise its unique condition as reduce and contain GHG emissions on projected trends). On 20 June a ‘developing’ OECD country. Under can be registered. This will help to 2010, EU member states moved the Convention Turkey is committed to avoid double counting, ensure market climate change policy one step forward implementing climate change mitigation, transparency and integrity, and also with an ambitious action to adapt the adaptation, research and education, help to increase the certificate’s value ‘Europe 2020’ strategy for growth and training and public awareness measures; through increased knowledge-sharing jobs. The new strategy includes the as well as to submitting an annual report between parties regarding available ‘20/20/20’ targets for GHG emission of inventories of all anthropogenic GHG projects. reductions and renewable energies, emissions from sources and removals but also allows for a possible further from sinks, but has no obligation to EU Accession Process and increase in emission reductions (to provide financial support to developing Turkey 30%) if other developed countries take countries. on similar responsibilities2. The EU is a leader in global efforts Due to the delay in ratifying the to protect the environment; it is one In terms of climate change policy, EU Convention, Turkey was unable to of the initiators of the United Nations members and candidate countries are participate in the Kyoto Protocol Environment Program (UNEP), a expected to largely meet the Kyoto negotiations and hence it is not signatory and active participant in the Protocol targets with existing domestic included in the Annex B list of countries Kyoto Protocol and is also party to a policies and measures. In this respect, which are obliged to have quantified number of international agreements the goal of EU membership appears emission limitations or reductions and partnerships, including the to be a major driving force behind for the first five year commitment UNFCCC. Turkey’s climate change response. period. Although Turkey does not have Throughout the EU accession process, obligations to reduce its emissions Internally, the EU has established Turkey is expected to set an overall until the end of the initial commitment a comprehensive system of cap for national emissions. The period, it cannot benefit from the environmental protection; one of Turkish environmental legal framework Flexibility Mechanisms of the Kyoto these is the EU Emission Trading needs also to be harmonised with EU Scheme (EU ETS) for CO emissions protocol available to other developing 2 environmental directives and Turkey is countries. from industrial installations. The EU required to develop a national strategy ETS, introduced in 2005, rewards to combat climate change. This matter companies that reduce their CO Since the signing of the Kyoto 2 has increased in priority since Turkey Protocol in 1997, several regulatory emissions and penalises those that opened the environmental chapter and voluntary carbon markets have exceed their limits. The European on 21 December 2009 in accession emerged. Currently Turkey can only Commission has adopted a decision negotiations3. participate in the voluntary carbon after the Kyoto Period which markets. The voluntary market refers determines a ceiling on the number The implementation of the EU to emissions reductions, and emissions of emissions allowances that will be environmental acquis is not only trading between entities (companies, available under the EU ETS from 2013 a precondition for each candidate governments, NGOs, individuals), for (the first year of the 2013-2020 trading country, but an unequivocal purposes other than meeting regulatory period). legal implementation, where targets. the Commission requires that In December 2008, EU leaders
Carbon Market Components Market Transaction Type Credit type Regime Regulatory Allowance-based AAU (Assigned Amount Units) International Emissions Trading EUA (EU Allowance) EU-Emissions Trading Scheme Project-based ERU (Emission Reduction Unit) Joint Implementation CER (Certified Emission Clean Development Mechanism Reduction) Voluntary Mainly project-based VER (Verified Emission Voluntary projects Reduction)
2 http://ec.europa.eu/climateaction/eu_action/index_en.htm, Accessed at 12.09.2010 15 2
Turkey managed to produce 12.3% of its total primary energy supply from EU’s ‘20/20/20’ targets renewable sources in 2004. Despite this, since domestic resources are • A reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20% below 1990 unable to meet demand, the country levels (30% if international agreement is reached) remains a net energy importer, with • 20% of EU energy consumption to come from renewable resources. a high ratio of import dependency reaching 72%.4 • A 20% reduction in primary energy use compared with projected levels, to be achieved by improving energy efficiency. Turkey also supports the idea that the funds for adaptation to climate change should be provided to parties on the basis of the principles of the appropriate administrative scenario for the energy production ‘equity’, ‘common but differentiated structures with adequate capacity sector until the year 2020; this makes responsibilities’ and ‘respective are established. As part of the Turkey the only Annex-I country that capabilities’. Turkey asserts that the harmonisation process, Turkey’s does not set mitigation targets for the current classification of countries in the MoEF has prepared ‘strategic post-2012 period and also the only climate change regime fails to reflect documents’ and ‘implementation OECD country that does not have a changing economic circumstances reports’, with contributions national emissions reduction target for and that the post-2012 climate change from relevant organisations and 2020. regime must be a flexible one which institutions, based on EU legislation. gives Parties the right to undertake the The most comprehensive report, Since the Convention came into most suitable commitment for them, the EU Integrated Environmental effect in 1994, all the signatories to referred to as Nationally Appropriate Approximation Strategy (UÇES), the Convention have been actively Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), a voluntary was prepared in 2006. It includes prepared and issued National action where a country decides its own information about technical and Communications as part of their appropriate mitigation actions. institutional infrastructures, and contribution to the gathering and sharing of information regarding GHG those environmental improvements Current Emission Levels and that are required for the effective emissions, national policies and best implementation of the legislation. practices. With the coordination Trends of the Ministry, the ‘First National Turkey’s GHG emissions, in total Communication’ (FNC) of Turkey Government’s response to and per capita, show a rising trend has been prepared by UNDP in Climate change between 1990 and 2008, except collaboration with other stakeholders during the period of financial crisis Turkey’s ‘National Climate Change such as private sector representatives, in 2001 and 2008. Turkey’s growth Strategy’ document entered into force academicians, experts and civil has been the highest among Annex in May 2010. This document explains society organisations. The aim of the I countries5 ; in 1990 the total CO how Turkey plans to contribute to FNC was to prepare an inventory for 2 emission in Turkey was 187 million global actions and sets Turkey’s own greenhouse gases in Turkey for the tonnes CO , rising to 366 million goals for 2010-2020 while taking into period 1990-2004, to develop national 2 tonnes CO in 2008. account its own special circumstances capacities and to facilitate the process 2 and capacity. of mainstreaming climate change The European Economic Area (EEA) issues into national planning and policy. provides useful insights in terms of The Strategy also includes guidance The inventory is already completed Turkey’s emission facts: for tackling climate change during and was submitted to the UNFCCC in the period 2010-2020. The main 2007.4 Between 1990 and 2007, Turkey strategies are; i) to actively participate experienced the largest per capita in negotiations aimed at combating According to the FNC, Turkey’s basic GHG emissions increase of 75%. and adapting to global climate change; social and economic indicators place The increase in the total emissions ii) to prepare the National Climate it in the category of middle income from Turkey is mainly attributable to Change Action Plan; iii) to initiate developing countries and Turkey is the country’s important demographic organisational restructuring on climate dissimilar to those developed countries growth (+ 25 % over the period) and change in concerned institutions; iv) to listed as Annex I Parties on the economic development Turkey has, establish the necessary infrastructure grounds of the following indicators: however, the lowest GHG emissions for GHG inventories; and v) to develop with 3.3 tonnes of CO2 per capita, per capita among all EEA member climate change policies in cooperation Turkey possesses the lowest per countries. This can be explained by low with all stakeholders. capita fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions levels of final energy use per capita. amongst OECD countries whose The Strategy document only defines average is 11.1, the world average a 7% limitation of GHG emissions is 4.0 and the EU 25 average is 9.0. compared to a business as usual (BAU)
3 MOEF – Strategic plan 2010- 2014 4 First National Communication of Turkey on Climate Change (2007) 5 Climate Investment Funds (2009) Clean Technology Fund Investment Plan for Turkey -CTF/TFC.2/9 16 Carbon Disclosure Project
Indicators for Turkey’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Emission Per Capita 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.7 1.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.4 4.2 (tons/person) Total Emission 187.0 199.1 210.2 221.7 217.2 237.5 258.6 271.9 274.0 274.8 297.0 278.1 286.1 302.8 312.3 329.9 349.6 380.0 366.5 (million Tons)
Source: TurkStat, Population and Development Indicators
Since Turkey has undergone rapid years. Despite some ongoing projects, programmes. AFD offers financing to economic growth, population growth Turkey needs to improve its transport banks, municipalities or companies to and industrialisation, its energy strategy to reduce transport related finance the development of renewable demand has risen steadily and is emissions6. and clean energies and the creation projected to continue rising in the of infrastructure (transport, water and future. High energy demand is the main Another important sector where sanitation, household waste) that factor behind the growth in emissions. efficiency measures are needed is the reduces the country’s carbon emissions. Energy production and use is the Building sector. A significant cause EBRD aims to promote favourable largest contributor to emission with of increased electricity demand may market conditions for the development 77% of Turkey’s total emissions. be attributed to heating and cooling of energy efficiency and renewable systems. Electricity demand could energy through its investments. IFC’s Energy related CO emissions have be significantly reduced by improving 2 investments aim to lower energy costs to more than doubled since 1990 and insulation and introducing more consumers and industry and to reduce are likely to continue to increase in energy efficient appliances. A recently environmental emissions by displacing parallel with significant growth in introduced programme, involving the more polluting fuels. Some examples 6 energy demand . In line with economic energy labelling of buildings in Turkey, are listed below: growth, energy use in Turkey is is an important step towards improving expected to double again over the energy efficiency in the Building • UNDP, together with the British next decade7. Growth in the electricity sector6. Embassy and the MoEF collaborated and industrial sectors is expected to for the project: ‘Developing Turkey’s Turkey’s low-carbon policies focus increase Turkey’s overall CO2 emissions National Climate Change Action because of rising electricity demand primarily on energy efficiency and Plan‘(June 2009 - September 2010). and a reliance on solid fuels. Since renewable energy options. Turkey has The objective of the project is to Turkey has large coal reserves, the use an abundance of renewable energy prepare Turkey’s National Climate of coal is expected to multiply over sources including hydroelectric, wind, Change Strategy and Action Plan. the next decade in order to provide geothermal and solar power. Nuclear Another UNDP initiated project is electricity for the growing population power is also expected to become one ‘Enhancing the Capacity of Turkey to and expanding economy. of the major options for diversifying Adapt to Climate Change’. This UN Turkey’s power generating capacity. Joint Programme, funded by Spain Turkey does not have significant Renewable energy sources are still far through the Millennium Development domestic natural gas reserves and from being a sufficient energy resource Goals Achievement Fund, aims to 99% of its gas is currently imported. considering the total energy demand. establish strategies necessary to Natural gas consumption has grown The Role of Development combat and manage the effects rapidly in Turkey over the past two of climate change in Turkey and to decades (with an average annual Institutions, Private enhance the capacity necessary to growth rate of 24%) mainly as a means Sector and Civil Society in manage climate change risks that of reducing growth in the usage of Combating Climate Change threaten Turkey’s rural and coastal the environmentally unsustainable area development. domestic lignite. The United Nations Development Fund (UNDP), International Finance • AFD made €11 million of finance In terms of the Transportation sector, Corporation (IFC), European Bank available to a cement plant to install Turkey has an unsustainable car for Reconstruction and Development an incineration unit that uses sludge and oil-based transport system. (EBRD), and Agence Francaise from Izmit municipality. This project Improvements in fuel quality, shifts Developpement (AFD) contribute to meets the dual target of mitigating towards new technology vehicle Turkey’s climate change response. pollution and promoting energy engines, an expansion of the metro UNDP works closely with governmental efficiency by replacing traditional fuel and light rail networks, as well as organisations to build support to with sludge. extensions and improvements to address climate change and to the railway network are some of the integrate environmental concerns • EBRD extended a €45 million loan significant measures taken in recent into development policies and to Rotor Elektrik for the construction
6 Energy Policies of IEA Countries - Turkey- 2009 Review
17 2
and development of an on-shore group is to stimulate multi disciplinary wind farm in order to increase studies in earth sciences including “As Sekerbank, we Turkey’s wind generation capacity by geology, ecology, climatology and around 30%. The bank extended a oceanography. have launched our new local currency loan worth €60 million product, EKOkredi in to Izgaz, Turkey’s third-largest gas • ‘The Institute of Environmental 2009 as a result of our Sciences’ of Bogaziçi University distributor, to help finance capital studies on environmental investments following the company’s is the first environmental research privatisation in early 2009. organisation in Turkey to be sensitivity and established by law in 1983. The environmental efficiency. • IFC signed an eight year US$75 Institute’s research areas are not million loan agreement with Akenerji limited to environmental engineering Combining 57 years to support development of Akenerji’s but also include pure environmental of our experience in renewable energy projects. IFC is also sciences, ecology, and social Community Banking with planning to invest up to €25 million in environmental sciences. our expertise in SME the Green for Growth Fund Southeast Europe to stimulate the financing of • Another organisation working on and agriculture business, sustainable energy projects within the environmental issues is Bogaziçi we have also worked to region including Turkey. University’s ‘Sustainable Development create social awareness and Cleaner Production Centre’. There are several civil society This Centre aims to support research on the negative effects organisations which actively work on into sustainable development and of global warming and climate change issues such as the to provide technical support to the pollution. With the World Wide life Fund (WWF) Turkey, production and service sectors for Greenpeace Mediterranean, Doga cleaner and more effective methods optimum resources that Dernegi (the Nature Society), TEMA of production that reduce the amount we have provided for (The Turkish Foundation for Combating of waste and mitigate emissions. the projects aimed at Soil Erosion, for Reforestation and the Bogaziçi University (Energy Policies renewable energy use, Protection of Natural Habitats), Turkish Research Group) together with the Association for Energy Economics (EED). Centre for Economics and Foreign which allow efficient use There are also many institutions which Policy Studies (EDAM) prepared of natural resources and represent or work with the private sector: Turkey’s first comprehensive economic reduce CO2 emissions impact assessment study related we introduced more • TÜSIAD (Turkish Industrialists’ and to Turkey’s accession to the Kyoto Businessmen’s Association) has Protocol which is ordered by the State than 9000 people to this an Environmental Working Group. Planning Organisation (SPO). energy saving concept. TÜSIAD is also the first Turkish establishment to be accredited by • Sabancı University is the Carbon Our studies in this area the Secretariat of the UNFCCC in Disclosure Project’s local partner in were also well received the field of ‘Business and Industry Turkey. Through its research centre internationally; and the Non-Governmental Organisation’ the Corporate Governance Forum Green for Growth Fund, (BINGO). TÜSIAD established the of Turkey hosted by the Faculty of ‘Climate Platform’ together with Management, undertakes research in founded by institutions REC’s (Regional Environmental the areas of sustainable investments, of the European Union, Centre) Turkey office in 2009. corporate accountability and selected Sekerbank as The Climate Platform supports corporate disclosure. the effective participation of the first bank to provide Turkish businesses in international • ‘The Centre for Energy, Environment credits in the entire processes. and Economy’ (CEEE) established in Southern European 2009 at Özyegin University aims to • BCSD’s (Business Council for study issues related to energy, the region. We shall continue Sustainable Development) Turkey environment and the economy. to create awareness chapter facilitates business among all of our social leadership as a catalyst for change • Marmara University’s Research Centre toward sustainable development. for International Relations (MURCIR) is partners to contribute accredited as Observer Organisation to the preservation of Turkey’s universities are actively to the UNFCCC and is engaged in natural resources” engaged in research activities around climate change related research. climate change: Meriç Ulusahin, CEO, • Istanbul Technical University’s Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences Climate Sekerbank T.A.S. Research Group researches scientific approaches to climate change adaptation. The aim of the research 18 Carbon Disclosure Project Global key trends1 Conclusions References: 2010 Turkeysummary needs to synchronize its Bonn Climate Change Talks, http:// New Horizons (2010) UNDP Turkey policy decisions in implementing the unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/ Monthly Newsletter, Issue 50, February UNFCCC with the EU accession application/pdf/turkey.pdf, 1 April 2010 process. The Coordination Board on 2009. UÇES (2006) Ministry of Environment Climate Change (CBCC), established Clean Technology Fund (2009) and Forestry, Environment Policies of in 2001 and the Climate Change Investment Plan for Turkey, CTF/ Turkey in The EU Accession Process. Department in the MoEF, founded in TFC.2/9. 2010 are the main institutions charged Republic of Turkey (2007) First National with supporting this difficult task. Climate Investment Funds (2009) Clean Communication of Turkey on Climate Effective coordination between these Technology Fund Investment Plan Change, Ankara: MoEF. institutions and their cooperation with for Turkey -CTF/TFC.2/9, 16 January other public institutions, international 2009. Republic of Turkey (2010) National development institutions, the private Climate Change Strategy Document sector, academia and NGOs, is crucial Council of the European Union (2009) 2010-2020, Ankara: MoEF for the preparation of national climate EU Position for the Copenhagen Climate Conference – Council TURKSTAT (2010) Green House change strategies and their effective Gas Emission Inventory 2008, News implementation. Conclusions, (Doc. 14790/09), 21 October 2009. Bulletin. EEA (2009) Greenhouse gas emission UN, SPO (2010) Millennium trends and projections in Europe 2009: Development Goals Report Turkey. Tracking progress towards Kyoto http://www.aciktoplumvakfi.org.tr/ targets. pdf/Turkiyenin-CO2-salimlari.pdf , IEA (2009) Energy Policies of IEA Accessed at 04.10.2010. Countries- Turkey, 2009 Review. http://unfccc.int/essential_background/ Kumbaroglu, G., N. Karali and Y. items/2877.php , Accessed at 15. Arıkan (2008). “COI, GDP and RET: 09.2010. An aggregate economic equilibrium http://ec.europa.eu/climateaction/ analysis for Turkey.” Energy Policy eu_action/index_en.htm , Accessed at 36(7): 2694-2708. 12.09.2010. MoEF (2009) National Report on http://www.undp.org.tr/Gozlem2. Special Circumstances of Turkey, aspx?WebSayfaNo=112 , Accessed at Ankara: MoEF. 07.09.2010. MoEF (2010) Strategic Plan 2010- 2014, Ankara: MoEF. MoEF (2009) Post-2012 Climate Change Negotiations Guidebook – Turkey, Ankara: MoEF. New Horizons (2010) UN DP Turkey Monthly Newsletter, Issue 54, June
19 3 The Global Key 3 Trends Table
This table outlines some of the key findings from CDP 2010 by geography or industry data-set.2 3
Sample: geography /
number of companies % of sample answering CDP 2010 or other with Board % of responders for climate executive level responsibility change with % of responders management incentives with emissions % of responders targets reduction taking actions % of responders emissions to reduce indicating that their % of responders parties to and services help third products avoid GHG emissions risks seeing regulatory % of responders seeing regulatory % of responders opportunities engaging policymakers on responders climate issues to encourage mitigation or adaptation the company’s reporting % of responders to climate change in mainstream response annual filings / CSR reports independently verifying % of responders any portion of Scope 1 emissions data independently verifying % of responders any portion of Scope 2 emissions data
Asia ex-JICK 1354 32 80 46 56 73 41 65 70 60 80 48 40 Australia 200 47 83 46 40 73 55 69 76 73 88 43 43 US Bonds 180 82 78 62 70 87 55 60 71 88 91 54 46 Brazil 80 72 68 29 23 57 55 61 78 66 74 28 28 Canada 200 46 72 41 32 63 47 51 65 64 73 28 21 Central & Eastern Europe 100 12 85 57 57 71 43 71 100 85 57 57 57 China 100 11 57 57 57 57 43 71 71 57 86 43 29 Emerging Markets 800 29 77 50 47 74 49 70 84 68 78 39 37 Europe 300 84 94 62 81 88 71 87 87 77 96 69 60 FTSE All-World 800 74 83 61 70 77 65 69 78 85 92 57 49 France 250 30 89 48 69 79 60 72 86 62 93 57 46 Germany 200 61 70 33 47 50 57 43 68 42 66 35 23 Global 500 82 84 63 70 87 66 66 77 80 93 59 52 Global Electric Utilities 250 48 86 47 60 72 75 85 90 88 92 58 31 Global Transport 100 25 88 60 89 72 52 88 72 64 84 44 36 India 200 21 88 33 33 69 39 39 90 63 64 25 19 Ireland 40 50 80 26 60 80 33 66 53 46 80 33 33 Italy 60 35 66 57 76 85 71 76 80 66 90 62 62 Japan 500 41 89 61 91 84 73 81 81 60 94 28 28 Korea 200 42 60 52 46 61 44 70 73 50 56 29 29 Latin America 50 54 72 25 15 50 53 68 84 40 78 31 32 Netherlands 50 66 93 63 70 76 71 66 86 70 97 61 65 New Zealand 50 46 78 21 39 39 16 60 43 60 52 22 22 Nordic 200 65 88 44 69 77 67 68 79 62 93 45 37 Portugal 40 30 83 41 41 83 83 91 91 58 91 67 67 Russia 50 8 50 0 100 50 50 50 50 0 50 0 0 South Africa 100 74 95 50 42 82 42 77 85 80 92 39 41 Spain 85 40 87 53 71 84 72 81 84 62 97 69 63 Switzerland 100 58 77 26 52 59 56 38 63 42 82 40 35 Turkey 50 20 80 80 50 70 0 60 70 40 50 20 20 UK FTSE 600 51 96 49 61 73 48 68 74 59 87 41 39 US S&P 500 70 67 48 53 77 53 50 61 63 80 35 29
1 The key trends table provides a snapshot of response trends based on headline data. The numbers in this table are based on the online responses submitted to CDP as of 14 July 2010. They may therefore differ from numbers in the rest of the report which are based on the number of companies which responded by the deadline. 2 For some samples the number of companies included in the table may be lower than the original sample size due to takeovers, mergers, and acquisitions. 3 Includes offline responses to the CDP 2010 questionnaire & indirect answers submitted by parent companies. All other key trend indicators are based on direct & online company responses only. 4 Asia excluding Japan, India, China and Korea.
20 Carbon Disclosure Project Company Responses Overview and Key 4 Findings
In 2010, CDP Turkey invited the 50 appreciation of climate change issues. “We, as an integrated largest companies listed in the Istanbul steel plant, take part Stock Exchange (ISE-50) to disclose Out of 50 companies invited to information regarding: respond to the CDP information in the production side request, 10 responded, 1 provided of steel which is the • Climate change management and some explanation and 39 did world’s third largest governance at the corporate level, not respond. Hence, the overall response rate for CDP Turkey 2010 commodity market and • Perceived risks and opportunities where 40% of steel is was 20%, ranking it in the middle of related with climate change and response rates for other developing internationally traded. strategies adopted to manage them and emerging countries in the project’s To produce sustainable • GHG emissions and emission first year; e.g. India (35%), China steel we are dealing with reduction strategies (5%), Asia ex-Japan (Hong Kong, the availability of raw Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, material, competition The projects primary goals are to Singapore and the Philippines) (26%). provide investors with information This response rate is likely to improve and price fluctuation, regarding both risks and opportunities each year as companies become more CO2 emissions- climate represented by climate change, and aware of the issues of climate change, change, development at a corporate level, management with and gain familiarity with the CDP of new generation insights into stakeholder attitudes and process. concerns. products, a skilled- There was one voluntary response trained workforce On August 30, 2010 the ISE-50 from a company not included in the and value creation for companies had a combined market ISE-50 and this data has been used for stakeholders. We believe capitalisation of around US$207 billion the quantitative and qualitative analysis that carbon trading in representing various sectors such as in the following sections. Finance, Industrials and Materials. This Turkey, will be a master report documents and summarises The overall response rate of key for the carbon the responses received in CDP’s respondent companies across market and world trading information request in 2010. high impact sectors (materials and after 2012. Thanks to industrials, consumer discretionary) is Response Rates 45%, whereas the response rate in low Sabancı Üniversitesi impact sectors (financials) is 55%. Kurumsal Yönetim The response rate to CDP’s information Forumu and Ernst & request is influenced by a range of Young’s Turkey Office for factors, including companies’ profile, resources, degree of the familiarity presenting our footprint with the CDP process and the general in CDP.” Figure 1: Number of Invitees and Respondents to Turkey CDP 2010 Fadıl Demirel, General Manager, Kardemir Karabük Demir Çelik Sanayi 60 ve Ticaret A.S. 50 50 40
30 No. of Companies 20
10 10 0 Sample Size Respondents
21 4
Figure 2: The response rates for Within the overall response rate of As shown in Figure 3 below, 73% of high and low impact sectors 20%, there are variations in each the responding companies have sector. A notable participation is assigned such responsibilities shown by the banking sector with to a board committee or other 50%. The high response rate from high level executive body. Three banks might be attributable to stricter companies assigned the responsibility regulations which mandate banks to to other lower level departments. have effective risk management, audit The respondents defined “board and internal control functions. committee or other executive body” as members of the board of directors, 45% Highlights of 2010 the CEO and/or other senior officers Disclosures who are responsible for the business’ sustainability, including responsibility 55% The key trends and responses to for operational efficiencies, disclosure, the CDP2010 information request energy-efficiency and use of renewable are discussed in the following energy. four sections: Climate Change Management and Governance, Risks Six companies report to have and Opportunities, Strategies and established a dedicated team or High impact sectors GHG Accounting: an internal mechanism to deal with Low impact sectors environment and sustainability issues I. Climate Change Management rather than merely assigning additional and Governance roles to their staff. The companies questioned were asked several climate change related Regarding the respondent’s questions, including but not limited to, environmental goals for reducing their “where does responsibility for climate consumption of natural resources and change issues lie in the organisation?”, carbon emissions, the majority set “how does the mechanism work?” and targets to reduce carbon emissions “what are the types of management and the consumption of water, incentives given?”. electricity, ink cartridges and paper.
Figure 3: The highest level of responsibility for climate change within the company
Other lowerLow imlevelpa ct departmentssectors 27%
Board committee High impact 73% or otherse executivectors body
22 Carbon Disclosure Project
Figure 4: Providing incentives for As illustrated by Figure 4, 82 % their customers. climate change issues (9) of respondents provide their management with incentives for a) Regulatory Risks: the management of climate change The respondents indicated that issues, however, only 19% of the regulatory uncertainty presents a 18% companies provide material incentives, key challenge for many companies whereas 69% of the companies claim in Turkey. Seven of the companies to offer intangible incentives (primarily questioned stated that regulatory recognition and appreciation). requirements related to climate change II. Risks & Opportunities are the most significant risk for their industries. The sectoral distribution Risks and opportunities are divided of these responding companies is as into three categories in the information follows: 82% request: Regulatory, Physical and Other Risks and Opportunities which The majority of respondents stated are examined separately in the that they have already developed, Yes following sections: or are in the process of developing No strategies and programmes to A. Risks manage risks associated with the regulation of climate change despite In common with other developing the uncertainties posed by Turkish “For Garanti, CDP is an countries, climate change poses both legislation. Such strategies include risks and opportunities for Turkey. Legal and Regulatory tracking, important opportunity These risks may be regulatory or to communicate to including cross-functional efforts to physical and may be either direct stay informed of new legislation and our stakeholders. or indirect (e.g. impacting business regulations related to climate change Increasingly, partners, suppliers and/or customers). and energy. shareholders, customers Figure 5 below illustrates that the b) Physical Risks and the community respondents considered “Physical expect to see leadership Risk” to be the most significant risk Physical risks are related to damage, presented by climate change. disruption and displacement from on sustainability topics unpredictable extreme weather events. and climate change, Risk perceptions vary for different Most of the respondents expressed in particular. Not only sectors. For example, companies in physical risks of increased air pollution, the Materials or Industrials sectors reduced rainfall, water shortages, and does CDP allow us to tend to stress the physical risks such alterations in weather patterns. talk about our existing as the increasing costs of fossil fuels activities to reduce and electricity, and the insufficiency Eight of the responding companies of raw materials. On the other hand, state that physical risks related our carbon footprint, companies in the financial sector to climate change are the most it has challenged us emphasise regulatory risks such as significant risks for their industries, to comprehensively measures to take emissions inventories the consequences ranging from and national mitigation action plans, increased frequency of weather events, review all related risks potential cap-and-trade laws, and damage to infrastructure to disruptions and opportunities. We other regulations that would impact to supply chains and logistic activities. are emerging from the CDP process even more Figure 5: Companies’ perception of significant risks related to climate prepared to take action change and create value for all our stakeholders. Taking 65% action against climate
change is a global 60% imperative; and Garanti aspires to be a leader in this effort.” 55%
Ergun Özen, 50% CEO, T. Garanti Bankası A.S. 45% Regulatory Risk Physical Risk Other Risk 23 4
Figure 6: Sectoral distribution of Some companies tend not to the companies seeing regulatory take action to avoid physical risks “Our response to CDP risks as the most significant risks associated with climate change. Three has been a strong for their industries of the respondent companies have taken no action and have no plans step to pledge our firm to do so for minimising the effects of commitment to taking an these physical risks because they do active role in combating 14% not see it as an urgent threat for their business. climate change and assure our investors 14% 42% c) Other Risks that PETKIM pursues a Responding companies listed clear understanding of different climate change-related risks. the profound correlation Some companies state that poor environmental and social company between global warming 30% standards may result in negative and sustainable business publicity and public pressure for growth. PETKIM is change, which can be the source of Commercial Banks committed to sustainable reputational risks. Chemicals business growth that Diversified Financial Banks are conscious of credit risks would address the Institutions related to companies they extend loans Textiles Apparel & Luxury to, and have developed policies to environmental and social Goods integrate climate change risks into their impacts of such growth credit risk assessments. and take active measures B. Opportunities to mitigate the impact at the highest level. As being While climate change causes several risks it also presents opportunities for part of a carbon intensive businesses. industry, the company is As illustrated in Figure 7 below, aware of its position in the most significant opportunity reducing global emission is perceived to be “regulatory reductions to maintain its opportunity”, arising from companies’ position in a low-carbon ability to adapt to current and expected local or international governmental economy. We are very policies on climate change better than glad to have become a their rivals. CDP respondent and our engagement with CDP will continue. This journey Figure 7: Types of opportunities related to climate change according to has been a very useful the respondents tool for explicating how 80% PETKIM systematically 70% integrates its long-term business strategy with 60% climate change by 50% establishing some solid 40% action plans to identify 30% and manage sector 20% specific risks.” 10% 0% Hayati Öztürk, Regulatory Physical Other General Manager, Oppurtunity Oppurtunity Oppurtunity Petkim Petrokimya Holding A.S.
24 Carbon Disclosure Project
The reported actions to exploit the According to the respondents, “We all know that opportunities presented by climate climate change can shift the mind- sustainability has change include increasing the set of consumers in favour of eco- social, economical and awareness of employees, investments friendly products and services, and in renewable energy and energy consumer awareness may trigger more environmental dimensions. efficiency projects, market for low- investments in clean technologies, As a global corporate carbon products, and management renewable energy projects and carbon company, TAV Airports appreciation of the need to develop a funds. sustainability strategy for the company. has scrutinized and very Other opportunities which were well understood all these a) Regulatory Opportunities: identified by the others include dimensions of sustainability differentiation, market segmentation, The responses of the companies from market share enlargement, access to and have added to its high impact and low impact sectors finance, and demand for new products management strategies. underline the fact that local climate and services. We are all aware that change regulations, if imposed, are seen as an opportunity as well as a III. Strategies and GHG Accounting our stakeholders expect threat for the respondents. Examples companies to be transparent include savings resulting from reduced Nine out of eleven respondents and accountable, and this energy consumption, better resource disclosed their carbon emissions. utilisation, use of energy-efficient These companies calculate their accountability goes beyond appliances, and use of energy efficient current energy consumption to provide financial statements to cover technologies. a basis for new energy conservation social and environmental targets, fuel switching and the Notable respondent comments on reduction of GHG emissions. GHG aspects. We have openly regulatory opportunities include the emissions reduction/energy saving declared our activities to the common view that the Kyoto Protocol plans and straightforward emissions whole world in a transparent and the EU accession process are reduction targets are the basis and expected to launch a number of starting point for companies to address manner and disclosed all regulatory efforts creating new market climate change. the actions that we have opportunities. Any new legislation completed in 2010 to CDP. leading to participation in or creation Figure 8 indicates that five companies targeted a reduction in their current By applying to ACI Airport of a cap-and-trade scheme would grow the market for carbon credits and emissions. All respondents reported Council International, investments into renewable energy and established targets for direct TAV Airports Holding has create energy-efficiency opportunities. reductions in their GHG emissions accredited CO levels on Current and future regulations are and that knowledge-based solutions 2 have been deployed in production mapping level for TAV Izmir also expected to increase the use of renewable energy and energy-efficient processes to help achieve emissions (2009), TAV Istanbul (2010) technologies in Turkey. reductions. It is encouraging to see and TAV Ankara (2010). that most participants have adopted b) Physical Opportunities: GHG accounting and have provided TAV has also received the detailed descriptions of their emission ‘Green initiative of the year Physical opportunities arise from the reduction strategies in their CDP physical effects of climate change, responses. by an airport’ award at Doha such as changing weather patterns aviation summit at 2009 and e.g. increased demand for particular The CDP questionnaire requests the ‘Eco-innovation’ award products and services, or improved information regarding the process by ACI at 2010. TAV Holding conditions for production and other of GHG emissions data collection businesses. and applied GHG measuring will continue to take very tools and standards which are strong sustainability actions. Banks identified opportunities comparable across businesses We are proud to be a (specifically related to the occurrence including accounting procedures, of large sudden events) due to climate disclosing company of CDP, global warming potentials, and use change, such as increased demand of emission factors. The below chart and will continue to disclose for appropriate insurance products indicates that the most preferred all of our activities in the or financial derivatives for hedging methodology is the Greenhouse worldwide database.” purposes. Gas Protocol. Additionally, there are c) Other Opportunities: respondents that collect activity data and calculate Scope 1 and Scope Dr. M. Sani Sener, Five of the companies that responded 2 emissions using more than one CEO/Executive Board Member, to the information request stated method such as the IPCC and the TAV Havalimanları Holding A.S. that there might be other significant WRI-Transport tool . opportunities regarding climate change. 25 4
Figure 8: Targets for emissions Figure 9: Methodology used to collect activity data and calculate Scope 1 reductions and Scope 2 emissions
0.8
18% 0.6
36% 0.4
0.2
45% 0 The Greenhouse ISO 14064Other No Gas Protocole Yes Developing There is significant variation among which occur as a result of its activities, companies in their level of emissions e.g. the manufacturing, production data disclosure. Despite the and transportation of purchased deficiencies in national calculation fuels, goods or raw materials, or the standards, six companies disclosed use of products and services sold, their Scope 3 emissions. Scope and business travels in vehicles not 1 emissions are the Direct GHG belonging to or managed by the emissions generated in companies’ company. production process. Scope 2 GHG emissions do not physically occur Many of the respondents publish their within the organisation’s reporting climate change related disclosure boundary and are therefore “indirect through different means in addition to emissions”. Scope 3 emissions are CDP. Annual reports and sustainability from sources that are not owned or reports, for example, are used as controlled by an organisation but forums for the communication of climate change strategies.
Figure 10: Use of multiple means to publish climate change strategies
No
Yes
0% 10%20% 30%40% 50%60%
IV. Conclusion to disclose their stand on the subject. The results for the first CDP Turkey information request represent a For many companies climate change good start to measure, report and issues have significant potential to manage carbon emissions of the impact financial performance and listed companies in Turkey. Although long-term investments. Climate some companies are already engaged change will create both risks and with this important issue and are well opportunities. These risks may be prepared, the absence of a response physical, regulatory, and reputational in from 80% of the companies to CDP’s nature and can have a negative impact 2010 questionnaire suggests that on a company’s valuations through some companies do not yet have this higher costs, damaged reputation and issue on their agenda or do not want associated eroding customer loyalty and lower growth forecast. 26 Carbon Disclosure Project Closing and 5 Observations
“Climate change is one of Climate change presents potentially material risks for some businesses, the most pressing realities and hence for their investors. of our age. Reduction of Proper assessments of those risks depend on the quality of disclosure. carbon emissions, which While the scope and depth of mandatory disclosure change from country are a critical contributor to to country, the level of disclosure is usually insufficient in emerging climate change, are the focus markets. This limits the investments in emerging market companies. CDP of wide international debate. provides a platform for informing the investors as well as informing the As the scientific evidence of companies on investors’ need for a proper assessment of climate change the global impact of climate risks. Furthermore, availability of information encourages asset owners to change gradually gains request investment managers to factor in climate change risks into their momentum, so too is the investment models. number of public and private Allocation of financial resources, either through lending or through institutions that now feel the investments, to companies that manages climate change risks better, is urge to take responsibility for one of the drivers of low carbon growth. CDP Turkey demonstrates that this widely recognised global the banking industry in Turkey is aware of their potential role in promoting concern. We are certainly sustainable growth. We also observe that companies that adopt a pleased to witness this rise strategic approach to disclosure recognise the opportunities and potential in awareness and increase benefits despite the apparent challenges. in efforts to respond to the negative impact of climate While the response rate for CDP Turkey is 20% for 2010, many of the change. Akbank’s principles companies that did not participate in the Project have already launched of social responsibility and projects in preparation for CDP 2011. Emerging consulting firms play an important role by supporting this process. Encouraged by the number of its commitment to being an ongoing projects within the ISE-50 and the interest of the banking sector active player in mitigating in the Project, Turkey CDP will expand its coverage to ISE-100 in 2011. climate change meant that deciding to take part in the launch of the ‘Carbon Disclosure Project’ in Turkey was a natural choice for us. We are delighted and honoured to be supporting the local implementation of a now globally recognized project. I believe that our participation clearly reflects our pioneering role. As one of the first companies in Turkey to commit to disclose its greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with international standards, it is a source of great pride for Akbank to be a part of the `Carbon Disclosure Project`”
Ziya Akkurt, CEO, Akbank T.A.S.
27 Appendix I: Company Response Status Table Appendix I: Company Response Status Table
An overview of the response status of each company covered is provided in the table below;
2010 Response Permission Sector Company Status Status Scope1 Scope2 Scope3 Brewers ANADOLU EFES BİRACILIK VE MALT SANAYİİ A.Ş. DP Financials AKBANK T.A.Ş. AQ NP Disclosed Disclosed Disclosed Utilities AKENERJİ ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM A.Ş. NR Financials AKSİGORTA A.Ş. DP Financials ANADOLU ANONİM TÜRK SİGORTA ŞİRKETİ DP Consumer Discretionary ARÇELİK A.Ş. DP Financials ASYA KATILIM BANKASI A.Ş. NR Utilities AYGAZ A.Ş. DP Materials BAGFAŞ BANDIRMA GÜBRE FABRİKALARI A.Ş. AQ* (S) Consumer Staples BİM BİRLEŞİK MAĞAZALAR A.Ş. NR Consumer Staples COCA-COLA İÇECEK A.Ş. DP Industrials DOĞAN ŞİRKETLER GRUBU HOLDİNG A.Ş. DP Consumer Discretionary DOĞAN YAYIN HOLDİNG A.Ş. DP Health Care EİS ECZACIBAŞI İLAÇ, SINAİ VE FİNANSAL DP YATIRIMLAR. SANAYİ TİCARET A.Ş. Industrial Conglomerates ENKA İNŞAAT VE SANAYİ A.Ş. NR Materials EREĞLİ DEMİR VE ÇELİK FABRİKALARI T.A.Ş. DP Consumer Discretionary FORD OTOMOTİV SANAYİ A.Ş. DP Financials T.GARANTİ BANKASI A.Ş. AQ Disclosed Disclosed Disclosed Materials GÜBRE FABRİKALARI T.A.Ş. NR Financials TÜRKİYE HALK BANKASI A.Ş. DP Consumer Discretionary HÜRRİYET GAZETECİLİK VE MATBAACILIK A.Ş. NR Consumer Discretionary İHLAS EV ALETLERİ İMALAT SANAYİ VE TİCARET A.Ş. NR Financials İŞ BANKASI T.A.Ş. DP Industrials KOÇ HOLDİNG A.Ş. DP Industrials KOZA ANADOLU METAL MADENCİLİK İŞLETMELERİ NR A.Ş. Materials KARDEMİR KARABÜK DEMİR ÇELİK SANAYİ VE AQ* (S) Disclosed Disclosed TİCARET A.Ş. Consumer Discretionary NET HOLDİNG A.Ş. NR Materials PETKİM PETROKİMYA HOLDİNG A.Ş. AQ NP Disclosed Disclosed Energy PETROL OFİSİ A.Ş. DP Financials SABANCI HOLDİNG A.Ş. AQ* (S) NP Disclosed Disclosed Disclosed Consumer Discretionary T.ŞİŞE VE CAM FABRİKALARI A.Ş. NR Financials ŞEKERBANK T.A.Ş. AQ* (S) Financials SİNPAŞ GAYRİMENKUL YATIRIM ORTAKLIĞI A.Ş. DP Industrials TAV HAVA LİMANLARI HOLDİNG A.Ş. AQ Disclosed Disclosed Telecommunication Services TURKCELL İLETİŞİM HİZMETLERİ A.Ş. DP Financials TÜRK EKONOMİ BANKASI A.Ş. AQ* (S) Disclosed Disclosed Disclosed Industrials TÜRK HAVA YOLLARI A.O. NR Materials TİRE KUTSAN OLUKLU MUKAVVA KUTU VE KAĞIT NR SAN.A.Ş. Industrials TEKFEN HOLDİNG A.Ş. DP Consumer Discretionary TOFAŞ TÜRK OTOMOBİL FABRİKASI A.Ş. DP Energy TURCAS PETROL A.Ş. DP Industrials TRAKYA CAM SANAYİİ A.Ş. NR Financials T.SINAİ KALKINMA BANKASI A.Ş. AQ Disclosed Disclosed Disclosed Telecommunication Services TÜRK TELEKOMÜNİKASYON A.Ş. IN Energy TÜPRAŞ-TÜRKİYE PETROL RAFİNERİLERİ A.Ş. DP Consumer Staples ÜLKER BİSKÜVİ SANAYİ A.Ş. DP Financials TÜRKİYE VAKIFLAR BANKASI T.A.O. NR Consumer Discretionary VESTEL ELEKTRONİK SANAYİ VE TİCARET A.Ş. DP Financials YAPI VE KREDİ BANKASI A.Ş. DP Health Care SELÇUK ECZA DEPOSU TİCARET VE SANAYİ A.Ş. NR Consumer Discretionary YÜNSA YÜNLÜ SANAYİ VE TİCARET A.Ş. VAQ Disclosed Disclosed Disclosed (AQ) Answered questionnaire (NR) No response (IN) Provided some information but did not answer the CDP questions. (DP) Declined to Participate (NP) Information provided is not disclosed as not permitted. (VAQ) Voluntarily responded the questionnaire (AQ*S) Answered short version of questionnaire 28 Carbon Disclosure Project Appendix II: CDP Information Request (Questionnaire)
Governance 7. Physical Opportunities: (CDP 2009 Q5) 7.1 Do current and/or anticipated physical impacts of 1. Group and Individual Responsibility: climate change present significant opportunities for (CDP 2009 Q25) your company? 1.1 Where is the highest level of responsibility for climate change within your company? 8. Other Opportunities: (CDP 2009 Q6) 8.1 Does climate change present other significant If it is at board committee or other executive body level: opportunities – current and/or anticipated – for your 1.2 What is the mechanism by which the board committee company? or other executive body reviews the company’s progress and status regarding climate change? Where the answer to any of questions 3-8 is yes, If it is at a lower level: please rovide individual answers to the following 1.3 Please explain how overall responsibility for climate questions, as you will be prompted to do so in the change is managed within your company. ORS. Individual Performance: (CDP 2009 Q26) • What are the current and/or anticipated significant 1.4 Do you provide incentives for the management of risks/ opportunities and their associated countries/ climate change issues, including the attainment of regions and timescales? greenhouse gas (GHG) targets? • Describe the ways in which the identified risks/ If so, opportunities affect or could affect your business and your value chain. 1.5 Please complete the table. • Are there financial implications associated with the Who is entitled to benefit from The type of incentives dentified risks/opportunities? those incentives? • If so, please describe them. • In the case of risks: describe any actions the Risks and Opportunities company has taken or plans to take to manage or adapt to the risks that have been identified, including 2. Process to Identify Risks and Opportunities: the cost of those actions. (CDP 2009 Q1-6) 2.1 Describe your company’s process for identifying • In the case of opportunities: describe any actions the significant risks and/or opportunities from climate company has taken or plans to take to exploit the change and assessing the degree to which they opportunities that have been identified, including the could affect your business, including the financial investment needed to take those actions. implications. Where the answer to any of questions 3-8 is no, 3. Regulatory Risks: (CDP 2009 Q1) please answer the following question: 3.1 Do current and/or anticipated regulatory requirements related to climate change present significant risks to • In the case of risks: explain why you do not consider your company? your company to be exposed to significant risks – current or anticipated. 4. Physical Risks: (CDP 2009 Q2) 4.1 Do current and/or anticipated physical impacts of • In the case of opportunities: explain why you do climate change present significant risks to your not consider your company to be presented with company? significant opportunities – current or anticipated. 5. Other Risks: (CDP 2009 Q3) Where the answer to any of questions 3-8 is 5.1 Does climate change present other significant risks – “Don’t know”, please explain why not. current and/or anticipated – for your company?
6. Regulatory Opportunities: (CDP 2009 Q4) Oil and gas sector companies should include their 6.1 Do current and/or anticipated regulatory requirements estimated value of assets exposed to extreme weather related to climate change present significant events in table O&G2.1 and their financial contributions opportunities for your company? towards renewable and clean energy technologies in table O&G3.2.
29 Appendix II: CDP Information Request (Questionnaire)
Strategy GHG Emissions Accounting, Energy and Fuel 9. Strategy: (New for CDP 2010) Use, and Trading 9.1 Please describe how your overall group business 10. Reporting Boundary: (CDP 2009 Q8) strategy links with actions taken on risks and 10.1 Please indicate the category that describes the opportunities (identified in questions 3 to 8), company, entities, or group for which Scope 1 and including any emissions reduction targets or Scope 2 GHG emissions are reported. achievements, public policy engagement and external communications. • Companies over which financial control is exercised – per consolidated audited financial statements; Targets: (CDP 2009 Q23) 9.2 Do you have a current emissions reduction target? • Companies over which operational control is exercised; If you do not have a target: • Companies in which an equity share is held; 9.3 Please explain why not and forecast how your • Other – please provide details. Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions will change over the next 5 years. 10.2 Are there are any sources (e.g. facilities, specific GHGs, activities, geographies, etc.) of Scope 1 and If you are in the process of developing a target: Scope 2 emissions within this boundary which are not 9.4 Please give details of the target(s) you are developing included in your disclosure? and when you expect to announce it/them. If so, If you have had a target and the date for completing it fell within 10.3 Please complete the following table. your reporting year, please answer questions 9.5 and 9.6. 9.5 Please explain if you intend to set a new target. Source Scope Explain why the source is excluded If you have an emissions reduction target: 9.6 Please complete the table.
Target Value Unit Base Emissions Target GHGs For recently 11. Methodology: (CDP 2009 Q9) type of the year in base year and GHG completed 11.1 Please give the name of the standard, protocol or target year sources targets only: methodology you have used to collect activity data (metric to which was target and calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and/or tonnes the met? CO2-e) target describe the procedure you have used. applies 11.2 Please also provide the names of and links to any calculation tools used.
Emission Reduction Activities: (CDP 2009 Q23) 11.3 Please give the global warming potentials you have 9.7 Please use the table below to describe your company’s applied and their origin. actions to reduce its GHG emissions. ¿(9.8) Gas Reference GWP Actions Achieved Achieved Investment Achieved Timescale or or made or or of actions anticipated anticipated planned anticipated and annual annual to enable annual associated 11.4 Please give the emission factors you have applied and energy emission actions (if monetary investments their origin. savings (if reductions relevant) savings (if (if relevant) relevant) relevant) Fuel/material Emission factor Reference Number Unit
9.9 Please provide any other information you consider necessary to describe your emission reduction activities. Information about how to respond to this section may be found in “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Engagement with Policy Makers: (CDP 2009 Q28) A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard 9.10 Do you engage with policy makers on possible (Revised Edition)” developed by the World Resources responses to climate change including taxation, Institute and the World Business Council for regulation and carbon trading? Sustainable Development (“the GHG Protocol”). For more information, see www.ghgprotocol.org and the If so, CDP 2010 reporting guidance. 9.11 Please describe Please also provide CDP with responses to questions 10, 11, 12 and 13 for the three years prior to the current reporting year if you have not done so before or if this is the first time you have answered a CDP information request.
30 Carbon Disclosure Project
GHG Emissions Accounting, Energy and Fuel Use, and Trading When providing answers to questions 12 and 13, please do not deduct offset credits, Renewable Energy 12. Scope 1 Direct GHG Emissions: (CDP 2009 Q10) Certificates etc., or net off any estimated avoided 12.1 Please give your total gross global Scope 1 GHG emissions from the export of renewable energy, or emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e. from the use of goods and services. Opportunities are provided elsewhere in the information request to 12.2 Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 give details of activities that reduce or avoid emissions emissions in metric tonnes CO2-e by country/region. (please see guidance). ¿(12.3) Carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of Where it will facilitate a better understanding of your biologically sequestered carbon i.e. carbon dioxide business, please also break down your total gross global from burning biomass/ biofuels should be reported Scope 1 emissions by business division and/or facility. (Only separately from emission Scopes 1, 2 and 3. If data for the current reporting year requested.) relevant, please report these emissions under question 17. However, please do include any nitrous oxide or 12.4. Business division methane emissions from biomass/biofuels in your emissions under the three scopes. 12.5 Facility 12.6 Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by GHG type. (Only data for the current Electric utilities should report emissions by country/ reporting year requested.) ¿(12.7) region using the table in question EU3. Oil and gas sector companies should report group GHG type Scope 1 emissions Scope 1 emissions emissions by value chain in answer to table O&G1.1 (metric tonnes) (metric tonnes CO2-e) and and O&G1.2.
12.8 Fuel Consumption Please use the table to give the total amount of fuel in MWh that your organization has consumed during the reporting year. ¿(12.9) 12.10 Please complete the table by breaking down the total figure by fuel type. ¿(12.11)
Fuels MWh
Total Individual fuels
12.12 Data Accuracy: (CDP 2009 Q19) Please estimate the level of uncertainty of the total gross global Scope 1 figure that you have supplied in answer to question 12.1 and specify the sources of uncertainty in your data gathering, handling, and calculations.
Scope 1
Uncertainty range Main sources of uncertainty in your data Expand on the main sources of uncertainty in your data
31 Appendix II: CDP Information Request (Questionnaire)
GHG Emissions Accounting, Energy and Fuel Use, and Trading 13. Scope 2 Indirect GHG Emissions: (CDP 2009 Q11) 13.6 Purchased Energy How much electricity, heat, steam, and cooling in Important note about emission factors where zero MWh has your organization purchased for its own or low carbon electricity is purchased: consumption during the reporting year? ¿(13.7)
The emissions factor you should use for calculating Energy Type MWh Scope 2 emissions depends upon whether the electricity you purchase is counted in calculating the Electricity grid average emissions factor or not – see below. You Heat can find this out from your supplier. Steam Electricity that IS counted in calculating the grid Cooling average emissions factor: Where electricity is sourced from the grid and that 13.8 Data Accuracy: (CDP 2009 Q19) electricity has been counted in calculating the grid Please estimate the level of uncertainty of the total average emissions factor, Scope 2 emissions must gross global Scope 2 figure that you have supplied be calculated using the grid average emissions factor, in answer to question 13.1 and specify the sources even if your company purchases electricity under a of uncertainty in your data gathering, handling, and zero or low carbon electricity tariff. calculations.
Electricity that is NOT counted in calculating the Scope 2 grid average emissions factor: Where zero or low carbon electricity is sourced from Uncertainty range the grid or otherwise transmitted to the company Main sources of uncertainty in and that electricity is not counted in calculating the your data grid average, the emissions factor specific to that Expand on the main sources of method of generation can be used, provided that any uncertainty in your data certificates quantifying GHG-related environmental benefits claimed for the electricity are not sold or passed on separately from the electricity purchased. If certificates quantifying the GHG-related environmental benefits claimed for the electricity are sold or passed on separately from the electricity purchased, then you must report using the grid average emissions factor.
13.1 Please give your total gross global Scope 2 GHG emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e. 13.2 Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions in metric tonnes of CO2-e by country/ region. ¿(13.3) Where it will facilitate a better understanding of your business, please also break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by business division and/or facility. (Only data for the current reporting year requested.) 13.4 Business division 13.5 Facility
32 Carbon Disclosure Project
GHG Emissions Accounting, Energy and Fuel Use, and Trading 14. Contractual Arrangements Supporting Particular 17. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Biologically Types of Electricity Generation: (CDP 2009 Q12) Sequestered Carbon: (CDP 2009 Q15) 14.1 Do you consider that the grid average factors used to 17.1 Please provide your total carbon dioxide emissions in report Scope 2 emissions in question 13 reflect the metric tonnes CO2 from the combustion of biologically contractual arrangements you have with electricity sequestered carbon i.e. carbon dioxide emissions from suppliers? burning biomass/biofuels. ¿(17.2) If not, 18. Emissions Intensity: (CDP 2009 Q16) 14.2 You may report a total contractual Scope 2 figure in 18.1 Please describe a financial and an activity-related response to this question. Please provide your total intensity measurement for the reporting year for your global contractual Scope 2 GHG emissions figure in gross combined Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. metric tonnes CO2-e. Type of Units The resulting Please explain if not relevant. Please also, emissions figure for Alternatively provide any 14.3 Explain the origin of the alternative figure including intensity Scope 1 and contextual details that measurement Scope 2 you consider relevant to information about the emission factors used and the emissions understand the units or tariffs. figures you have provided. 14.4 Has your organization retired any certificates, e.g. Financial Renewable Energy Certificates, associated with zero or Activity- low carbon electricity within the reporting year or has related this been done on your behalf? If so, Oil and gas – sector companies are also asked to 14.5 Please provide details including the number and type report activity-related intensity metrics in answer to of certificates. table O&G1.3.
Type of certificate Number of certificates Comments
15. Scope 3 Other Indirect GHG Emissions: (CDP 2009 Q13) 15.1 Please provide data on sources of Scope 3 emissions that are relevant to your organization. ¿(15.2)
Sources Emissions Methodology If you cannot provide a figure of Scope 3 (in metric for a relevantsource of Scope emissions tonnes of 3 emissions, please describe CO2-e) the emissions.
Auto manufacturers – please refer to the module for your sector before completing question 15.1.
16. Emissions Avoided Through Use of Goods and Services: (CDP 2009 Q14) 16.1 Does the use of your goods and/or services enable GHG emissions to be avoided by a third party? If so, 16.2 Please provide details including the anticipated timescale over which the emissions are avoided, in which sector of the economy they might help to avoid emissions and their potential to avoid emissions.
33 Appendix II: CDP Information Request (Questionnaire)
GHG Emissions Accounting, Energy and Fuel Use, and Trading
19. Emissions History: (CDP 2009 Q17) 21.3 What is your strategy for complying with the schemes 19.1 Do the absolute emissions (Scope 1 and Scope 2 in which you participate or anticipate participating? combined) for the reporting year vary significantly compared to the previous year? 21.4 Has your company originated any project-based carbon credits or purchased any within the reporting If so, period? 19.2 Please explain why they have varied and why the variation is significant. If so, 21.5 Please complete the following table. 20. External Verification/ Assurance: (CDP 2009 Q18) 20.1 Please complete the following table indicating the Credit Project Project Verified Number Credits Purpose percentage of reported emissions that have been origi- identifi- documen- to which ofcredits retired? e.g. com- verified/assured and attach the relevant statement. nation/ cation tation URL standard? (metric pliance credit tonnes pur- CO2-e) Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 chase? Percentage of reported emissions that have been externally verified/ assured Include the verification/assurance statement(s)
Electric utilities should report allowances and emissions using the tables in questions EU5 and EU6.
21. Emissions Trading and Offsetting: (CDP 2009 Q21 and 22) 21.1 Do you participate in any emission trading schemes? If so, 21.2 Please complete the following table for each of the emission trading schemes in which you participate.
Although some emission trading schemes may apply solely to the operators of facilities, the financial position of facility owners is also affected indirectly by the operation of the scheme. This question therefore applies to both owners and operators of facilities covered by trading schemes. Even if your company does not wholly own facilities, please give the total number of emissions and allowances.
Scheme Time period Allowances Allowances Verified Details of name allocated purchased emissions ownership Start End Number Units i.e. date date owned/ operated/ or both
34 Carbon Disclosure Project
Climate Change Communications 22. Climate Change Communications: (CDP 2009 Q27) 22.1 Have you published information about your company’s response to climate change/GHG emissions in other places than in your CDP response? If so, 22.2 In your Annual Reports or other mainstream filing? Please attach your latest publication(s). 22.3 Through voluntary communications such as CSR reports? Please attach your latest publication(s).
35 Appendix II: CDP Information Request (Questionnaire)
36 CDP Contacts
Paul Simpson Sue Howells Zoe Tcholak-Antitch Carbon Disclosure Project Chief Executive Officer Head of Global Operations Head of Investor CDP www.cdproject.net [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 40 Bowling Green Lane London EC1R 0NE United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7970 5660 / 5667 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7691 7316
CDP Turkey Contacts
Melsa Ararat, PhD Selma Mirhan Köroglu, MSc Sabanci University, Director Project Manager Faculty of Management Orhanli, [email protected] [email protected] Tuzla, Istanbul, 34956, Turkey
Report Writers
Melsa Ararat, PhD Selma Mirhan Köroglu, MSc (CDP Turkey) (CDP Turkey)
Metin Canogulları Damla Harman Esra Süel (Ernst & Young) (Ernst & Young) (Imperial College, PhD Candidate)
Note: Key Trends in Turkey Chapter is reviewed by Fikret Adaman (Professor, Bogaziçi University) Yıldız Arıkan (Assoc. Prof., Bahçesehir University), Gürkan Kumbaroglu (Ph.D. Bogaziçi University), Etem Karakaya (Asst. Prof. Dr.,Adnan Menderes University).
Carbon Disclosure Project, Registered Charity no. 1122330. A company limited by guarantee registered in England no. 05013650.
The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project. The information herein has been obtained from sources, which the authors and publishers believe to be reliable, but the authors and publishers do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. The authors and publishers make no representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and opinions contained herein. All opinions expressed herein are based on the authors’ and publishers’ judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors.
The authors and publishers and their affiliated companies, or their respective shareholders, 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.