Decouple or degrowth: integrated thinking needed to transform systemic risks into sources of low carbon growth CDP Japan 500 Climate Change Report 2013
6 November 2013
Scoring partner and report writer The evolution of CDP
With great pleasure, CDP announced an exciting change this year.
Over ten years ago CDP pioneered the only global disclosure system for companies to report their environmental impacts and strategies to investors. In that time, and with your support, CDP has accelerated climate change and natural resource issues to the boardroom and has moved beyond the corporate world to engage with cities and governments.
The CDP platform has evolved significantly, supporting multinational purchasers to build more sustainable supply chains. It enables cities around the world to exchange information, take best practice action and build climate resilience. We assess the climate performance of companies and drive improvements through shareholder engagement.
Our offering to the global marketplace has expanded to cover a wider spectrum of the earth’s natural capital, specifically water and forests, alongside carbon, energy and climate.
For these reasons, we have outgrown our former name of the Carbon Disclosure Project and rebranded to CDP. Many of you already know and refer to us in this way. Our rebrand denotes our progress as we continue to catalyze action and respond to business, finance, investment and environmental needs globally.
We now have a bolder, more dynamic look and logo that reflects the scale of the work we must undertake in the coming years to move the markets ahead of where they would otherwise be on these issues and realize truly sustainable economies.
Over 5,000 companies from all over the world have been asked to report on climate change through CDP this year;
81% of the world’s 500 largest public companies listed on the Global 500 engage with CDP to enable effective measurement of their carbon footprint and climate change action;
CDP is a not-for-profit organization. If you would like to support our vital work through donations or sponsorship opportunities, please email [email protected] or telephone +44 (0) 7703 184 312. 03 Contents
4 CEO Foreword
5 Message from Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
6 PwC Japan Foreword
7 2013 Highlight
8 Executive Summary
10 2013 Leaders
CDP 2013 Responses from Japanese companies 12 1. Climate change management 14 2. Risks and opportunities 15 3. Emisions 18 4. Verification/ assurance
20 External environment for Japanese companies
22 The global trend towards integrated reporting
23 Decouple or degrowth?
24 2013 Disclosure score 26 2013 Performance score
28 Appendix 1: CDP 2013 responding companies and other responding companies 34 Appendix 2: CDP 2013 non-responding companies 36 Appendix 3: 2013 Key trends 38 Appendix 4: CDP 2013 Investor members and signatories
42 Closing remarks
Important Notice
The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP or the contributing authors and presented in this report. If you intend to repackage or resell any of the contents of this report, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so.
CDP has prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the 2013 climate change information request. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given by CDP or any of its contributors as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained in this report. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, CDP and its contributors do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. All information and views expressed herein by CDP and its contributors are based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report reflect the views of their respective authors; their inclusion is not an endorsement of them.
CDP and its contributors, their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/or employees, may have a position in the securities of the companies discussed herein. The securities of the companies mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates.
Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refer to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330.
© 2013 Carbon Disclosure Project. All rights reserved. 04 CEO Foreword
As countries around the world seek economic growth, strong employment and safe environments, corporations have a unique responsibility to deliver that growth in a way that uses natural resources wisely. The opportunity is enormous and it is the only growth worth having.
This year we passed a significant landmark of investments than on the average business investment. 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and are Meanwhile, governments are taking new action: The rapidly heading towards 450ppm, accepted by many US Administration has launched its Climate Action governments as the upper limit to avoid dangerous Plan, with a new emphasis on reducing emissions from climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on utilities; China is developing air pollution measures and Climate Change (IPCC) 5th assessment report (AR5) moving toward pilot cap and trade schemes; the UK strengthens the scientific case for action. Government has mandated greenhouse gas emissions reporting for all large listed companies; the EU is Fears are increasing over future climate change looking at improving environmental and other reporting. impacts as we see more extreme weather events, Hurricane Sandy the most noted with damages The pressure on corporations, investors and totalling some $42 billion1. The unprecedented melting governments to act continues. At CDP, we have of the Arctic ice is a clear climate alarm bell, while the broadened our work to add forests to climate and first 10 years of this century have been the world’s water so our programs now extend to an estimated hottest since records began, according to the World 79% of natural capital, by value3. To reflect this, we Meteorological Organization. rebranded at the start of the year from the Carbon Disclosure Project to CDP and are increasing our focus The result is a seismic shift in corporate awareness of on projects to accelerate action. One explores how the need to assess physical risk from climate change corporations influence public policy on climate change and to build resilience. both positively and negatively. Some corporations are still acting – both directly and through trade For investors, the risk of stranded assets has been associations – to prevent the inevitable: nations need brought to the fore by the work of Carbon Tracker. sensible climate regulation that protects the public 1 New York State They calculate around 80% of coal, oil and gas interest over the long term. Hurricane Sandy reserves are unburnable, if governments are to meet Damage Assessment; Governor Andrew global commitments to keep the temperature rise As countries around the world seek economic growth, Cuomo; November below 2°C. This has serious implications for institutional strong employment and safe environments, corporations 12, 2012 http://www. governor.ny.gov/ investors’ portfolios and valuations of companies with have a unique responsibility to deliver that growth in a press/11262012- fossil fuel reserves. way that uses natural resources wisely. The opportunity damageassessment 2 https://www.cdproject. is enormous and it is the only growth worth having. net/CDPResults/3- The economic case for action is strengthening. percent-solution-report.pdf 2 3 Based on findings from This year, we published the 3% Solution with the report Natural Capital WWF showing that the US corporate sector could at Risk: The Top 100 Externalities of Business, reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2010 published by TEEB for and 2020 and deliver $780 billion in savings above Business Coalition in April 2013 costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding Paul Simpson to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions CEO CDP 05 Message from Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
The ultimate aim of CDP’s work to encourage companies to measure and disclose GHG emissions data, is to prevent dangerous climate change. CDP’s 722 investor signatories pay great attention to companies’ emissions reduction activities as they can potentially contribute to the continuous improvement in energy efficiency and the shift towards renewable energy.
CDP, which requests companies to disclose data and CDP receives responses from thousands of companies their activities around dealing with climate change and every year, demonstrating great interest in the project. GHG emissions in collaboration with institutional investors, In this year’s responses, we can observe companies’ started in 2003 and this is the 11th year of its operation. continued efforts to reduce GHG emissions, as some companies report that they have disclosed their climate As one of the CDP’s investor signatories, MUFG would change information in the mainstream financial report like to show great appreciation towards those companies and more corporations disclose emissions data from who responded to the CDP information request, and their supply chain in addition to their direct emissions. encourage them to continue their sustained support for CDP moving forwards. We hope that this report will serve as a valuable source of information and insight for climate change Prevention of the climate change is a global issue which related activities. should be tackled in the long-term. Coupled with the review of energy policy, Japanese government will November 2013 formulate a proactive diplomatic strategy to address climate change with the aim of contributing to the world by fully utilizing Japanese advanced technologies. The government listed “Realizing clean and economical energy demand and supply” as the main theme in the Japan Revitalization Strategy which was endorsed by Nobuyuki Hirano the Cabinet in June. President & CEO, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc.
Meanwhile, the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations highlighted in the “Commitment to a Low Carbon Society” that they would continuously promote the development and the practical application of the ultimate level of low carbon technologies even after the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.
The ultimate aim of CDP’s work to encourage companies to measure and disclose GHG emissions data, is to prevent dangerous climate change. CDP’s 722 investor signatories pay great attention to companies’ emissions reduction activities as they can potentially contribute to the continuous improvement in energy efficiency and the shift towards renewable energy. 06 PwC Japan Foreword
Sharing their stories, collaborating within and across sectors, and working to co-create solutions to reverse the recent upward trend in absolute emissions are all important steps to scale-up the commendable progress to date.
A new era of growth has commenced in Japan, but is it leading companies have already commenced their journey sustainable? Domestically the policies of the Abe to embed low carbon thinking and action into the DNA administration have revitalized the financial economy and of their organizations so that their future strategies are the success of the Tokyo 2020 Olympics bid will further compatible with the scientific case for action that was enhance the already increasingly favorable environment reinforced in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on for investment in Japan. But the news is not all good. Climate Change (IPCC) 5th assessment report (AR5).
The ongoing efforts to stabilize the situation at the I congratulate the 24 companies in the Climate Disclosure Fukushima Dai-ichi plant are continuing to pose challenges Leadership Index and the 12 companies in the Climate for the people of Eastern Japan. The radiation concerns Performance Leadership Index presented in this report. and increased scrutiny from the independent Nuclear These leaders have demonstrated the courage and Regulatory Authority have delayed the restart of the nuclear conviction to act; but there is still much to be done. Sharing energy generators, with implications for both the monthly their stories, collaborating within and across sectors, trade balance and the emissions intensity of domestic and working to co-create solutions to reverse the recent business activities. Beyond this, the uncertainty of the upward trend in absolute emissions are all important impacts of difficult structural reforms in energy, healthcare steps to scale-up the commendable progress to date. and the labor market mean companies and investors face many difficult decisions ahead. Once again I congratulate CDP for their efforts in driving sustainable economic development and would like to thank These decisions are further complicated by the increasingly them for the opportunity to provide scorer services and clear scientific and economic case for action to decouple to support the drafting of the content included in this report. business activity from carbon emissions to avoid disruptions PwC Japan, working with our global network of climate to complex supply chains. Whilst policies remain inconsistent, change experts, is ready to work with companies, investors and largely inadequate, in many of the countries targeted and the government in Japan to accelerate the transformation for overseas business development by Japanese businesses, towards a low carbon, climate change resilient society to the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, sustain the recent momentum in the financial economy. both in Japan and overseas, are forcing companies, investors and governments to rethink their strategies. Hiroyuki Suzuki This rethink is driven by economic and financial realities Territory Senior Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers Japan even in the absence of action by regulators.
A holistic approach to measure and manage the total impact of business activity is important to understand the trade-offs inherent in pursuing a low carbon, resilient business strategy. Focusing on material categories of risk and opportunity, however, continues to be a challenge for many Japanese companies responding to this year’s questionnaire. The 07 2013 Highlight
73 Average Disclosure score (2012:67) 8 Companies reported 45% P.8 absolute emissions reduction targets for Response rate 2050 or beyond (2012:6) (2012:47%) P.8 4.3% P.12 Emission reduction activities value / Scope 1 and 2 emissions 8 companies in (total average) both CDLI1 and CPLI2 P.15 Honda Motor, Nissan Motor, Toshiba, Konica Minolta, Sekisui Chemical, Komatsu, 0.56% Sony, Fujitsu Emission reduction activities value / Scope 1 and 2 emissions (top 10 emission companies) P.11 P.15 42% has 3.9/15 decreased Scope 1 and 2 emissions Average reported change from previous year categories of Scope 3 (2012:64%) emissions (2012:1.7)
1 Climate Disclosure P.15 Leadership Index 2 Climate Performance P.16 Leadership Index 08 Executive Summary
2013 marks the 11th CDP’s information reuqest and the Taking the same approach as last year, companies’ eighth since CDP commenced operation in Japan. From responses are evaluated by scoring them for both disclosure 2006 to 2008, questionnaires were sent to 150 Japanese and performance. The disclosure score, which indicates companies and in 2009 the number of target companies the adequacy of a company’s climate related disclosure, increased to 500. The Japan 500 target companies were reflects the quality and completeness of the disclosure previously selected based on market capitalization; regardless of whether the information is positive or negative. however, in 2011 the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) Japan The performance score is awarded where a company Network chose 500 companies, many of which are highlights that it is undertaking, or has undertaken, a companies in the FTSE Japan Index. ‘positive’ climate change action such as a contribution to climate change mitigation, adaptation or transparency While the response rates in the U.S. and Europe remain and such action has produced tangible results. Submitting high (approximately 80%), only 227 (45%) Japanese detailed supporting materials, as appropriate, contributes companies responded to the CDP 2013 questionnaire – to a higher score. with nine new companies that had not responded in 2012; eight companies that responded in 2012 but did not in 2013; Key findings – Japanese companies’ and cases where the parent company responded on behalf responses to the CDP 2013 questionnaire of its group companies, there was a net decrease of six { The number of companies reporting increased companies from 2012. This report is based on the responses total Scope 1 and 2 emissions rose to 114 (55%), and of the 206 companies submitted prior to the deadline. that of companies reporting decreased emissions fell to 87 (42%). One reason why emissions increased On a sector-by-sector basis the response rate remains on a whole is that energy usage restrictions enforcing almost unchanged from last year; with the response rates energy and electricity saving measures beyond of companies in the Industrials, Information Technology, traditional levels that had been imposed on Japanese Materials, and Telecommunications sectors all exceeding companies in 2011 were lifted when energy supply 50%. The trend for companies in the Electricity/Gas sectors picked up in 2012. The other reason is that increased declining to respond to the information request is continuing. dependency on thermal power since 2011 caused a Against a backdrop of growing interest from stakeholders significant rise in fiscal 2012 emission factors. in energy issues in Japan driven by continued power shortages, increases in electricity rates, spikes in crude oil { Supposing Scope 1 and 2 emissions for 2012 prices, introduction of renewable energy and other related were 100%, an average 4.3% reduction was achieved factors, the need for the sector to increase transparency as a result of emissions reduction activities. Most and responsiveness in disclosure has never been greater. Japanese companies have implemented measures to respond to the above-mentioned unique situation causing The CDP 2013 consists of three sections, divided into emissions to increase. Responses indicate that despite 14 questions: increased Scope 1 and 2 emissions, most companies have spent efforts to mitigate the increase. { Climate Change Management: Governance, Strategy, Emission Targets & Initiatives, Communication; { The number of companies reporting both absolute targets and intensity targets increased to 76 (37%). { Risks and Opportunities: Climate Change Risks and The most common target year is fiscal 2020, especially Opportunities, Economic Impact and Management for companies participating in the Voluntary Action Plan Method; and on the Environment led by the Keidanren (Japan Federation of Economic Organizations). Only eight companies set { Emissions: Emissions Methodology, Emissions Data absolute and/or intensity targets for long-term beyond 2050. (Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3), Third Party Verification / Assurance, Emissions History, Data Accuracy, { Calculated figures were reported for an average Emissions Intensity, Emissions Trading, Energy, and 3.9 out of 15 categories of Scope 3 emissions, up from Engaging with the Value Chain. 1.7 in the previous year. 36 companies (17%) were awarded full points for the question by providing Similar to other years, not many questions were added assessment or calculation for all 15 categories to this year’s questionnaire. The survey is structured to (including categories determined to be irrelevant). highlight the change in performance over past years. The Companies are expected to take a comprehensive approach scoring methodology has been changed to require more as all Scope 3 emissions need to be assessed in order detailed information and supporting evidence for companies to identify the categories that have the largest impact on to be awarded scores. Companies need to adequately a company’s emissions. Even in categories where figures address each question that covers a wide array of topics were reported, calculation in some cases covered only a to ensure that the credit for actions and initiatives is part of the emissions. Further examination is expected in accurately reflected in the scoring of each response. the future. 09
{ The number of emissions reduction activities Conclusion reported increased this year to 663 from 641 The results of this year’s questionnaire showed overall compare to the previous year. Similar to last year, improvement by Japanese companies. Although the the most companies reported payback periods of rate of change is slower than the Global 500, both more than three years. 34 activities were reported to disclosure and performance scores for Japanese have payback periods of more than 21 years. Key companies continue to increase. factors such as electricity power shortage and higher electricity rates caused by the shutdown of nuclear power The bottom line is that each company must provide plants and a spike in crude oil prices have prompted convincing information to external stakeholders including capital investment with longer payback periods. Information foreign investors in regard to its active efforts and results on ambitious investments in emission reduction activities related to global warming mitigation and adaptation. need to be disclosed to investors. Caution should be Disclosed information should be consistent with the exercised for investments with long payback periods, as company’s mid to long term business strategy; and there are cases where the payback period substantially terminology and evaluation metrics should be easy exceeds the term of the project activity. to understand. This year’s CDP has shed light on the expectation for Japanese companies to further improve { This year, changes were made to the scoring methodology their information disclosure. for external communication besides responding to the CDP survey. Better scores are given when information on climate change and GHG emissions performance is published in mainstream financial reports. Mainstream financial reports for Japanese companies refer to the Figure 1. Number of respondents by industrial sector “yuuka shoken hokokusho” (annual securities report, i.e., the annual mandatory financial reportings published { Answered Questionnaire and See Another to meet regulatory obligations). 16 companies (8%) { No Response achieved full points on this question. { Declined to Participate { Disclosure scores of the Japanese companies continue to improve. The average disclosure score Consumer 33 68 2 for CDP 2013 is 73 compared to 67 in 2012. The Discretionary number of companies with scores of 90 or more has increased to 41 companies (20%) from 15 companies Consumer 17 24 (7%) last year. There is still a gap in disclosures with the Staples Global 500 companies; whose average disclosure score is 76 and 98 companies (26%) achieve disclosure scores Energy 4 3 1 of 90 and more. Disclosure of information on risks and verification / stakeholder engagement still remains a challenge for Japanese companies. Financials 27 46 1 { The number of companies achieving either performance band A or A- increased to 13 from five Health Care 11 20 last year. Performance evaluation has generally 0.00.20.40.60.81.0 improved from CDP 2012 while the evaluation criteria for the performance band remained the same. This has allowed Japanese companies to receive better Industrials 56 38 2 bands. This still compares unfavorably with the Global 500 companies where 20% achieve either Information Disclosures by Japanese 39 27 4 performance band A or A-. Technology companies regarding risks / opportunities and verification / stakeholder engagement leaves room for improvement. Materials 33 20 5 { Twenty-four companies with the top scores for disclosure were selected to be listed in the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) and Telecommunication Services 3 2 12 companies with the top scores for performance were selected for the Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI). The number of Utilities 4 6 4 companies that were selected for both CDLI and CPLI was 8, up from four last year. 0 20 40 60 80 100 10 2013 Leaders
2013 Leadership criteria Each year, company responses are analyzed and scored against two parallel scoring schemes: disclosure and performance.
The disclosure score assesses the completeness and quality of a company’s response. Its purpose is to provide a summary of the extent to which companies have answered CDP’s questions in a structured format. A high disclosure score signals that a company provided comprehensive information about the measurement and management of its carbon footprint, its climate change strategy and risk management processes and outcomes.
The performance score assesses the level of action, as reported by the company, on climate change mitigation, adaptation and transparency. Its intent is to highlight positive climate action as demonstrated by a company’s CDP response. A high performance score signals that a company is measuring, verifying and managing its carbon footprint, for example by setting and meeting carbon reduction targets and implementing programs to reduce emissions in both its direct operations and supply chain.
The highest scoring companies for disclosure and/or performance enter the CDLI and/or CPLI. Public scores are available in CDP reports, through Bloomberg Terminals, Google Finance and Deutsche Boerse’s website.
What are the CDLI and CPLI criteria? How are the CDLI and CPLI used by investors? To enter the CDLI, a company must: Good disclosure and performance scores are • Make its response public and submit used by investors as a proxy of good climate via CDP’s Online Response System change management or climate change • Achieve a score within the top 10% of performance of companies. the total Japan 500 respondents (24 companies in 2013) Investors identify and then engage with companies to encourage them to improve To enter the CPLI their score. The ‘Aiming for A’ initiative (Performance Band A), a company must: which was initiated by CCLA Investment • Make its response public and submit Management is driven by a coalition of UK via CDP’s Online Response System asset owners and mutual fund managers. They are asking 10 major UK-listed utilities • Attain a performance score greater and extractives companies to aim for than 85 inclusion in the CPLI. This may involve • Score maximum performance points filing supportive shareholder resolutions for on question 12.1a for greenhouse gas Annual General Meetings occurring after emissions reductions due to emission September 2013. reduction actions over the past year (4% or above in 2013) Investors are also using CDP scores for creation of financial products. For example, • Disclose gross global scope 1 and Nedbank in South Africa developed the scope 2 figures Nedbank Green Index. Disclosure scores are • Score maximum performance points used for selecting stocks and performance for verification of scope 1 and scores for assigning weight. scope 2 emissions For further information on the CDLI and the • Furthermore, CDP reserves the CPLI and how scores are determined, please right to exclude any company from visit www.cdp.net/guidance the CPLI if there is anything in its response or other publicly available information that calls into question its suitability for inclusion.
Note: Companies that achieve a performance score high enough to warrant inclusion in the CPLI, but do not meet all of the other CPLI requirements are classed as Performance Band A- but are not included in the CPLI. 11
2013 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI)
Disclosure Performance Consecutive Sector Company score band years in the CDLI Consumer Honda Motor Company 99 A 2 Discretionary Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. 99 A 2 Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd. 99 B 1 Panasonic Corporation 98 A- 2 Toyota Motor Corporation 96 B 1 Consumer Staples Aeon Co., Ltd. 98 B 2 Sapporo Holdings Limited 96 B 2 KAO Corporation 96 B 1 Shiseido Co., Ltd. 95 B 1 Energy Inpex Corporation 96 B 1 Industrials Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line 98 A- 2 Taisei Corporation 96 B 2 Toto Ltd. 96 B 2 Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd. 95 A 1 Komatsu Ltd. 95 A 1 Fuji Electric Co., Ltd. 95 B 2 Hitachi, Ltd. 95 B 1 Information Toshiba Corporation 98 A 2 Technology Konica Minolta, Inc. 96 A 1 Sony Corporation 95 A 2 Fujitsu Ltd. 95 A 2 Materials Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. 95 B 2 Telecommunication Nippon Telegraph & Telephone 95 B 1 Services Corporation (NTT) Utilities Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. 95 B 1
2013 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI)
Performance Disclosure Consecutive Sector Company band score years in the CPLI Consumer Honda Motor Company A 99 1 Discretionary Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. A 99 1 Health Care Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. A 91 1 Industrials Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd. A 95 1 Komatsu Ltd. A 95 1 Shimizu Corporation A 91 2 Sumitomo Corporation A 87 1 Information Toshiba Corporation A 98 1 Technology Konica Minolta, Inc. A 96 1 Sony Corporation A 95 1 Fujitsu Ltd. A 95 2 Olympus Corporation A 93 1 12 CDP 2013 Responses from Japanese companies 1. Climate change management
In this section information is requested on: governance structures associated with climate change; processes and strategies to establish approaches to manage climate change; emissions reduction targets and activities; and disclosure of climate change information. i) Governance This year’s question was modified to a multiple choice 197 companies (96%) state that their Board of Directors format. 180 companies (87%) state that they engage in or equivalent body is designated as having the highest activities that could either directly or indirectly influence level of responsibility for climate change. This high ratio policy. The most common answer was activities through of companies regarding climate change as a Board level “trade associations” selected by 142 companies (69%) issue is similar to last year. followed by “direct engagement” selected by 81 companies.
ii) Strategy Many companies include in their responses obligatory actions In regard to risk management methods for climate change such as adherence with the Energy Saving Act or the risks and opportunities, 176 companies (85%) report that establishment of a Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment they adopt multiple risk management methods and 17 although this question does not regard compliance with companies (8%) adopt management methods developed existing laws and regulations as collaboration with specifically for climate change risks. Most companies adopt policymakers. In addition, there were responses where one or another of these methods. 188 companies (91%) companies failed to provide specific information on initiatives report that climate change is integrated into their wider with trade associations. This question is designed to enable business strategy. investors to identify companies actively and collaboratively pursuing measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change, Although it is up to each company to explain how it thus companies are expected to describe how it manages its risks and opportunities and how it develops proactively engages in what kind of specific activities. its strategies, there were many cases where the level of detail reported is well below expectations or where iv) Emissions reduction targets responses do not adequately address the questions. As A vast majority (194 companies (94%)) set absolute this topic is of significant interest to investors, companies targets and/or intensity targets. are expected to provide more specific information. Large enterprises are required to set emissions reduction iii) Collaboration with policymakers targets in accordance with the Energy Saving Act and It is important to collaborate with policymakers such other prefectural ordinances for global warming prevention as government, local governments, and international (such as the ordinance enforced by the Tokyo Metropolitan organizations to improve the effectiveness of climate Government). Many companies are now reviewing their change mitigation and adaptation efforts. This is voluntary emissions reduction targets which had been set because the challenges of climate change cannot be for FY 2012 in line with the Kyoto Protocol and Voluntary resolved by individual companies working alone. Action Plans on the Environment established by trade
Figure 2. Engagements with Figure 3. Reduction target Figure 4. Number of emission policy makers reduction targets breakdown { 31% Absolute target of reported target by target Direct engagement { 37% Absolute and Intensity target year and target type 81 { 26% Intensity target { 0 - 10% { 30 - 50% Trade associations { 6% No target { 10 - 30% { 50% - 142 Absolute target Funding research organizations Short 64 32 3 5 term Intensity target 16 (-2013) 65 27 8 2 Other Absolute target 23 Mid 34 55 22 5 term Intensity target No (-2021) 55 26 19 4 21 Absolute target No response Long 2 1 6 5 term Intensity target (-2050) 0 30 60 90 120 150 2 1 Number of companies 0 40 80 120 Number of targets 13
associations. The Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) to meet reduction targets that cover both upstream and has announced that as of January 2013, 39 industry downstream emissions associated with its products. sectors have participated in establishing voluntary initiatives including reduction targets for 2020 in line with v) Emissions reduction activities the Keidanren’s Commitment to a Low Carbon Society. The number of emissions reduction activities reported This, however, is not necessarily reflected in the CDP increased this year to 663 (202 companies (98%)) from 2013 responses whose reporting year is FY 2012. 641 (212 companies (99%)) the previous year. Answer options for the question on payback period of reduction The number of companies setting both absolute and activities were added up to “25 years or more” (the intensity targets significantly increased to 76 companies maximum option in last year’s questionnaire was “3 years (37%) from 67 companies last year. or more”). Similar to last year, most companies expect a payback period of more than three years, including a While it is important to establish an efficient approach to number of cases where the period is 21 years or more. reduce emissions by setting intensity targets in the context of a company’s planned business growth, it is also necessary As to emissions reduction activities by type, “Energy to set absolute targets and manage total emissions in order efficiency: processes” account for a quarter (152 cases) to contribute to GHG emissions reduction for society as a of reported activities. The most common answers regarding whole. An increasing number of companies are setting the payback period for such activities is “4-10 years,” both absolute and intensity targets for the mid-to-long term. “less than 1 year,” and “1-3 years.” Specific examples Companies such as Casio Computer Co., Ltd., Kirin provided in the responses include: energy conversion in Holdings Co. Ltd., Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc., NKSJ production facilities; high-efficiency operations; heat recovery; Holdings, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Obayashi Corporation, introduction of cogeneration; increase in the ratio of RICOH Company, Ltd. and Sumitomo Rubber Industries, non-defective items; and improvement of processes. Ltd. have demonstrated good practices by setting absolute emissions reduction targets for 2050 or beyond. The payback periods of activities are largely long term, or more than three years; 34 of which report payback Yet at the same time, setting GHG reduction targets for periods of 21 years or more. The most common responses a company’s own operations is not sufficient to effectively were introduction of renewable energy such as solar power address dangerous climate change. Reduction targets generation, followed by installation of highly efficient should also be set for indirect emissions from across illumination (such as LED) and air conditioning systems. the value chain. For example, 24 companies (12%) set While it is important for management to take a long-term absolute emissions reduction targets for emissions from view to make ambitious investments, there are cases “use of products sold,” which for many industry sectors where the payback period substantially exceeds the is a major source of emissions. For industry sectors term of the project activity. Therefore, disclosures should where the amount of emissions from across its value chain include detailed descriptions of a project’s costs and are far greater than emissions from the company’s own returns, as well as the significance of the investment. operations, it is highly effective for companies to strive
Figure 5. Payback period breakdown of reported emissions initiatives by activity type
{ < 1 year { 4 - 10 years { 16 - 20 years { > 25 years { 1 - 3 years { 11 - 15 years { 21 - 25 years { No answer
60
50
40
30
20
Number of initiatives 10
0 use fleet Other Process emissions processes reductions Low carbon Low carbon building fabric Transportation: Transportation: Product design Product building services energy purchase Energy efficiency: Energy efficiency: Energy efficiency: energy installation Behavioral change 14 CDP 2013 Responses from Japanese companies 2. Risks and opportunities
In this section information is requested on: aspects of climate change that are affecting companies; expected consequences; and risk and opportunity management measures being implemented. Similar to last year, risks and opportunities attributable Despite the increasing number of reported risks and to laws and regulations were reported by the largest opportunities associated with climate change, the number of responding companies. The gap, however, is responses by Japanese companies leave much to narrowing as more companies report physical and other be improved. Overly vague responses may give the risks and opportunities. impression that the responding company does not actually realize the importance of the risk and/or A total 223 risks and opportunities were reported for opportunity, and that it is not actively addressing the “Changing customer behavior,” making it the most issue. A company that tries with care to explain its common factor associated to risks and opportunities. risks and opportunities in a way that is comprehensible This indicates that companies are considering the risk to overseas investors will naturally provide specific that profits will fall unless they adequately grasp changes examples and qualitative information together with in customer preference to identify opportunities to information such as the company’s industry, size of develop products and services that respond to growing business, regions where it operates, and applicable laws consumer interest in climate change. and regulations. This kind of information that only the company itself can provide is what is expected in the “Carbon taxes” and “Cap and trade scheme” remain responses to these questions. common responses for risks and opportunities associated to laws and regulations.
“Change in mean (average) temperature” is the leading factor affecting physical opportunities. Opportunities were identified not only with products such as air conditioning equipment, beverages, and agriculture produce but also services including energy management and disaster risk management.
Figure 6. Percentage of companies reporting Figure 7. Most commonly reported five risk risks and opportunities regarding climate change /opportunity drivers
{ 2013 { 2012 Carbon taxes Regulatory Risks 111 95% Cap and trade schemes 93% 101 Physical Risks Reputation 98 85% Risk 83% Changing consumer behavior 91 Other Risks 80% International agreements 73 75% Changing consumer behavior Regulatory Opportunities 132 89% Reputation 85% 85 Physical Opportunities Product efficiency regulations and standards Opportunity 77% 72 69% Change in mean (average) temperature Other Opportunities 69 80% Cap and trade schemes 73% 54 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 30 60 90 120 150 Response rate (%) Number of companies 15 CDP 2013 Responses from Japanese companies 3. Emissions
In this section information is requested on: emissions calculations; emissions quantity and breakdown by scope; intensity figures; energy consumption; and emissions trading. i) Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions emission reduction initiatives, achieving an average 4.3% 2012 was a challenging year for Japanese companies year on year decrease of emissions. Even when various to report emissions performance due to drastic elements triggered absolute emissions to increase from the changes in the energy environment in relation to year before, it is clear that many companies are spending electricity and other factors. efforts to control their emissions. There is a compelling need especially for companies with high quantities of In 2011, companies significantly cut down their power absolute emissions to boost efforts aimed at emissions consumption beyond the usual scope of normal energy reduction. It is worthy to note that for companies with the and electricity saving measures in response to energy top ten highest quantities of gross Scope 1 and 2 usage restrictions after the Great East Japan Earthquake emissions achieved an average 0.56% reduction in resulting in what could be called an “emergency emissions, an amount significantly smaller than the 4.3% situation.” Many companies, however, increased their average for all companies. power usage from the previous year when energy supply picked up again in 2012. The increase in the In regard to emissions intensity, companies are asked ratio of thermal power generation due to the shutdown to report on performance, changes, and reasons for of nuclear energy plants across the nation resulted in a such change in emissions compared with an appropriate rise in the emissions factor for electricity in Japan. This metric or indicator such as sales revenue or number of caused calculated GHG emissions to increase even full time equivalent employees. when electricity usage remained the same. A fewer number of companies are reporting decreased CDP asks companies to report on the total amount of emissions in terms of intensity as well. 197 companies Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and change from the (96%) report on emissions per sales revenue, of which previous year in absolute and intensity terms. This year, 97 companies achieved reductions from the previous 114 companies (55%) reported increased emissions year. 194 companies (94%) report on emissions per from the year before, implying the massive effort that number of full time equivalent employees, of which 98 was put forth in electricity conservation last year. companies achieved reductions from the previous year. 127 companies (61%) use other metrics for intensity Despite such circumstances, many companies reported measurement. Some companies report with industry
Figure 8. Absolute emissions change from the Figure 9. Intensity emissions change from the previous year previous year
{ Decrease { Other { Increase { Decrease { Increase / No change 2013 2013 100 97 Per sales 87 5 114 2012 revenue 111 71
2012 2013 98 96 Per 136 9 69 number of 2012 employees 128 53
2011 2013 66 61 Other 82 14 101 2012
79 37
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 16 CDP 2013 Responses from Japanese companies 3. Emissions
standards such as GHG emissions per production { “Use of sold products” constitute over 80% of total output. 66 of these companies reported decreases in their Scope 3 emissions. However the response ratio is not GHG intensity footprint compared to the year before. yet high for manufacturing companies that require high amounts of electricity and energy; and Emission factors for electricity in Japan, which greatly impacts calculation of GHG emissions, may continue to { Very few companies answered “Investments”, hover at current high levels or even increase further in including only one company in the financial businesses 2013 and beyond. Although electricity issues are policy- sector despite the fact that investment is the main oriented external factors, it is crucial for companies business activity for companies in the sector. to establish a business case for GHG reduction amid ongoing change in the energy environment. The categories of emission sources that have the highest contribution to the total emissions footprint differ In addition to such external factors, companies are depending on the industry and/or company. Companies expected to shed light on internal factors that are not need to understand the whole picture to identify such visible from publicly available information. Examples categories with the most impact. Even though the are fluctuations in production output or changes in calculation for many categories may need to rely on boundaries. Companies should analyze in detail and estimations, this analysis would enable companies disclose such information while also taking into account to predict the outcomes of their emissions reduction changes over time. measures.
ii) Scope 3 emissions 36 companies (17%) answered “Relevant, Calculated,” Scope 3 emissions refer to indirect GHG emissions “Not relevant, Calculated,” or “Not relevant, explanation associated with business activities excluding purchased provided” for all 15 categories. This implies that these electricity, heat or steam. This year 170 companies companies have completed considering all 15 categories (83%) reported Scope 3 emissions from 847 emission of their Scope 3 emissions to a certain degree. sources (2012: 160 companies with 358 emission sources). In addition to growing interest in Scope 3 The following Figure. 11 shows reported emissions emissions over the last year, changes made to the CDP for each scope and by sector. For the consumer scoring methodology are attributable to this increase. discretionary sector, the amount of Scope 3 emissions Points are now given to each of the 15 categories, a which includes emissions from product use by the change from last year when companies were given end consumer is significantly more than Scope 1 and the same score regardless of whether the company Scope 2 emissions. The Consumer Discretionary provided answers to just one category or all 15. sector includes home electronics and automotive manufacturers reporting emissions pertaining to their Of the 15 categories of Scope 3 emissions, more than products. This breakdown of emissions sources 40% companies reported “Downstream transportation indicates that for companies in the consumer and distribution,” “Waste generated in operations,” discretionary sector, developing products that conserve “Business travel,” and “Purchased goods & services.” energy or educating consumers on efficient product More than 30% companies reported “Employee usage would yield much greater reduction results than commuting,” “Use of sold products,” and “Fuel-and- cutting energy use in factories and other facilities. As energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or to the materials sector, the amount of Scope 1 and Scope 2),” and “End of life treatment of sold products.” Scope 2 emissions is greater than that of Scope 3. This It is clear that more companies are now monitoring their is because while the manufacturing stage of materials Scope 3 emissions. requires huge amounts of energy, Scope 3 emissions would depend on the end product, complicating Understanding and estimating Scope 3 emissions is a Scope 3 calculation and also allowing little influence on challenge because they are not the direct emissions by such emissions on the part of the materials company. the company, causing issues such as the following: This means that for this sector, pursuing low carbon measures in its manufacturing processes to cut down { In the future, companies will be expected to Scope 1 and 2 emissions and using raw materials understand the categories of emission sources that have with smaller carbon footprints is effective to combat the most impact on the operations of the company. This dangerous climate change. is because the materiality of each category constituting the Scope 3 emissions would vary according to the What can companies do to prevent dangerous climate industry or business category; change? What are the expectations of the society? How can companies collaborate with stakeholders { Even for categories where figures are reported, there are cases where emissions are only partially calculated. 17
in their value chain to tackle issues that a company cannot resolve on its own? Companies need to take a comprehensive view to actively engage in initiatives that are in lineFigure with the10. features Number of theof companiesbusiness. reporting Scope 3 categories and emissions by category
2000 100 { Emissions millions tCO2e { Percentage of companies
e 1,548 2 80 1500
60
1000
40
500 20
Absolute emissions millions tCO 203 Number of responding companies
21 10 1 3 2 20 37 20 0 11 5 12 2 0 0
Franchises Investments Capital goods Business travel and distribution and distribution of sold products End of life treatment Use of sold products Employee commuting Upstream transportation Upstream leased assets Downstream transportation Downstream leased assets Processing of sold products
Waste generated in operationsPurchased goods and services Fuel-and-energy-related activities
Figure 11. Scope 1 and 2 emissions compared to Scope 3 emissions by sector
{ Purchased goods and services { Other Scope 3 emissions { Use of sold products { Scope 1 + 2 emissions
Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples
Financials
Health Care
Industrials
Information Technology
Materials
Telecommunication Services
Utilities
Absolute emissions millions tCO2e
0 300000000 600000000 18 CDP 2013 Responses from Japanese companies 4. Verification/ Assurance
Information related to climate change is taking on increasing verification/ assurance coverage ratio was “over 90%” importance. Particularly as absolute figures such as emissions whereas approximately 30% answered “below 20%.” require high levels of reliability. This is because they are used for This for instance, could be a case where a company’s analysis of year-on-year changes and causes, and also serve headquarters would be subject to the Tokyo Metropolitan as a benchmark for comparison with sector peer companies. Government ordinance mandating reduction in total CDP considers independent verification/ assurance to emissions, but its high emission production sites outside contribute to enhanced reliability, and accordingly gives Tokyo would be uncovered by verification/ assurance. higher points to companies that are demonstrating such Companies should have verification/ assurance provided effort. It is worth noting that questions related to independent for material sites with high emissions to enhance the verification/ assurance account for approximately 10% reliability of their data. of both disclosure and performance scores.
For questions related to independent verification/ assurance, Assessment points regarding companies are required to attach independent verification verification/ assurance /assurance documents issued by third parties such as verification providers. Only when the response and attached { Standard: The response must be supported document(s) satisfy the scoring criteria and if such documents by the attached document, and the standard provide sufficient evidence of the response, can a company used must be one accepted by CDP. receive a full score for the question. This means that companies need to make sure their answers and { Level of verification/assurance: The response supporting documents fulfill each and all scoring criteria. must be supported by the attached document.
The number of companies that received full scores on { Subject of verification/assurance: The questions regarding independent verification/ assurance statement in the evidence must clearly relate to this year was 83 (43%) and 82 (41%) with respect to GHG emissions. Scope 1 and 2 emissions, respectively. This showed an increase from last year’s results where the percentage of { Scope: The response must be supported companies that had undergone independent verification/ by the attached document. assurance was around 30% for both Scopes. { Reporting year: The response must be However, the percentage of verification/ assurance over supported by the attached document. total emissions (the verification/ assurance coverage ratio) was not exactly high. For example, among the companies { Opinion or findings: The document who answered that they had received assurance over contains a verification opinion or findings. Scope 1 and 2 emissions, almost half answered that their
1 Verification/Assurance approved; companies have Figure 12. Respondents for which indepen- Figure 13. Verification/ assurance coverage reported that they have verification complete or dent verification/ assurance over emissions ratio to total emissions underway with last year’s data are provided certificate available and they have been awarded { 0%< x ≤20% { 60%< x ≤80% the full performance points { VAA 1 { VAR 3 { 20%< x ≤40% { 80%< x ≤90% available for their statement. { VAF 2 { Not verified/ assured { 40%< x ≤60% { 90%< x ≤100% 2 Verification/Assurance reported as underway, Scope 1 emissions first year; companies have Scope 1 emissions reported that the have verification underway but 83 5 23 96 that it is the first year they 34 8 9 5 3 51 have undertaken verification. In this case there is no verification statement Scope 2 emissions available for assessment. Scope 2 emissions 3 Verification/Assurance 82 3 18 103 reported; companies have reported that the have 31 10 6 5 2 51 verification complete or underway with last year’s statement available but the Scope 3 emissions verification statement provided has not been 0 20 40 60 80 100 awarded the full 36 17 154 performance points available, or they have not been scored and therefore 0 50 100 150 200 250 their verification statement has not been assessed. Number of companies 19
The Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) Moreover, CDSB’s Framework is designed to be ready The Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), for use by governments introducing new regulations on managed as a special project of CDP, is an international greenhouse gas emissions and use of natural resources. organisation committed to the integration of climate The recent regulations introduced for United Kingdom change-related information into mainstream corporate quoted companies references CDSB’s Reporting reporting. Established in 2007 at the World Economic Framework as one means of compliance with the law. Forum, CDSB is a coalition of leading environmental and business organizations, accountancy professionals, CDP’s disclosure system is the established mechanism companies and investors from around the world. for organisations worldwide to measure and disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate change risk CDSB’s internationally accepted Climate Change information. This information is of great value to investor Reporting Framework is designed for use by companies decision making and helps companies understand to make disclosures in their mainstream financial reports what is material to their specific businesses and take about the risks and opportunities that climate change the appropriate strategic action. presents to their strategy, financial performance and business model. It has been developed using existing Working closely with CDP, CDSB’s Framework acts standards and practices to ensure a clear harmonised as a lens of materiality on the data a company measures approach to reporting rather than creating new and discloses to investors through CDP. Together standards. In so doing, it leads to globally consistent CDP and CDSB provide a full disclosure toolkit for and comparable information reaching financial markets. companies on carbon and climate change, both in Designed in-line with the objectives of financial reporting reporting to financial markets and in preparing for and and rules on non-financial reporting CDSB complements adhering to mandatory reporting around the world. the work of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) as well as the Global Reporting Initiative Please download CDSB’s Reporting Framework and (GRI). CDSB’s Reporting Framework offers a leading guidance at http://www.cdsb.net/framework and example of how to apply the principles of integrated further information is available on CDSB’s website at reporting with respect to reporting on climate change. www.cdsb.net
Global Emissions Reporting: A summary of impacts, and CDP will continue to engage with European current regional, national and multi-national policymakers to support the introduction of non-financial legislation reporting requirements. The inclusion of Article 47 on Governments are increasingly transitioning from sustainability reporting in the outcome document of voluntary to mandatory reporting of GHG emissions the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development and environmental risks. July 2013 saw the UK also demonstrates increased recognition of corporate government legislate for mandatory reporting of GHG sustainability at the international level. CDP is working emissions by all quoted companies on the London hard to transform this into long lasting policy change. Stock Exchange. CDP played a central role in ensuring these regulations passed, providing technical advice Global carbon schemes on the content of the regulations and seconding staff Although there has been no global agreement on a price to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural for carbon, the world currently has 14 national and Affairs to write the guidance that accompanied the regional mandatory carbon reporting schemes. These regulations. Whilst other countries have similar reporting are increasingly moving away from global efforts under requirements in place, the UK regulations are unique the UNFCCC to local and regional cooperation to drive in requiring companies to report on their GHG emissions action on reducing carbon emissions. The world’s first globally, and to include details in their annual report. international trading scheme and still the largest is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which Discussions are currently on going at EU-level for covers 28 EU Member States and entered its third trading mandatory reporting of Environmental, Social and period in January 2013. National or localized schemes Governance information (including GHG emissions) to are also operating in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, be included in companies’ end of year reports. This Switzerland, the US and Canada, and are planned legislation would affect all large EU companies with more in China, South Korea and Brazil. Plans are in place than 500 employees, totalling some 18,000 companies for Australia and Switzerland to link their trading across the EU. This underlines the growing acceptance schemes with the EU ETS, and California and by policymakers that reporting of corporate sustainability Quebec are due to link their carbon prices in 2014. impacts will lead to more effective management of these 20 External environment for Japanese companies
Since the oil crisis of the 1970’s, Japan’s energy strategy has been driven by consideration of stable energy supply by increasing reliance on nuclear power generation. The serious situation at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, however, has called on the Japanese Government to overhaul its energy strategy whilst taking into account countermeasures against climate change.
In the meantime, the Japanese Government announced at the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Durban that it would not take part in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. With the New Basic Energy Plan of Japan still pending, the outlook remains opaque. As consensus-building has proven to be a challenge even among the nations participating in the second commitment period, Japanese companies that operate globally are in a situation where the development of their business is subject to various uncertainties regarding energy use and global warming countermeasures.
1. Overhauling the Basic Energy Plan of Japan target. The Keidanren (Japan Federation of Economic In September 2012, the then Democratic Party led Organizations) engaged the business community by government developed the “Innovative Strategy for establishing the Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment. Energy and the Environment.” A society without dependence on nuclear energy, green energy revolution, The Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment, which played stable energy supply, electric power system innovations, a leading role in driving efforts in the Japanese economy and global warming countermeasures were the pillars - notably the industrial business community - was, literally, of that strategy. In March 2013, following a period of of a “voluntary” nature. In practice, however, this was a inaction, the Liberal Democratic Party (which took office political measure adopted by the Cabinet based on in December 2012) resumed discussion of this strategy international commitments for the government to under their “New Basic Energy Plan.” evaluate and monitor the action of the business community to achieve the Kyoto Protocol targets. Learning from the challenges faced by the Democratic Party where debate on nuclear power generation hindered Looking forward, the outlook on cooperation between the discussion, the Liberal Democratic Party has decided to business sector and the government remains unclear in rather focus on stable supply and energy cost. view of Japan’s non-participation in the second commitment period and the nation’s overhauled energy strategy yet Japanese companies cannot ignore discussion and policies to be finalized. regarding the resumption of nuclear power plants, the nuclear power ratio on a mid-long term, as well as energy supply In January 2013, Keidanren compiled the “Commitment to and energy cost, all of which will significantly impact a Low Carbon Society” that follows from Voluntary Action consumers. The extent of the burden on consumers caused Plan on the Environment. The plan provides that the by the surcharge for the Enhanced Feed-in Tariff Scheme Keidanren will lead the business community to continue for Renewable Energy is also uncertain. The outcome of domestic emission reduction efforts and enhance technical the government’s energy innovation discussions due in transfer and innovative technological development to
2020 which covers policies regarding the separation of contribute to the global reduction of CO2 emissions in transmission and distribution of power, as well as the the long term. The plan is based on a long range goal to unpredictable potential impact of the shale gas innovation halve the global emission of greenhouse gases by 2050. on Japan’s energy resource must also be continuously observed by companies trying to understand their future 3. Thermal power accounts for approximately energy needs and potential carbon emissions. 90% of electric power generation Operations of two nuclear reactors in the Ohi Nuclear Power 2. Japan’s non-participation in the second Plant were restarted in July 2012 for the first time since all commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol nuclear energy plants across Japan were shut down following In December 2011, the Japanese Government stated at the explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Energy Plant. the COP17 that Japan would not take part in the second They were shut down for regular inspections in September commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. This has influenced 2013, other nuclear power plants not been allowed to resume not only the nation’s standing in international society, but operations, Japan is again without any nuclear power. also impacted domestic policies related to climate change. Inspections under new regulatory standards are ongoing with, the ratio of nuclear power generation to total generation During the first commitment period, the Japanese Government dropping drastically from about 30% before the Great East carried out domestic policies in line with their 6% reduction Japan Earthquake to 1.7% in fiscal 2012; while that of thermal 21
energy rose from about 60% to 88.3% over the same period, Meanwhile, emissions trading schemes implemented by according to the Federation of Electric Power Companies local governments are attracting attention. The Tokyo (FEPC). Not only has this resulted in a surge in fossil fuel Metropolitan Government's “Cap and Trade Scheme imports, higher generation costs, and increased energy (Tokyo-ETS)” mandates entities that are included in security risk, but it has also caused a significant rise in the scheme to cut emissions and also allows them to greenhouse gas emissions. Although the most recent figures purchase credits to help achieve their targets. announced by FEPC are for fiscal 2011 (this means figures include nuclear energy generated before all plants were taken Tokyo-ETS incorporates the characteristics of the area off line in May 2012), they still show a 29% (or 92,000,000 (i.e., concentration of large-scale office buildings and 1 metric tons CO2e ) increase compared to fiscal 2010. commercial facilities) by including a flexible mechanism to enable entities covered by the scheme to buy credits earned Companies in Japan generally include Scope 2 emissions through reduction efforts by exempt entities such as small (indirect emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, and medium-sized enterprises in Tokyo and large-scale heat or steam) in their greenhouse gas emissions reporting. offices outside the Tokyo metropolitan area. Renewable Every year, in accordance with the government’s reporting energy certificates issued by power generators can also be scheme, the Japanese Government determines emission purchased. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government announced factors for each major power company for reporting that the project achieved 13% and 23% reductions from companies to use in such emission calculation. The emission base year emissions in fiscal 2010 and 2011 respectively. factors have sharply increased in recent years due to change The Tokyo Metropolitan Government has signed a cooperation in the breakdown structure of power source. For example, agreement to integrate some of the program’s features the FEPC emission factor for major power companies with that of the “Targets-set Emissions Trading Scheme,” included in the scheme has increased 16% from 0.417 a similar program introduced by the Saitama Prefectural 2 kg CO2e/kWh in fiscal 1990 to 0.476 kg CO2e/kWh in Government. These two local governments are showing fiscal 2011. This increase has had a significant impact progressive efforts in the capital region of Japan. on calculation results of companies operating in Japan. Approximately 1,300 installations including headquarters 4. Renewable energy market gains momentum of large companies, datacenters, commercial facilities, Enhanced Feed-in Tariff Scheme for Renewable Energy (FIT) transmission facilities, and office buildings will be within was introduced in July 2012 as part of policy measures to the scope of these programs. Substantially stricter promote renewable energy. FIT has raised expectations reduction targets, expected to be imposed in fiscal especially in the solar power market for the high yields 2015, will call for action that go beyond existing energy available and the low perceived business risk. Companies and power saving measures such as introducing that own vast areas of forest such as large pulp and paper renewable energy and improving energy management. companies and forestry companies can build biomass generation plants to utilize their unused materials. This With regard to the emissions trading scheme, the Japanese triggered more than 20 plans for construction of geothermal Government introduced the J-Credit Scheme by expansively plants for the first time since 1999. Japanese geothermal integrating the “Domestic Clean Development Mechanism energy technology is utilized in 70% of the geothermal (J-CDM)” (a complementary system to the emissions trading energy plants around the globe. The government is keen scheme) and the “Offset Credit (J-VER) Scheme” (verified on expanding the scale of exports of such technologies emissions reduction scheme which places focus on carbon by contributing to overseas studies and promoting offsetting). Launched in April 2013, the J-Credit Scheme is dialogue with foreign governments. a program under which the Japanese Government certifies as “credit” the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (such
FIT has indeed stimulated the renewable energy market. as CO2) reduced or removed by introduction of energy- At the same time funds are procured through a surcharge saving devices and forest management. The credits added to the standard utility rate, this cost, which is passed certified under the scheme can be utilized for various on to all electricity consumers including companies and purposes, such as for carbon offsetting or achieving the households, will increase as more renewable energy is supplied. goals set in the Action Plan for Achieving a Low-Carbon The impact on Japanese businesses arising from expansion Society. The government continues to provide assistance, of renewable energy, including the implications of political having certified reduction credits for 1,500,000 metric and technological issues and costs to develop and tons CO e through the former J-CDM during the period 2 1 This figure takes enhance the power grid should be monitored closely. between fiscal 2008 and 2012; and 520,000 metric tons into account the CO e (90,000 metric tons CO e from reductions and Kyoto Mechanism 2 2 Credit. Figures before 5. Developments in emissions trading schemes 430,000 metric tons CO2e from absorption) through the adjustment are 65,000,000 tons CO e There have been no notable developments in emissions former J-VER Scheme through July 2013. 2 (17% increase). trading schemes since the government introduced the “Pilot Operation of Emissions Trading Scheme” in 2008. Although (The above information is as of September 25, 2013.) 2 This figure takes into account the countermeasures against global warming are planned to Kyoto Mechanism be examined along with the overhaul of the Basic Energy Credit. Figures before Plan, we believe that considerable time will elapse before adjustment are 0.510 kgCO2e/kWh (22.3% conclusions are reached. increase). 22 The global trend towards integrated reporting
The global trend towards integrated reporting is now to avoid dangerous or even catastrophic non-linear undeniable and appears inevitable. The International changes to the climate system. Businesses must be Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) is currently able to clearly define their business as the climate reviewing the 359 submissions to their April 2013 changes around them, analyze the interconnected, Consultation Draft in preparation for the release of the material risks and opportunities and illustrate how
Economic outcomes drive decision making and define As we move towards the Sendai World Conference success or failure. However, the metrics that act as on Disaster Risk Reduction4 in March 2015, and the incentives to invest do not always shine a light on agreement on the post-Hyogo Framework for Action the invisible risks of disasters. Economic forecasts plan, it is critical that the business case for this shift and country-level risk assessments rarely incorporate in thinking is established. Examples of businesses available disaster risk information. Perversely, more achieving 10:1 returns on pre-investment consideration complete disclosure may act as a disincentive and only of disaster risk information are a good start5, but for serve to improve the relative competitiveness of less this to happen at scale business leaders require a transparent locations. When information is considered common approach to compare a range of impacts it is often incomplete with the potential for loss to inform decision making. Likewise, the private significantly understated1. sector needs to establish a common language for collaboration with the public sector to harmonize Even with the best intentions, as demonstrated by efforts at minimizing economic and human losses. The many of the Japanese companies responding to this challenges of realizing progress on the involvement year’s CDP questionnaire, investments continue to be of the private sector in the development agenda6 is made in a way that actually increases the risk of future a core focus of the UN High Level Panel7. PwC have economic and human loss. Continuing urbanization, supported the UN HLP by working with our clients to the globalization of supply chains and the pursuit develop a more comprehensive approach to comparing of growth has driven unprecedented and highly different types of impacts which we call Total Impact concentrated investment in low-lying coastal and river Measurement and Management (TIMM)8. basin infrastructure. These locations are amongst the most exposed to losses from natural disasters, and TIMM gives boards better insight into social, fiscal, often where significant gaps between economic and environmental and economic impacts of their activities. insured losses exist2. The scale and concentration This approach provides a structured way to incorporate of these risks is not well understood, and so it is not disaster risk information, but the real benefit is that it factored into investment decision making processes. gives management the ability to compare strategies Improved collaboration and integrated thinking may be and investment choices using quantified data the answer. converted into financial information to shine a light on the economic implications of decisions. It is this The opportunities for the private and public sectors connection between physical and social impacts and to collaborate on risk reduction and building systemic the economics of those impacts that can help business resilience are still largely untapped. Most corporate leaders answer the questions which are currently risk reduction initiatives remain unshared and preventing them from taking action on decoupling their many initiatives by governments and international businesses from emissions. organizations are promoted without meaningful private sector involvement. In a joint study published by PwC The pathway on the journey towards a more resilient, and the UNISDR earlier this year based on research low-carbon future will not be smooth. Total impact with 14 major global companies it is clear that the thinking and a better understanding of the economics focus of business remains on business continuity of undertaking the journey are an important first planning and managing the response to disasters post- step. Growth remains essential for our shared future, investment rather than managing risks pre-investment3. transforming from “bad” to “good” growth is within our reach. The decisions are in your hands.
Scott Williams Director, PricewaterhouseCoopers Aarata
1 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013 “From Shared Risk to 4 www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa-post2015 Shared Value: The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction”, UNISDR, p197 5 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013 “From Shared Risk to 2 Mind the risk: A global ranking of cities under threat from natural disasters, Swiss Re Shared Value: The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction”, UNISDR, p139 www.swissre.com/rethinking/climate_and_natural_disaster_risk/mind_the_risk.html 6 http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 3 UNISDR and PwC: Working together to reduce disaster risk, www.pwc.com/en_GX/ gx/governance-risk-compliance-consulting-services/resilience/publications/pdfs/pwc- 7 www.post2015hlp.org/ unisdr-report.pdf 8 www.pwc.com/totalimpact 24 2013 Disclosure score
What does a disclosure score typically { The level of strategic focus and commitment to represent? understanding the business issues related to climate Generally, companies scoring within a particular range change, emanating from the top of the organization; exhibit similar levels of commitment to, and experience of, disclosure. The indicative description of each level { The extent to which a company has measured its is provided below for guidance only; investors should carbon emissions; read individual company responses to understand the context for each business. { The extent of the internal data management practices for understanding GHG emissions, including energy use; How is the disclosure score determined? In determining the disclosure score for each company, { The frequency and relevance of disclosure to key we assess the following: corporate stakeholders; and
{ The level of understanding and disclosure of { Whether the company uses third party or external company-specific exposure to climate-related risks verification of emissions data to promote greater and opportunities; confidence and usage of the data.
Figure 14. Climate Disclosure Elements
High (>70) - senior management The journey to leadership understand the business issues related Strategic to climate change and build climate related advantage risks and opportunities into core business Midrange (50–70) - increased understanding and measurement of company-specific risks and Managing opportunities related to climate change for value Low (<50) - limited or restricted ability to measure and disclose climate related risks, opportunities and overall carbon emissions Compliance
Disclosure score (Max.100)
High disclosure scores, which indicate the adequacy of There was an improvement in the average disclosure scores companies’ climate related disclosure to the CDP questionnaire, across all sections of the questionnaire for Japan 500 suggest good internal data management and understanding respondents this year, with scores approaching those of of the risks and opportunities climate change presents to the Global 500. However, the ‘Risk’, and ‘Stakeholder the company’s business. Though the score is not an indicator Engagement’ scores are still relatively low and lagging behind of a company’s performance in relation to climate change the Global 500. In particular, the average scores achieved management (as no judgment is made about absolute levels for the ‘Stakeholder Engagement’ section were well below of emissions, emission reduction achievements, or carbon the Global 500 average. This is due to the fact that very intensity), it reflects the quality and completeness of the few companies achieved high scores for verification or disclosure and hence the likely usefulness to data-users. assurance of data – an area in which Japan 500 companies still remain outliers compared to their Global 500 peers. The trend of improving average disclosure scores for Japan Even where data is in fact verified or assured, there were 500 respondents continued in CDP 2013. The average cases where the responses by Japan 500 companies were disclosure score this year increased to 73 from 67 last year. inconsistent with their verification/assurance reports. There The level of disclosures is increasing across the board. is a need for specific details regarding the relationship 41 companies achieved scores of 90 or more this year between risks and the core business activities of the (2012: 15) and the number of companies scoring less Japan 500 responding companies to be disclosed. than 50 decreased in comparison to last year. As a certain level of climate change disclosure becomes However, for the Global 500 respondents, whose commonplace not only for Global 500 companies but also highest concentration of scores this year was again in for Japan 500 companies, achieving high disclosure scores the 90-100 range, the distribution has further improved is not enough. We have entered a stage where enhancing this year with more than 40% of companies in the 90- the quality of disclosures such as making it easy to 100 range (2012: more than 25%) and approximately understand from the external stakeholder’s perspective 70% of companies scoring 80 or more. This is a clear is called into question. indication that the Global 500 respondents are further enhancing their climate change disclosures. 25
Figure 15. Disclosure scores distribution of Japan 500 and Global 500
50 { Japan 500 (2012) { Global 500 (2012) { Japan 500 (2013) { Global 500 (2013)
40
30
20 Relative frequency (%)
The journey to leadership 10
0 0 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 - 100 Disclosure score
Figure 16. Average disclosure scores of Japan 500 and Global 500
100 91 88 85
87 76 75 80 70 85 83
60 62 58 58
40 Disclosure score
20 { Japan 500 { Global 500
0
Risks
Verification Opporunities
Emissions Reporting
Governance & Strategy Emissions Management
/ Stakeholder Engagement 26 2013 Performance score
What does a performance band represent? Performance scoring is an instructive exercise for all All companies with a sufficiently high disclosure score stakeholders. The score provides an indication of the received a performance band; the qualifying threshold extent to which companies are demonstrating action to receive a performance band was a disclosure to support integrated climate change strategies. CDP score of 50. Disclosure scores of less than 50 do recognizes that this is a process that will evolve not necessarily indicate poor performance; rather, over time. It is important for investors to keep in they indicate insufficient information to evaluate mind that the climate performance band is not: performance. However, it is reasonable to assume that companies which do not disclose well may not { A measure of how low carbon a company is; be taking much action on climate change. { An assessment of the extent to which a company’s Performance is grouped in six bands: A, A-, B, C, D actions have reduced carbon intensity relative to other and E which are defined by the following characteristics. companies in its sector; or
The Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) { An assessment of how material a company’s includes the companies in the highest performance actions are relative to the business; the score simply band (A) and provides a valuable perspective on recognizes evidence of action. the range and quality of activities being performed by the Global 500 in response to climate change. CDP recommends investors review individual company disclosures in addition to performance rankings in Notes: order to gain the most comprehensive understanding Band A- companies are not in the CPLI. They are of company performance. A listing of companies and strong performers, with a performance score high their bands is included in Appendix 1. Companies enough to warrant inclusion in the CPLI but they that did not qualify for a performance band appear did not meet all other CPLI requirements in Appendix 1 with spacein the performance band column.
Figure17. Climate performance elements
Band A/A- (>85) – fully integrated climate change strategy driving significant reductions in emissions due to climate change initiatives No performance Band B (>60) – integration of climate change score allocated recognized as priority for strategy, not all below a disclosure initiatives fully established score of 50% Band C (>40) – some activity on climate change with varied levels of integration of those initiatives into strategy Performance Band (A is highest) Band D (>20) – limited evidence of mitigation or adaptation initiatives with no, or limited, strategy on climate change Band E (≤20) – little evidence of initiatives on carbon management potentially due to companies just beginning to take action on climate change
Disclosure score (Max.100) 27
Performance scores are awarded where a company reports that it is undertaking, or has undertaken, a ‘positive’ climate change action. Negative actions are Figure 18. Thresholds for performance bands across the ages not considered. The score is not a comprehensive indicator of the reductions in the company’s GHG 2010 D C B A/A- emissions or environmental load, but rather it is an indicator of the level of action taken by the company 2011 E D C B A/A- to manage the impacts from climate change. It is necessary for companies to disclose sufficient information 2012 E D C B A/A- in order to be scored on their performance. 2013 E D C B A/A- The number of companies in the Global 500 achieving 0 20 40 60 80 100 either Band A or A- exceeded 20% and more than 40% of companies in the Global 500 are now achieving Performance score Band B this year. This significant overall improvement from CDP 2012 is due to higher average performance scores whereas the qualifying threshold to receive Figure 19. Performance score band distribution a performance band remained unchanged from the of Japan 500 and Global 500 previous year. Average scores improved for the Japan 500 respondents as well, with a greater number of { Japan 500 (2012) { Global 500 (2012) 50 companies achieving Band A/A- or B, and more than { Japan 500 (2013) { Global 500 (2013) 90% of companies achieving performance bands due to a reduction in the number of companies failing to 40 meet the minimum criteria which is a disclosure score of 50. The improvements of Japan 500 respondents are, however, still well behind the pace of change achieved 30 by the Global 500 respondents on average.
In analyzing the scores by each section of the 20 questionnaire, Japan 500 companies are still behind their Global 500 peers in most sections even though Relative frequency (%) 10 there was improvement in the “Strategy” and “Verification / Stakeholder Engagement” sections. This indicates that there is still room for Japan 500 0 respondents to improve their disclosures regarding risks X E D C B A/A- and opportunities. It also suggests that the number of companies receiving verification or assurance of data is still limited. Figure 20. Average performance scores of Japan 500 and Global 500 This year, ‘Emissions Performance’ of the Japan 500, which, on average, was above that of the Global 500 100 respondents last year, fell slightly behind. This reflects 77 the unique situation experienced by Japan 500 respondents 74 80 67 since March 2011 that resulted in emissions and carbon 56 intensity reductions through active emissions reduction 72 efforts of purchased electricity by many Japanese 60 companies, making further reductions in FY 2012 55 53 a difficult challenge. The rise in emission factors of 40 43 electricity also had a negative effect on emissions performance. Performance score 20 { Japan 500 { Global 500 Expectations that climate change disclosure would lead to improved performance is the reason behind why 0 companies are encouraged to enhance climate change disclosure. Scoring for the performance section is also being modified to give higher scores to companies Strategy undertaking and delivering results on positive emission Governance reduction action. Companies are expected to carefully Engagement explain how they are engaging in socially beneficial activities and what they have accomplished as a result of Emissions Performance such efforts. Verification / Stakeholder 28 Appendix 1: CDP 2013 responding companies
C e b d a
Company 2013 score 2012 response status Total scope 1 + scope 2 emissions Scope 1 emissions Scope 2 emissions Number of relevant scope 3 categories reported Verification/ assurance status Targets reported
Consumer Discretionary Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd. 71 D AQ NP Asics Corporation 78 C AQ 19,425 4,699 14,726 3 Abs,Int Benesse Holdings, Inc. 40 AQ NP Bridgestone Corporation 93 B AQ NP Casio Computer Co., Ltd. 74 C AQ 44,249 2,743 41,505 2 VAR S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Daiwa House Industry Co., Ltd. 85 B AQ 333,599 201,757 131,842 11 VAR S1,S2 Abs,Int Denso Corporation 71 C AQ NP Dentsu Inc. 86 B AQ 19,760 1,217 18,543 4 VAA S1,S2 VAF S3 Abs,Int Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. 58 D AQ 310,000 187,000 123,000 6 VAA S1 Int FUJI MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC. 74 B AQ 18,783 0 18,783 VAA S2 Abs,Int Honda Motor Company 99 A AQ 4,950,000 1,410,000 3,540,000 12 VAA S1,S2,S3 Int Kintetsu World Express, Inc. 23 - 7,739 674 7,065 Int LAWSON, Inc. 83 B NR 19,787 5,738 14,049 6 VAA S2 VAR S3 Int Mazda Motor Corporation 86 B AQ 640,600 150,500 490,100 8 Abs Namco Bandai Holdings Inc. 67 C AQ 74,557 0 74,557 Abs Nippon Television Holdings, Inc. 52 D AQ NP Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. 99 A AQ 3,268,655 835,766 2,432,889 12 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int NOK Corporation 70 C AQ 403,965 44,673 359,292 2 Abs,Int PanaHome Corporation AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Panasonic Corporation 98 A- AQ 3,235,269 654,169 2,581,100 11 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs Sega Sammy Holdings Inc. 31 AQ NP Sekisui House, Ltd. 69 C AQ 113,779 71,145 42,634 4 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd. 99 B AQ 169,348 56,324 113,024 12 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. 88 B AQ 733,912 320,916 412,996 6 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int Takashimaya Company, Limited 39 AQ 137,363 15,545 121,818 Int Takata Corporation 54 E AQ NP Toyota Industries Corporation 61 D AQ 752,680 193,072 559,608 2 Int Toyota Motor Corporation 96 B AQ 7,226,000 2,727,000 4,499,000 10 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int TS Tech Co.,Ltd. 73 C - 8,233 784 7,449 1 Int Yamaha Corporation 79 C AQ 178,399 36,911 141,488 3 Abs Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. 71 C AQ NP Yamato Holdings Co., Ltd. 52 E AQ 823,263 584,329 238,934 Int Yokohama Rubber Company, Limited 74 C AQ 634,870 325,251 309,619 7 Abs Consumer Staples Aeon Co., Ltd. 98 B AQ 3,564,513 256,645 3,307,868 10 VAA S1,S2,S3 Int Ajinomoto Co.Inc. 68 D AQ 2,239,000 1,334,000 905,000 5 VAR S3 Abs,Int Asahi Group Holdings, Ltd. 92 B AQ 428,000 262,000 166,000 3 VAA S1,S2 Abs Coca-Cola West Co., Ltd. 80 C AQ 153,477 98,957 54,520 4 Abs Japan Tobacco Inc. 96 B AQ NP KAO Corporation 96 B AQ 983,400 643,800 339,600 14 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Kirin Holdings Co Ltd 94 B AQ 1,195,555 536,692 658,863 8 VAA S1,S2 VAR S3 Abs Lion Corporation 78 B AQ 149,792 60,760 89,032 2 Abs,Int Mitsubishi Shokuhin Co., Ltd. AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Nichirei Corporation 54 C AQ NP Nippon Meat Packers, Inc. 61 D AQ NP Nisshin Seifun Group Inc. 44 AQ NP Sapporo Holdings Limited 96 B AQ 212,314 119,454 92,860 6 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int 29
C e b d a
Company 2013 score 2012 response status Total scope 1 + scope 2 emissions Scope 1 emissions Scope 2 emissions Number of relevant scope 3 categories reported Verification/ assurance status Targets reported
Seven & I Holdings Co., Ltd. 82 B AQ 2,480,149 169,619 2,310,530 2 VAA S1,S2 Int Shiseido Co., Ltd. 95 B AQ 77,923 30,202 47,721 8 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int Toyo Suisan Kaisha, Ltd. 50 D AQ NP Uni-Charm Corporation 69 D AQ 419,010 35,529 383,481 2 VAA S1,S2 Abs Energy Cosmo Oil Company, Limited 80 B AQ 4,695,552 4,471,440 224,112 4 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs Inpex Corporation 96 B AQ 513,022 485,041 27,981 4 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int JX Holdings, Inc 59 D AQ 18,042,161 17,455,057 587,104 7 VAA S1,S2 Int Tonen General Sekiyu K.K. AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Financials Aeon Credit Service Co., Ltd. AQ(SA) AQ AQ(SA) Aeon Mall Co., Ltd. AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Daiwa Securities Group Inc. 66 B AQ 51,025 1,179 49,846 1 Abs Fukuoka Financial Group, Inc. AQ(L) AQ NP Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. 76 C AQ NP Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. 76 C AQ 257,000 18,556 238,444 1 VAA S1,S2 VAR S3 Abs Mitsui Fudosan Co., Ltd. 70 B AQ NP Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. 89 B AQ 219,028 16,177 202,850 10 VAA S1,S2 Abs MS&AD Insurance Group Holdings, Inc. 79 C AQ 114,246 23,005 91,241 2 VAA S1,S2 Abs NKSJ Holdings, Inc. 86 C AQ 86,981 18,590 68,390 6 VAR S1,S2,S3 Abs Nomura Holdings, Inc. 86 B AQ 99,006 3,629 95,377 2 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int NTT Urban Development Corporation 91 B AQ 98,663 8,619 90,044 3 VAA S1,S2 Int ORIX Corporation 69 D AQ 396,748 231,852 164,896 3 VAA S1,S2 SBI Holdings, Inc. 29 NR NP Seven Bank, Ltd. 63 C AQ 462 0 462 3 Abs,Int Shiga Bank, Ltd. AQ(L) AQ NP Sony Financial Holdings Inc. AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group 86 B AQ NP Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc. 56 D AQ 47,037 5,454 41,583 VAR S1,S2 Abs T&D Holdings, Inc. 50 B AQ 46,883 2,517 44,366 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int The Bank of Yokohama, Ltd. U NR NP The Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited 72 B AQ NP The Gunma Bank, Ltd. 42 AQ NP The Juroku Bank, Ltd. 40 AQ NP The Nanto Bank, Ltd. 58 D AQ 7,744 1,399 6,345 Abs Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. 83 B AQ 88,889 17,918 70,971 1 VAA S1,S2,S3 Int Tokyu Land Corporation 79 B AQ 242,761 45,159 197,602 3 VAA S1,S2 Int Health Care Astellas Pharma Inc. 88 B AQ 211,335 85,937 125,398 1 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. 63 C AQ 98,096 54,141 43,955 Abs,Int Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. 91 A AQ 521,550 217,257 304,293 9 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. 47 AQ NP Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Nihon Kohden Corporation 49 - NP Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. 65 C NR NP Sysmex Corporation 64 D AQ NP Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited 79 C AQ 407,193 238,684 168,509 3 VAR S1,S2 Abs 30
C e b d a
Company 2013 score 2012 response status Total scope 1 + scope 2 emissions Scope 1 emissions Scope 2 emissions Number of relevant scope 3 categories reported Verification/ assurance status Targets reported
Tsumura & Co. 89 B AQ 69,851,535 33,121,962 36,729,573 2 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs Industrials Alps Electric Co., Ltd. 61 D AQ 185,528 9,074 176,454 2 Abs,Int Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. 73 B AQ 9,880,000 5,480,000 4,400,000 6 VAR S1,S2 Int Central Japan Railway Company 35 AQ 1,245,000 0 1,245,000 Int Chiyoda Corporation 48 NR 6,534 164 6,370 Abs Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. 85 B AQ 1,097,700 327,100 770,600 11 VAA S1,S2 VAF S3 Abs,Int Daikin Industries, Ltd. 70 B AQ 1,355,646 936,958 418,688 3 Abs,Int Dainippon Screen MFG. Co., Ltd. 74 C AQ 49,208 13,702 35,506 6 Int Daito Trust Construction Co., Ltd. 86 C AQ NP East Japan Railway Company 78 C AQ NP Ebara Corporation 56 C AQ NP Fuji Electric Co., Ltd. 95 B AQ 388,588 209,826 178,762 1 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int Fujikura Ltd. 61 D AQ 158,383 28,030 130,353 5 Abs Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd. 70 B AQ 895,313 366,672 528,641 2 Abs,Int GS Yuasa Corporation 55 D AQ NP Hitachi Cable, Ltd. AQ(SA) AQ AQ(SA) Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. 93 C AQ 163,511 41,967 121,543 11 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int Hitachi, Ltd. 95 B AQ 4,225,268 912,154 3,313,114 6 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int IHI Corporation 91 B AQ 259,634 76,028 183,606 6 VAA S1,S2 Abs Itochu Corporation 88 C AQ NP Kajima Corporation AQ(L) AQ AQ(L) Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. 88 C AQ 279,301 138,485 140,816 10 Int Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. 82 C AQ 12,352,749 12,351,608 1,141 4 Int Keio Corporation U AQ NP Kintetsu Corporation 78 C AQ 476,083 36,613 439,470 5 Int Kokuyo Co., Ltd. 87 B AQ 40,969 8,888 32,081 2 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Komatsu Ltd. 95 A AQ 478,355 123,754 354,601 9 VAA S1,S2 VAF S3 Abs,Int Kubota Corporation 60 D DP 575,000 292,000 283,000 4 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int LIXIL Group Corporation 66 D AQ NP Marubeni Corporation 73 C AQ NP Mitsubishi Corporation 67 D AQ NP Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 53 D AQ 425,370 155,349 270,021 1 Abs Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 78 C AQ NP Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd 89 B AQ 18,927,639 18,875,953 51,686 5 VAR S1,S2 Int Murata Mfg. Co. 83 B AQ 767,900 122,200 645,700 4 Abs,Int Nabtesco Corporation 93 B AQ 45,657 7,832 37,825 2 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int Nankai Electric Railway Co., Ltd. 87 B AQ 155,681 13,016 142,665 4 Abs,Int NGK Insulators, Ltd. AQ(L) AQ NP Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line 98 A- AQ 20,250,750 20,181,796 68,954 5 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int NSG Group 64 D AQ NP NSK Ltd. 75 B AQ 870,900 122,700 748,200 3 Abs,Int NTN Corporation 70 B AQ 559,875 103,762 456,113 Abs,Int Obayashi Corporation 90 B AQ 336,310 234,062 102,248 9 Abs Secom Co., Ltd. 92 B AQ NP Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd. 95 A AQ 786,774 155,323 631,451 9 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Shimizu Corporation 91 A AQ 243,875 221,457 22,418 3 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Sojitz Corporation 65 C AQ NP 31
C e b d a
Company 2013 score 2012 response status Total scope 1 + scope 2 emissions Scope 1 emissions Scope 2 emissions Number of relevant scope 3 categories reported Verification/ assurance status Targets reported
Sumitomo Corporation 87 A AQ 4,404 225 4,179 4 VAA S1,S2 VAR S3 Abs Sumitomo Heavy Industries. Ltd. 74 B AQ 61,180 14,022 47,158 6 VAR S1,S2 Abs,Int Taisei Corporation 96 B AQ 190,867 118,100 72,767 6 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs THK Co., Ltd. 56 D AQ NP Toda Corporation 56 C AQ 101,401 70,773 30,628 1 Abs,Int Tokyu Corporation 74 D AQ NP Toppan Printing Co., Ltd. 80 B AQ 1,179,740 293,624 886,116 10 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int Toto Ltd. 96 B AQ 298,871 158,829 140,042 3 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int ULVAC, Inc. 39 NR 50,708 50,708 0 Int West Japan Railway Company 73 C AQ 1,603,000 100,000 1,503,000 1 Information Technology Advantest Corporation 57 D AQ 26,047 2,954 23,093 3 Int Anritsu Corporation 77 B AQ 10,860 1,274 9,586 8 Abs,Int Azbil Corporation 77 B AQ 24,001 7,342 16,659 10 Abs Brother Industries, Ltd. 78 B AQ NP Canon Inc. 85 B AQ 1,066,692 145,283 921,409 9 Abs,Int Canon Marketing Japan Inc. AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Citizen Holdings Co., Ltd. 71 D AQ NP DISCO Corporation 76 B AQ 26,790 3,934 22,856 VAA S1 Abs Fujitsu Ltd. 95 A AQ 1,015,000 225,000 790,000 8 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs Hoya Corporation 58 E AQ NP Ibiden Co., Ltd. 76 D AQ 623,000 182,000 441,000 2 Int Konica Minolta, Inc. 96 A AQ 452,500 171,677 280,823 11 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Kyocera Corporation 76 C AQ NP Mitsubishi Electric Corporation 60 D AQ 1,113,000 322,000 791,000 3 Abs,Int NEC Corporation 79 B AQ 465,448 76,123 389,325 12 VAR S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd. 63 C AQ NP Nidec Corporation 64 C AQ 686,373 243,606 442,767 Int Nikon Corporation 77 C AQ 218,644 26,523 192,121 1 VAA S1,S2 Abs,Int Nissha Printing Co., Ltd. 69 C AQ NP NTT Data Corporation 94 B AQ 210,670 5,907 204,763 3 VAA S1,S2 Abs Olympus Corporation 93 A AQ 100,504 23,578 76,926 6 VAA S1,S2 Abs OMRON Corporation 79 B AQ 202,220 37,039 165,181 1 Int Oracle Corporation Japan AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) Renesas Electronics Corporation 52 D NR NP Ricoh Co., Ltd. 94 B AQ 455,794 177,343 278,451 3 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs Rinnai Corporation 70 C AQ 58,569 29,449 29,120 2 Int Rohm Co., Ltd. 67 C AQ 684,809 152,264 532,545 Abs SCSK Corporation 49 AQ NP Seiko Epson Corporation 54 D AQ 545,368 108,535 436,833 1 Abs Sharp Corporation 75 B AQ 1,262,000 265,000 997,000 10 Abs,Int Shimadzu Corporation 63 C AQ NP Sony Corporation 95 A AQ 1,330,021 301,287 1,028,734 12 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. 68 C AQ 1,327,741 193,243 1,134,498 1 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd. 74 C AQ NP Tokyo Electron Ltd. 80 B AQ 141,007 9,006 132,001 10 Int Toshiba Corporation 98 A AQ 2,751,000 751,000 2,000,000 9 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Toshiba Tec Corporation AQ(SA) AQ(SA) AQ(SA) 32
C e b d a
Company 2013 score 2012 response status Total scope 1 + scope 2 emissions Scope 1 emissions Scope 2 emissions Number of relevant scope 3 categories reported Verification/ assurance status Targets reported
Yahoo Japan Corporation U AQ NP Yokogawa Electric Corporation 60 D AQ NP Materials Asahi Kasei Corporation 94 B AQ 4,672,354 3,393,652 1,278,702 10 VAF S1 ,S2 Abs Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. AQ(L) NR AQ(L) DIC Corporation 88 B AQ NP Dowa Holdings Co., Ltd. 76 C AQ 1,488,900 855,900 633,000 2 Abs FP Corporation 86 B AQ 109,544 5,132 104,412 8 Abs,Int FujiFilm Holdings Corporation 88 B AQ 1,337,703 743,856 593,847 4 VAA S1,S2 Abs Hitachi Chemical Company, Ltd. 64 D AQ 473,000 121,000 352,000 1 VAF S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Hitachi Metals, Ltd. 54 C AQ 1,279,000 346,000 933,000 VAA S1,S2,S3 Int Kaneka Corporation 75 C AQ NP Kobe Steel., Ltd. 45 AQ 16,828,000 16,243,000 585,000 2 Abs Kuraray Co., Ltd. 81 B AQ 1,683,000 1,078,000 605,000 1 Int Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corporation 78 C AQ 11,400,000 9,364,000 2,036,000 3 VAF S1,S2,S3 Abs Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. 72 C AQ NP Mitsubishi Materials Corporation 86 C AQ 12,332,000 10,626,000 1,706,000 1 VAA S1,S2 Abs Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. 85 C AQ 5,300,000 3,760,000 1,540,000 4 Abs Nippon Paint Co., Ltd. 63 C AQ 30,377 11,549 18,828 Abs Nippon Paper Group Inc 63 C AQ 6,612,000 5,863,000 749,000 5 Abs Nippon Shokubai Co., Ltd. 56 D AQ NP Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation 85 D AQ NP Nisshinbo Holdings Inc. 77 C AQ 664,381 283,957 380,424 2 Int Nitto Denko Corporation 77 C AQ 707,776 410,098 297,678 1 Int Oji Holdings Corporation 82 B AQ NP Rengo Co., Ltd. 76 B AQ 1,118,837 880,064 238,773 3 VAA S1,S2 Abs Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. 61 C AQ 4,476,146 1,525,214 2,950,932 9 VAR S1,S2,S3 Int Showa Denko K.K. 85 C AQ NP Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. 95 B AQ 4,124,000 2,568,000 1,556,000 10 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd. 67 D AQ 2,324,730 1,308,730 1,016,000 3 Taiheiyo Cement Corporation 79 C AQ NP Teijin Ltd. 88 C AQ 2,043,096 1,102,357 940,739 1 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int Toray Industries, Inc. 83 C AQ 4,859,255 3,168,024 1,691,231 9 Abs,Int Toyobo Co., Ltd. 74 C AQ 976,408 700,341 276,067 2 Abs,Int Ube Industries, Ltd. 90 B AQ NP Zeon Corporation 64 D AQ NP Telecommunication Services KDDI Corporation 72 C AQ 1,035,576 2,947 1,032,629 4 VAR S1,S3 Abs,Int Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (NTT) 95 B AQ 3,791,000 260,000 3,531,000 8 VAA S1,S2 Abs NTT DOCOMO, INC. 75 B AQ 1,452,248 87,648 1,364,600 3 VAA S1,S2 Abs Utilities Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd (J-POWER) 50 D AQ 54,122,691 54,090,000 32,691 2 VAR S1 Hokuriku Electric Power Company AQ(L) AQ NP Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. 95 B AQ 4,043,000 3,890,000 153,000 5 VAA S1,S2,S3 Int Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd. 87 C AQ 2,928,600 2,718,000 210,600 10 VAA S1,S2,S3 Abs,Int 33 CDP 2013 other responding companies
CDP recognizes the following companies in Japan which provided responses to the 2013 Investor CDP information request, either voluntarily. Some disclosures are publicly available at www.cdp.net. Companies are welcome to disclose their climate change-related information through CDP to help communicate information to investors and help mange their carbon and energy impacts.
C e b d a
Company 2013 score 2012 response status Total scope 1 + scope 2 emissions Scope 1 emissions Scope 2 emissions Number of relevant scope 3 categories reported Verification/ assurance status Targets reported Consumer Discretionary Pioneer Corporation 85 B AQ 112,346 11,078 101,268 7 VAF S1, S2 Abs,Int Financials Mori Building Co., Ltd. 87 C AQ 116,304 10,006 106,298 4 VAA S1,S2 Abs Yamanashi Chuo Bank, Ltd. NP AQ NP Industrials MAEDA COPORATION 64 D AQ 76,821 54,330 22,491 3 Abs,Int Information Technology Elpida Memory, Inc. NP AQ 618,769 538,649 80,120 1 Abs,Int Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. 74 D AQ 182,980 45,835 137,145 3 Abs
a The 2013 score is comprised of the disclosure score number and performance score letter. Only companies that have scored more than 50 for their disclosure score are given a performance score. Companies that are in the CDLI or CPLI have the relevant part of the score (disclosure or performance) in bold text. b AQ: Answered Questionnaire DP: Declined to Participate IN: Provided Information NR: Not Responded AQ(SA): See Another AQ(L): Companies not scored as they did not answer in time - : Company did not fall into the sample NP: Non Public U: Disclosure score is 20 and under c When determining the number of categories reported by each company, only Scope 3 categories identified by the company as “relevant, calculated” are included, and only when the emissions figure pertaining to that category is greater than zero.Only the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 named categories (as provided in the Online Response System) are included. The additional categories of “Other (upstream)” and/or “Other (downstream)” are not included. d VAR: Verification/Assurance reported; companies have reported that the have verification complete or underway with last year’s statement available but the verification statement provided has not been awarded the full performance points available, or they have not been scored and therefore their verification statement has not been assessed. VAF: Verification/Assurance reported as underway, first year; companies have reported that the have verification underway but that it is the first year they have undertaken verification. In this case there is no verification statement available for assessment. VAA: Verification/Assurance approved; companies have reported that they have verification complete or underway with last year’s certificate available and they have been awarded the full performance points available for their statement. S1: Scope 1; verification/assurance applies to Scope 1 emissions. S2: Scope 2; verification/assurance applies to Scope 2 emissions. S3: Scope 3; verification/assurance applies to Scope 3 emissions. e Abs: Absolute target Int: Intensity target, based on entering a value for “% reduction from base year” 34 Appendix 2: CDP 2013 non-responding companies
Company 2013 response status 2012 response status Company 2013 response status 2012 response status Company 2013 response status 2012 response status Consumer Discretionary Sanrio Company, Ltd. NR NR Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. DP NR ABC-Mart, Inc. NR NR Seino Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR JGC Corporation NR NR Aoyama Trading Co., Ltd. NR NR Shimachu Co., Ltd. NR NR Showa Shell Sekiyu K. K. NR NR Asatsu-DK Inc. NR NR Shimamura Co.,Ltd NR NR Financials Autobacs Seven Co., Ltd. NR NR Shimano, Inc. NR NR Acom Co., Ltd. NR NR Calsonic Kansei Corporation NR NR Shochiku Co., Ltd. NR NR AIFUL Corporation NR - Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. NR NR SKY Perfect JSAT Holdings Inc. NR NR Aozora Bank, Ltd. NR NR Daiichikosho Co.,Ltd. NR NR Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. NR NR Aplus Financial Co.,Ltd. NR - Don Quijote Co., Ltd. NR NR Suzuki Motor Corporation DP IN Century Tokyo Leasing Corporation NR NR Duskin Co., Ltd. NR NR Toho Co., Ltd. NR NR Credit Saison Co., Ltd. NR NR EXEDY Corporation NR NR Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. NR NR Daikyo Incorporated NR - FamilyMart Co., Ltd. NR NR Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. NR NR Hitachi Capital Corporation DP AQ Fast Retailing Co., Ltd. NR NR Tokyo Broadcasting System NR NR Hokuhoku Financial Group, Inc. NR NR Fukuyama Transporting Co., Ltd. NR NR Holdings, Inc. Hulic Co., Ltd. NR NR Funai Electric Co., Ltd. NR NR Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. DP NR Jafco Co., Ltd. NR NR H.I.S.Co.,Ltd. NR - Toyota Boshoku Corporation NR NR Kansai Urban Banking Corporation NR NR H2O Retailing Corporation NR NR TSI Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR Matsui Securities Co., Ltd NR NR Hakuhodo DY Holdings Incorporated NR NR TV Asahi Corporation NR NR Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance NR NR Heiwa Corporation NR NR Universal Entertainment Corporation NR NR Co., Ltd. Hino Motors, Ltd. NR IN USS Co., Ltd. NR NR Nomura Real Estate Holdings, Inc. NR NR Hitachi Transport System, Ltd. NR NR Wacoal Holdings Corp. NR NR North Pacific Bank, Ltd. NR NR Hoshizaki Electric Co., Ltd. NR NR Yamada Denki Co., Ltd. NR NR Orient Corporation NR - Isetan Mitsukoshi Holdings Ltd. NR NR Zensho Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR Resona Holdings, Inc. NR AQ Isuzu Motors Limited NR NR Consumer Staples Senshu Ikeda Holdings, Inc. NR NR J. Front Retailing Co., Ltd. NR NR Arcs Co., Ltd. NR - Shinsei Bank Ltd NR NR JTEKT Corporation NR NR Calbee, Inc. NR NR Sumitomo Real Estate Sales Co., Ltd. NR NR Jupiter Telecommunications Co., Ltd. NR NR COSMOS Pharmaceutical Corporation NR - Sumitomo Realty & Development NR NR Co., Ltd. Kamigumi Co., Ltd. NR NR Ezaki Glico Co., Ltd. NR NR The 77 Bank, Ltd. NR NR Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. NR NR Fuji Oil Co., Ltd. NR DP The Awa Bank, Ltd. NR NR Komeri Co., Ltd. NR NR House Foods Corporation NR NR The Bank of Kyoto, Ltd. NR NR Konami Corporation NR NR Ito En, Ltd. NR DP The Chiba Bank, Ltd. NR NR K’s Holdings Corporation NR NR Izumi Co., Ltd. NR NR The Chugoku Bank, Ltd. NR NR KYB Corporation NR NR Kagome Co., Ltd. NR NR The Daishi Bank, Ltd. NR NR Marui Group Co.Ltd, NR NR Kewpie Corporation NR NR The Hachijuni Bank, Ltd. NR NR McDonald’s Holdings Company NR NR Kikkoman Coporation NR NR (Japan), Ltd. The Higo Bank, Ltd. NR NR KOSE Corporation NR NR Mitsubishi Logistics Corporation NR NR The Hiroshima Bank, Ltd. NR NR Matsumotokiyoshi Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR Mitsubishi Motors Corporation NR NR The Hokkoku Bank, Ltd. NR NR MEGMILK SNOW BRAND Co.,Ltd. NR NR Nagase & Co., Ltd. NR NR The Hyakugo Bank, Ltd. NR NR Meiji Holdings Co Ltd NR NR Nippon Express Co., Ltd. NR NR The Hyakujushi Bank, Ltd. NR NR Nisshin Foods Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR Nissan Shatai Co., Ltd. NR NR The Iyo Bank, Ltd. NR NR Pola Orbis Holdings Inc. NR NR Nitori Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR The Joyo Bank, Ltd. NR NR Sugi Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR Onward Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR The Kagoshima Bank, Ltd. NR AQ Sundrug Co., Ltd. NR NR Oriental Land Co Ltd. NR DP The Keiyo Bank, Ltd. NR NR Takara Holdings Inc. NR NR PARK24 Co., Ltd. NR NR The Musashino Bank, Ltd. NR NR Tsuruha Holdings Inc. NR NR Point Inc. NR NR The Nishi-Nippon City Bank, Ltd. NR NR Uny Co., Ltd. NR NR Rakuten,Inc. NR NR The Ogaki Kyoritsu Bank, Ltd. NR NR Yakult Honsha Co Ltd. NR NR Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. NR NR The San-in Godo Bank, Ltd. NR NR Yamazaki Baking Co., Ltd. NR NR Sankyo Co., Ltd. NR NR The Shizuoka Bank, Ltd. NR NR Energy Sankyu Inc. NR NR The Suruga Bank, Ltd. NR NR Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. NR NR 35
Company 2013 response status 2012 response status Company 2013 response status 2012 response status Company 2013 response status 2012 response status Materials Tokai Tokyo Financial Holdings, Inc. NR - Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co., Ltd. NR NR Air Water Inc. NR NR Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd. NR AQ Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. NR NR Daido Steel Co., Ltd. NR NR Yamaguchi Financial Group, Inc. NR NR Odakyu Electric Railway Co., Ltd. NR DP Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki DP DP Health Care Okuma Corporation NR NR Kaisha Alfresa Holdings Corporation NR NR OSG Corporation NR NR Hokuetsu Kishu Paper Co., Ltd. NR NR Eisai Co., Ltd. NR NR Sanwa Holdings Corporation NR - JFE Holdings, Inc. NR NR Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. NR NR Shima Seiki Mfg., Ltd. NR NR JSR Corporation DP AQ Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. NR NR SMC Corporation NR NR Kansai Paint Co., Ltd. NR NR Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. NR NR Sohgo Security Services Co., Ltd. NR NR Maruichi Steel Tube Ltd. NR NR Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. NR NR Sotetsu Holdings, Inc. NR NR Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd. NR NR KYORIN Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd. NR NR The Japan Steel Works, Ltd. NR NR Nifco Inc. NR NR MEDIPAL Holdings CORPORATION NR NR Tobu Railway Co., Ltd. NR NR Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd. NR NR Miraca Holdings Inc. NR NR Toppan Forms Co., Ltd. DP NR Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. NR NR Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. NR NR Toshiba Plant Systems & Services NR - Nisshin Steel Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR Corporation Nipro Corporation NR NR Osaka Titanium Technologies NR NR Toyota Tsusho Corporation NR NR Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd. NR NR Co.,Ltd. Ushio Inc. DP AQ Rohto Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. NR NR Pacific Metals Co., Ltd. NR NR Informatiion Technology Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. NR NR Sumitomo Bakelite Company NR NR Capcom Co., Ltd. NR NR Limited Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. NR NR CyberAgent, Inc. NR NR Sumitomo Osaka Cement Co., Ltd. NR NR Shionogi & Co., Ltd. NR NR DeNA Co., Ltd. NR NR Toho Titanium Co., Ltd. DP NR Suzuken Co., Ltd. NR NR Glory Ltd. NR NR Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd. NR NR Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. NR NR GREE, Inc. NR NR Tokuyama Corporation NR NR Terumo Corporation NR NR GungHo Online Entertainment, Inc. NR - Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. NR NR Toho Holdings Co., Ltd. NR - Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. NR NR Tosoh Corporation NR NR Industrials Hirose Electric Co., Ltd. NR NR Toyo Ink SC Holdings Co., Ltd. DP - All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd. NR NR Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation NR AQ Toyo Seikan Kaisha, Ltd. DP AQ Amada Co., Ltd. NR NR Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. NR NR Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd. NR NR Comsys Holdings Corporation NR NR HORIBA, Ltd. DP NR Telecommunication Services Fanuc Corporation NR NR Kakaku.com, Inc. NR NR Hikari Tsushin, Inc. NR NR Hankyu Hanshin Holdings, Inc. NR NR Keyence Corporation NR NR SoftBank Corporation NR NR Haseko Corporation NR NR M3, Inc. NR NR Utilities Hitachi Zosen Corporation NR - Mabuchi Motor Co., Ltd. NR NR Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc. DP DP Itochu Techno-Solutions Corporation NR NR Makita Corporation NR IN Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Inc. NR NR Japan Airlines Corporation NR - Minebea Co., Ltd. NR NR Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc DP DP Kandenko Co Ltd NR NR Misumi Group Inc. NR NR Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc. NR NR Keihan Electric Railway Co., Ltd. NR NR Mitsumi Electric Co., Ltd. NR NR Taiyo Nippon Sanso Corporation NR NR Keikyu Corporation NR NR NEXON Co., Ltd. NR - The Chugoku Electric Power NR NR Keisei Electric Railway Co., Ltd. NR NR Company Nintendo Co., Ltd. DP IN Kinden Corporation NR NR The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. DP DP NS Solutions Corporation NR NR Kurita Water Industries Ltd. NR NR The Tokyo Electric Power Company, DP DP OBIC Business Consultans Co., Ltd. NR - Kyowa Exeo Corporation NR NR Inc (TEPCO) OBIC Co., Ltd. NR NR Lintec Corporation NR NR Toho Gas Co., Ltd. NR NR Otsuka Corporation NR NR Maeda Road Construction Co.,Ltd NR - Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc. NR NR Shinko Electric Industries Co.,Ltd. NR NR Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding NR NR Co Ltd SQUARE ENIX Holdings CO.,Ltd. NR NR Mori Seiki Co., Ltd. NR NR Sumco Corporation NR NR Nagoya Railroad Co., Ltd. NR NR TDK Corporation DP NR NHK Spring Co., Ltd. NR NR Trend Micro Incorporated. NR NR Nippo Corporation NR - Yaskawa Electric Corporation DP DP Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd. NR NR 36 Appendix 3: 2013 Key trends
Statistic 5
Asia ex-Japan Australia ASX 200 Benelux Bonds Brazil Canada Central & Eastern Europe China Emerging Markets Electric Utilities (Global) Europe France DACH CH) (DE, AUT, Global 500 Iberia (ES, PT) India Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latin America New Zealand NZX 50 Nordic Russia South Africa Switzerland Turkey (Global) Transport United Kingdom FTSE 350 United States S&P 500 Overall
Number of companies in sample 400 200 150 180 100 200 100 100 800 250 300 250 350 500 125 200 30 100 500 250 80 50 260 50 100 100 100 100 350 500 N/A
% sample answering CDP 20131 33 50 34 86 56 58 27 19 37 37 90 38 52 81 44 27 40 46 45 36 53 42 59 18 83 64 28 55 74 68 N/A
Number of companies answering CDP 20131 131 99 51 154 56 115 27 19 296 92 271 94 182 403 55 54 12 46 225 89 42 21 153 9 83 64 28 55 260 342 2465
% of responders reporting Board or other senior 91 94 96 99 88 90 100 68 93 96 99 98 86 97 92 98 92 89 97 89 95 86 93 100 99 94 85 91 95 91 91 management responsibility for climate change
% responders reporting incentives for the 71 57 73 92 61 64 75 42 74 74 85 70 48 85 77 76 67 59 80 73 64 48 62 43 72 48 65 78 66 75 65 management of climate change issues
% of responders reporting climate change as 93 87 90 97 82 85 100 84 91 98 95 89 77 95 94 95 83 77 92 89 95 81 90 86 87 75 77 89 83 86 85 being integrated into their business strategy % of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on climate issues to encourage 83 73 90 88 84 80 75 58 86 94 92 83 71 90 90 79 75 86 87 75 92 67 84 57 87 67 65 89 77 80 78 mitigation or adaptation
% of responders reporting emission 73 52 71 87 55 49 75 26 73 74 90 76 57 83 81 79 75 66 94 79 62 38 71 57 68 64 46 76 68 75 68 reduction targets2
% of responders reporting absolute emission 32 30 48 58 27 28 50 26 39 48 56 39 33 50 54 10 42 50 69 48 31 33 34 43 37 36 38 28 37 43 40 reduction targets2
% of responders reporting active emissions 88 77 94 98 80 88 75 84 91 93 99 96 86 97 94 93 75 84 98 78 92 62 87 100 97 95 73 93 89 93 87 reduction initiatives in the reporting year % of responders indicating that their products and services directly enable third parties to 73 55 75 72 78 68 75 58 65 89 78 80 70 74 85 67 42 73 80 62 77 67 76 43 58 64 58 76 60 64 66 avoid GHG emissions
% of responders seeing regulatory risks 81 82 83 82 80 78 75 37 88 93 89 86 62 84 88 86 83 77 95 88 92 71 89 43 99 63 88 87 85 73 80
% of responders seeing regulatory opportunities 84 71 83 80 80 70 75 47 85 91 90 84 73 83 92 88 83 86 89 83 82 52 82 29 92 66 85 78 76 70 76
% of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope 1 and 2) have decreased compared 21 30 54 65 8 25 75 11 25 24 53 37 29 47 42 14 58 34 34 36 8 24 47 0 41 34 27 35 38 52 35 to last year due to emission reduction activities
% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 1 57 55 67 79 55 40 50 11 64 66 85 82 50 78 79 60 75 70 54 73 62 38 52 29 70 53 35 65 58 57 53 emissions data as independently verified3
% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 2 57 51 69 73 57 27 50 11 64 54 84 81 43 75 73 57 67 70 51 73 64 38 48 29 68 48 35 57 54 53 50 emissions data as independently verified3
% of responders reporting emissions data for 2 27 33 35 40 59 25 25 5 35 39 53 38 37 45 63 33 25 34 43 20 56 33 40 0 53 39 15 20 28 29 32 or more named Scope 3 categories4
The statistics presented in this key trends table may differ from those in other CDP reports for two reasons: (1) the data in this table is based on all responses received by 28 August 2013; (2) it is based on binary data (e.g. Yes/No or other drop down menu selection) reported to CDP and does not incorporate any validation of the follow up information provided or reflect the scoring methodology. The latter, in particular, is likely to lead to an over-reporting of data in this key trends table. 37
Statistic 5
Asia ex-Japan Australia ASX 200 Benelux Bonds Brazil Canada Central & Eastern Europe China Emerging Markets Electric Utilities (Global) Europe France DACH CH) (DE, AUT, Global 500 Iberia (ES, PT) India Ireland Italy Japan Korea Latin America New Zealand NZX 50 Nordic Russia South Africa Switzerland Turkey (Global) Transport United Kingdom FTSE 350 United States S&P 500 Overall
Number of companies in sample 400 200 150 180 100 200 100 100 800 250 300 250 350 500 125 200 30 100 500 250 80 50 260 50 100 100 100 100 350 500 N/A
% sample answering CDP 20131 33 50 34 86 56 58 27 19 37 37 90 38 52 81 44 27 40 46 45 36 53 42 59 18 83 64 28 55 74 68 N/A
Number of companies answering CDP 20131 131 99 51 154 56 115 27 19 296 92 271 94 182 403 55 54 12 46 225 89 42 21 153 9 83 64 28 55 260 342 2465
% of responders reporting Board or other senior 91 94 96 99 88 90 100 68 93 96 99 98 86 97 92 98 92 89 97 89 95 86 93 100 99 94 85 91 95 91 91 management responsibility for climate change
% responders reporting incentives for the 71 57 73 92 61 64 75 42 74 74 85 70 48 85 77 76 67 59 80 73 64 48 62 43 72 48 65 78 66 75 65 management of climate change issues
% of responders reporting climate change as 93 87 90 97 82 85 100 84 91 98 95 89 77 95 94 95 83 77 92 89 95 81 90 86 87 75 77 89 83 86 85 being integrated into their business strategy % of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on climate issues to encourage 83 73 90 88 84 80 75 58 86 94 92 83 71 90 90 79 75 86 87 75 92 67 84 57 87 67 65 89 77 80 78 mitigation or adaptation
% of responders reporting emission 73 52 71 87 55 49 75 26 73 74 90 76 57 83 81 79 75 66 94 79 62 38 71 57 68 64 46 76 68 75 68 reduction targets2
% of responders reporting absolute emission 32 30 48 58 27 28 50 26 39 48 56 39 33 50 54 10 42 50 69 48 31 33 34 43 37 36 38 28 37 43 40 reduction targets2
% of responders reporting active emissions 88 77 94 98 80 88 75 84 91 93 99 96 86 97 94 93 75 84 98 78 92 62 87 100 97 95 73 93 89 93 87 reduction initiatives in the reporting year % of responders indicating that their products and services directly enable third parties to 73 55 75 72 78 68 75 58 65 89 78 80 70 74 85 67 42 73 80 62 77 67 76 43 58 64 58 76 60 64 66 avoid GHG emissions
% of responders seeing regulatory risks 81 82 83 82 80 78 75 37 88 93 89 86 62 84 88 86 83 77 95 88 92 71 89 43 99 63 88 87 85 73 80
% of responders seeing regulatory opportunities 84 71 83 80 80 70 75 47 85 91 90 84 73 83 92 88 83 86 89 83 82 52 82 29 92 66 85 78 76 70 76
% of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope 1 and 2) have decreased compared 21 30 54 65 8 25 75 11 25 24 53 37 29 47 42 14 58 34 34 36 8 24 47 0 41 34 27 35 38 52 35 to last year due to emission reduction activities
% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 1 57 55 67 79 55 40 50 11 64 66 85 82 50 78 79 60 75 70 54 73 62 38 52 29 70 53 35 65 58 57 53 emissions data as independently verified3
% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 2 57 51 69 73 57 27 50 11 64 54 84 81 43 75 73 57 67 70 51 73 64 38 48 29 68 48 35 57 54 53 50 emissions data as independently verified3
% of responders reporting emissions data for 2 27 33 35 40 59 25 25 5 35 39 53 38 37 45 63 33 25 34 43 20 56 33 40 0 53 39 15 20 28 29 32 or more named Scope 3 categories4
1: This statistic includes those companies that respond by referencing a parent or holding company’s response. However the remaining statistics presented do not include these responses. 2: Companies may report multiple targets. However, in these statistics a company will only be counted once. 3: This takes into account companies reporting that verification is complete or underway, but does not include any evaluation of the verification statement provided. 4: Only companies reporting Scope 3 emissions using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard named categories have been included below. Whilst in some cases “Other upstream” or “Other downstream” are legitimate selections, in most circumstances the data contained in these categories should be allocated to one of the named categories. In addition, only those categories for which emissions figures have been provided have been included. 5: Includes responses across all samples as well as responses submitted by companies not included in specific geographic or industry samples in 2013. 38 Appendix 4: Investor members
CDP works with investors globally to advance the standardized format. To learn more about CDP’s investment opportunities and reduce the risks posed member offering and becoming a member, please by climate change by asking over 5,000 of the world’s contact us or visit the investor pages at largest companies to report their climate strategies, https://www.cdp.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/ GHG emissions and energy use through CDP’s Pages/investors.aspx
ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A. 2013 INVESTOR SIGNATORY Entidades Fechadas de Previdência BREAKDOWN - Region Complementar Morgan Stanley National Australia Bank ATP Group Africa (15) Aviva Investors Neuberger Berman Bank of America Newton Investment Management Limited Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Nordea Bank America - Latin & Caribbean (71) BlackRock Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Boston Common Asset Management, LLC Northwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEI America - North (174) California Public Employees' Retirement Investments) System (CalPERS) PFA Pension California State Teachers' Retirement (71) System (CalSTRS) Robeco Asia Calvert Group, Ltd. RobecoSAM AG Rockefeller Asset Management Capricorn Investment Group Australia and New Zealand (61) Catholic Super Royal Bank of Scotland Group CCLA Investment Management Ltd Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Schroders Europe - North & Western (294) Generation Investment Management Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB) Europe - Southern & Eastern (39) Henderson Global Investors Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. HSBC Holdings plc Standard Chartered Legg Mason, Inc. Sun Life Financial Inc 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 KLP Sustainable Insights Capital Management London Pensions Fund Authority TD Asset Management The Wellcome Trust 1 MobimoCDP Holding INVESTOR AG SIGNATORIES & ASSETS (US$ TRILLION) AGAINST TIME 2013 INVESTOR SIGNATORY INCREASING NUMBER OF INVESTORS REQUESTING CLIMATE DATA Breakdown - Type •THROUGH Investor CDP CDP Signatories • Investor CDP Signatory Assets 247 Mainstream Asset Managers • Investor signatory assets 167 Pension funds • Number of investor signatories 160 Banks 51 Insurance 35 95 155 225 315 385 475 534 551 655 722 39 SRI Asset Managers 4.5 10 21 31 41 57 55 64 71 78 87 34 Foundations 800 100 27 Other
700 90 80 600 70 500 60 rillions) 400 50
300 40 30 200
20 Assets (US$ T Number of Signatories 100 10 0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 39 Investor signatories
Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA Ceres 722 financial institutions Bank Leumi Le Israel CERES-Fundação de Seguridade Social Bank of America Merrill Lynch Change Investment Management with assets of US$87 trillion Bank of Montreal Chinatrust Financial Holding Co Limited were signatories to the Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) Christian Brothers Investment Services Inc. Bank Sarasin & Cie AG Christian Super CDP 2013 climate change Bank Vontobel Christopher Reynolds Foundation information request dated Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Church Commissioners for England Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H. st Church of England Pensions Board February 1 2013 Bankia CI Mutual Funds' Signature Global Advisors Bankinter City Developments Limited BankInvest ClearBridge Investments 3Sisters Sustainable Management LLC bankmecu Climate Change Capital Group Ltd Aberdeen Asset Management Banque Degroof CM-CIC Asset Management Aberdeen Immobilien KAG mbH Banque Libano-Francaise Colonial First State Global Asset Management ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Barclays Comerica Incorporated Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank Comgest Achmea NV BASF Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Commerzbank AG Active Earth Investment Management Basler Kantonalbank CommInsure Acuity Investment Management Bâtirente Commonwealth Bank of Australia Addenda Capital Inc. Baumann and Partners S.A. Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Advanced Investment Partners Bayern LB Compton Foundation, Inc. Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Concordia Versicherungs-Gesellschaft a.G. Aegon N.V. BBC Pension Trust Ltd Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd BBVA Conser Invest AFP Integra Bedfordshire Pension Fund Co-operative Asset Management AIG Asset Management Beetle Capital Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) AK PORTFÖY YÖNETİMİ A.Ş. Befimmo SA Credit Suisse AKBANK T.A.Ş. Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Daegu Bank Alberta Investment Management Corporation Bentall Kennedy Daesung Capital Management (AIMCo) Berenberg Bank Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Berti Investments Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Alcyone Finance BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Dalton Nicol Reid AllenbridgeEpic Investment Advisers Terceiros Ltda Danske Bank A/S Alliance Trust BlackRock de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A. Allianz Elementar Versicherungs-AG Blom Bank SAL DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Allianz Global Investors AG Blumenthal Foundation Delta Lloyd Asset Management Allianz Group BNP Paribas Investment Partners Desjardins Financial Security Altira Group BNY Mellon Deutsche Asset Management Amalgamated Bank BNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft Investmentgesellschaft mbH mbH Amlin Deutsche Bank AG Boston Common Asset Management, LLC AMP Capital Investors Deutsche Postbank AG Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Development Bank of Japan Inc. Breckinridge Capital Advisors Amundi AM Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) British Airways Pensions ANBIMA – Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos Dexia Asset Management Mercados Financeiro e de Capitais British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Dexus Property Group Antera Gestão de Recursos S.A. British Columbia Investment Management DLM INVISTA ASSET MANAGEMENT S/A APG Group Corporation (bcIMC) DNB ASA AQEX LLC Brown Advisory Domini Social Investments LLC Aquila Capital BT Financial Group Dongbu Insurance Arisaig Partners BT Investment Management Doughty Hanson & Co. Arkx Investment Management Busan Bank DWS Investments ARMA PORTFÖY YÖNETİMİ A.Ş. CAAT Pension Plan DZ Bank Armstrong Asset Management Cadiz Holdings Limited Earth Capital Partners LLP ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. CAI Corporate Assets International AG East Sussex Pension Fund ASN Bank Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Ecclesiastical Investment Management Assicurazioni Generali Caisse des Dépôts Ecofi Investissements - Groupe Credit Cooperatif ATI Asset Management Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Edward W. Hazen Foundation Atlantic Asset Management Caixa Econômica Federal EEA Group Ltd ATP Group Caixa Geral de Depósitos Eko Auriel Capital Management CaixaBank Elan Capital Partners Australia and New Zealand Banking Group California Public Employees' Retirement System Element Investment Managers Australian Ethical Investment (CalPERS) ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência AustralianSuper California State Teachers' Retirement System Environment Agency Active Pension fund Avaron Asset Management AS (CalSTRS) Epworth Investment Management Aviva California State Treasurer Equilibrium Capital Group Aviva Investors Calvert Investment Management, Inc equinet Bank AG AXA Group Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) Erik Penser Fondkommission Baillie Gifford & Co. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) Erste Asset Management BaltCap Canadian Labour Congress Staff Pension Fund Erste Group Bank AG Banco Bradesco S/A CAPESESP Essex Investment Management Company, LLC Banco Comercial Português SA Capital Innovations, LLC ESSSuper Banco de Credito del Peru BCP Capricorn Investment Group Ethos Foundation Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. CARE Super Etica SGR Banco do Brasil Previdência Carmignac Gestion Eureka Funds Management Banco do Brasil S/A Caser Pensiones E.G.F.P Eurizon Capital SGR S.p.A. Banco Espírito Santo SA Cathay Financial Holding Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economico e Catherine Donnelly Foundation Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Social (BNDES) Catholic Super Evangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern Canada Banco Popular Espanol CBF Church of England Funds Evli Bank Plc Banco Sabadell CBRE Group, Inc. F&C Asset Management Banco Santander Cbus Superannuation Fund FACEB – Fundação de Previdência dos Banesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social CCLA Investment Management Ltd Empregados da CEB Banesto Celeste Funds Management FAELCE – Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade Social BANIF SA Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church 40
FAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária Hang Seng Bank Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. da Extensão Rural do Rio Grande do Sul Hanwha Asset Management Company Lloyds Banking Group FASERN - Fundação COSERN de Previdência Harbour Asset Management Local Authority Pension Fund Forum Complementar Harrington Investments, Inc Local Government Super Fédéris Gestion d'Actifs Hauck & Aufhäuser Asset Management GmbH LOGOS PORTFÖY YÖNETIMI A.Ş. FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH Hazel Capital LLP London Pensions Fund Authority FIM Asset Management Ltd HDFC Bank Ltd Lothian Pension Fund FIM Services Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) LUCRF Super Financiere de l'Echiquier Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Macquarie Group FIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementar dos Empregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, Henderson Global Investors MagNet Magyar Közösségi Bank Zrt. do CNPq Hermes Fund Managers MainFirst Bank AG FIRA. - Banco de Mexico HESTA Super Malakoff Médéric First Affirmative Financial Network, LLC HIP Investor MAMA Sustainable Incubation AG First Commercial Bank Holden & Partners Man Group plc First State Investments HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) Mandarine Gestion First State Superannuation Scheme GmbH MAPFRE First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) HSBC Holdings plc Maple-Brown Abbott Firstrand Limited HSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. mbH Five Oceans Asset Management Maryland State Treasurer Humanis Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) Matrix Asset Management Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Folketrygdfondet Matrix Group Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. Folksam McLean Budden IBK Securities Fondaction CSN MEAG MUNICH ERGO Asset Management GmbH IDBI Bank Ltd Fondation de Luxembourg Mediobanca IDFC Ltd Forma Futura Invest AG Meeschaert Gestion Privée Illinois State Board of Investment Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft mbH Mendesprev Sociedade Previdenciária Impax Group plc Friends Fiduciary Corporation Merck Family Fund Independent Planning Group Fubon Financial Holdings Mercy Investment Services, Inc. Indusind Bank Fukoku Capital Management Inc Mergence Investment Managers Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services FUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários Federais Inc. MetallRente GmbH Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Industrial Bank Metrus – Instituto de Seguridade Social Brasiletros Industrial Bank of Korea Metzler Investment Gmbh Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Industrial Development Corporation MFS Investment Management Fundação Attilio Francisco Xavier Fontana Industry Funds Management Midas International Asset Management Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Inflection Point Partners Miller/Howard Investments Fundação BRDE de Previdência Complementar - Mirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd. ISBRE ING Group Mirae Asset Securities Fundação Chesf de Assistência e Seguridade Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Social – Fachesf Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - Mirvac Group Fundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da INFRAPREV Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Companhia Riograndense de Saneamento Instituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - Mistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do SEBRAEPREV Research BNDES - FAPES Insurance Australia Group Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. FUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE IntReal KAG Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd SOCIAL - ELETROS Investec Asset Management Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social - Investing for Good Mn Services FORLUZ Irish Life Investment Managers Momentum Manager of Managers (Pty) Ltd Fundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e Assistência Social Itaú Asset Management Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH FUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCO Itaú Unibanco Holding S.A. Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A. Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Janus Capital Group Inc. Morgan Stanley Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Mountain Cleantech AG Fundação Rede Ferroviaria de Seguridade Social Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation MTAA Superannuation Fund – Refer JOHNSON & JOHNSON SOCIEDADE Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia FUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA E PREVIDENCIARIA Nanuk Asset Management ASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL - FUSAN JPMorgan Chase & Co. Natcan Investment Management Fundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel) Jubitz Family Foundation Nathan Cummings Foundation, The Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social Jupiter Asset Management National Australia Bank - VALIA Kaiser Ritter Partner Privatbank AG (Schweiz) National Bank of Canada FUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIA KB Kookmin Bank COMPLEMENTAR DA CAESB National Bank Of Greece KBC Asset Management NV Futuregrowth Asset Management National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity KBC Group Supply Pension Scheme GEAP Fundação de Seguridade Social KCPS and Company National Grid UK Pension Scheme General Equity Group AG KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland Generali Deutschland Holding AG KDB Daewoo Securities Co. Ltd. National Union of Public and General Employees Generation Investment Management KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m. b. H. (NUPGE) Genus Capital Management KEVA Nativus Sustainable Investments German Equity Trust AG KeyCorp Natixis SA Gjensidige Forsikring ASA KfW Bankengruppe Natural Investments LLC Global Forestry Capital S.a.r.l. Killik & Co LLP Nedbank Limited GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG Kiwi Income Property Trust Needmor Fund Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Kleinwort Benson Investors Nelson Capital Management, LLC GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale Nest Sammelstiftung Vermögensentwicklung mbH KlimaINVEST Neuberger Berman Governance for Owners KLP Insurance New Alternatives Fund Inc. Government Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”), Korea Investment Management Republic of South Africa Korea Technology Finance Corporation New Amsterdam Partners LLC GPT Group KPA Pension New Forests Greater Manchester Pension Fund La Banque Postale Asset Management New Mexico State Treasurer Green Cay Asset Management La Financiere Responsable New York City Employees Retirement System Green Century Capital Management Lampe Asset Management GmbH New York City Teachers Retirement System GROUPAMA EMEKLİLİK A.Ş. Landsorganisationen i Sverige New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF) GROUPAMA SİGORTA A.Ş. LaSalle Investment Management Newton Investment Management Limited Groupe Crédit Coopératif LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg NGS Super Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft NH-CA Asset Management GROUPE OFI AM mbH Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Grupo Financiero Banorte SAB de CV LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond Nipponkoa Insurance Company, Ltd Grupo Santander Brasil Legal & General Investment Management Nissay Asset Management Corporation Gruppo Bancario Credito Valtellinese Legg Mason, Inc. NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG Gruppo Monte Paschi LGT Capital Management Ltd. Nordea Bank Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation LIG Insurance Co., Ltd. Light Green Advisors, LLC Norfolk Pension Fund 41
Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Rose Foundation for Communities and the TfL Pension Fund North Carolina Retirement System Environment The ASB Community Trust Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Rothschild The Brainerd Foundation Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) Royal Bank of Canada The Bullitt Foundation Northern Star Group Royal Bank of Scotland Group The Central Church Fund of Finland Northern Trust RPMI Railpen Investments The Children's Investment Fund Foundation Northward Capital RREEF Investment GmbH The Clean Yield Group Northwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEI Russell Investments The Collins Foundation Investments) Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S The Co-operators Group Limited Nykredit Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance The Daly Foundation OceanRock Investments Inc. Samsung Life Insurance The Environmental Investment Partnership LLP Oddo & Cie Samsung Securities The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. oeco capital Lebensversicherung AG Sanlam The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust ÖKOWORLD Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda The Korea Teachers Pension Old Mutual plc Santam Ltd The New School OMERS Administration Corporation Sarasin & Partners The Oppenheimer Group Ontario Pension Board SAS Trustee Corporation The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG Service Alliance of Canada OP Fund Management Company Ltd Schroders The Pinch Group Oppenheim & Co Limited Scottish Widows Investment Partnership The Presbyterian Church in Canada Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH SEB Asset Management AG The Russell Family Foundation Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) The Sandy River Charitable Foundation Endowment) Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc The Sisters of St. Ann OPSEU Pension Trust (OP Trust) Sentinel Funds The Standard Bank Group Oregon State Treasurer SERPROS - Fundo Multipatrocinado The Sustainability Group Orion Energy Systems Service Employees International Union Benefit The United Church of Canada - General Council Osmosis Investment Management Funds The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund Panahpur Servite Friars The Wellcome Trust Park Foundation Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Parnassus Investments Shiga Bank, Ltd. Threadneedle Asset Management Pax World Funds Shinhan Bank Tobam Pensioenfonds Vervoer Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Pension Denmark Management Co., Ltd Toronto Atmospheric Fund Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Trillium Asset Management, LLC Pension Protection Fund Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Triodos Bank Pensionsmyndigheten Signet Capital Management Ltd Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment Perpetual Investments Skandia Tryg PETROS - Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB) Turner Investments Social Smith Pierce, LLC UBS PFA Pension SNS Asset Management Unibail-Rodamco PGGM Social(k) UniCredit Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Ltd. Dataprev - Prevdata Union Asset Management Holding AG PhiTrust Active Investors Socrates Fund Management Union di Banche Italiane S.c.p.a Pictet Asset Management SA Solaris Investment Management Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH Pinstripe Management GmbH Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Unionen Pioneer Investments Sonen Capital LLC Unipension Piraeus Bank Sopher Investment Management UNISON staff pension scheme PKA Soprise! LLP UniSuper Pluris Sustainable Investments SA SouthPeak Investment Management Unitarian Universalist Association PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. SPF Beheer bv United Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health Benefits Pohjola Asset Management Ltd Spring Water Asset Management, LLC United Nations Foundation Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Unity Trust Bank Portfolio 21 Investments Standard Chartered Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) Porto Seguro S.A. Standard Chartered Korea Limited Vancity Group of Companies POSTALIS - Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Standard Life Investments Correios e Telégrafos VCH Vermögensverwaltung AG State Bank of India Power Finance Corporation Ventas Inc State Street Corporation PREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTAR Veris Wealth Partners StatewideSuper PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Veritas Investment Trust GmbH Stockland Banco do Brasil Vermont State Treasurer Storebrand ASA PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Vexiom Capital, L.P. Strathclyde Pension Fund Prologis VicSuper Stratus Group Provinzial Rheinland Holding Victorian Funds Management Corporation Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Prudential Investment Management VIETNAM HOLDING ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc. Prudential PLC Vinva Investment Management Sun Life Financial Inc. Psagot Investment House Ltd Voigt & Collegen Superfund Asset Management GmbH PSP Investments VOLKSBANK INVESTMENTS SUSI Partners AG Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd Waikato Community Trust Sustainable Capital QBE Insurance Group Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Rabobank Sustainable Development Capital LLP Trust & Investment Management Company Raiffeisen Fund Management Hungary Ltd. Sustainable Insight Capital Management WARBURG - HENDERSON Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H. Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbH Raiffeisen Schweiz Svenska Kyrkans Pensionskassa WARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH Rathbone Greenbank Investments Swedbank Water Asset Management, LLC RCM (Allianz Global Investors) Swift Foundation Wells Fargo & Company Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Swiss Re Assistência Social Swisscanto Holding AG West Yorkshire Pension Fund REI Super Sycomore Asset Management WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM) Reliance Capital Ltd Syntrus Achmea Asset Management Westpac Banking Corporation Representative Body of the Church in Wales T. Rowe Price WHEB Asset Management Resolution T.GARANTİ BANKASI A.Ş. White Owl Capital AG Resona Bank, Limited T.SINAİ KALKINMA BANKASI A.Ş. Woori Bank Reynders McVeigh Capital Management Tata Capital Limited Woori Investment & Securities River Twice Capital Advisors, LLC TD Asset Management YES BANK Limited RLAM Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – York University Pension Fund Robeco College Retirement Equities Fund Youville Provident Fund Inc. RobecoSAM AG Telluride Association Zegora Investment Management Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation Tempis Capital Management Co., Ltd. Zevin Asset Management Rockefeller Asset Management Terra Forvaltning AS Zurich Cantonal Bank TerraVerde Capital Management LLC Zurich Cantonal Bank 42 Closing remarks: The FCO Prosperity Fund and CDP
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) Prosperity financial performance. A subsequent project, implemented Fund was launched in April 2011 to support the UK by CDP in 2012, encouraged key Japanese businesses Government’s promotion of sustainable global growth, to further their strategic climate change reporting through including in the areas of economic reform, climate change, looking at emissions in their global supply chains.The 2012 and energy and resource security. Over the past two years project activity resulted in the founding of a working group the Prosperity Fund has provided support to CDP for consisting of representatives from large, well-known two projects in Japan. companies sharing information that enables them to make progress on corporate climate change management. The Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) is an international organization committed to the integration of CDP’s projects have contributed to a shift in corporate climate change-related information into mainstream corporate perceptions on climate change reporting and management. reporting. In the first year of the Prosperity Fund programme, We hope that in the long-term these activities will lead to CDSB successfully encouraged Japanese businesses, further positive environmentally-aware business practices investors and policy makers to implement internationally- and sustainable growth. We are grateful for CDP’s work recognized best practice climate change reporting in the pushing the corporate climate change agenda forward form of CDSB’s Climate Change Reporting Framework. and look forward to seeing wider implementation of The adoption of consistent internationally-recognized climate climate change reporting across Japan. change reporting has supported sustainable financial systems, and has showed signs of moving investors beyond carbon Tim Hitchens footprinting onto linking their data to a strategy which benefits British Ambassador to Japan
Closing remarks: Moving towards a responsible economy
CDP is striving to bring about a new level of awareness to the new reality facing us, sustainability should become to the investment community. The new philosophy that a mandatory consideration in each and every investment CDP is trying to bring in is: "When making an investment decision being made in the marketplace. Doing so will decision, a company's business results and financial establish a mechanism for acting towards a sustainable performances should not be the only considerations, but society, but this time as an integral part of economic investors should also take a look at factors such as GHG activities. “Responsible economy” is an economy which emissions, water usage, and the impact a company has internalized such principles". have on forests throughout its supply chain." In a way, we are attempting to change the way capitalism works. The "responsible investment" movement, with its focus on sustainability considerations, is spreading throughout the Historically, the driving force behind capitalism - and its world. The UNPRI has more than 1200 signatories among ability to increase wealth - has been the human desire to institutional investors primarily from Europe and USA, with have more. However, market failures in the capitalist model combined assets of $38 trillion. The movement is also have meant that economic activities that drive growth have gaining momentum in Japan, where many enterprises come at the expense of the natural environment, with are increasingly voicing interest in an economy based on resource depletion occurring at unprecedented rates. harmonious coexistence with the global environment. The rate of depletion and exploitation of natural resources not only has the potential to undermine future growth, This year, CDP Japan, with support from the British Embassy but permanently alter the natural flows and processes that in Japan, hosted an event for leading Japanese companies we are reliant on for the future sustainability of humanity. who have been proactively participating in CDP. Companies’ More frequent and intense weather events, including heavy activities that were presented at the event were all very rains, flooding, and tornadoes witnessed this summer served impressive - CDP's role is to connect such progressive as a sobering reminder of this state of affairs. Before long, companies to investors. the traditional economic system, with its unspoken premise that the environment is a limitless resource, will cease to I would like to invite Japanese pension funds and financial hold true. We need to adopt a new economic system which institutions to actively support such trend. If you are not a explicitly embraces the view that our natural resources are CDP’s investor signatory yet, we welcome you to sign up limited. No longer centered solely on financial capital, this with CDP. If you have signed, make use of the wealth of new kind of capitalism has "natural capital" as its second data CDP makes available to members. Make sure to pass foundation. Under this system, everyone in the marketplace on the message to the companies you invest in. In the long must share the rule: "The pursuit of profit should be term, we can reduce investment risk while at the same time conducted in a way that does not harm natural capital." working towards a more sustainable society. I want to believe that sooner or later, this philosophy will become There are some efforts being made outside of economic second nature to investors. system such as emissions reduction targets set by each country, but these fall short of the mark. In order to respond Takeshi Mizuguchi Professor at Takasaki City University of Economics 43
Scoring partner and report wtiter
IIn addition, CDP Japan has been generously supported by:
Supporters CDP Japan Contacts CDP Contacts PwC Japan Contacts CDP Board of Trustees
Takejiro Sueyoshi Sue Howells Masataka Mitsuhashi Chairman: Chair, CDP Japan Co-Chief Operating Officer Partner Alan Brown Schroders Michiyo Morisawa Daniel Turner Scott Williams Director Japan Head of Disclosure Director James Cameron [email protected] Climate Change Capital & ODI James Hulse Mie Harunaga Miyako Enokibori Head of Investor Initiatives Senior Associate Ben Goldsmith Project Manager WHEB [email protected] CDP PricewaterhouseCoopers 40 Bowling Green Lane Aarata Chris Page Mari Mugurajima London EC1R 0NE Sumitomo Fudosan Shiodome Rockefeller Philanthropy Project Manager United Kingdom Hamarikyu Bldg. Advisors [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)20 7970 5660 8-21-1 Ginza Fax: +44 (0)20 7691 7316 Chuo-ku Tokyo, 104-0061 Dr. Christoph Schroeder Azusa Yamashita www.cdp.net Japan [email protected] [email protected] Tel: +81 (0) 3 3546 8450 Jeremy Smith pwc.com/jp/sustainability CDP Japan Takejiro Sueyoshi 7-1-211 Sanbancho Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-0075 Tessa Tennant Japan Tel: +81 (0) 3 5210 1328 Martin Wise [email protected] Relationship Capital Partners
Our sincere thanks are extended to the following:
Advisors: Yasushi Nakahashi, Hiroaki Kamei, Masao Seki, Masaru Arai, Takeshi Mizuguchi, Toru Nakashizuka
Organization: Hermes, Advanced Law, Allen & Overy, Board and Technical Working Group of Climate Disclosure Standards Board, European Commission, Freshfields, Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, Investor Group on Climate Change, Investor Network on Climate Risk, Life+ DG Environment, Skadden Arps, UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UN Environment Japan report sponsor Programme Finance Initiative, UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Global Compact, UN Principles for Responsible Investment, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute.