cdp climate change report 2016, iberia edition a …...report writer: scoring partner: cdp climate...

Report Writer: Scoring Partner:

CDP Climate Change Report 2016, Iberia editionA business led path to a low carbon economy in the post COP 21 periodWritten on behalf of 827 institutional investors with US$100 trillion in assets

CDP Report 2016 October 2016

Portadas 2016 19/10/16 21:11 Página 1

Important Notice

The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to CDP Worldwide (CDP). This does not represent a license torepackage 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 thecontents of this report, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so.

ECODES and CDP have prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2016 information request. No representation orwarranty (express or implied) is given by ECODES or CDP as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained in this report. Youshould not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, ECODESand CDP 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, inreliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. All information and views expressed herein by CDP and/or ECODES isbased 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.

ECODES and CDP and their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/oremployees, may have a position in the securities of the companies discussed herein. The securities of the companies mentioned in this document may notbe 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 beadversely affected by exchange rates.

‘CDP Worldwide’ and ‘CDP’ refer to CDP Worldwide, a registered charity number 1122330 and a company limited by guarantee, registered in Englandnumber 05013650.

© 2016 CDP Worldwide. All rights reserved.

Portadas 2016 20/10/16 20:08 Página 2

1

02 Prologue from the Executive chairman

03 Note from the Government of Spain

04 Expert Interview:

Christiana Figueres

05 Closing the gap in Non-Financial Reporting

Steve Tebbe

06 Global Executive Summary

10 Introduction to the CDP Iberian Report

11 Overview of the Iberian compañies’ climate

change reporting and management

19 Prologue from ECODES

20 PwC commentary

21 Post COP21 Conference

25 Key takeaways

26 Company Interview:

Iberdrola

27 Communicating progress

28 A List

30 Company Interview:

Jerónimo Martins

31 Investor perspectives

35 Commit to Action

37 Key Trends

39 Appendix I:

Non-responding companies to the CDP climatechange questionnaire 2016

40 Appendix II:

Emissions scores and data from the respondingcompanies

41 Appendix III:

Investor signatories and members

42 Appendix IV:

Investor signatories 2016

Table of Contents

Informe CDP 2016 (web) 20/10/16 20:07 Página 1

2

Paul SimpsonCEO CDP

Measurement andtransparency arewhere meaningfulclimate actionstarts, and asgovernments workto implement theParis Agreement,CDP will be shininga spotlight onprogress and drivinga race to net-zeroemissions.

The choice facing companies and investors hasnever been clearer: seize the opportunities of acarbon-constrained world and lead the way inshaping our transition to a sustainable economy; orcontinue business as usual and face serious risks –from regulation, shifts in technology, changingconsumer expectations and climate change itself.CDP’s data shows that hundreds of companies arealready preparing for the momentous changesahead, but many are yet to grapple with this newreality.

Investors are poised to capitalize on the opportunitiesthat await. Some of the biggest index providers in theworld, including S&P and STOXX, have created low-carbon indices to help investors direct their moneytowards the sustainable companies of the future.Meanwhile, New York State’s pension fund – the thirdlargest in the United States – has built a US$2 billionlow-carbon index in partnership with GoldmanSachs, using CDP data.

With trillions of dollars’ worth of assets set to be atrisk from climate change, investors are more focusedthan ever on winners and losers in the low-carbontransition. Information is fundamental to theirdecisions. Through CDP, more than 800 institutionalinvestors with assets of over US$100 trillion areasking companies to disclose how they aremanaging the risks posed by climate change. Theirdemands don’t stop there: international coalitions ofinvestors with billions of dollars under managementare requesting greater transparency on climate risk atthe AGMs of the world’s biggest polluters.

The glass is already more than half full onenvironmental disclosure. Over fifteen years ago,when we started CDP, climate disclosure wasnonexistent in capital markets. Since then our annualrequest has helped bring disclosure into themainstream. Today some 5,800 companies,representing close to 60% of global marketcapitalization, disclose through CDP.

Now, we are poised to fill the glass. We welcome theFSB’s new Task Force on Climate-related FinancialDisclosures, building on CDP’s work and preparingthe way for mandatory climate-related disclosureacross all G20 nations. We look forward tointegrating the Task Force recommendations into ourtried and tested disclosure system and workingtogether to take disclosure to the next level.

We know that business is key to enabling the globaleconomy to achieve – and exceed – its climategoals. This report sets the baseline for corporateclimate action post-Paris. In future reports, we’ll betracking progress against this baseline to see howbusiness is delivering on the low-carbon transitionand enabling investors to keep score. Already, someleading companies in our sample – including some ofthe highest emitters – are showing it’s possible toreduce emissions while growing revenue, and weexpect to see this number multiply in future years.

Measurement and transparency are wheremeaningful climate action starts, and asgovernments work to implement the ParisAgreement, CDP will be shining a spotlight onprogress and driving a race to net-zero emissions.

The Paris Agreement and the SDGs are the newcompass for business. Companies across all sectorsnow have the chance to create this new economyand secure their future in doing so. High-qualityinformation will signpost the way to this future forcompanies, investors and governments – never hasthere been a greater need for it.

The Paris Agreement – unprecedented in speed ofratification – and the adoption of the SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs) marked the start of a newstrategy for the world, with a clear message forbusinesses: the low-carbon revolution is upon us. Byagreeing to limit global temperature rises to well below2°C, governments have signaled an end to the fossil fuelera and committed to transforming the global economy.


3

Isabel García TejerinaMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Environment

The European Union and Spain were key factors toachieve an ambitious agreement that wouldestablish a clear objective for all countries and legallybinding climate governance. This will force to revisethe national efforts to reduce the global emissions ofgreenhouse gases and face the negative impactsassociated with climate change. All of the abovewith the aim of achieving the objective of notexceeding 2ºC.

In Paris, 190 low-carbon national plans were alsopresented that cover more than 90% of thegreenhouse gas emissions, along with anunprecedented mobilisation of non-governmentalagents. This community of actions at all levels is theonly way of achieving a true transformation of thecurrent development models towards low-carbonmodels.

With the legitimacy conferred to us by the internationalframework, our Governments have to put in placepolicies and measures to fight climate change. On ourbehalf, in the European Union, we have the frameworkof action for Climate and Energy 2030, which includesthe objective of reducing the European emissions by,at least, 40% in 2030 regarding the levels of 1990.

From 2020, this framework is going to require thatwe intensify our efforts to reduce the currentemissions, as well as the administrations, companiesand citizens, although we are convinced that theseefforts entail economic growth, employment andmany other benefits.

These efforts involve decoupling economic andproductive growth from the emissions. In this sense,low-carbon economy is not one of the possiblealternatives but it is the only option we have toachieve a path of climate neutrality and becompetitive in the international markets.

In Spain, we are working along these lines and wehave achieved good results in the past yearsdecoupling the emissions of our diffuse sectors fromeconomic growth. And this is the path that from theMinistry we are going to continue to foster with therevision of our current policies and measures to fightclimate change. We can then achieve shiftingtowards a new production model with an increasinglyless intensive use of fossil fuels.

We would like to carry out this exercise of definingour future climate policy hand in hand with all theMinisterial Departments and the autonomous andlocal governments, without forgetting the civil society,as the scale of the challenge and its transversalitydemands the maximum cooperation.

Spanish companies are showing interest and areembracing this challenge of fighting climate change.To that end, they choose different tools which rangefrom integrating the fight against climate change intotheir business strategy to adopting and implementingemission reduction plans in a more determined way.They are also setting an internal price on carbon andare increasing the investments on promoting climatechange mitigation.

One of the most interesting indicators to value theprogressive decoupling between the economic andproductive growth and the emissions is carbonintensity. This parameter indicates the efficiency ofthe processes adopted to prevent this increase andhow to follow the path of economic growth withoutincreasing the emissions that would lead to a globalwarming that is not compatible with thecommitments adopted in Paris.

Given that the objectives assumed by the EU entail ahigh level of ambition, there is still hard work ahead,in all fields, in the short and long term. But, without adoubt, the business sector, by participating ininitiatives such as the Carbon Disclosure Project orthe Carbon Footprint Register, demonstrates that ithas taken the first step in the long path of low-carbon economy. As a society, we have understoodthat we must change our development modeltowards sustainability. And there is an unprecedentedmobilisation in favour of a change that we have theresponsibility of leading.

Low-carboneconomy is not oneof the possiblealternatives but it isthe only option wehave to achieve apath of climateneutrality and becompetitive in theinternationalmarkets

The Paris Climate Summit has undoubtedly marked aturning point in the fight against climate change. Theadoption of the Paris Agreement represents animportant landmark that demonstrates the clearwillingness of the international community to addressthis ambitious challenge and embark on a real transitiontowards development models low on greenhouse gasemissions and resilient to climate change.


4

Expert Interview: Christiana Figueres

What do you think will be the new businessnorms in a less than a 2ºC increase world?In this world which we already decided that we wantto create the first thing that we have to remember itis that is not going to be the result of business-as-usual. We are going to have to create it intentionally,we are going to take intentional decisions and takeintentional actions, in particular in the first 3-5 years.

How is that going to look like? It will of coursedepend on the sectors, each sector will undergo atransformation, but in general, we can say:

1. We are going to see a huge increase in energyefficiency, which of course also means carbonefficiency. We are going to see growth in theglobal GDP, but the carbon imprint of eachpercentage point of the GDP is actually going todecrease. We are going to see a delinking ofgrowth from GHG emissions and that has to bemeasurable. That means that businesses willbecome more energy efficient and will stopwasting as much as energy as they are right now.

2. While we will be wasting less energy and using itmore efficiently, that energy will quickly becomecleaner and cleaner. We will have much morerenewable energy on the grid, we will have muchmore competitive prices, as also electricity priceswill decrease.

3. We will have more access to energy, and this isparticularly important for developing countries.This is because decentralized renewable energieswill increase the network of those people that willhave access to electricity, which on the grid andcentralized fossil fuels cannot allow.

Those three will be at the basis of businesses. Therehardly is a business that does not operate withoutenergy. For this we will experience a hugetransformation in the energy sector.

In light of having the decarbonization of theeconomy as an ultimate goal. What are the mostcentral and urgent actions that you think non-state actors need to take to translate the Parisagreement into real action and how is CDP bestplaced to help them in this endeavour?Non-state actors are actually already working on thisbecause they have not waited for the adoption or theentry of the Paris Agreement. Many non-state actorscould see that it was in their own interest to begin adecarbonizing process and so cities, corporationsthat both report to CDP have already started theirown path towards decarbonization.

CDP provides a very interesting channel, as itenables to measure your progress year-by-year. Byreporting yearly you can compare your progressagainst your own baseline and also against yourpeers and see how you are doing in respect toothers, whether you are a city or a corporation.

The very old management wisdom that you cannotmanage what you cannot measure is also true thatyou cannot measure what you cannot manage. So,measuring your carbon emissions is absolutely key,and CDP is a very good way to be able to self-measure and track your progress.

What do you think should be the value of ourwork as CDP in a world after the Paris’Agreement?CDP was of course very valuable before we got theParis Agreement because it had already raised theawareness on the importance of measuring anddisclosing and reporting. But now, after the adoptionof the Paris agreement, and on the heels of the Parisagreement coming to force very soon, CDP’scontribution is even more critical. There is no waythat any city or corporation can actually manage itscarbon intensity without it getting measured. Thoseare the tools that CDP provides: very helpfulstandardized tools that have international recognitionfor cities and corporations to be able to measure,report and track progress in regards to carbonefficiency. In particular for cities and corporations thathave adopted Science Based Targets.

We have read about your project mission 2020,and we understand that is a 5-year initiativewith a short commitment that brings togetherpublic and private sector to deliver the net-zeroemission pathway. Can you further explain howthis initiative works and why there is a strongneed to enable Public-Private-Partnerships overthe next five years?Mission 2020 is actually a commitment that bringstogether every stakeholder: whether it is agovernment, sub-national government, corporation,NGO or citizen who is willing to commit tounderstanding the importance of urgently peakingour emissions and quickly decreasing them. Becauseif we do not do that we are actually incurring inincreased risks for the economy that will becomeunmanageable.

It is about the commitment on understanding thisurgency and be willing to incorporate it in everythingthat we are doing. Public Private Partnerships areobviously at the basis of this as governments need toset the direction but corporation and investors arethe ones that are going to determine the pace of thetransformation.

In order to enable Public Private Partnerships,the Public needs to understand what the Privateis doing. Could our data be an enabler to createthe synergies mission 2020 is trying to achieve?Yes, absolutely. CDP’s data has been already veryhelpful for years, since it is used by many people as areference point because of both the standardizationand the universality of its reporting. It has been a veryhelpful reference point and will continue to be as wemove into the decarbonization and transformation ofthe economy.

Christiana FigueresFormer Executive Secretary of theUN Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC)

Note: the content of this interviewis based on a phone interviewheld between Ms. ChristianaFigueres and the CDP SouthernEurope Team.


5

Closing the gap in Non-Financial Reporting

In an attempt to correct the world’s largest marketfailure, European policymakers created the first,legally-binding directive requiring companies acrossEurope to report ESG data as of this year. The so-called Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD)recognizes the value of non-financial reporting forcatalysing our transition to a low-carbon economy.

This Directive - while far from perfect - is animportant step in the right direction. The NFRD wouldhave been the opportunity to create a fullyharmonized, integrated and light-touch corporatereporting system across Europe, thus enablinginvestors (and any other stakeholder) to comparecompanies across Europe on a level-playing field. Inthe short term however, the Directive runs the risk ofleading to 28 different and possibly weak nationalregulations. Imagine playing the UEFA EuroChampionship with every team largely making uptheir own rules.

Why would the Directive enable “weak” ESGreporting? The Directive offers ambiguousdescriptions that give EU member states andcompanies much freedom to shape reported datacompliance. In addition, information disclosureacross the supply chain - key to addressingenvironmental and social issues - is not specifiedclearly and target-setting requirements are missing.Last but not least, the scope of the companiesaddressed by the legislation is too small in mostcountries. In Germany for example, it is likely thatonly 300 companies will be disclosing, while thereshould be scope for about 11.000 companies,considering their size and impact on our environmentand society.

Fortunately, the NFR Directive will be revised in 2018.Now is therefore the opportunity for the EuropeanCommission to design a strong, consistent, EU-widepolicy that builds on the expertise of successfulpractitioners and market-based models. Under thestewardship of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), aTask-Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure(TCFD) is currently drafting a blue print for the G20countries on consistent, climate-related financial riskdisclosures. Those recommendations will be madepublic before the end of this year and build on CDP’s

work and expertise. We salute the leadership of theTask-Force and the political impulse this will give tothe low-carbon transition in the world’s majoreconomies.

Less visible but just as important is another milestonecurrently underway in France. Since the UnitedNations COP21 Paris Agreement of 2015 requires“the alignment of financial flows with climate goals”,existing, voluntary, investor climate disclosure shouldbecome mandatory. Requiring investors to alignenvironmental criteria, climate change-related risksand scientific decarbonisation targets with theirinvestment strategies will massively redirect capitaltowards the low-carbon economy that is essential forremaining safely below a 2-degree Celsius warming.

Many CDP signatories are ahead of the curve. Someof our avant-garde investors support voluntaryinitiatives such as the Portfolio DecarbonizationCoalition, co-founded by CDP, and the MontrealPledge. BlackRock, the world’s largest assetmanager, called on policy makers to make non-financial reporting a requirement for investmentanalysis and stop conflicting fiduciary duties. Whileover 800 institutional investors with US$ 100 trillionassets under management keep calling for morethorough and comparable environmental corporatedata through CDP, nearly 130 already walk-the-talkby applying climate disclosure to their own portfolios.

In anticipation of this development, policy makers inFrance have passed Article 173 into law, makingclimate reporting mandatory for institutional investorssuch as asset managers, insurance companies,pension and social security funds.

With about a third of the world’s assets undermanagement residing in Europe, the EU as a wholemust follow France’s leadership in closing thereporting gap. Triggering massive capital reallocationtowards the low-carbon economy will enable the safeand liveable future we all want.

Steve Tebbe

Managing Director Europe, CDP

Investors despise being kept in the dark. They worryabout the issues they don’t see or understand.Disclosure of Environmental, Social and Governance(ESG) information is an essential tool for investors toholistically evaluate risks and opportunities, whileallowing companies to benchmark their performanceagainst peers. Ultimately if companies want to wooinvestors and reduce their cost of capital, they need tobe good at reporting.

Non-financialreporting has comea long way over thelast decade, from adog-and-pony-showto a mainstreamrequirement forfinancial markets tofully assesscorporations.

Disclosure by investors

on environmental

matters, such as

carbon foot-printing,

will help in the global 2

degrees goal and

the transition to a

low-carbon economy.

Peter de Proft,

Director General,

EFAMA (European

Fund and Asset

Management

Association)


6

Global Executive Summary

This historic agreement, with defined goals to limitclimate change and clear pathways for achieving itsgoals, marks a step-change in the transition to a low-carbon world.

In the Paris Agreement, emissions reductions aretalked about at the country level, and nationalgovernments will lead with policy changes andregulation. But companies can move much fasterthan governments, and they have an opportunity todemonstrate their leadership, agility and creativity incurbing their own substantial emissions. Manycompanies had already realised the need for actionbefore Paris, and they played an important role inmaking that summit a success. Others, however, areyet to come on board.

The first in an annual series, the report establishes thebaseline for corporate action on climate change. Infuture reports, CDP will track companies’ progress onreducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with thegoals of the Paris Agreement against this benchmark.

The report presents analysis on corporate climateaction including emissions reductions, the adoptionof targets based on the most up-to-date climatescience (“science based targets”), use of internalcarbon prices, and the uptake of renewable energy.

The benchmark established in this first reportincludes a number of companies failing to engageeven with the critical first step of disclosure. Of closeto 2,000 companies in this global tracking sample,only just over a thousand responded with data withinthe deadline. We hope the remaining 700 oddcompanies will start to engage during the course ofthe next five years.

The 1,089 companies that provided the data forthe global report will be tracked over the next fiveyears to see how they are performing. Betweenthem these companies account for 12 per cent ofglobal greenhouse gas emissions, and 85 per centof them have already set targets to reduce theiremissions.

The challenge of climate change and how to address itis now firmly on the global agenda. The Paris Agreementhas been ratified at unprecedented speed by theinternational community, including some of the world’sbiggest carbon emitters, such as the US, China, India,the EU and Brazil, and will enter into force in November.

Figure 1: Global company tracking sample by sector. The total number of companies in each sector is presented in parentheses.

Share oftotal sample

Consumer discretionary - 10% (180)

Consumer staples - 8% (156)

Energy - 11% (197)

Financials - 14% (253)

Health care - 5% (88)

Industrials - 14% (260)

IT - 6% (119)

Materials - 17% (312)

Telecomms - 3% (49)

Utlities - 12% (225)

Figure 2: Global company tracking sample by region. The total number of companies is presented in parentheses.

Share oftotal sample

Europe - 24% (436)

North America (USA & Canada) -32% (589)

Central and South America(incl. Caribbean) - 4% (74)

Health care - 5% (88)

Africa - 2% (41)

Australia & New Zealand - 3% (57)


7

Visibility on the road Although companies and governments are startingto realise the benefits of the low-carbon transition,the need for a complete economic shift can make ithard for individual companies to start the processof change. A shift in thinking is also needed, to seethe transition as an opportunity, rather than arestriction.

In order to achieve this success, however,companies need to measure their emissions, thenwork out how to reduce them.

Given that only 62 per cent of companies contactedby CDP for the report were able to provide data ontheir own emissions, many businesses have yet tograsp the importance of this challenge. However, thenumber disclosing is increasing, and the ParisAgreement should provide a greater incentivetoengage.

Business gearing up to go low-carbon, buttargets lack long-term visionEighty-five per cent of companies that provided datahave already set targets (comprising absolute and/orintensity targets) to reduce their greenhouse gasemissions. Setting targets is not enough, however,without realistic plans for meeting them. Evenmeeting those targets might not be enough if thetargets themselves are inadequate.

There has been significant improvement in recentyears in the numbers of companies setting targets foremissions reductions, but these targets are in many

cases unambitious in their time horizon. While 55 percent of companies have targets for 2020 andbeyond, just 14 per cent set goals for 2030 orbeyond, a situation that must change to achieve atransition to well-below 2°C.

The headline figures from this report mask widevariance in performance both at company level andat sector level. Perhaps inevitably, the energy sectorhas a lower share of companies with emissionsreduction targets, in particular for 2020 and beyond.This should not surprise us, because fossil fuelcompanies must undergo a major transition tomitigate climate change and are in general not readyto face up to this.

Given that this data is mostly based on calendar year2015, and so predates the Paris Agreement, we mayreasonably hope to see a jump in longer term targetsin the next report, which will be based on datagenerated after the Paris Agreement.

Companies wishing to ensure they are takingmeaningful action should set science-based targets;this report and its successors will monitor how manycompanies are setting targets in line with the latestclimate science.

From the sample, 94 have publicly committed toscience-based greenhouse gas reduction targets viathe Science Based Targets Initiative. Eighty-five ofthose companies submitted a target to the initiativefor official check, and 15 companies have passed theinitiative’s official check.

Figure 3: Companies responded and not-responded by sector. The totalnumber of companies in each sector is presented in parentheses.

Figure 4: Aggregated Scope 1 and Scope 2emissions for total sample. The totalnumber of companies responded ispresented in parentheses.

Share of companies responded

Consumer discretionary (180)

Share of companies not-responded Total (1089)

1,675Agg

rega

ted

Sco

pe 1

and

Sco

pe 2

em

issi

ons

(MtC

O2e

)

Consumer staples (156)

Energy (197)

Financials (253)

Health care (88)

Industrials (260)

IT (119)

Materials (312)

Telecomms (49)

Utlities (225)

62% 38%

71% 29%

40% 60%

61% 39%

74% 26%

63% 37%

78% 22%

61% 39%

73% 27%

38% 62%

6,361

3,350

5,025

6,700


Company targets achieving just one quarter of the emissions reductions required byscience; Paris Agreement expected to helpclose that gapAs well as recording them, we analyse the potentialimpact of the existing targets to see if they arecompatible with the objective of limiting globalwarming to well-below 2°C.

We found that if the companies in the sample wereto achieve their current targets, they could realise1Gt CO2e (1,000 MtCO2e) of reductions by 2030.This is about one quarter of the 4GtCO2e (4,145MtCO2e) of reductions that this group of companieswould need to achieve in order to be in line with a2°C-compatible pathway, leaving a gap of at least3GtCO2e (3,145 MtCO2e) between wherecompanies’ current targets take them, and wherethey should be. This gap is equal to nearly 50 percent of these companies’ current total emissions.

The amount of emissions reductions pledged bycompanies has been increasing steadily from 2011to 2015 and we hope to see it close at a faster ratein future years, as company targets become moreambitious in response to the regulatory certaintyoffered by the Paris Agreement.

Transition planning: carbon pricing on the rise,yet companies lag in renewable energyproduction and consumption Even those companies that have not set themselvestargets have almost all established emissionsreduction initiatives (97 per cent of all companies),although the success and scope of these initiativeshas been varied.

Increasingly, companies are utilising internal carbonpricing as an approach to help them manage climaterisks and opportunities. Companies are using thistool in a range of different ways including riskassessment in their scenario planning, as a realhurdle rate for capital investment decisions and toreveal hidden risks and opportunities in theiroperations. Some companies embed a carbon pricedeep into their corporate strategy, using it to help todeliver on climate targets, whether it be an emissionsor energy related target or to help foster a new line oflow-carbon products and services.

Currently 29 per cent of responding companies useinternal carbon pricing, while a further 19 per centplan to do so in the near future. By 2017, about halfof this sample should have introduced carbonpricing.

8

29%

52%

19%

Companies setting internalprice of carbon

Intention to do so in thenext 2 years

No intention to do so in thenext 2 years

Figure 5: Share ofcompanies setting aninternal price of carbon

Figure 6: Companies setting an internal price of carbon by sector. The total number of companies responded is presented in parentheses for each sector.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Sha

re o

f com

pani

es (i

n %

)

Con

sum

er

disc

retio

nary

(1

11)

Con

sum

erst

aple

s (1

09)

Ene

rgy

(78)

Fina

ncia

ls(1

51)

Hea

lth c

are

(65)

Indu

stria

ls(1

60) IT

(90)

Mat

eria

ls(1

90)

Tele

com

ms

(35)

Util

ities

(83)

Companies setting internalprice of carbon

Intention to do so in the next2 years

No intention to do so in thenext 2 years

63%

14%

23%

60%

17%

23%

33%

13%

54%

58%

18%

25%

74%

18%

8%

60%

19%

21%

53%

28%

19%

44%

22%

35%

40%

40%

20%

20%

14%

65%


9

Renewable energy will need to play a major role inany global shift to a low carbon economy. So far,relatively few companies (just 5%) have targets forincreasing their renewable energy generation, while11% have targets for renewable energyconsumption.

Of the companies in the utilities sector, 90% of whichare electric power companies, fewer than a thirdhave renewable energy generation targets.

Companies decoupling emissions from revenue,showing the low carbon transition does notmean low profitA small group of companies are showing thatreducing environmental impact is compatible witheconomic growth.

We report on the 62 companies in the sample thatcan be shown to have made impressive andconsistent year on year achievements both inreducing emissions and decoupling growth ofrevenue from growth of emissions.

They include consumer staples companies such asJ. Sainsbury and Walmart de Mexico, as well asutilities companies like Eversource Energy andIdacorp. The materials sector, also a heavy emissionssource, is represented by the likes of Givaudan inSwitzerland and Lixil in Japan.

‘Decoupling’ is defined for this purpose as havingreduced emissions by 10 per cent or more over fiveyears, while simultaneously growing revenue by 10per cent.

The success of these leaders points the way for othersto realise the opportunity for innovative companies toturn the challenge of emissions reduction from riskmanagement to business success.

Although correlation must not be taken to becausation, it is worth noting that the group ofcompanies that met the “decoupled growth” criteriaincreased revenue by 29 per cent over the five-yearperiod of measurement, while reducing GHGemissions by 26 per cent. For the rest of thecompanies in the tracking sample, revenuedecreased by 6 per cent while GHG emissionsincreased by 6 per cent.

Switching to renewable energy or producing its ownrenewable energy, using internal carbon pricing tomake production more efficient, using innovation tocreate less energy intensive systems or even sellingproducts to help customers reduce emissions are allstrategies that add to the bottom line, rather thantocosts.

Companies withoutdecoupled growth

(729)

92%

8%

Companies withdecoupled growth

(62)

Figure 7: Share of companies withdecoupled growth over period of five years(time-series sample)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Sha

re o

f com

pani

es (i

n %

)

Figure 8: Comparison of the changes in revenues (left) and GHG emissions (right) over the 5-year period between companies thatachieved deocupied growth and other companies.

Company group (no. companies) Total revenue: (trillion current USD)

Year 1 of the 5-yearperiod

Final year of the5-year period

Total emissions covered forevaluation GtCO2e

Year 1 of the 5-yearperiod

Final year of the5-year period

No decoupled growth (730) 17.7 16.6 (-6%) 4.82 5.08 (+6%)

Achieved decoupied growth (62) 1.31 1.70 (+29%) 0.468 0.345 (-26%)


Introduction to the 2016 CDP Iberia Report

The publication of this year’s CDP Iberia reportmarks an important milestone for various reasons. Itrepresents the first corporate climate accountingsince the celebration of the historic United NationsClimate Change Conference held in Paris (COP21)last winter giving us an opportunity to use data fromthe previous year’s company responses as abaseline to gauge the commitments and advancesmade by companies to realise the transitiontowards a clean economy and stop dangerousclimate change since this landmark event. Inaddition, the publication of this year’s reportcoincides with the consolidation of other,complementary initiatives, such as Science BasedTargets, which seek to introduce a greater degree ofscientific rigor in climate change strategydevelopment and operational planning at thecorporate level. As such, rather than concentratesolely on analyzing the data, this year’s report seeksto perform an in-depth analysis of companyresponses in relation to the risks and opportunitiesassociated with climate change mitigation andadaptation, particularly in the areas of sciencebased target setting, the production and use of

renewable energy, the use of carbon pricing, andthe emergence of products and services thatmitigate the effects of global warming.

As in previous years, the report also includes thefollowing sections:

An executive summary which analyses andhighlights global corporate baseline data that willallow us to track and evaluate the corporateresponse to managing and mitigating the effectsof climate change in the post COP21 period;

A review of climate change management,performance and mitigation data among Iberianresponding companies;

Insights from key scientific and opinion leaders inthe field of climate change mitigation andadaptation;

A scoring overview for the participatingcompanies, according to the new CDP’s scoringmodel.

10

1. The report is based on the responses to theCDP climate change questionnaire received untilJune 30 2016.

The Iberia Climate Change Report 2016 analyses theprogress of the 85 largest Spanish companies and the 40largest Portuguese companies (per market capitalization)in carbon emissions performance and the management ofrisks and opportunities linked to climate change. Thecontents are based on the company responses to theCDP climate change questionnaire 20161.


Overview of the Iberian companies’ climate change reporting and management

In 2016, 52 publically traded corporations respondedto the CDP climate change questionnaire,representing 91% of the market capitalization inSpain. Corporate disclosure among Iberiancompanies in 2016 remained largely unchanged fromthe previous year. Nonetheless, it should be notedthat the most important companies in the Iberiansample as defined by market capitalization by andlarge have been active responders to the CDPquestionnaire. Overall, slightly more than four in tentarget companies respond to the CDP survey.However, significant country differences remain asmore than half of the target companies in Spainresponded in 2016, compared to 23% forPortuguese companies in the relevant universe. Alsoof note is the fact that 25 Iberian companies havebeen selected by CDP to participate in a new globalsample of 1,000 companies that will be tracked onan annual basis along a number of key climatechange indicators. In addition, there is a continuedand robust interest in participating in the CDP

initiative by companies that are not included in theformal sample invited to respond to the climatechange questionnaire. These self-selectedcompanies, which are not included in the formalsample due to the private nature of their equitystructure or their reduced market capitalization,numbered seven in Spain and Portugal in 2016.

The scope and breadth of the emissions informationdisclosed by participating companies continues tobe robust as evidenced by the fact that eight in tenresponding companies report at least twocategories of Scope 3 emissions data, a level similarto the previous year and well above the globalaverage.

Climate change continues to gain relevancewithin management structuresCompanies in Spain and Portugal continue todemonstrate leadership in climate changemanagement as evidenced by the high percentage of

11

Each year the largest 85 Spanish companies and 40Portuguese companies are requested to disclose climatechange related data through CDP’s global reportingplatform and provide detailed information on carbonemissions management and risk and opportunitieslinked to climate change.

Figure 9. Iberia 125 companies responding to the CDP climatechange questionnaire (2010-2016)

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Spain Portugal

Figure 10. Responding companies by sector 2016

10

3

32

2

9

87

4

4

Industrials Financials Utilities

Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Materials

Energy Telecomunications Services

Information TechnologyHealth Care

34

35

36

40

41

42

43

12

14

14

15

13

11

9


participating companies responding affirmatively on arange of key indicators, including externally verify theiremissions (88%), have products and services thatenable GHG emissions reductions (100%), and rewardclimate change progress (90%). The high affirmativeresponses to the latter two indicators are noteworthyin that they suggest that Iberian respondingcompanies are incorporating climate resilience intotheir business operations and positioning themselvesto thrive in a low carbon economy.

This climate leadership is further evidenced by theresults of CDP’s scoring among Iberian responders.In 2016, CDP has adopted a more streamlinedapproach to presenting scores that measure acompany’s progress towards leadership in climatestewardship. Companies are awarded a single letterscore which reflects performance along fourdimensions: disclosure, awareness, managementand leadership (a more detailed description of thescoring methodology can be found in the“Communicating Progress” section of this report).Sixteen companies, or nearly 30% of Iberian

responders, are included in the global A-list, placingthem among the leaders in corporate climatestewardship. This is quite significant given thestringent scoring criteria which have made achievingthe highest performance score comparatively moredifficult than in previous years. An additional 13companies, or 25% of the total respondingcompanies, just missed the top performance level,scoring A- based on the new scoring criteria.

Emissions: Iberian companies need tosubstantially ramp up their efforts in order tohelp meet the Nationally DeterminedContributions (NDCs) set out in the COP21conferenceSimilar to a pattern seen in most mature, developedeconomies, total emissions among Iberian respondingcompanies is highly concentrated in several heavyemitting sectors. For instance, the top four sectors interms of emissions – Materials, Utilities, Industrials andEnergy – accounted for over 99% of Scope 1emissions and over 83% of Scope 2 emissions, apattern largely unchanged from the previous year.

12

Figure 11. Major areas of improvement in climate change management

2016 2015 2011

Externally verify their emissions (Scope 2)

Have emissionsreductions targets

Externally verify their emissions (Scope 1)

Board or other senior managementoversight of climate change

Have emissionsreductions initiatives

Climate change reported as integrated in business strategy

Have products and servicesthat enable GHG emissions

reductions

Rewarding climatechange progress

Company Name Country GICS Sector 2016 Score

Abengoa Spain Industrials A

CEPSA, Compañía Española de Petróleos SAU Spain Energy A

Caixa Geral de Depósitos Portugal Financials A

AJE Group Spain Consumer Staples B

Banco de credito social cooperativo Spain Financials B

Correos (Grupo Sepi) Spain Industrials B

Gestamp Spain Consumer Discretionary C

Table 1: Companies that are not in the sample but have answered the questionnaire


13

Figure 12. Reported Scope 1 emissions by sector (2015 v. 2016)

2016 2015

Materials

Utilities

Industrials

Energy

ConsumerStaples

ConsumerDiscretionary

Financials

TelecommunicationServices

Health Care

InformationTechnology

0 200,000150,000100,00050,000

ThtCO2

Figure 13. Reported Scope 2 emissions by sector (2015 v. 2016)

2016 2015

Materials

Utilities

Industrials

Energy


ConsumerStaples


Financials

Health Care


0 20,00015,00010,0005,000

ThtCO2

In terms of emissions performance, average percompany emissions increased by approximately 2%and 21% over the past year in terms of Scope 1 andScope 22 emissions, respectively3. In contrast topositive emissions reduction data registered in theprevious years, six in 10 responding companiesreported a total emissions increase in 2016compared to the previous year. However, this overallincrease in emissions should be placed within thecontext of the overall economic environment, whichsaw healthy economic growth in 2015, particularly inSpain. Coming on the heels of several years ofsluggish economic growth due to the lingering effectsof the financial crisis of 2008, a large number ofresponding companies cited increased output as themain reason for their reported emissions increase. Infact, nearly two-thirds of the reasons given byresponding companies for the increase were relatedto changes in output, acquisitions or changes inphysical operating conditions. However, it isnoteworthy, that 60% of responding companiesreported a decrease in carbon emissions per unit ofrevenue, confirming a reduction in the emissionsintensity of a majority of responding companies andsuggesting a movement towards a decoupling ofrevenue growth and emissions levels among many of

the top companies in the Iberian market. In thecoming years, we expect to monitor thisdevelopment to determine if the trend consolidatesand accelerates as companies respond to climaterelated risks and opportunities and look to thrive in aresource constrained environment.

Of the companies that reported decreases inemissions in 2016 (37% of responding companies),the main reason given for the decline was theimplementation of emissions reduction activities(72%), confirming the efforts by the largestcompanies in Portugal and Spain to adapt theirbusinesses to the realities of a low carbon economy.

While interesting, these absolute aggregatedemissions figures mask interesting and divergenttrends observed both at the sectoral level and interms of emissions intensity. For instance, of thelargest emitting sectors or “those to watch”,Industrials saw a large and significant decline inScope 1 and 2 emissions (-12%) in terms of absoluteemissions. Perhaps more importantly, all of theresponding companies in the sector reportedreductions in their emissions intensity measured perunit of output (revenue). While still early to draw any

2. CDP has improved the precision of aggregateScope 2 calculations, by including additionalquestions about the nature of Scope 2emissions in the CDP questionnaire as well as bystatistically correcting aggregate figures to avoiddouble counting, especially in regards toemissions reported by companies in the Utilitiessector.

3. Due to annual fluctuations in the makeup ofthe Iberian sample of responding companies,caution is suggested when reporting onaggregate year-on-year comparisons in Scope 1and Scope 2 emissions. To facilitate an accuratelike for like comparison of aggregate as well assector based emissions performance we haveperformed additional trend calculations, basedonly on emissions data provided by companiesthat have responded in both 2015 and 2016 (46companies). Percentage changes reported inthis section refer to the aggregate emissionschanges reported in the past two years bycompanies that have responded to the CDPquestionnaire in both years.


definitive conclusions especially until a positive trendcan be confirmed, these data suggest thatcompanies in the sector are making important stridesin de-coupling carbon emissions from revenuegrowth. This will be an important characteristic ofcompanies that seek to thrive, let alone survive, in afuture that will be marked by serious and growingcarbon constraints.

The absolute level of emissions reported by theMaterials sector remain largely unchanged from theprevious year despite the fact that three quarters ofresponding companies in the sector noted anincrease in emissions from the previous year.Reported emissions reductions were largely due tofalling output or divestments rather than emissionsreduction activities.

On a less positive note, the Energy sectorexperienced a large increase in reported Scope 1(43%) while companies in the Utilities sector reporteda modest uptick in Scope 1 emissions (+1%) andslightly more pronounced increase in Scope 2emissions (+5%). While hardly surprising given thegeneral correlation between carbon emissions andGDP growth in these two sectors taking intoconsideration the current energy mix in Spain andPortugal, the increase in emissions in these sectors isnonetheless noteworthy given their significance in

facilitating a transition to a low carbon economy forcompanies in other sectors.

However, a deeper dive into the data revealsinteresting details that give context to this finding andsuggests some encouraging facts. For instance,despite the overall emissions growth in the utilitiessector, the fact that all but one of the respondingcompanies in the sector reported reductions inemissions intensity as measured per unit of revenuesuggests that companies in the sector are showingsteady improvement in terms of positioningthemselves to thrive in a low carbon economy.Likewise, in the energy sector most of the reportedincrease in emissions in 2016 was linked to thereported emissions increase of a single company,Repsol. This large increase was mainly due to thecompany’s acquisition of the Canadian energycompany Talisman and to a lesser extent outputgrowth in its existing facilities.

Responding companies have also made great stridesin terms of ensuring the validity and reliability of theemissions data provided. For instance, eight in 10 ofthe responding companies report having some kindof third party assurance for their Scope 1 & Scope 2emissions. However, in the majority of cases, thescope and intensity of the analysis is narrow leavingample room for improvement in this area.

14


15

Figure 14. Trends in total emissions (Scope 1 & 2) 2010 - 2016

Scope 1

Figure 16. Emissions change from previous the year - CC12.1

Decreased

Scope 2

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

35

30

25

20

15

10

0

2010(46)

2011(48)

2012(48)

2013(52)

2014(51)

2015(52)

2016(52)

Figure 18. Reported change in gross global emissions (Scope 1 and 2 combined) for the reporting year compared to the previous year

Decreased Increased


ConsumerStaples

Energy

Financials

Health Care

Industrials


Materials


Utilities

0% 80% 100%60%40%20%

25.00% 75.00%

66.67%

75.00%

60.00%

33.33%

25.00%

100.00%

100.00%

40.00%

55.56%

33.33%

25.00%

57.14%

44.44%

66.67%

75.00%

42.86%

Figure 15. Reasons for decrease of emissions 2016- CC12.1a

44

322

3

3

4

Emissions reductionactivities Divestment

Change in methodology Change in output

Unidentified

Other

Change in boundary

257

2 16

8

11 11

Change in output Acquisitions Change in physical

operating conditionsChange in methodology Other

Emissions reductionactivitiesUnidentifiedChange in boundary

2014 2015 2016

Figure 17. Reasons for increase of emissions 2016- CC12.1a

This is our first year of estimationIncreased

33

17

1

30

19

0

32

19

1


Climate investment and action in Iberia: varyinglevel of performance suggests more needs tobe done to broaden the scope, level and rigourof reported commitmentsIn terms of climate change planning and action, theCOP21 conference held last winter in Paris markedan important point of inflection, strengthening theinstitutional and policy framework to vigorouslyencourage and credibly monitor collective actionfrom both the public and private spheres aimed atlimiting and mitigating the most destructive effects ofglobal climate change. As such, this year’s CDPreport is intended to act as a baseline of sorts tomonitor and evaluate the current level of corporateambition and progress in regards to both emissionsreduction activities as well as target setting,particularly in terms of the adoption of science-based objectives.

Iberian responding companies reported a sharp risein both the monetary investments in initiativesdesigned to respond to risks and opportunitiesposed by climate change as well as the total numberof discrete emissions reduction initiativesimplemented. For instance, the number ofinitiatives implemented in 2015 totalled 388,representing an increase of 12% from theprevious year, while the total reported monetaryinvestment in emissions reduction initiativesreached €27,254 million in the reporting year,nearly triple the level of investment registered inthe previous two years.

However, it should be noted that the level ofinvestments is highly concentrated and uneven whenexamined on a sectoral level. For instance, 94% ofthe total investments in emissions reductionactivities reported in 2016 were concentrated inthe utilities sector, of which, nearly 90% was

claimed by a single company, Iberdrola. In fact,Iberdrola accounted for nearly 84% of the totalinvestment in emissions reduction activities reportedby responding companies in the 2016 reportingperiod, suggesting the uneven nature of respondingcompanies’ commitments to dedicating the level ofresources needed to effectively combat climatechange. Interestingly, most of this investment was inincreasing the company’s renewable energyproduction capacity signalling a continued effort toposition the company for a future with a dramaticallyreduced role for fossil fuels in electricity generation.The concentration of investment in emissionsreduction activities in the utilities sector is hardlysurprising or unusual given the relative weight of thesector in total emissions among the respondingcompanies (31% of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions)as well as the strategic nature of the sector insupplying the infrastructure and product (cleanenergy) needed by companies in other sectors toaccelerate a transition to a low carbon economy. Onthe other end of the distribution, companies inseveral other important sectors as defined bytheir impact on total reported emissionscontinue to show slow uptake in makinginvestment on emissions reduction activities.Companies in the Materials, Industrial andEnergy sectors reported investments rangingfrom 0.1% to 0.3% of total reported investmentswhile accounting for 49%, 11% and 7% of totalScope 1 and 2 emissions, respectively in 2016.

In terms of emission reduction initiatives, the largestincrease over the past year was in eliminating fugitive/ process emissions (+70%) and in improving theenergy efficiency of processes (+33%), suggestingthat responding companies are increasingly lookingfor ways to challenge the status quo and adapt theirbusiness operations and processes to the realities of

16

Figure 19. Emissions verification by responding companies (2016) – Scope 1 & 2

62%

7%

23%

8%

66%

4%

21%

9%Limited assurance

Moderate assurance

Reasonable assurance

Third party verification/assurance underway

Scope 1 Scope 2


an increasingly resource constrained world.Interestingly, energy efficiency improvements havebeen linked with increased productivity, businessresilience and improved performance on a number ofsustainability indicators.

In a similar vein, initiatives designed to reduceemissions linked to transportation grew vigorouslyover the past year (+30%) further confirming a strongcommitment by Iberian companies to optimize thecarbon intensity of their business operations. Theseinitiatives are also noteworthy in that road transportaccounts for slightly over 20% of the carbon footprintin Spain and Portugal and offer immediate andrealistic opportunities for decarbonisation thatcompanies can take advantage of. In addition,investments in transportation related initiatives areamong the most effective emissions reductionactivities both in terms of the short payback period(largely within three years of the initial investment) aswell as in terms of the linked emissions saving perunit of investment. For instance, transportationinitiatives saved, on average, approximately8,700 metric tons of CO2e on an annual basisper € 1 million of investment, making it amongthe most effective areas of investment forcompanies looking to reduce their carbonfootprint in the short term.

While the level of total reported investmentsincreased dramatically over the last year, theestimated annual CO2e savings associated with theimplementation of the emission reduction activitiesdeclined somewhat, providing some evidence of a

diminishing cost effectiveness of these projects.Specifically, in 2015 the estimated cost to reducea metric ton of CO2e was €377. That figureclimbed to an estimated €1,080 in 2016,suggesting a trend towards the diminishingreturns of emissions reduction activities goingforward. This is not surprising given the increasingmarginal cost of reducing carbon emissions once“low-hanging fruit” initiatives have been implemented.Increased level of sophistication and complexity willbe required for future initiatives as companies seek tocomply with the ambitious objectives needed toreach the goal of limiting temperature increases to2ºC over pre-industrial levels.

Target settingAmbitious targets with short-term results and alonger-term horizon are a necessary condition forachieving the GHG emissions reductions that will putus on a trajectory to achieve the 2ºC maximumwarming goal. Results on this front among theresponding companies in Spain and Portugal aremixed but with some noteworthy improvements overthe past years. Importantly, a quarter of the reportedemissions reduction targets included a timeframe ofover 10 years, while only 36% had a temporalhorizon below three years, representing a significantimprovement over the previous year. For instance, inthe 2015 reporting period, nearly six in ten emissionsreduction targets reported by responding companieshad timeframes of three years or less, suggesting agreater emphasis on longer-term climate planning byparticipating Iberian companies in the currentreporting cycle.

17

Figure 20. Distribution of Emissions Reduction Initiatives by category 2015-2016 CC3.3b

2016 2015

Energy Efficiency

Renewable energy

Transportation

Behavioral change

Fugitive / processemissions reductions

Other

Product design

Waste recovery

Green project finance

0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 21. Investments related to emissions reductioninitiatives, associated annual monetary and estimated annualCO2e savings (CC3.3b)

Estimated annual CO2e savings (MtCO2e)

Annual monetary savings (M€)

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Investment required (M€)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

M€

MtC

O2e


However, the scale and ambition of the reductioncommitments vary significantly across sectors. For example, the majority of the reduction targetsas measured on an absolute basis have beenreported by companies in the Utilities sector. Inaddition, responding companies in the sectorreport relatively ambitious levels of yearly reductiontargets of nearly 7% of their total Scope 1 andScope 2 emissions.

In contrast, companies in the Materials sector,responsible for nearly half of the reported total CO2eemissions among participating companies, reportedfew and very modest reduction targets. Reportedaverage annual emissions targets in the Materialssector are only 0.01% of the current total (Scope 1 & 2)emissions of the responding companies, a reductiontrajectory insufficient to meet the target of limitingtemperature increases to 2oC above pre-industrial

levels, even taking into account important sectoralattributes that limit, somewhat, the potentialreductions without substantial changes in productiontechnology and facilities design.

On an overall basis, responding Iberian companiesreported an average yearly reduction of slightlyabove 2% of total current emissions, representing aslight improvement compared to the previous year.While it is difficult to calculate with certainty anappropriate overall reduction target given importantcompany and sectoral variations, the reportedaverage reduction target appears to be insufficientto meet the emissions reduction targets required tolimit the most catastrophic effects of global climatechange. This gains relevance in light of the veryambitious nationally determined contributions (NDC)negotiated and agreed to during the recent COP21conference.

18

Figure 22. Absolute emissions reduction targets (2016) by timeframe

Total Emissions Reduction target (Thousand t CO2)

> 25 years (12)

16-25 years (4)

11-15 years (9)

4-10 years (38)

2-3 years (14)

< 1or 1 year (22)

0,0 50,000,000.0 100,000,000.0 150,000,000.0 200,000,000.0 250,000,000.0

Emissions Yearly reduction (Scope 1 + 2 ) as % of Yearly reduction targets (absolute)

Scope 1+2 total of responding targets (absolute) as % of Scope SECTOR tCO2e companies tCO2e 1 + 2 emissions

Materials 193,189,742 50% 13,739.3 0.01%Utilities 117,668,140 31% 8,198,780.7 6.97%Industrials 41,585,956 11% 416,332.0 1.00%Energy 25,705,281 7% 189,905.0 0.74%Consumer Staples 2,459,749 1% 13,909.5 0.57%Telecommunication Services 1,766,444 0% 84,290.6 4.77%Consumer Discretionary 1,397,655 0% 35,299.4 2.53%Financials 839,723 0% 47,040.7 5.60%Health Care 206,477 0% 6,887.5 3.34%Information Technology 63,873 0% 0.0 0.00%

TOTAL 384,883,039.9 100% 9,006,184.6 2.34%

Table 2: Sectoral breakdown of emissions reduction targets


Víctor ViñualesExecutive Director of ECODES

The Paris agreement has limitations, but it marks aturning point in Humankind’s fight against climatechange. And for its triumph, also important was theenormous activity deployed by CDP before thesummit and at the summit itself.

The CDP Iberia report is presented just a few daysbefore the Paris Agreement enters into force theupcoming 4th of November. The fast ratification ofthe agreement by the main states is magnificentnews and clearly indicates that this time thecommitment of the international community isserious.

Now, after the ratification by the governments, it istime for the institutional, business and social actorsas well as for all other people to “ratify it”. Thecompliance of the agreement commits us all, andnow is the time for action, as rightly stated by theupcoming Climate Summit in Marrakech. It is time tocomply, to do, time to act.

A great amount of the large companies, as this reportrightly points out, are already on the right track. Theyare already doing, they are already measuring theiremissions, they already reduce them, and alreadycompensate them. For them, it is a question ofincreasing their objectives, so that they are ambitiousand in line with the Paris agreement and with whatthe science demands from us.

However, for the large companies to increase theirreduction targets and for the whole of the businesssector to mobilise and work efficiently to fulfil theParis Agreement the convergent demand of threesectors is required: we need for the financial sectorto reward companies with the best behaviour againstclimate change. We need that the PublicAdministrations, through their purchases, encouragemore climate-friendly companies and we need themto also do so through regulations that provideincentives for leading companies and sanctions forcompanies that are behind. And it is also necessaryfor the consumers to reward the most energy-efficient companies.

The complementary action of these three demandswill create an atmosphere in which low-carboneconomy will flourish. That is the objective. That isthe need.

19

The compliance ofthe agreementcommits us all, and now is the timefor action.

2015 was the year in which the tide shifted. The Popespoke clearly through the encyclical Laudato si’. Obamaspoke clearly in a joint statement with more than 80large companies of the US. A number of companies,councils and regions from around the world anticipatedto the Paris Climate Summit and decided to assumetheir own objectives and commitments, guided by theirown conscience. And, especially, 2015 was the year inwhich the entire International Community, all the Statesand peoples of the Earth, agreed to work together sothat the temperature does not rise more than twodegrees, and ideally, does not rise more than 1.5degrees. It was the triumph of reason and hope.


20

PwC CommentaryNew challenges for companies in the globalsustainability agenda

The Paris Agreement has contributed in theestablishment of a commitment that should preventglobal temperature to rise by more than 2ºC. To date,62 countries have ratified the agreement includingUSA, China and the European Union.

This year, the 2030 Agenda for the implementation ofthe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) hascome into force. This agenda will serve asinternational roadmap to manage firms’ sustainabilitypriorities and agenda.

Likewise, the launch of the Natural Capital Protocol,a tool for the holistic assessment of environmentalimpacts, shows the necessity for companies to beable to generate reliable information on theiroperations environmental risks and impacts, as wellas to quantify and monetize those impacts to takebetter-informed decisions.

The global agenda highlights the need to move fromwords into action. GHG emission reduction targetsare ambitious. To meet commitments agreed in Paris,the global economy would require from an intensedecarbonisation to ensure an annual reduction of6.2% of its carbon intensity from now up to 2100.

Current carbon intensity will be only reduced by 3%annually due to international targets agreed so far. Itis therefore necessary to increase the ambition,beyond what was agreed at the COP 21, toaccelerate the transition path towards a low carboneconomy. Countries shall commit further in reducingtheir GHG emissions4 and that will require fromgreater effort from all economic sectors (both ETSand non-ETS). At national level, efforts shall beplaced in defining specific targets beyond 2020 anddistributing efforts between ETS and non-ETSsectors.

Public administrations play a key role in thistransition. As regulatory bodies, generating toolseither to allocate obligations to businesses or toencourage sustainable practices; as financingentities, providing companies with resources to investin emission reduction activities, or as knowledge-generating institutions, providing companies withdata to integrate climate change in their activities.

According to the annual Global CEO Survey,conducted by PwC, global markets increasinglyperceive the need to integrate climate change asstrategic criteria in their decision-making process.

Companies must reshape their sustainability targetsto meet the new international commitments withrenewed ambition. Special emphasis shall be put onsetting emission reduction targets that effectivelycontribute to constrain the global temperatureincrease below the 2ºC limit.

This reshaping process is critical to succeed inadapting to those risks arisen from the low carbontransition process, particularly those related toclimate policies tightening and their impact oncompanies’ investments, credits or marketstrategies.

Additional risks will come from the increasingpressure from stakeholders, particularly frominvestors and financial institutions. This year, the TaskForce on Climate - Related Financial Disclosures,from which PwC is a member, has been launched.This organization aims at creating voluntarystandards and guidelines to help companies inreporting information on third-party financed assetslikely to be affected by climate risks.

Private sector involvement is critical in this transitionprocess. PwC is developing tools to supportcompanies in changing the current economic model,integrating climate change issues in their risks mapsand managing tools; setting up internal carbonpricing values; helping them to consideropportunities coming from climate financemechanisms; assessing impacts on natural capitalalong their products and services value chain, oranalyzing their contribution and impact on theachievement of Sustainable Development Goals, etc.

Companies will be more competitive as long as theyare able to understand how these new challengeswill affect its regulatory, economic, social andenvironmental context, as well as its reputation. Thetransition towards a low carbon economy, alongwith all commitments coming from theimplementation of the Sustainable DevelopmentGoals, will materialize in new opportunities for theprivate sector. In the context of a new greeneconomy, more focused into sustainability, Spanishfirms will have an opportunity to take a leadingposition, improve their competitiveness andcapitalize their strengths.

Mª Luz Castilla PorquetPatner in the Sustainability and Climate Change team of PwC

It is necessary toincrease theambition, beyondwhat was agreed atthe COP 21, toaccelerate thetransition pathtowards a lowcarbon economy.

At international level, new commitments and ambitiouschallenges are setting out the path for companies intheir move towards sustainability.

4. Through their Contributions included in theirIntended Nationally DeterminedContributions (INDCs)


Emerging trends in the Post COP21 period in Spain and Portugal

Moreover, the COP21 conference signalled theurgency of action required to limit global climatechange and has served as a catalyst to encourageand guide needed corporate efforts that will enable acoordinated public/private effort to limit globalwarming to 2ºC over the next several decades.According to the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC), reaching the upper bound increaseof 2°C implies lowering global emissions ofgreenhouse gases between 40% and 70% by mid-century compared to 2010 and nearly eliminatingcarbon emissions by century’s end.

Despite ample room for improvement, responses tothe 2016 CDP questionnaire in Spain and Portugalconfirm this renewed and encouraging effort byresponding companies to prepare and pave the wayfor a low carbon economy in the coming years. In thissection, we examine current performance andanalyze future risks and opportunities in three keyareas of action linked closely to the results of theCOP21 conference. These include: the use of sciencebased methodologies for emissions reduction targetsetting, the use of internal carbon pricing, and theemphasis on low carbon alternatives, both in terms ofenergy production and consumption as well as interms of the commercialization of low carbonproducts and services.

Target setting – Iberian companies getting onboard with the science based targets but stillneed to be more ambitious in their goal settingIncreasingly, companies are being asked to basetheir reduction targets on the most up to dateclimate science in order to account for importantcompany differences in terms of size, scale andrelative contribution to global warming. Known as

“science-based” targets, they define differentsectoral and company reduction pathways forachieving overall climate change mitigationobjectives by taking into account important sectoraldifferences in terms of relative contributions toglobal warming as well as past emissions reductionefforts, realistic reduction potentials, disparateregulatory obligations and different growthpotentials. The Science Based Targets Initiative(SBTI) defines science-based targets as those thatare in line with the level of decarbonisation requiredto keep global temperature increase below 2°Ccompared to preindustrial temperatures, asdescribed in the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).5 Science Based Targets - a joint initiative byCDP, the UN Global Compact (UNGC), the WorldResources Institute (WRI) and WWF are workingwith companies to incorporate science basedtargeting into their overall climate change planningsystems. One such approach, the SectoralDecarbonisation Approach (SDA), allow companiesto derive their science-based emission reductiontargets based on their relative contribution to thetotal sector activity and their carbon intensityrelative to the sector’s intensity in the base year.6

Despite the varied recent performance by Iberiancompanies in terms of emissions reductions,investments and target setting, the recent COP21conference has served as a catalyst to embracebolder and more rigorous climate planning and actionby Iberian companies that is expected to paydividends in the coming years and decades. Forinstance, 15 companies, or nearly 30% of theresponding sample, reported that they use science-based targeting methods during the process ofinternal climate change planning. An additional 16companies, or 31% of the total responders, indicatedthat they anticipated incorporating SBT into theirclimate change planning in the next two years,meaning that by 2018 more than six in 10responding companies will use a scientificallyrigorous methodology for determining an appropriateemissions reduction pathway. As an indication of thiscommitment, a total of nine Iberian companies havealready signed up to the Science Based TargetsInitiative7, representing 5% of the total globalcorporations that have joined the project.

However, despite these positive developments, thecurrent overall emissions reduction targets reportedby responding Spanish and Portuguese companies

21

The recent COP21 conference was a landmark eventthat succeeding in gaining explicit and formalagreements from hundreds of governments to deepentheir climate change commitments and implementformal policies and regulations to mitigate the negativeeffects of global warming.

5. http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/science-based-targets-initiative

6. http://www.sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/The_Sectoral_Decarbonization_Approach.pdf

7. http://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action/

Figure 23. % of companies with science-based target

No, and we do not anticipate settingone in the next 2 years/ Don't know/

Don't provide targets

No, but we anticipate setting one in the next 2 years

Yes

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

31%

29%


are for the most part inadequate and lacking thetransformative power that the situation demandsgiven the magnitude of the environmental and socialproblems linked to climate change. With a fewnotable exceptions the reported reduction levels andestimated implementation timeframes look to beinsufficiently ambitious to help meet the NDCsagreed to in the recent COP21 conference.However, the growing adoption by Spanish andPortuguese companies of science based targetingtechniques – 35% of all of the reported reductiontargets are determined using science basedmethodologies – is a positive sign of the growinguse of more rigorous processes to determineappropriate decarbonisation pathways. We expect agrowing number of Iberian companies to adoptscience based targeting in the near future. Andsimilar to how the COP21 allows signatory countriesto amend their commitments through its “globalstock-take” provision, under which nations cansubmit stronger pledges by 2020, companies should

perform similar evaluations in order to ensure thattheir carbon reduction objectives are in line with themost up to date climate science.

Carbon pricing – Iberian companies arepreparing to thrive as global climate controlsbecome more stringentCarbon pricing schemes of varying scope and varyingenforcement regimes have been adopted or are in theplanning stages in about 40 countries and more than20 sub-national jurisdictions.8 In addition, it is an issuethat is steadily gaining prominence among majorcorporations although it is currently not living up to itsfull potential as a climate change mitigation tool due tothe very low current price of carbon in the relevantmarkets. For instance, carbon prices in Europe arehovering around €5 a ton9, hardly enough to neithersignificantly affect the bottom line of companies in theregulated sectors nor force companies in unregulatedsectors to implement a serious internal program thatfeatures setting an internal price for carbon. Despitethese limitations, currently 55% of respondingcompanies report that they are already using aninternal price of carbon (40%) or plan to do so withinthe next two years (15%). These levels represent aslight increase from the previous year and continue alonger trend of increasing usage of internal carbonpricing among Iberian responding companies.

Moreover, the international climate deal agreed inParis last December is poised to alter the long-termpathway for companies and accelerate this trendover the coming years. The agreement fosters atightening global climate regime over the next severaldecades, including future carbon penalties in order tobend the emissions growth curb and put us back ona trajectory of a maximum temperature increase of2ºC above pre-industrial levels. As some form ofcarbon pricing becomes mandated in the near future

22

Figure 24. Absolute target is a Science-based target

4

26

36

23

11

Figure 25. Intensity target is a Science-based target

2

21

35

36

6

Don't know

No, and we do not anticipatesetting one in the next 2 years

No, but we anticipate settingone in the next 2 years

No, but we are reporting anothertarget which is science-based

Yes

8. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon

9. ICE Futures Europe EU Allowances price onSeptember 23 2016

By 2018 more than sixin 10 respondingcompanies will use ascientifically rigorousmethodology fordetermining anappropriate emissionsreduction pathway.


the business outlook will be more positive forcompanies with access to energy sources that arelow carbon or renewable. Companies that anticipatethese developments by, among other things,incorporating internal carbon pricing schemes intotheir business planning and operation will be wellpositioned to take advantage of these developments.

While these reported advances in terms of internalcarbon pricing in the Iberian market areencouraging and commendable, companies needto make greater strides in fully capturing the costsassociated with the negative impacts of carbonemissions. Failure to do so will lead to inappropriateprice signals for carbon related pollution as well asan insufficient allocation of resources assigned toemissions reduction activities and investments. Dueto the limited scope and relative novelty of thecurrent carbon markets and associated carbonpricing schemes, the price assigned to carbon oftenfails to incorporate an accounting of the entire arrayof damages caused by carbon emissions. Supplyand demand at current levels of development anduse are not attuned enough to set an appropriatecarbon price. There are several other optionsavailable to companies that are using an internalprice of carbon scheme to assess in economicterms the full impact of their carbon emissions.These integrated models combine scenarios ofclimate change with economic growth forecasts forcalculating damages attributable to climate changeand make estimates of total carbon costs tosociety. These techniques include:

Marginal cost of mitigation – a calculationwhich reflects the costs needed to reduceemissions of greenhouse gases to a level that willstabilize the climate and avoid catastrophicclimate change (generally acknowledged to be an80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions compared

to 1990 levels for developed economies). This is adifferent calculation than solely accounting for thevalue of the damages imposed on society by thenegative effects of global warming).

Social cost of carbon – a concept thatmeasures the costs imposed by an incrementalunit of greenhouse gases emitted today,assuming the cost of the damage imposed duringthe entire time that it is in the atmosphere.

As an example, the Department of Energy andClimate Change in the UK has made an estimate ofthe economic costs of mitigating the environmentaldamage caused by emissions of greenhouse gases(central estimate of £ 59 (€ 74.52) per tonne of CO2

equivalent) while the Department of Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has estimated thecost of damage to society caused by climate changeto be an estimated £ 29.8 (€ 37.64) per tonne of CO2

in 2015.

The gradual increase in the use of internal carbonpricing is expected to continue, gaining insophistication and complexity in the coming years.Nearly half of the responding Iberian companies arealready using an internal carbon price as a strategicplanning and accounting tool, despite seriousshortcomings in the existing carbon markets whichhinders the ability to get accurate pricing signals.This, however, is expected to correct itself as moregovernments across the globe adopt carbon pricingschemes. The European Union is among the leadersin this respect. Moreover, businesses are increasinglycalling on governments to implement a rigorouscarbon pricing platform or scheme as a predictableand realistic carbon price represents an importanttool to help guide consumption choices andinvestments in infrastructure and innovation on acorporate level.

Transition to low carbon alternativesA clean energy transition based primarily onrenewable sources is a strategic necessity in order toput us on a path towards a sustainable globaleconomy. This involves the increasing decoupling ofeconomic growth from resource usage based onprinciples of eco-efficiency. This transformation willno doubt require significant investments fromgovernments as well as businesses and the enablingrole of the financial sector to ensure thatenvironmental and sustainability concerns informlending and financing decisions. For instance,according to the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, annually investing approximately 1.25%of world GDP in energy efficiency and renewableenergies could cut global primary energy demand by9% in 2020 and by about 40% by 2050. Resultsfrom the 2016 CDP Iberia report on this front arepromising but mixed.

For instance, investments in renewable energy,primarily in increasing production capacity in the

23

Figure 26. Responding companies use of internal price of carbon – CC2.2c

2015 2016

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%Yes No, but we

anticipate doing so in the next 2 years

No, and we currently don't anticipate doingso in the next 2 years

NA


utilities sector, ranked first in terms of emissionsreduction investments in 2016, surpassing energyefficiency as the main investment driver forresponding Iberian companies. Investments inrenewable energy totalled over €15,000 million,accounting for 55% of total reported investments inemissions reduction activities and representing afourfold increase over the previous year. Of the totalelectricity produced by the responding Utilitycompanies in the Iberian sample in 2016, 34% wasreported to come from renewable sources. However,it should be noted that the major part of thisinvestment is attributable to one company, Iberdrola,which made sizable investments to expand itsrenewable production capacity in 2015.

Interestingly, 13 responding companies or 25% of thesample, report having renewable energyconsumption targets. Overall the targets areambitious, with six companies including targets tosource 100% of their electricity from renewablesources. An additional five companies (four of thembelonging to the Utilities sector) report having settargets for renewable electricity production.

A majority of the responding companies in Spain andPortugal continue to invest in renewable as a meansof reducing their carbon footprint. In 2016, 78% ofPortuguese companies and half of the Spanishresponding companies reported investing in lowcarbon installation and/or purchase, a level similar to

the previous year and significantly higher than theglobal average.

Low carbon products and servicesIn addition to important transformations in the Utilities,Energy and Transportation sectors as well as anoverhaul of industrial production techniques andfacilities, a transition to a more sustainable, low carboneconomy will require the production and sale of moreeco-efficient, low carbon products and services orthose that facilitate a reduction or avoidance of GHGemissions. On this front, responding companies inSpain and Portugal appear to be well positioned totake advantage of market opportunities linked toclimate change mitigation. For instance, 42 respondingcompanies or 81% of the total reported sellingproducts or services that they classified as being lowcarbon. However, upon closer scrutiny, this figureappears considerably overstated, as a significantnumber of descriptions provided by the respondingcompanies failed to adequately describe thecharacteristics that made the products and/or serviceslow carbon. After a more careful review of the details ofcompany responses, 25 responding companies orabout half of the total were deemed to have providedenough information to corroborate the responses ofhaving low carbon products. This figure remains verypositive and demonstrates a commitment by asubstantial portion of responding Iberian companies totailor their company offerings to the growing demandfor eco-efficient products and services.

24

Figure 27. Main Investment Areas – Emissions Reduction Activities (2016)

No Yes

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Monetary Investments Monetary Savings Estimated annual CO2e

savings (metric tonnes CO2e)

Figure 28. Classification of existing goods and/orservices as low carbon products

10

42

Behavioral change

Other

Green project finance

Transportation

Product design

Fugitive / process emissions reductions

Energy Efficiency

Renewable energy


Key takeaways

Iberian companies in a number of sectors, includingUtilities, Financials and Consumer Staples are showingpromising signs of being in the early stages of atransformation that will allow them, to differing degrees,to decouple company growth from carbon emissions.These companies are expected to benefit from reducedrisks tied to future fossil fuel uncertainty as well asincrease their climate resilience and reduce theiroperating costs tied to the consumption of energy andraw materials. As one of many examples, for instance,Inditex the global apparel retailing powerhousereported a reduction in total Scope 1 + 2 emissions in2016 despite registering healthy growth in both salesand the number of garments placed on the market.The company attributes this result to as number ofenergy-efficiency and emissions-saving measuresapplied in 2015, including the construction of over 300new eco-efficient stores and the installation ofrenewable energy systems in a number of their retailoutlets.

While promising, these processes needs to accelerateand extend to all of the companies and sectors if weare to meet the very ambitious decarbonisation goalsset out in the COP21 conference and raise thepossibility of avoiding the worst impacts of climatechange on human welfare and the global economy.Based on the above analysis, several key takeawaysemerge that attest to the consolidation and expansionof Iberian companies’ efforts to combat global climatechange. These include:

Climate change management: Iberian companiescontinue to exhibit a high degree of integration ofclimate change in key management structures andprocesses.

Nine out of 10 responding companies reportrewarding top executives for climate changeprogress, a 60% increase over the past five years.

Nearly 90% of responding companies externallyverify their emissions.

All of the responding companies have implementedemissions reduction activities, while all but three havestated emissions reduction targets.

Emissions performance: Overall emissionsincreased among responding companies in 2016,but a majority of companies saw their carbonintensity go down.

Robust economic growth drove up reportedemissions in 2016, as approximately 60% ofresponding companies reported emissions increasesin 2016, reversing a multi-year trend of a majority ofcompanies reporting emissions decreases.

Nonetheless, the carbon intensity (measured as apercentage of output) of a majority of respondingcompanies (60%) declined in 2016, signalling amovement towards a decoupling of emissions formoutput growth.

Of the largest emitting sectors, Industrials registeredthe most positive performance, with companiesreporting an average decline of 12% in absoluteScope 1 and 2 emissions. All of the respondingcompanies in the sector reported declines in theiremissions intensity.

Investments in climate change mitigation: Totalinvestments increased considerably in 2016 butwere heavily concentrated in the Utilities sector.

The number of reported emissions reductionactivities grew by 12% in 2016 compared to theprevious year while total monetary investmentsincreased threefold to reach €27,254 million.

Reported investments were heavily concentrated in2016 as 94% of total investments were reported bycompanies in the Utilities sector and 84% of the totalreported by a single company, Iberdrola.

The reported cost effectiveness of emission reductionactivities fell dramatically in 2016 – from an estimated€377 investment needed to reduce a metric ton ofCO2e in 2015 to €1,080 in 2016, suggesting a needto redouble efforts to develop and implement costeffective solutions to respond to the challengesposed by climate change.

Emissions reduction targeting: The averagereduction targets of responding companiesincreased slightly in 2016, but important sectoraldifferences remain.

The overall emissions reduction targets reported byresponding Spanish and Portuguese companies arefor the most part inadequate and lacking thetransforming power that the situation demands giventhe magnitude of the environmental and socialproblems linked to climate change. With a fewnotable exceptions the reported reduction levels andestimated implementation timeframes look to beinsufficiently ambitious to help meet the NDCsagreed to in the recent COP21 conference

Transition to the low carbon economy: Iberiancompanies continue to demonstrate leadership inuse of renewable energy.

A majority of the responding companies in Spain andPortugal continue to invest in renewable energy as ameans of reducing their carbon footprint. In 2016,78% of Portuguese companies and half of theSpanish responding companies reported investing inlow carbon installation and/or purchase.

25% of the responding companies reported havingrenewable energy consumption targets in 2016.

Carbon pricing: Use of an internal price of carbongains traction among responding companies as aclimate change planning and mitigation tool.

40% of the responding Iberian companies reportusing carbon pricing as a strategic planning andaccounting tool.

An additional 15% of the responding companies areplanning to incorporate internal carbon pricing in thenear future.

Science based targets: A growing number ofIberian companies are adopting scientific rigour indetermining reduction targets.

Slightly over a third of responding Spanish andPortuguese companies report that they are usingscientific methodologies to determine reductiontargets, signalling the growing use of more rigorousprocesses to determine appropriate decarbonisationpathways.

25


Company Interview: Iberdrola

What is Iberdrola’s position in regards of Paris’agreement?The Paris Agreement means acknowledging theneed to commit to an ambitious decarbonisationscenario that implies progress towards a highlyefficient decarbonised energy model, whereelectricity has a leading role to play. In fact, the IEA450 ppm scenario is increasingly recognised as theBAU scenario by most key global players.

Iberdrola is already a benchmark as regards to thecontribution of the electricity subsector towardsattaining a scenario that is coherent with the 2oCtarget, as a result of the structure of its energy mix,its investment profile and the commitments that ithas already undertaken.

The process has now entered a new stage and it isessential to keep up the climate change momentumthat has been achieved and to promote effective,efficient implementation of the Paris Agreementfollowing a comprehensive list of general principles.Some of the most important are included below:

All sectors of the economy should contributetowards attaining the 2oC target.

Electrification is the way to decarbonise the energysector, which is a key aspect in achieving the targetthat has been set and making the most of all thebenefits that come along with enhancing air qualityand reducing pollution at local level.

Carbon pricing mechanisms are the most importanttool that governments have to send out a strongsignal that can promote the transition towards a low-carbon economy. For this to be so, thesemechanisms have to be designed according to the“polluter pays” principle and affect all sectors of theeconomy.

The standardisation and transparency of informationshould be promoted to achieve a sustained increasein the level of climate ambition and boostingcollaboration between the Parties.

Climate change is a risk for the economy as a wholeand for the industrial and financial sectors inparticular. It is important to bear in mind the impactsderived from climate change itself and the risksassociated to a late and sudden transition towards alow-carbon economy.

How is your business promoting natural capitalstewardship on water, deforestation andclimate risks?Iberdrola has incorporated Sustainable DevelopmentGoals into its strategy and, in line with its activity,Iberdrola focuses its efforts on an affordable andnon-contaminating energy supply (goal 7) and actionfor the climate (goal 13). In addition, the Groupcontributes directly to ensuring clean water andsanitation (goal 6), to respect for the life of landecosystems (goal 15) and to the formation ofpartnerships to achieve these goals (goal 17).

Iberdrola makes every effort to use water rationally andsustainably and tackle the risks related with its scarcity.In Iberdrola the amount of water consumed continuesto decrease, and is lower than all other utilities.

Iberdrola integrates climate change issues both interms of risk and opportunity in to its business plans.

The 2016-2020 Strategic Plan anticipated a positiveoutcome in the COP21 (Paris Agreement), whichreinforced our commitment with a sustainable modelbased on clean energy.

Furthermore, Iberdrola’s CO2 price scenario alsoconsidered the future prospects created by the ParisAgreement and its influence on fuel switching (naturalgas vs. coal).

How will Iberdrola position itself in a world thatwill not exceed a temperature increase of 2oC?Iberdrola´s growth strategy has been fully consistentwith an ambitious approach on climate changemitigation since it has been based on the significantdevelopment of renewable energy, primarily fromwind power. As a result, in the world ranking,Iberdrola has grown from the eleventh to the thirdutility over the last decade and at the same time 66%of Iberdrola’s capacity is emission free (and it hasemissions intensity 34% lower than the average ofthe EU electricity sector).

In 2009, coinciding with the Copenhagen climatesummit, Iberdrola set itself the target of reducing theintensity of its CO2 emissions by 30% by the year2020 compared to 2007, bringing them down to 210gr/kWh. Strengthening its commitment with climateaction, Iberdrola has publicly announced its goal for2030, as the company’s “contribution” to the COP inParis: to reduce the intensity of its CO2 emissions by50% in 2030 compared to the levels attained in 2007,bringing it down to 150 gr/kWh, which is in line withhaving a carbon-neutral electricity supply by 2050.

Iberdrola actions on climate change have beenrecognised by the CDP, Dow Jones SustainabilityIndex, FTSE4GOOD, ACCO Award, Carbon RankingGlobal 800, Newsweek’s Green Ranking and theRubin D´Honeur 2013 European Business Awards.

26

Gonzalo Sáenz de MieraDirector of Climate Change,Chairman Area, IberdrolaPhD on Applied Economics bythe Universidad Autónoma deMadrid and Master ofInternational Political Economyby Warwick University (UK)President of the SpanishAssociation for EnergyEconomics Vice-President of the SpanishGreen Growth Group Director of the Master onEnergy Business by theSpanish Club of Energy,teaches economics, energyand sustainability in severaluniversities


Communicating progress

Central to CDP’s mission is communicating theprogress companies have made in addressingenvironmental issues, and highlighting where risksmay be unmanaged. In order to do so in a moreintuitive way, CDP has adopted a streamlinedapproach to presenting scores in 2016. This newway to present scores measures a company’sprogress towards leadership using a 4 stepapproach: Disclosure which measures thecompleteness of the company’s response;

F: Failure to provide sufficient information to CDP be evaluated for this purpose10

10. Not all companies requested to respond to CDPdo so. Companies who are requested to disclosetheir data and fail to do so, or fail to provide sufficientinformation to CDP to be evaluated will receive an F.An F does not indicate a failure in environmentalstewardship.

Awareness considers the extent to which thecompany has assessed environmental issues, risksand impacts in relation to its business;Management which is a measure of the extent towhich the company has implemented actions,policies and strategies to address environmentalissues; and Leadership which looks for particularsteps a company has taken which represent bestpractice in the field of environmental management.

The scoring methodology clearly outlines how manypoints are allocated for each question and at the endof scoring, the number of points a company hasbeen awarded per level is divided by the maximumnumber that could have been awarded. The fractionis then converted to a percentage by multiplying by100 and rounded to the nearest whole number. Aminimum score of 75%, and/or the presence of aminimum number of indicators on one level will berequired in order to be assessed on the next level. Ifthe minimum score threshold is not achieved, thecompany will not be scored on the next level.

The final letter grade is awarded based on the scoreobtained in the highest achieved level. For example,Company XYZ achieved 88% in Disclosure level,76% in Awareness and 65% in Management willreceive a B. If a company obtains less than 40% inits highest achieved level, its letter score will have a

minus. For example, Company 123 achieved 76% inDisclosure level and 38% in Awareness level resultingin a C-. However, a company must achieve over 75%in Leadership to be eligible for an A and thus be partof the A List, which represents the highest scoringcompanies. In order to be part of the A-list acompany must score 75% in Leadership, not reportany significant exclusions in emissions and have atleast 70% of its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsverified by a third party verifier using one of theaccepted verification standards as outlined in thescoring methodology.

Public scores are available in CDP reports, throughBloomberg terminals, Google Finance and DeutscheBoerse’s website. CDP operates a strict conflict ofinterest policy with regards to scoring and this can beviewed at https://www.cdp.net/Documents/Guidance/2016/CDP-2016-Conflict-of-Interest-Policy.pdf

Comparing scores from previous years. It is important to note that the 2016 scoringapproach is fundamentally different from 2015, anddifferent information is requested, so 2015 and 2016scores are not directly comparable. However wehave developed a visual representation whichprovides some indication on how 2015 scores mighttranslate into 2016 scores. To use this table acompany can place its score in the table and see inwhich range it falls into in the current scoring levels.For more detailed instructions please refer to ourwebinar: https://vimeo.com/162087170.

27

Disclosure D-D

Awareness C-C

Management B-B

Leadership A-Leadership 75-100%

0-74%AA-

Management 40-74%0-39%

BB-

Awareness 40-74%0-39%

CC-

Disclosure 40-74%0-39%

DD-

A

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2015

Dis

clos

ure

scor

e

2015 Performance Score

E D C B A

AA-BB-CC-D

D-


A list

28

In 2016 sixteen Iberian companies of the sample andthree additional ones received the highest performanceband listing themselves in the A List of 2016. This includes six companies from the Utilities Sectorand five from the Industrial Sector.

Company Name Country GICS Sector 2016 Score

Abertis Infraestructuras Spain Industrials A

ACCIONA S.A. Spain Utilities A

Amadeus IT Holding Spain Information Technology A

CaixaBank Spain Financials A

ENAGAS Spain Utilities A

FERROVIAL Spain Industrials A

Gas Natural SDG SA Spain Utilities A

Grupo Logista Spain Industrials A

Iberdrola SA Spain Utilities A

Inditex Spain Consumer Discretionary A

MAPFRE Spain Financials A

Obrascon Huarte Lain (OHL) Spain Industrials A

R.E.E. Spain Utilities A

Telefonica Spain Telecommunication Services A

EDP - Energias de Portugal S.A. Portugal Utilities A

Galp Energia SGPS SA Portugal Energy A

Companies that are not in the sample

Abengoa Spain Industrials A

Caixa Geral de Depósitos Portugal Financials A

Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A.U. CEPSA Spain Energy A

Table 3:


SpainIn 2016, 40 companies did not respond to theclimate change reporting cycle. Most of these(above 75%) belong to the ConsumerDiscretionary, Materials and Financials sectors.33 (83%) companies did not show any sign ofengagement, resulting in a no response (NR),whereas 7 (18%) companies declined toparticipate (DP) and provided a reason as to whythey were not participating in CDP’s climate changeprogram this year.

The reasons provided by companies declining toparticipate are summarized in Figure 29. Onecompany stated that they were unable to discloseenvironmental information this year but that theywant to do it in the future.

However, another company replied that thequestionnaire is not considered relevant to theirbusiness sector, and two more did not specify thereason for their decline. Growing relevance of non-financial information disclosure at both national andglobal levels entails a strong need for the corporateworld to rethink business strategies.

PortugalIn 2016, 27 companies did not respond to theclimate change reporting cycle. Most of these(above 70%) belong to the Financials, Industrials,Consumer Discretionary and Materials sectors.22 (81%) companies did not show any sign ofengagement, resulting in a no response (NR),whereas 5 (19%) companies declined toparticipate (DP) and provided a reason as to whythey were not participating in CDP’s climate changeprogram this year.

The reasons provided by companies declining toparticipate are summarized in Figure 30. On apositive note, two companies have replied that theywere unable to disclose their environmentalinformation this year but that they want to do it inthe future; and one more company did not disclosesince it is undergoing a restructuring/mergerprocess. For these companies, we expect to receivea signal of their willingness to engage in future CDPreporting cycles.

Growing relevance of non-financial informationdisclosure at both national and global levels entails astrong need for the corporate world to rethinkbusiness strategies. Many firms still need to catchup with the hundreds of companies across allsectors that are already committing with transparentdisclosure practices, improving their environmentalperformance and preparing to manage the risks andopportunities related to climate change. Additionally,investors are increasingly demanding non-financial – including environmental – information toassess their portfolios, showing preference forcompanies who are embedding environmentalaspects into their corporate strategy.

29

Figure 29. Spain. Reasons for DP

2

3

1

1

Not specified

Other

Questionnairenot consideredrelevant tobusiness sector

Unable todisclose thisyear but wantto in future

Figure 30. Portugal. Reasons for DP

1

1

2

1

Not specified

Other

Restructuring/Merger/Delisted

Unable todisclose thisyear but wantto in future


30

What is Jerónimo Martins’ position in regards ofParis’ agreement?The Paris Agreement provided a much needed clearpolicy signal to businesses. Being the largest fooddistribution group in Portugal and Poland, andexpanding fast in Colombia, the existence of a globaland ambitious climate agreement is particularlyimportant to Jerónimo Martins: it provides aregulatory framework crucial for planning investmentsin low carbon technologies, across geographies; andit sets the stage for a future where emissions arecurbed to the levels that science tells us are neededto avoid irreversible effects, namely on agriculturaland marine productivity.

Prior to the Paris Climate Conference, we joined theWe Mean Business campaign by adopting three ofits commitments: removing commodity-drivendeforestation from our supply chain by 2020;disclosing climate information in our mainstreamreports; and engaging responsibly in climate policy.We are pleased to see that over 400 companies fromall over the world also joined these commitments.

Climate change is a cross-cutting issue that brings tothe spotlight risks and opportunities to all stages ofour value chain.

How is your business promoting natural capitalstewardship on water, deforestation andclimate risks?Eliminating deforestation from the supply chain iscentral to both our biodiversity and climatestrategies. We have committed to the ConsumerGoods Forum’s 2020 zero net deforestation targetand set interim milestones, including for our PrivateBrand portfolio, the progressive substitution andcertification of palm oil and the avoidance ofdeforestation risk countries for sourcing wood fibres,soy and beef.

Our energy and GHG management plan is nowimplemented in more than 50% of our stores anddistribution centres. By reducing the energy needsfor refrigeration and other equipment, and by rolling-out new technology based on natural refrigerants, wehave achieved a 20% reduction in the carbonintensity of our operations (tons of GHG per revenueunit).

Working with our suppliers is fundamental toredesign the packaging of almost 200 SKUs, whichtranslates into reducing material and energy inputsand avoiding waste. We are also extending ourprogramme for client waste take-back and recovery,and have reduced check-out plastic bags use bymore than 60%.

Understanding what is material, monitoring resultsand reporting progress to a wider audience offinancial and non-financial stakeholders has been keyin our journey from policy statements tocommitments. Participating in the CDP Climate andForests Programmes for over five years has helpedus do just that.

How will Jerónimo Martins position itself in aworld that will not exceed a temperatureincrease of 2oC?We must now move from commitments to results,and continue to align our targets with effectiveclimate protection. Achieving our 2020 zerodeforestation goal is a challenging process, but onethat we are sure will deliver additional benefits fromrenewed supplier engagement on productreformulation and sustainable primary production.We are also evaluating methodologies and retailsector benchmarks, in order to expand the scopeand the level of ambition of our GHG reductiontargets, aligning them with our responsibility as abusiness in a new low carbon world.

Sara MirandaChief Communications andCorporate Responsibility Officer

From journalist toCommunications and BrandingDirector, Sara’s professionalcareer of more than 20 years isfilled with a variety of experiencesand sectors. She becameJerónimo Martins’ ChiefCommunications Officer in 2010and soon after also assumedresponsibility for the Group’sCorporate ResponsibilityDepartment where she isresponsible for Corporatecoordination in Portugal, Polandand Colombia.

Company Interview: Jerónimo Martins


3

Investor perspectives

1. As an investor what are your top priorities inhelping to realise the goals of the Parisagreement? And how do you plan to alignwith policy-makers’ 2 degree targets?

Odd Arild: We have the ambition to be a leadingstar when it comes to sustainable investments. InStorebrand, sustainability is not a niche, it isincluded in our main products and services.Which means that we literally have 570 billionNOK in carbon reduction programs. We arepresently setting an overall group climate targetwhich will assist us in reaching a 2 degree world,and a 2 degree regulatory ambition.

We have three priorities. The first is aboutmeasuring, reporting and lowering our carbonfootprint through CDP, Portfolio DecarbonizationCoalition (PDC), and Montreal Pledge. Thesecond priority is to work with sustainability andcarbon optimization in our main pensionportfolios. We’re also active in financial innovation– creating one of the world’s first fossil free,sustainability optimized index near funds. Ourthird priority is to be able to report externally inour group communication to the market on ourprogress towards a 2 degree world.

Philippe Desfosses: Since its inception, as partof fulfilling its fiduciary duty towards the Scheme’scontributors and beneficiaries, ERAFP has beenworking to determine the impact of itsinvestments on the economy, society and theenvironment. In coming years it will rely not onlyon the development of appropriate tools tomanage climate challenges but also on theexperience it has already accumulated,particularly in the area of de-carbonization, suchas for the low-carbon equity mandate awardedto Amundi or the virtual platform, built with AMLeague and Cedrus AM, that managers can useto demonstrate their capacity to reduce thecarbon intensity of a portfolio of internationalequities.

Odd Arild,Storebrand CEO

In keeping with its socially responsible investmentapproach, ERAFP will continue to make a majorcontribution, in collaboration with the variousother stakeholders, to speeding up the financingof the energy transition and to exceeding theobjectives laid down by the Paris treaty.

Peter Harrison: The physical impacts and socialand political responses to climate change will bedefining investment themes of the coming yearsand decades. We are focusing on building ourunderstanding of the implications for economies,industries and companies; developing tools tosupport better investment decisions, andengaging companies to promote moretransparent and forward-thinking responses.

2. As an investor what are your main driversfor incorporating climate change risks andopportunities in investment decisionmaking? And what are the main barriers?

OA: The main drivers are the risks andopportunities facing the companies we invest in.We believe that a tilt in investments fromsustainability laggards to leaders will creategreater returns in our portfolios. We also have amission to influence and support our entiresector to professionalize climate risk, through ourdifferent products, services and externalengagements like the PDC. The main barrier isdata access in two areas; lower quality andavailability of data and lack of regulationsrequiring transparency and reporting on climaterisk.

PD: In exchange for the contributions that itreceives from its beneficiaries, the Schemeundertakes to pay them pension benefits. This isa promise that the youngest among us willbenefit from following a very long period of time.It is through nothing other than observance ofour fiduciary duty that we have undertaken

31

The investment landscape is changing rapidly: theParis Agreement set out a clear direction of travel onclimate change for global policy makers, whiledevelopments such as France’s Article 173 and theforthcoming Task Force on Climate-related Disclosureare driving greater disclosure and accountability frominvestors. In the light of this, we ask CEOs from threeleading financial institutions how their organisationsare responding and where they see the key challengesover the next few years.

Philippe Desfosses,ERAFP CEO

Peter Harrison,Schroders CEO


energy and climate-related initiatives, with a viewto aligning our investment portfolios withinternational global warming containmentobjectives.

A strong barrier lies in Research which still needsto be encouraged in order to develop robustindicators. It would provide at issuer level, acomprehensive picture of companies’environmental impacts and especially direct andindirect emissions. Most available methodologiesonly cover part of Scope 3 emissions. Thus, insome sectors such as the automotive industry orthe financial sector, global emissions tend to beunderestimated

PH: Hitting the commitments our global leadersmade in Paris will mean changes on a far biggerscale than financial markets seem to bepreparing for, spreading beyond the mostobvious sectors or niche asset classes. We neednew thinking to understand how large and farreaching the impacts will be. We need to acceptthat perfect clarity on policies looks unlikely andfocus on what we can do: better thinking, bettermodels, better data and a clearer view of how weadapt the portfolios we manage.

3. As an investor how do you balance theneeds of the present against the longer termneeds of delivering investment/businessstrategies that avoid dangerous levels ofclimate change and the associated impactsof these?

OA: As a pension company, we invest forcustomers who will stay with us for up to 50years. Our mission is to create the best possibleretirement for our customers, both in terms offinancial return, but also to support the health ofthe society where our customers will retire.

PD: As the French public service additionalpension scheme manager, ERAFP has a verylong-term responsibility towards its contributorsand beneficiaries. Driven by its fiduciary duty,ERAFP prioritizes long term investments andseeks to raise the awareness about theimportance of changing economic structureswith a view to de-carbonization.

PH: At Schroders we have a long tradition oflong term, fundamental analysis. That experienceconvinces us that taking account of structuraltrends such as climate change does not have tomean compromising shorter term performance.In fact, we are not going to be able to help ourclients meet their goals, which are typically farlonger than investment cycles, unless weestablish long term views of critical structuraltrends such as climate change.

4. Environmental disclosure is a fast evolvingfield, how is better data, disclosure andresearch affecting investor decision-making?

OA: Better data is definitely improving ourpossibilities to make informed investmentsoptimising return and climate risk. We supporteda government bid in Sweden to standardisedisclosure of carbon foot printing of mutualfunds. We also support data development andavailability in other areas, such as water orpolitical instability where we in fact havedeveloped our own system to predict a coupd’état in different countries.

PD: In 2015, with the help of a specializedorganization’ services, ERAFP have extended itsperimeter and reported on the carbon footprint of87% of its total assets. Beyond its carbonfootprint, ERAFP made also a comparison of theenergy mix attributable to ERAFP’s equityportfolio with an energy generation breakdownfor the International Energy Agency’s ‘2°C’scenarios between 2030 and 2050. The fastevolving environmental disclosure tools allowERAFP to expand and deepen its analyses inorder to develop the most efficient de-carbonization strategies.

PH: Good investment decisions rely on analysisand analysis needs data. While climate science isawash with data, most of it of little use in helpingus choose one investment over another.Rigorous, relevant and consistent data atcompany and asset levels – like that the CDPpromotes and collates – is critical to our ability toget past quantifying the scale of the problem andinto deciding how to navigate it.

5. What would you like to see fromcompanies with regards to improvedtransparency on climate change relevantissues?

OA: We would like to see an increase inregulation when it comes to climate reporting,and higher taxes based on polluters paysprinciple. The real costs of operation have to bebrought to the surface, so that we as investorsbetter can adapt our investments to this.

PD: As a member of the Institutional InvestorsGroup on Climate Change (IIGCC), ERAFP takespart in engagement initiatives towards regulatoryauthorities but also companies in the mostexposed sectors in order to improve their climatereporting. ERAFP is also involved into theextractive industries transparency initiative (EITI).ERAFP would like companies, especially themost exposed to climate change risks,

321


3

communicate on strategic resilience and theirefforts to manage environmental impacts.

PH: Ours is a forward looking industry andinformation that provides more insight intocompanies’ future planning will be vital; howcompanies assess changes in their industries,the assumptions they make, the strategies theyform and the products they develop. No one hasall the answers and more frank discussion onhow companies approach the challenge is moreimportant than holding on for definitive answers.

6. What role can engagement play indriving corporate behavioural change in theclimate change context and how do youmeasure its success?

OA: Engagement plays an important role as acomplement to divestment and portfoliotilting. We focus engagement within the climateareas to group activities within PRI, often initiatedby CDP. In this way we want to increaseavailability of data, which is our target ofengagement. We can then use it to makedecision on tilting and divestment.

PD: ERAFP is an extremely engaged assetowner, maintaining dialogue with many of thecompanies the Scheme invested in. Through itsasset managers, in 2016, ERAFP supportedmore than 10 shareholder resolutions on climatechange. ERAFP is also involved in engagementinitiatives through Institutional Investors Groupon Climate Change (IIGCC), ShareAction/RE100,Carbon Disclosure Project or alongside Mirova onoil exploration’s themes. Forcing companies todiscuss and think with a long term approach,ERAFP is convinced that asset owners’ union,followed by their asset managers, will allow theacceleration of companies’ change, amongwhich the most advanced already oriented theirdevelopment towards the energy transition.

PH: Engagement is a key part of ourresponsibilities as responsible, active investors.We regularly talk to management teams aboutwhy we think climate change is an importantissue, as well as our expectations for disclosureand transparency. That work is intrinsically tiedup with how we approach investing and thebenefits are evident in the decisions we makeand the changes we see in companies.

7. If we were to have a similar conversation in3 years’ time, what do you think would besome of the key successes for an investor in

managing climate change risks andopportunities?

OA: Integration. Integration of competence, andtools. Managing climate risk must be at the coreof the investment strategy covering all assets inall assets classes and not seen as a side activityfor certain SRI funds. The global pension capitalconsists of the 40 000 billion USD – that is themoney we need to get to work if we want tocreate a better, more sustainable future.

PD: Because you can’t manage what you don’tmeasure, ERAFP thinks that a crucial key ofsuccess consists in good measures of itsinvestment climate related risks. ERAFP is workingon it using and questioning current carbon foot-printing methodologies. Working with its assetmanagers on portfolio de-carbonizationapproaches, disclosing the results of its work onthese areas and engaging with companies oncarbon disclosure are other keys that ERAFP useto manage climate risks and opportunities.

PH: We have to build better tools to measure,quantify and analyse the risks and opportunitiesclimate changes represents to companies andportfolios. Unless we can do that, we are goingto struggle to know if we are on the right track.Progress has been made with things like carbonfootprinting, but we are in the foothills of whatneeds to be done.

8. How are you engaging with the SustainableDevelopment Goals 2030 agenda?

OA: SDG sets a clear direction on what the focusshould be to reach a more sustainable future. Wenow work to integrate the SDGs in our strategyand targets, so that we ensure that thecompany’s strategy is in line with the goals of theworld. Already in 2016 we will as a group start toreport on our contribution to the SDGs.

PD: In line with its socially responsible investor’sstatus since its beginning, ERAFP has developeda best in class strategy. This approach has hadpositive results since ERAFP’s portfolio is globallymore carbon efficient than its benchmark. Byselecting the most sustainable players but alsobeing a strongly engaged investor on ESGissues, ERAFP aims to contribute to theSustainable Development Goals agenda 2030.Its recent signing of the Energy Efficiency InvestorStatement at COP21 and of the 2016 globalinvestor letter to the G20 are examples of itsongoing efforts to limit climate change andpromote a Sustainable Development.

33


PH: The Sustainable Development Goalshighlight the changes we are seeing in social andpolitical awareness of the challenges facing manyof the world’s poorest countries and people. Thisbackdrop of growing awareness andcommitment will have direct implications for howwe manage money. We are working hard to buildan understanding of the potential changes intoour decision making.

Custom questions

Storebrand is in the unique position offacing the risk of increased claims fromclimate change as well as the risks ofdecreased portfolio returns from it. How doyour investment activities reduce the risk ofincreased claims from climate change?

OA: Companies with significant greenhouse gasemissions often make for poor financialinvestments. In order to make it easier to identifythe companies we wish to invest in, we ratepotential companies according to howsustainable they are. The environmental impact isa decisive factor when we make our assessment,which makes it easier to pinpoint whichcompanies we do not wish to invest in. We alsohave an exclusion policy on negativeenvironmental impact, with exclusion of forexample more than 60 companies based on theirpoor climate record.

We also work in the area of financial innovation,and have launched a number of productsrecently. They are important not only to ourcustomers, but also as examples to inspire andshow our sector what is really possible.SPP/Storebrand presently have the world’slargest green bond fund. We have also launcheda unique series of products: a near index equitymutual fund that is fossil free, and optimised for ahigh sustainability level of the remainingcompanies. We are able to deliver a low trackingerror in comparison to ‘standard’ indices, a lowfee, and a substantially lower climate related risk.

In ERAFP’s “Combating Climate Change”approach it says that in order to meet theambitions of the SRI charter in limitinggreenhouse gas emissions investors should“provide tangible evidence of theirapproaches impact”. What is your view onthe current state of Asset Manager’s abilityto provide this?

PD: ERAFP discusses with its asset managers tounderstand their portfolio companies’management and improves it. This year, ERAFPhas entered into an agreement with Cedrus AMand amLeague to establish a framework thatasset managers can use to demonstrate theirknow-how in the reduction of carbon intensity byapplying their expertise in the management of anotional portfolio of international equities. In thecoming months, with the benefit of the CedrusAM return of experience, ERAFP will be workingon ways to extend its “low carbon” managementapproach, either through investment in openfunds or through a call for tenders to select anasset manager to create a dedicated fund.

Chief Economist recently published thefindings of a survey of 18 Chief Economists.Its finding was pretty bleak in terms of thelevel of integration of climate change riskinto their forecasting process. Whatimpacts, in your opinion, do you think thatthis lack of macro-level analysis will have onthe effective integration of climate changerisks into the investment process?

PH: Although it was disappointing that more ofthe City’s economists don’t build climate trendsinto their forecasts, it was not altogethersurprising. The problem lies with tools andmodels as much as awareness; most in ourindustry knows the scale of the challenge and theimpacts it will have, but the potential dislocationdoes not fit easily with models that are designedaround linear trends. Unless we can come upwith better ways of analysing the financialimplications of climate change, we are going tofind it hard to avoid being surprised downthe line.

343


3

We Mean Business: Commit to Action

Companies are taking direct and ambitious actionon climate change. More than 465 companies havemade commitments to climate action via the WeMean Business commitments platform “Commit toAction,” representing a tenfold increase in twoyears.

Progress in 2016 has remained strong, suggesting apositive response to the Paris Agreement and itsuniversal commitment to a low-carbon economy.

Companies have been adopting moreaggressive targets—around emissionsreductions, renewable energy, deforestation, water,and energy productivity—and improvingoperational or governance measures forclimate risk through use a price on carbon, moreresponsible policy engagement mechanisms, and

greater transparency on climate governance inmainstream reports.

Corporate action has grown across all of theseissues. The strongest growth has been in companiescommitting to science-based emissionsreduction targets, from 50 companies in late 2015to nearly190 today.

Companies in 42 countries have taken action. At the beginning of 2015 just 3 US companieshad made commitments via this platform. By Paris,this number had grown to more than 50companies. The fastest growing issue with UScompanies has been science-based targets, with33 companies making that commitment. Climateaction remains popular with Europeancompanies, with 237 taking action, predominantly

35

Setting science based targets is theright thing to do, but also makesperfect business sense. Setting ascience-based target directlyanswered the needs of our customers,all of whom are thinking about theirown carbon footprints. It is also criticalfor investors who need to know thatwe are thinking of potential risks, inthe short-, medium- and long-term.

Laurel PeacockSenior Sustainability ManagerNRG Energy

90+CompaniesNorth America

25+CompaniesSouth America

465+Companies

+$10Trillion USD

183Investors

>US$20.7 TrillionAssets UnderManagement

1000+Commitments


in mainstream reporting on climate and science-based target setting.

Thirteen companies headquartered in Brazil havetaken action, including materials company Braskem(price on carbon) and the consumer brand Natura(science-based targets, deforestation, policyengagement, and mainstream reporting on climate).In India, 17 companies, including Tata & Sons andMahindra, have made bold commitments torenewable energy and energy productivity.Important first movers in China, like industrialscompany Broad Group, have made a range ofcommitments, importantly including setting science-based targets.

Sector trends show that companies in everyindustry are acting. Strongest growth in 2016 has

been in the industrials sector. Together, this sectoraccounts for over 20% of corporate action via theWe Mean Business platform, as well as more than100 million metric tonnes CO2e. Consumerdiscretionary and consumer staples companiesalso represent 20% of committed companies, led bymajor brands like Walmart, The Coca-Cola Companyand Honda Motor Company. IT sector participationhas accelerated post-Paris, with companies includingApple and Facebook making 100% renewable powercommitments.

By acting early and decisively, these companies arebetter able to manage their climate risk, gaincompetitive edge over their peers, and reap thereputational benefits that early leadership provides.

To find out more please visit www.cdp.net/commit.

365

Translating Paris into business strategy

235+CompaniesEurope

20+CompaniesAfrica

10+CompaniesAustraliaNew Zealand

70+CompaniesAsia


3

2016 Key Trends

37

The statistics presented in this key trends table maydiffer from those in other CDP reports for two reasons:(1) the data in this table is based on all responsesreceived by 13 September 2016; (2) it is based on binarydata (e.g. Yes/No or other drop down menu selection)reported to CDP and does not incorporate any validationof the follow up information provided or reflect thescoring methodology. The latter, in particular, is likely tolead to an over-reporting of data in this key trends table.

Ho

ng K

ong

& S

E A

sia

Aus

tral

ia A

SX

200

Ben

elux

Bra

zil

Can

ada

Cen

tral

Eas

tern

Eur

op

e

Chi

na

DA

CH

(DE

, AU

, CH

)

Em

erg

ing

Mar

kets

Number of companies in the sample 170 200 150 120 200 100 100 350 800

Number of companies answering CDP1 59 86 57 67 97 17 10 155 309

% of sample answering CDP 20161 35 43 38 56 49 17 10 45 39

% of sample market capitalization answering CDP 20162 46 80 85 90 72 33 20 85 43

% of responders reporting Board or other senior management responsibility for climate 100 100 96 85 91 50 100 93 97change

% of responders with incentives for the management of climate change issues 75 70 86 67 73 37 80 70 80

% of responders reporting climate change as being integrated into their business strategy 96 89 88 78 88 87 100 84 96

% of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on climate issues to encourage 90 79 90 82 90 75 90 80 90mitigation or adaptation

% of responders with emissions reduction targets3 77 60 81 60 64 37 50 68 80

% of responders reporting absolute emission reduction targets3 50 36 58 40 37 25 40 41 49

% of responders reporting intensity emission reduction targets3 56 37 48 38 38 25 30 51 52

% of responders reporting active emissions reduction initiatives in the reporting year 94 85 96 72 88 87 90 90 91

% of responders indicating that their products and services directly enable third parties 73 60 65 60 57 50 90 64 65to avoid GHG emissions

% of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope 1 and 2) have decreased compared 56 67 73 57 68 75 20 69 65to last year due to emmission reduction activities

% of responders seeing regulatory risks 85 84 87 78 88 75 90 71 89

% of responders seeing regulatory opportunities 83 78 77 75 79 50 100 80 86

% of responders seeing physical risks 90 80 83 78 82 50 70 65 88

% of responders seeing physical opportunities 69 66 56 65 64 75 50 59 74

% of responders independently verifying any portion of Scope 1 emissions data4 50 52 58 50 41 37 20 52 62

% of responders independently verifying any portion of Scope 2 emissions data4 52 49 52 52 33 25 20 47 60

% of responders independtly verifying least 70% of Scope 1 emissions data4 42 47 54 48 30 37 20 48 56

% of responders independtly verifying least 70% of Scope 2 emissions data4 42 42 52 48 28 25 20 41 52

% of responders reporting Scope 2 location-based emissions data 90 93 86 78 94 87 50 79 89

% of responders reporting Scope 2 market-based emissions data 21 28 61 30 30 0 10 54 31

% of responders reporting emissions data for 2 or more named Scope 3 categories5 38 59 69 75 50 25 30 65 65

% of responders using CDSB framework to report climate change data in mainstream 8 13 25 10 7 12 20 13 18financial report

Statistic


387

Ove

rall

Fig

ure6

Turk

ey

Sp

ain

So

uth

Afr

ica

US

S&

P 5

00

Rus

sia

Po

rtug

al

No

rdic

New

Zea

land

NZ

X 5

0

Lati

n A

mer

ica

Ko

rea

Jap

an

Ital

y

Irel

and

Ind

ia

Iber

ia (E

S, P

T)

UK

FT

SE

350

Fran

ce

Eur

o 3

00

300 250 350 125 200 30 100 500 200 80 50 260 40 30 500 100 85 100 N/A

262 97 224 53 48 9 45 261 77 41 15 143 10 7 332 77 43 38 2268

88 40 64 42 24 30 45 52 38 51 30 55 25 23 67 78 50 38 N/A

92 83 92 89 46 65 69 72 67 61 79 79 76 39 78 85 91 50 68

99 96 99 98 96 100 93 98 100 97 93 97 100 71 94 100 98 94 95

90 83 80 90 79 89 83 89 88 59 60 73 78 57 82 81 93 82 78

96 93 91 94 96 100 90 96 97 85 93 93 89 100 92 96 95 91 91

94 91 84 96 85 100 88 94 87 79 80 84 89 86 86 92 98 82 86

92 78 80 94 81 78 83 95 90 50 73 80 89 71 80 79 95 76 77

60 40 40 77 23 44 71 68 65 26 33 43 56 43 49 41 81 41 47

69 67 57 65 70 33 52 68 42 35 47 61 67 71 46 51 65 56 52

98 95 93 100 96 89 98 97 90 82 93 89 100 100 97 93 100 85 92

77 73 56 81 57 56 76 81 65 44 47 73 78 57 61 52 81 50 64

87 72 83 92 60 100 76 84 71 44 60 80 89 43 79 74 93 62 86

90 87 95 98 94 89 90 95 99 74 73 89 100 86 81 95 98 85 86

94 91 92 94 89 100 83 93 90 71 73 87 89 71 80 93 95 82 85

89 83 87 89 87 100 81 88 86 88 80 84 89 71 79 96 88 85 82

79 71 75 81 77 89 69 82 78 47 73 82 67 43 65 89 84 71 70

85 80 64 79 53 89 69 37 77 41 47 58 78 0 55 73 79 38 55

83 82 61 71 51 89 62 37 74 41 40 54 78 0 52 70 70 38 52

81 71 59 75 51 89 69 31 67 41 13 56 78 0 51 64 74 35 49

78 71 54 67 45 89 62 29 57 38 20 51 78 0 51 63 65 35 46

92 93 97 79 96 89 88 76 88 85 80 88 56 43 94 97 84 85 88

63 33 47 54 28 56 45 50 30 18 27 58 78 14 48 48 49 23 42

87 70 69 81 68 78 55 82 58 62 73 68 89 0 65 85 79 65 65

23 21 26 23 19 0 7 9 29 6 7 16 22 0 7 33 23 3 14

1 This statistic includes those companies thatrespond by referencing a parent or holdingcompany’s response. However the remainingstatistics presented do not include these responses.

2 This refers to the total market capitalization of thatsample group of companies. Market cap datasourced from Bloomberg.

3 Companies may report multiple targets. However, inthese statistics a company will only becounted once.

4 This takes into account companies reporting thatverification is complete or underway, but does notinclude any evaluation of the verification statementprovided.

5 Only companies reporting Scope 3 emissions usingthe Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standardnamed categories have been included below. Whilstin some cases “Other upstream” or “Otherdownstream” are legitimate selections, in mostcircumstances the data contained in thesecategories should be allocated to one of the namedcategories. In addition, only those categories forwhich emissions figures have been provided havebeen included.

6 Includes responses across all samples as well asresponses submitted by companies not included inspecific geographic or industry samples in 2016.


439

GICS Sector Response Name (Company) Status Country

Adveo Industrials No Response (F) Spain

AENA SA Industrials Declined to SpainParticipate (F)

Altri SGPS SA Materials No Response (F) Portugal

Amper Information Technology No Response (F) Spain

APPLUS Services Industrials No Response (F) Spain

Axiare Patrimonio SOCIMI SA Financials No Response (F) Portugal

Banco BPI SA Financials No Response (F) Portugal

BANIF SA Financials Declined to PortugalParticipate (F)

Baron de Ley Consumer Staples No Response (F) Spain

Bolsas y Mercados Financials Declined to SpainEspanoles Participate (F)

Caixa Economica Financials No Response (F) PortugalMontepio Geral

Cementos Portland Materials No Response (F) SpainValderrivas

CIMPOR - Cimentos Materials Declined to Portugalde Portugal SGPS SA Participate (F)

Cofina SGPS SA Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Portugal

Construcciones & Auxiliar Industrials No Response (F) Spainde Ferrocarriles

Corporacion Financiera Alba Financials Declined to SpainParticipate (F)

Corticeira Amorim SGPS SA Materials No Response (F) Portugal

Deoleo SA Consumer Staples No Response (F) Spain

Duro Felguera Industrials Declined to SpainParticipate (F)

eDreams ODIGEO SA Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Spain

Ence Energia y Celulosa SA Materials No Response (F) Spain

EUROPAC Papeles Materials No Response (F) Spainy Cartones de Europa SA

F. RAMADA Materials No Response (F) PortugalINVESTIMENTOS SGPS

Faes Farma Health Care No Response (F) Spain

Fluidra Industrials No Response (F) Spain

GLINTT - Global Intelligent Information Technology No Response (F) PortugalTechnologies SGPS SA

Grupo Catalana Occidente Financials No Response (F) Spain

Grupo Ezentis Information Technology Spain

Hispania Activos Financials Questionnaire SpainInmobiliarios SAU Forthcoming

Ibersol SGPS SA Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Portugal

Impresa SGPS SA Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Portugal

Inmobiliaria Colonial SA Financials No Response (F) Spain

Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Health Care No Response (F) SpainRovi

Lar España Real Estate Financials No Response (F) SpainSOCIMI, S.A.

GICS Sector Response Name (Company) Status Country

Liberbank SA Financials Declined to SpainParticipate (F)

Lingotes Especiales SA Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Spain

Luz Saúde S.A. Health Care No Response (F) Portugal

MARTIFER SGPS SA Industrials No Response (F) Portugal

MEDIA CAPITAL Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Portugal

Merlin Properties Socimi SA Financials No Response (F) Spain

Mota-Engil Industrials No Response (F) Portugal

Naturhouse Health SA Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Spain

Nmas1 Dinamia SA Financials No Response (F) Spain

Nos SGPS Consumer Discretionary Declined to PortugalParticipate (F)

NOVABASE, SGPS Information Technology No Response (F) Portugal

Pharma Mar SA Health Care No Response (F) Spain

Portucel Empresa Produtora Materials No Response (F) Portugal

Prim Health Care No Response (F) Spain

Prisa Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Spain

Prosegur Industrials No Response (F) Spain

PT Portugal SGPS S.A. Telecommunication Declined to PortugalServices Participate (F)

Quabit Inmobiliaria SA Financials No Response (F) Spain

Realia Business Financials No Response (F) Spain

SACYR VALLE. Industrials No Response (F) Spain

Saeta Yield SA Utilities Declined to SpainParticipate (F)

SAG GEST Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Portugal

Semapa - Sociedade de Materials No Response (F) PortugalInvestimento e Gestao SGPS SA

Sociedade Comercial Financials No Response (F) PortugalOrey Antunes SA

Sonae Capital SGPS SA Industrials No Response (F) Portugal

Sonae Indústria SGPS SA Materials No Response (F) Portugal

Sonaecom SGPS SA Telecommunication No Response (F) PortugalServices

Sporting Clube De Portugal - Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) PortugalFutebol SAD

SUMOL COMPAL Consumer Staples No Response (F) Portugal

Talgo SA Industrials No Response (F) Spain

Teixeira Duarte SpA Industrials No Response (F) Portugal

Tubacex Materials No Response (F) Spain

Tubos Reunidos Materials No Response (F) Spain

Viscofan Consumer Staples No Response (F) Spain

Vista Alegre Atlantis Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Portugal

Vocento Consumer Discretionary No Response (F) Spain

Zardoya Otis Industrials No Response (F) Spain

Appendix INon-responding companies to the CDP climate change questionnaire 2016

F = Failure to provide sufficient information to CDP to be evaluated for Climate Change.Explained in https://www.cdp.net/Documents/Guidance/2016/Scoring-Introduction-2016.pdf


409

Appendix IIEmissions scores and data from the responding companies

2016 Scope Scope Scope Company Name Country Score 1 2 3

Consumer Discretionary

Inditex Spain A 22.996 622.879 1.194.827

Mediaset Espana Comunicacion SA Spain A- Not public

Melia Hotels International SA Spain A- 47.945 163.905 51.741

TOYOTA CAETANO Portugal A- 980 870 23.230

Dia Spain A- 648.656 200.337 259.871

Jerónimo Martins SGPS SA Portugal A- 237.941 862.965 173.371

Sonae Portugal A- 45.422 222.762 707.999

NH Hotel Group Spain B 75.574 27.189 14.830

ATRESMEDIA CORPORACION Spain C Not public

CIE Automotive Spain C 74.275 352.479 2.309

Ebro Foods SA Spain D 139.450 102.216 20.580

Energy

Galp Energia SGPS SA Portugal A 3.758.365 273.458 36.201.444

Tecnicas Reunidas Spain A- 22.614 3.960 1.698.231

Repsol Spain A- 21.068.516 578.368 121.264.411

Financials

CaixaBank Spain A 19.117 2.245 20.112

MAPFRE Spain A 14.043 26.903 28.045

Banco Comercial Português SA Portugal A- 18.115 46.448 1.020

Banco Santander Spain A- 29.078 256.372 162.339

Bankia Spain A- 3.632 39.018 5.005

Banco Popular Espanol S.A. Spain B 812 933 13.523

Bankinter Spain B 398 8.911 4.254

BBVA Spain B 18.083 351.692 46.131

Banco Sabadell Spain D 600 3.321 0

Healthcare

GRIFOLS Spain B 85.531 113.055 131.275

Almirall Sa Spain C 5.845 2.046 11.047

2016 Scope Scope Scope Company Name Country Score 1 2 3

Industrials

Abertis Infraestructuras Spain A 65.157 49.575 10.967.663

FERROVIAL Spain A 515.133 82.818 3.643.723

Grupo Logista Spain A 35.065 4.378 199.953

Obrascon Huarte Lain (OHL) Spain A 197.757 71.768 6.528.398

CTT - Correios de Portugal SA Portugal A- 15.724 393 56.757

Fomento de Construcciones Spain C 9.711.807 681.449 1.640.335y Contratas

Gamesa Corporación Tecnológica, S.A. Spain C 12.079 24.777 245.727

International Consolidated Airlines Spain C 26.404.149 122.469 7.424.626Group, S.A.

ACS Actividades de Construccion Spain D Not publicy Servicios

Inapa - Investimentos, Participações Portugal D 6.829 1.342 0e Gestão, SA

Information Technology

Amadeus IT Holding Spain A 983 33.188 11.732

INDRA A Spain C 6.115 23.587 13.713

Materials

ACERINOX Spain B 233.376 253.567 95.477

Arcelor Mittal Spain B 175.834.335 16.100.997 27.628.952

Miquel Y Costas Spain B Not public

Ercros Spain C 280.840 384.525 0

Telecommunications Services

Telefonica Spain A 95.677 1.609.677 2.853.354

Cellnex Telecom SA Spain B 2.576 51.458 23.962

Euskaltel SA Spain C 206 6.851 949

Utilities

ACCIONA S.A. Spain A 427.292 178.343 2.249.780

ENAGAS Spain A 272.728 32.444 21.347

Gas Natural SDG SA Spain A 22.779.327 1.330.308 134.927.100

R.E.E. Spain A 33.662 808.347 241.258

Iberdrola SA Spain A 31.741.261 970.944 27.884.894

EDP - Energias de Portugal S.A. Portugal A 21.550.378 2.634.843 20.364.717

Endesa Spain B 33.921.520 834.130 20.519.612

REN - Redes Energéticas Nacionais Portugal B 20.357 132.256 747

Appendix Key:

Not public: the company responded privatelyBold: companies that have achieved the Leadership band A

To read 2016 company responses in full please go to www.cdp.net


Appendix IIIInvestor signatories and members

41

CDP’s investor program – backed in 2016 by 827institutional investor signatories representing in excessof US$100 trillion in assets – works with investors tounderstand their data and analysis requirements andoffers tools and solutions to help them.

Investor membersACTIAMAEGON N.V.Allianz Global InvestorsATP GroupAviva InvestorsAXA GroupBank of America Merrill LynchBendigo and Adelaide BankBlackRockBoston Common Asset Management, LLCBP Investment Management LimitedBritish Columbia Investment Management CorporationCalifornia Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia State Teachers' Retirement SystemCalvert Investment Management, IncCapricorn Investment GroupCatholic SuperCCLA Investment Management LtdDEXUS Property GroupEtica SGRFachesfFAPESFundação Itaú UnibancoGeneration Investment ManagementGoldman Sachs Asset ManagementHenderson Global InvestorsHermes Fund ManagersHSBC Holdings plcInfraprevKeyCorpKLPLegg Mason, Inc.London Pensions Fund AuthorityMaine Public Employees Retirement SystemMorgan StanleyNational Australia BankNEI InvestmentsNeuberger BermanNew York State Common Retirement FundNordea Investment ManagementNorges Bank Investment ManagementOverlook Investments LimitedPFA PensionPOSTALIS - Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e TelégrafosPREVIRathbone Greenbank InvestmentsReal Grandeza RobecoRobecoSAM AGRockefeller & Co.Royal Bank of CanadaSampension KP Livsforsikring A/SSchrodersSEB ABSompo Japan Nipponkoa Holdings, IncSustainable Insight Capital ManagementTIAATerra Alpha Investments LLCThe Sustainability GroupThe Wellcome TrustUBSUniversity of CaliforniaUniversity of TorontoWhitley Asset Management

Our global data from companies and cities inresponse to climate change, water insecurity anddeforestation and our award-winning investorresearch series is driving investor decision-making.Our analysis helps investors understand the risksthey run in their portfolios. Our insights shapeengagement and add value not only in financialreturns but by building a more sustainable future.

For more information about the CDP investorprogram, including the benefits of becoming asignatory or member please visit:https://www.cdp.net/Documents/Brochures/investor-initiatives-brochure-2016.pdf

To view the full list of investor signatoriesplease visit: https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/Sig-Investor-List.aspx

4


1

Appendix IVInvestor signatories 2016

3Sisters Sustainable Management LLC

AB

Aberdeen Asset Managers

Aberdeen Immobilien KAG mbH

ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas dePrevidência Complementar

Achmea NV

ACTIAM

Active Earth Investment Management

Acuity Investment Management

Addenda Capital Inc.

AEGON N.V.

AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd

AGF Investment Inc.

AIG Asset Management

AK Asset Management Inc.

Akbank T.A.S, .

Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo)

Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Board

Alecta

Align Impact, LLC

Alliance Trust PLC

Allianz Global Investors

Allianz SE

Alquity Investment Management

Altira Group

Amalgamated Bank

AMF Pension

Amlin plc

AMP Capital Investors

AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH

Amundi AM

ANBIMA – Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos MercadosFinanceiro e de Capitais

Antera Gestão de Recursos S.A.

APG

Appleseed Fund

Aquila Capital

Arabesque Asset Management

Arisaig Partners Asia Pte Ltd

Arjuna Capital

Arma Portföy Yönetimi A.S, .

Armstrong Asset Management

ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A.

ASN Bank

Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A

ATI Asset Management

Atlantic Asset Management Pty Ltd

ATP Group

Auriel Capital

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group

Australian Ethical Investment

AustralianSuper

Avaron Asset Management

Aviva Investors

Aviva plc

AXA Group

AXA Investment Managers

BAE Systems Pension Funds Investment Management Ltd

Baillie Gifford & Co.

BaltCap

BPER Banca

Banco Bradesco S/A

Banco BTG Pactual SA

Banco Comercial Português S.A.

Banco da Amazônia S.A.

Banco de Credito del Peru BCP

Banco de credito social cooperativo

Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A.

Banco do Brasil Previdência

Banco do Brasil S/A

Banco Popular Español S.A.

Banco Sabadell, S.A.

Banco Santander

Banesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social

bankmecu

Bank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A.

Bank J. Safra Sarasin Ltd

Bank Leumi Le Israel

Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Bank of Montreal

Scotiabank

Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaftm.b.H.

Bankinter

Banque Libano-Française

Barclays

Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank

BASF Sociedade de Previdência Complementar

Basler Kantonalbank

Baumann and Partners S.A.

Bayern LB

BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

BBC Pension Trust Ltd.

BBVA

Bedfordshire Pension Fund

Beetle Capital

Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited

Bentall Kennedy

Berenberg Bank

Berti Investments

BlackRock

Blom Bank SAL

Blumenthal Foundation

BM&FBOVESPA

BMO Global Asset Management EMEA

BNP Paribas Investment Partners

BNY Mellon

BNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage Gesellschaft

Boardwalk Capital Management

Boston Common Asset Management, LLC

BP Investment Management Limited

Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A.

Breckenridge Capital Advisors

British Airways Pension Investment Management Limited

British Columbia Investment Management Corporation

Brown Advisory

BSW Wealth Partners

BT Financial Group

BT Investment Management

Busan Bank

CAAT Pension Plan

Cadiz Holdings Limited

CAI Corporate Assets International AG

Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec

Caisse des Dépôts

Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordestedo Brasil (CAPEF)

Caixa Econômica Federal

Caixa Geral de Depósitos

CaixaBank, S.A

Caja Ingenieros Gestión

California Public Employees’ Retirement System

California State Teachers’ Retirement System

California State Treasurer

California State University, Northridge Foundation

Calvert Investment Management, Inc.

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC)

Canadian Labour Congress Staff Pension Fund

Dexia Asset Management

CAPESESP

Capital Innovations, LLC

Capricorn Investment Group, LLC

CareSuper

Carmignac Gestion

CASER PENSIONES

Cathay Financial Holding Co. Ltd

Catherine Donnelly Foundation

Catholic Super

CBF Church of England Funds

CBRE

Cbus

CCLA Investment Management Ltd

Cedrus Asset Management

Celeste Funds Management Limited

Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church

CERES-Fundação de Seguridade Social

Challenger

Change Investment Management

China Development Financial Holdings

Christian Brothers Investment Services

Christian Super

Christopher Reynolds Foundation

Church Commissioners for England

Church of England Pensions Board

CI Mutual Funds’ Signature Global Advisors

Mountain Cleantech AG

ClearBridge Investments

CM-CIC Asset Management

CNP Assurances

The Colorado College

Columbia Threadneedle Investments

Comerica Incorporated

COMGEST

Bâtirente

Commerzbank AG

CommInsure

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation

Compton Foundation

Confluence Capital Management LLC

Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Conser Invest

CPR AM

Crayna Capital, LLC.

Credit Agricole

Credit Suisse

Gruppo Bancario Credito Valtellinese

CTBC Financial Holding Co., Ltd.

Cultura Bank

DGB Financial Group

Daesung Capital Management

Daiwa Securities Group Inc.

Dalton Nicol Reid

Dana Investment Advisors

Danske Bank Group

de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A.

Degroof Petercam

DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale

Delta Lloyd Asset Management

Demeter Partners

Desjardins Group

Deutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH

Deutsche Bank AG

Deutsche Postbank AG

Development Bank of Japan Inc.

Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)

DEXUS Property Group

DIP

DLM INVISTA ASSET MANAGEMENT S/A

DNB ASA

42


443

Domini Social Investments LLC

Dongbu Insurance

DoubleDividend

Doughty Hanson & Co.

DWS Investment GmbH

DZ Bank

E.Sun Financial Holding Co

Earth Capital Partners LLP

East Capital AB

East Sussex Pension Fund

Ecofi Investissements - Groupe Credit Cooperatif

EdenTree Investment Management

Edward W. Hazen Foundation

EEA Group Ltd

EGAMO

Eika Kapitalforvaltning AS

Ekobanken medlemsbank

Elan Capital Partners

Element Investment Managers

ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência

Elo Mutual Pension Insurance Company

Environment Agency Pension fund

Environmental Investment Services Asia Limited

Trustees of Donations to the Protestant Episcopal Church

Epworth Investment Management

eQ Asset Management Ltd

Equilibrium Capital Group

equinet Bank AG

ERAFP

Erik Penser Fondkommission

Erste Asset Management

Erste Group Bank

Essex Investment Management Company, LLC

ESSSuper

Ethos Foundation

Etica Sgr

Eureka Funds Management

Eurizon Capital SGR

Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergyand Lay Workers

Evangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern Canada

Evangelisch-Luth. Kirche in Bayern

Evli Bank Plc

FACEB – FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDÊNCIA DOS EMPREGADOSDA CEB

FAELCE – Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade Social

FAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária da ExtensãoRural do Rio Grande do Sul

Federal Finance

Fédéris Gestion d’Actifs

FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH

FIM Asset Management Ltd

FIM Services

Finance S.A.

Financiere de l’Echiquier

FIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementar dosEmpregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPq

FIRA. - Banco de Mexico

First Affirmative Financial Network

First Bank

First State Super

First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1)

FirstRand Ltd

Florida State Board of Administration (SBA)

Folketrygdfondet

Folksam

Fondaction CSN

Fondation de Luxembourg

Fondazione Cariplo

Fondo Pegaso

Fondo Pensione Cometa

Fondo Pensione Gruppo Intesa Sanpaolo - FAPA

Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites – FRR

Foundation North

Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4)

FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment-Gesellschaft mbH

Friends Fiduciary Corporation

Friends Life

Fubon Financial Holdings

Fukoku Capital Management Inc

FUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários Federais

Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Brasiletros

Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social

Fundação Attilio Francisco Xavier Fontana

Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation

Fundação Chesf de Assistência e Seguridade Social – Fachesf

Fundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da CompanhiaRiograndense de Saneamento

Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES -FAPES

FUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROS

Fundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e Assistência Social

FUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCO

Fundação Itaúsa Industrial

Fundação Rede Ferroviaria de Seguridade Social – Refer

FUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA E ASSISTÊNCIASOCIAL - FUSAN

Fundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel)

Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIA

FUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIACOMPLEMENTAR DA CAESB

Futuregrowth Asset Management

GameChange Capital LLC

Greentech Capital Advisors, LLC

GEAP Fundação de Seguridade Social

Gemway Assets

General Equity Group AG

Generation Investment Management

Genus Capital Management

German Equity Trust AG

Gjensidige Forsikring ASA

Global Forestry Capital SARL

Globalance Bank Ltd

GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG

Goldman Sachs Asset Management

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale VermögensentwicklungmbH

Good Super

Government Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”), Republic ofSouth Africa

GPT Group

Greater Manchester Pension Fund

Green Alpha Advisors

Green Cay Asset Management

Green Century Capital Management

Green Science Partners

GROUPAMA EMEKLiLiK A.S, .

GROUPAMA SiGORTA A.S, .

Groupe Crédit Coopératif

GROUPE OFI AM

Grupo Financiero Banorte SAB de CV

Grupo Santander Brasil

Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena Group

Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation

Hall Capital Partners LLC

Hang Seng Bank

Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc

Hanwha Asset Management Company

Harbour Asset Management

Harrington Investments, Inc

Harvard Management Company, Inc.

Hauck & Aufhäuser Asset Management GmbH

Hazel Capital LLP

HDFC Bank Ltd.

Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP)

Heart of England Baptist Association

Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Henderson Global Investors

Hermes Investment Management

HESTA Super

HIP Investor

Holden & Partners

HSBC Fundo de Pensão

HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbH

HSBC Holdings plc

HSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

HUMANIS

Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd

Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd.

IBK Securities

IDBI Bank Ltd.

Infrastructure Development Finance Company

Industry Funds Management

Iguana Investimentos

Illinois State Board of Investment

Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company

Imofundos, S.A

Impax Asset Management

Making Dreams a Reality Financial Planning

IndusInd Bank Ltd.

Industrial Alliance, Insurance and Financial Services Inc.

Industrial Bank of Korea

Industrial Development Corporation

Inflection Point Capital Management

ING Group N.V.

Insight Investment

Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREV

Instituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - SEBRAEPREV

Insurance Australia Group

Integre Wealth Management of Raymond James

IntReal KAG

Investec Asset Management

Investing for Good CIC Ltd

Irish Life Investment Managers

Itau Asset Management

Itaú Unibanco Holding S A

Jantz Management LLC

Janus Capital Group Inc.

Jarislowsky Fraser Limited

Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation

Jesuits in Britain

JMEPS Trustees Limited

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SOCIEDADE PREVIDENCIARIA

Johnson Private Wealth Management, LLC

Joule Assets Inc.

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Jubitz Family Foundation

Jupiter Asset Management

Kagiso Asset Management

Kaiser Ritter Partner Privatbank AG

KB Kookmin Bank

KBC Asset Management

KBC Group

KCPS Private Wealth Management

KDB Asset Management Co. Ltd

Kendall Sustainable Infrastructure, LLC

Kepler Cheuvreux

KEPLER-FONDS KAG

Keva

KeyCorp

KfW Bankengruppe


443

Killik & Co LLP

Kiwi Income Property Trust

Kleinwort Benson Investors

KLP

Korea Investment Management Co., Ltd.

Korea Technology Finance Corporation (KOTEC)

KPA Pension

La Banque Postale Asset Management

La Financière Responsable

La Française

Laird Norton Family Foundation

Lampe Asset Management GmbH

Landsorganisationen i Sverige

Länsförsäkringar

LaSalle Investment Management

LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg

LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH

LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond

Legal and General Investment Management

Legg Mason Global Asset Management

LGT Group

LGT Group Foundation

LIG Insurance

Light Green Advisors, LLC

NORTHERN STAR GROUP

Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A.

Lloyds Banking Group

Local Authority Pension Fund Forum

Local Government Super

LocalTapiola Asset Management Ltd

Logos portföy Yönetimi A.S, .

Lombard Odier Asset Management

London Pensions Fund Authority

Lothian Pension Fund

LUCRF Super

Ludgate Investments Limited

Lutheran Council of Great Britain

Macquarie Group Limited

Magellan Financial Group

MagNet Magyar Közösségi Bank Zrt.

Maine Public Employees Retirement System

MainFirst Bank AG

Malakoff Médéric

MAMA Sustainable Incubation AG

Man

Mandarine Gestion

MAPFRE

Maple-Brown Abbott

Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc.

Martin Currie Investment Management

Maryknoll Sisters

Maryland State Treasurer

Matrix Asset Management

Mediobanca

Meeschaert Gestion Privée

Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company

Mellon Capital

Mendesprev Sociedade Previdenciária

Mercer Investments

Merck Family Fund

Mercy Investment Services, Inc.

Mergence Investment Managers

Merseyside Pension Fund

MetallRente GmbH

Metrus – Instituto de Seguridade Social

Metzler Asset Management Gmbh

MFS Investment Management

McLean Budden

Midas International Asset Management, Ltd.

Miller/Howard Investments, Inc.

KDB Daewoo Securities

Mirae Asset Global Investments

Mirae Asset Securities Co., Ltd.

Mirova

Mirvac Group Ltd

Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate

Mistra, The Swedish Foundation for Strategic EnvironmentalResearch

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd

Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.

MN

Mobimo Holding AG

Momentum Outcome-based Solutions

Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S/A

Montanaro Asset Management Limited

Morgan Stanley

MTAA Superannuation Fund

Nanuk Asset Management

The Nathan Cummings Foundation

National Australia Bank Limited

National Bank of Canada

NATIONAL BANK OF GREECE S.A.

National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity Supply PensionScheme

National Grid UK Pension Scheme

National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland

National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)

NATIXIS

Natural Investments LLC

Nedbank Limited

Needmor Fund

NEI Investments

Nelson Capital Management, LLC

NEST - National Employment Savings Trust

Nest Sammelstiftung

Neuberger Berman

New Alternatives Fund Inc.

New Amsterdam Partners LLC

New Forests

New Mexico State Treasurer

New Resource Bank

New York City Employees Retirement System

New York City Comptroller

New York City Teachers Retirement System

New York State Common Retirement Fund

Newground Social Investment

Newton

NGS Super

Woori Investment & Securities Co., Ltd.

NH-CA Asset Management Company

Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd.

Nissay Asset Management Corporation

NN Group NV

Nomura Holdings, Inc.

NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG

Nordea Investment Management

Norfolk Pension Fund

Norges Bank Investment Management

North Carolina Retirement System

North East Scotland Pension fund

Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ SuperannuationCommittee (NILGOSC)

Northern Trust

NorthStar Asset Management, Inc

Northward Capital Pty Ltd

Notenstein Privatbank AG

Nykredit

Oceana Investimentos ACVM Ltda

OceanRock Investments

Oddo & Cie

Office of the Vermont State Treasurer

Öhman

ÖKOWORLD

Old Mutual plc

Oliver Rothschild Corporate Advisors

OMERS Administration Corporation

Ontario Pension Board

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan

OP Wealth Management

Oppenheim & Co. Limited

Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH

OppenheimerFunds

Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment)

OPTrust

Oregon State Treasurer

Osmosis Investment Management

Overlook Investments Limited

PAI Partners

Park Foundation

Parnassus Investments

Paul Hamlyn Foundation

Pax World Funds

PCJ Investment Counsel Ltd.

Pensioenfonds Vervoer

Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists

Pension Protection Fund

Pension Denmark

Swedish Pensions Agency

People’s Choice Credit Union

Perpetual

PETROS - The Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Social

PFA Pension

PGGM Vermogensbeheer

Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management

PhiTrust Active Investors

Pictet Asset Management SA

Pioneer Investments

Piraeus Bank S.A.

PKA

Plato Investment Management

Pluris Sustainable Investments SA

PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation

Porto Seguro S.A.

POSTALIS - Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios eTelégrafos

Power Finance Corporation Limited

PREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTAR

PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco doBrasil

PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar

Previnorte - Fundação de Previdência Complementar

Progressive Asset Management, Inc.

Prologis

Provinzial Rheinland Holding

Prudential Investment Management

Prudential Plc

Psagot Investment House Ltd

Public Sector Pension Investment Board

Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd

QBE Insurance Group

QIC

Quantex

Quilter Cheviot Asset Management

Quotient Investors

Rabobank

Raiffeisen Fund Management Hungary Ltd.

Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Raiffeisen Schweiz Genossenschaft

RPMI Railpen Investments


45

Rathbones / Rathbone Greenbank Investments

RBC Global Asset Management

Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência Social

REI Super

Reliance Capital Limited

Resona Bank, Limited

Reynders McVeigh Capital Management

River Twice Capital Advisors, LLC

Robeco

RobecoSAM AG

Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation

Rockefeller Asset Management, Sustainability & Impact InvestingGroup

Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment

Rothschild & Cie Gestion Group

Royal Bank of Canada

Royal Bank of Scotland Group

Royal London Asset Management

RREEF Investment GmbH

Ruffer LLP

Russell Investments

Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S

Samsung Asset Management Co., Ltd.

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co.,Ltd.,

Samsunglife Insurance

Samsung Securities

Sanlam Life Insurance Ltd

Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda

Santam

Santander Brasil Asset Management

Sarasin & Partners

SAS Trustee Corporation

Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan

Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG

Schroders

SEB Asset Management AG

Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2)

S, ekerbank T.A.S, .

Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc

Sentinel Investments

SERPROS - Fundo Multipatrocinado

Service Employees International Union Pension Fund

Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7)

The Shiga Bank, Ltd.

Shinhan Bank

Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd

Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd

Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH

Signet Capital Management Ltd

Sisters of St Francis of Philadelphia

Sisters of St. Dominic

Sixth Swedish National Pension Fund (AP6)

Skandia

SEB AB

Smith Pierce, LLC

SNW Asset Management

Social(k)

Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - Prevdata

Società reale mutua di assicurazioni

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE

Socrates Fund Management

Solaris Investment Management Limited

Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Holdings, Inc

Sonen Capital

Sopher Investment Management

Soprise! Impact Fund

South Yorkshire Pension Fund

SouthPeak Investment Management

SPF Beheer bv

Spring Water Asset Management

Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd

Standard Chartered

Standard Chartered Korea Limited

Standard Life Investments

Standish Mellon Asset Management

State Bank of India

State Street Corporation

StatewideSuper

Stewart Investors

Stockland

Storebrand ASA

Strathclyde Pension Fund

Stratus Group

Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group

Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc.

Sun Life Financial

Superfund Asset Management GmbH

SURA Peru (AFP Integra, Seguros SURA, Fondos SURA,Hipotecaria SURA)

SUSI Partners AG

Sustainable Capital

Sustainable Development Capital

Sustainable Insight Capital Management

Handelsbanken

Svenska kyrkan

Svenska kyrkans pensionskassa

Swedbank

Swift Foundation

Swiss Re

Sycomore Asset Management

Symphonia sgr

Syntrus Achmea Asset Management

T. Rowe Price

Garanti Bank

T. SINAi KALKINMA BANKASI A.S, .

Taishin Financial Holding Co.,Ltd

Tasplan

Tata Capital Limited

TD Asset Management (TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAMUSA Inc.)

TD Securities (USA) LLC

TIAA

Telluride Association

Telstra Super

Tempis Asset Management Co. Ltd

Terra Alpha Investments LLC

Terra Global Capital, LLC

TerraVerde Capital Management LLC

Transport for London Pension Fund

The Brainerd Foundation

The Bullitt Foundation

The Church Pension Fund of Finland

The Children’s Investment Fund Management (UK) LLP

Clean Yield Asset Management

The Collins Foundation

The Co-operators Group Ltd

The Council of Lutheran Churches

The Daly Foundation

The Hartford Financial Services Group

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust

The Korea Teachers Pension (KTP)

The McKnight Foundation

The New School

The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Allianceof Canada

The Pinch Group

The Presbyterian Church in Canada

The Russell Family Foundation

The Sandy River Charitable Foundation

The Sisters of St. Ann

The Sustainability Group at the Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge Office

The United Church of Canada - General Council

The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund

The Wellcome Trust

Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)

TOBAM

Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc

Toronto Atmospheric Fund

Trillium Asset Management, LLC

Triodos Investment Management

Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment

Trusteam Finance

Tryg

Turner Investments

Unione di Banche Italiane S.c.p.a.

UBS

UniCredit SpA

Union Asset Management Holding AG

Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

Unionen

Unipension FAIF A/S

Unipol

UNISONS Staff Pension Scheme

UniSuper

Unitarian Universalist Association

United Church Funds

United Nations Foundation

Unity College

Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS)

University of California

University of Massachusetts Foundation

University of Sydney Endowment Fund

University of Toronto

University of Toronto Asset Management Corporation

University of Washington

Van Lanschot

Vancity Group of Companies

Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company

Ventas, Inc.

Veris Wealth Partners

Veritas Pension Insurance

Vexiom Capital Group, Inc.

VicSuper

Victorian Funds Management Corporation

VietNam Holding Ltd.

Vinva Investment Management

Vision Super Pty Ltd

VOIGT & COLL. GMBH

VOLKSBANK INVESTMENTS

Bank Vontobel AG

Trust Waikato

Walden Asset Management

WARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft fürImmobilien mbH

Water Asset Management, LLC

Wells Fargo & Company

Wespath Investment Management

West Midlands Pension Fund

West Yorkshire Pension Fund

Westfield Capital Management Company, LP

Westpac Banking Corporation

WHEB Asset Management

White Owl Capital AG

Whitley Asset Management

Woori Bank

Xoom Capital

YES BANK Limited

York University Pension Fund

Youville Provident Fund Inc.

Yuanta Financial Holding

Zevin Asset Management, LLC

Zürcher Kantonalbank


GHG emissions from this publication have been offset through CeroCO2 projects of emissions reduction and absorption. www.ceroco2.org

Event Host Madrid: Event Host Lisbon:

Portadas 2016 19/10/16 21:11 Página 3

CDP Contacts

Steven Tebbe

Managing Director

Diana Guzman

Director Southern [email protected]

Antonio Santoro

Project Officer Southern [email protected]

PolicyMirjam Wolfrum

Director Policy & [email protected]

ForestsLena Meintrup

Senior Project Officer [email protected]

WaterAriane Laporte-Bisquit

Project Officer [email protected]

Supply ChainMarie-Camille Attard

Account Manager Supply [email protected]

Reporter ServicesCarla Pritsch

Account Manager Reporter [email protected]

Sarah Robertson


Nadine Flack


Events & PartnershipsCarolin Anders

Account Manager Events &[email protected]

Commit to Action campaignElena Stecca

Project Officer Global [email protected]

Report Writer Contacts

Victor Viñuales

Executive [email protected]

Charles Castro

[email protected]

Aranzazu Romero

[email protected]

ECODES

[email protected]

Plaza San Bruno, 950001, ZaragozaEspañaTel: +34 976 298282Fax: +34 976 203092

Scoring Partner Contacts

María Luz Castilla

Partner, Sustainability and Climate [email protected]

Pablo Bascones

Director, Sustainability and Climate [email protected]

Margarita de Rosselló

Senior Manager, Sustainability and [email protected]

Franck van Dellen Ramon

Manager, Sustainability and Climate [email protected]

PwC Spain

www.pwc.es/sostenibilidadTel: +34 902 021 111Tel: +34 915 684 400

Torre PwCPaseo de la Castellana, 259 BMadrid 28046

Avenida Diagonal, 640Barcelona 08012

Claudia Coelho

[email protected]

Carlos de Llera Ramos

[email protected]

PwC Portugal

www.pwc.com/ptTel: +351 213 599 000Palacio SottomayorRua Sousa Martins 1-2Lisbon 1068-316

Spanish Collaborators:

Co-funded by theLIFE+ programme ofthe European Union

The sole responsibility lies with the author and theCommission is not responsible for any use that may bemade of the information contained therein

Board of Directors

Simon Barker

Sue Howells

Steven Tebbe

CDP Worldwide (Europe) gGmbH

Reinhardtstraße 1910117 BerlinGermany+49 (0)30 629 033 173www.cdp.net | Twitter: @cdp

Portadas 2016 20/10/16 20:02 Página 4