Facing the challenges of an uncertain future

CDP Asia ex-Japan Climate Change Report 2013On behalf of 722 investors representing US$87 trillion in assets

4 November 2013

Report writer and global advisor

02

The evolution of CDP

With great pleasure, CDP announced an exciting change this year.

Over ten years ago CDP pioneered the only global disclosure system for companies to report their environmental impacts and strategies to investors. In that time, and with your support, CDP has accelerated climate change and natural resource issues to the boardroom and has moved beyond the corporate world to engage with cities and governments.

The CDP platform has evolved significantly, supporting multinational purchasers to build more sustainable supply chains. It enables cities around the world to exchange information, take best practice action and build climate resilience. We assess the climate performance of companies and drive improvements through shareholder engagement.

Our offering to the global marketplace has expanded to cover a wider spectrum of the earth’s natural capital, specifically water and forests, alongside carbon, energy and climate.

For these reasons, we have outgrown our former name of the Carbon Disclosure Project and rebranded to CDP. Many of you already know and refer to us in this way. Our rebrand denotes our progress as we continue to catalyze action and respond to business, finance, investment and environmental needs globally.

We now have a bolder, more dynamic look and logo that reflects the scale of the work we must undertake in the coming years to move the markets ahead of where they would otherwise be on these issues and realize truly sustainable economies.

Over 5,000 companies from all over the world have been asked to report on climate change through CDP this year;

81% of the world’s 500 largest public companies listed on the Global 500 engage with CDP to enable effective measurement of their carbon footprint and climate change action;

CDP is a not-for-profit organization. If you would like to support our vital work through donations or sponsorship opportunities, please email paul.robins@cdp.net or telephone +44 (0) 7703 184 312.

03

Contents

CDP Foreword 4

PwC Foreword 5

Executive Summary 7

Key Themes and Highlights 8

Key Statistics 12

2013 Key Trends 18

2013 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) 20

2013 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) 21

2013 Leadership Criteria 22

Appendix I: Responding Companies by Sector 23

Appendix II: Other Responding Companies 27

Appendix III: Investor Members and Signatories 28

Important NoticeThe contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP or the contributing authors and presented in this report. If you intend to repackage or resell any of the contents of this report, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so.

CDP have prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2013 climate change information request. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given by CDP as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained in this report. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, CDP do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. All information and views expressed herein by CDP is based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report reflect the views of their respective authors; their inclusion is not an endorsement of them.

CDP, their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/or employees, may have a position in the securities of the companies discussed herein. The securities of the companies mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates.

Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refer to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330.

© 2013 Carbon Disclosure Project. All rights reserved.

04

CEO Foreword

This year we passed a significant landmark of 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and are rapidly heading towards 450ppm, accepted by many governments as the upper limit to avoid dangerous climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th assessment report (AR5) strengthens the scientific case for action.

Fears are increasing over future climate change impacts as we see more extreme weather events, Hurricane Sandy the most noted with damages totalling some $42 billion1. The unprecedented melting of the Arctic ice is a clear climate alarm bell, while the first 10 years of this century have been the world’s hottest since records began, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

The result is a seismic shift in corporate awareness of the need to assess physical risk from climate change and to build resilience.

For investors, the risk of stranded assets has been brought to the fore by the work of Carbon Tracker. They calculate around 80% of coal, oil and gas reserves are unburnable, if governments are to meet global commitments to keep the temperature rise below 2°C. This has serious implications for institutional investors’ portfolios and valuations of companies with fossil fuel reserves.

The economic case for action is strengthening. This year, we published the 3% Solution2 with WWF showing that the US corporate sector could reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2010 and 2020 and deliver $780 billion in savings above costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment. Meanwhile, governments are taking new action: The US Administration has launched its Climate

As countries around the world seek economic growth, strong employment and safe environments, corporations have a unique responsibility to deliver that growth in a way that uses natural resources wisely. The opportunity is enormous and it is the only growth worth having.

Action Plan, with a new emphasis on reducing emissions from utilities; China is developing air pollution measures and moving toward pilot cap and trade schemes; the UK Government has mandated greenhouse gas emissions reporting for all large listed companies; the EU is looking at improving environmental and other reporting.

The pressure on corporations, investors and governments to act continues. At CDP, we have broadened our work to add forests to climate and water so our programs now extend to an estimated 79% of natural capital, by value3. To reflect this, we rebranded at the start of the year from the Carbon Disclosure Project to CDP and are increasing our focus on projects to accelerate action. One explores how corporations influence public policy on climate change both positively and negatively. Some corporations are still acting – both directly and through trade associations – to prevent the inevitable: nations need sensible climate regulation that protects the public interest over the long term.

As countries around the world seek economic growth, strong employment and safe environments, corporations have a unique responsibility to deliver that growth in a way that uses natural resources wisely. The opportunity is enormous and it is the only growth worth having.

Paul Simpson CEO CDP

1 New York State Hurricane Sandy Damage Assessment; Governor Andrew Cuomo; November 12, 2012 http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/11262012-damageassessment 2 https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/3-percent-solution-report.pdf 3 Based on findings from the report Natural Capital at Risk: The Top 100 Externalities of Business, published by TEEB for Business Coalition in April 2013.

05

PwC Foreword

Asia is home to some of the world’s fastest growing economies. But, it is also the most vulnerable to the impacts from climate change. The region is already experiencing various climate change impacts and it is only expected to get worse in the coming years. The findings from IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report continue to highlight the impact of human activities on global and regional climate systems, which are predicted to cause more intense and frequent weather events1. More frequent disasters not only disrupt supply chains, but have corresponding social and economic implications, which affect the security and stability of the region. A recent study by the Asian Development Bank shows that disaster losses have outpaced the region’s economic growth, and with less than 5% of disaster losses in Asia insured, compared to 40% in developed countries, it continues to threaten any development gains in emerging markets2.

Growth is essential to so many Asian economies as they continue to lift their people out of poverty, and yet decoupling growth from carbon emissions remains a challenge globally. Asia accounts for about 40% of global GHG emissions and this is set to rise to almost 50% by 2030 if nothing is done3. Coupled with rising energy costs and an uncertain energy future, Asian companies are facing an uphill battle when it comes to building a climate-resilient business.

Even so, the opportunities for change are immense, and fortunately, Asian companies are recognizing this. This year there was a considerable increase in the number of companies that have identified climate change opportunities. Significant investments have been made in technology to mitigate climate change risks as well as rewarding employees for progress against climate change targets.

The pressure is on to find ways to grow in a smarter and more climate-resilient way, and companies must meet these challenges to remain successful or endeavour to survive in a carbon-constrained future. The time is now and there is no turning back.

In addition, by undertaking transparent disclosure on emissions and performance, companies are able to identify key areas for improvement and understand the impact their business has on the environment. Disclosure also serves as an important communication channel with investors and stakeholders, helping to provide insight as to how companies are managing climate change risks. By taking the lead and effectively managing current and future climate change impacts, companies in the region have an incredible opportunity to create shared value and build resilience.

Looking ahead, Asian companies must find the balance between growth and sustainability as supply chains become increasingly threatened by climate change impacts. They must recognize the need to measure, monitor, report and manage their risks, not just from an economic and regulatory perspective, but also from a social and environmental viewpoint.

The pressure is on to find ways to grow in a smarter and more climate-resilient way, and companies must meet these challenges to remain successful or endeavour to survive in a carbon-constrained future. The time is now and there is no turning back.

Malcolm Preston Partner & Global Head of Sustainability Services, PwC

1 IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 2 Asian Development Bank (2013) Investing in resilience: Ensuring a disaster-resistant future. 3 Asian Development Bank (2013) Low carbon green growth in Asia: Policies and practices.

06

Since the introduction of the ESG Reporting Guide in 2012, we have seen increased recognition amongst our listed companies of the importance of environmental, social governance (ESG) performance and reporting. Our ESG Reporting Guide provides a starting point for listed companies with limited familiarity with ESG reporting. We encourage listed companies who are capable of doing so to adopt internationally recognised guidelines such as the one provided by CDP. CDP’s system provides a key tool for companies as they prepare to further develop their climate change reporting.

David GrahamChief Regulatory Officerand Head of Listing,HKEx

07

Executive Summary

The relevance of climate change to Asian businesses can no longer be ignored. Asian economies are amongst the most vulnerable to climate change risks and companies are being noticeably impacted.

The integration of climate change to Asian business strategies is integral to the future sustainable economic growth of Asia. Climate change continues to impact the region and companies in unprecedented ways. Despite the fact that the region is more vulnerable to changes in the climate, including the increase in frequency and intensity of natural disasters, the region remains responsible for more than a third of the world’s emissions1. In order to assist in curbing these emissions, Asian governments are implementing new regulations, such as mandatory carbon reporting and emissions trading schemes. These regulatory changes have created an increasingly challenging regulatory landscape for businesses to operate in. Businesses are also under pressure from investors and consumers; both of whom are making more environmentally conscious decisions and have the power to undermine the growth of companies.

This report analyzes the 2013 responses from the Asia ex-Japan 400 sample. The Asia ex-Japan 400 sample consists of the 100 largest companies by market capitalization in China, 100 largest in India, 30 largest from Korea and 170 largest from Hong Kong and South East Asian region. These are considered to be the companies of greatest interest to investors and represent a sample which can be meaningfully compared to each other in terms of size and significance to the region’s economy. This year 37%2 (147) of companies from Asia ex-Japan responded to CDP - a 16% increase from 2012 (Figure 1).

This year we focus on the top emitters and how they are performing. Predictably, there is a large range in company performance, with a number of companies strongly progressing whilst others are failing to reduce their emissions and meet their targets.

The number of companies disclosing emissions targets is increasing marginally. However, more companies are now quantifying their emissions in intensity targets rather than absolute emissions targets. Despite the fact that fewer companies are targeting absolute emissions, only 56% companies are reporting that they are ahead of, or are meeting, their targets.

Companies’ understanding of the relationship between energy consumption and emissions is maturing, with the majority of companies engaging in energy reduction activities. More than 60% of all emissions reduction activities are related to energy efficiency, with companies dedicating more resources towards these efforts.

The big change this year was related to Scope 3 reporting, with results showing that companies are measuring and reporting more Scope 3 categories. Companies reporting more than five Scope 3 categories increased seven-fold, resulting in a wider variety of categories being reported this year.

As more companies disclosed their emissions so too did the number of companies reporting data measurement issues. Companies are facing data challenges and this is affecting the confidence that companies have in their data accuracy.

Key trends show that climate change is being integrated into companies’ business strategy, as 91% (104) of companies report that there is board or senior management oversight on the issues, with even more saying that climate change is integrated into their overall company strategy. As this integration has occurred, companies are more alert to the potential risks and opportunities of climate change. There was an over 50% increase from 2012 in the number of companies who are identifying both risks and opportunities in all three aspects – regulatory, physical and other climate-related developments.

This year there were three companies from Asia ex-Japan who performed strongly enough to be awarded onto the Global 500 CDLI whilst two companies were awarded on the Global 500 CPLI. Despite this achievement, the region still lags behind its global competitors in disclosure, with a lower percentage of regional companies publically disclosing data compared to the global average.

1 Reducing Vulnerability and Exposure to Disasters: The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2012. UNESCAP, UNISDR. 2 This percentage includes companies that reference a holding company’s response. Analysis of the remainder of this report is based on responses received by 8th August 2013 and does not include companies that reference a holding company’s response.

Figure 1: Breakdown of Asia ex-Japan 400 responding companies by country.

201120122013{

{{

India

China

Korea

Taiwan

Hong Kong

Singapore

Thailand

Malaysia

Philippines

Indonesia

0 10 20 30 40

28

10

22

14

15

6

2

2

1

2

35

23

24

15

14

7

2

3

5

1

14

10

5

4

2

2

38

32

24

16

08

Key Themes and Highlights

This analysis covers 114 responses from a sample of the 400 largest companies in Asia, based on market capitalization, outside of Japan. The CDP information request was sent to companies across ten Asia ex-Japan countries1. The following sections describe the overall trends from the 114 company response sample.

Top emitters doing their best?The top 20 emitters in the Asia ex-Japan sample are responsible for 87% of the total Scope 1 and 2 emissions reported in the region. Thus, the region’s ability to mitigate the impacts of climate change relies on their targets and their emissions reduction activities to meet these targets. These two factors are a focal point in this report.

The majority of these companies are from the Materials, Energy and Utilities sectors, representing three-quarters of the top 20 emitters. Our analysis shows that:

{ 60% (12) report a decrease in their absolute emissions from emissions reduction activities;

{ 50% (10) are ahead of or have met their targets;

{ 50% (10) report a decrease in their absolute emissions since last year; and

{ 85% (17) report that verification / assurance of their emissions is underway or has been completed.

Interestingly, only a small proportion of these companies are investing in long-term activities. Only seven of the top 20 emitters report investments in activities with a payback period of four years or more. This shows that these companies are still focusing on quick solutions with a fast payback period and are not investing in longer term initiatives.

While there is room for improvement, it is encouraging to see that the majority of top emitters are making good progress on their emissions performance, especially when compared to the Global 500. Global trends within the Global 500 show that whilst emissions continue to drop globally (4.2 billion metric tons CO2e in 2009 to 3.6 billion metric tons CO2e in 2013), the 50 largest emitters, responsible for 73% of total emissions in 2013, report an average increase of 2.9% in their emissions since 2009.

Further action and investment is required to make a bigger impact on emissions reduction targets and it will be crucial for the larger emitters to undertake strategies and investments that focus on the long term. They need to show leadership in this if they wish to gain a strategic advantage and be well-prepared for future regulatory and physical impacts as well as contribute to regional emissions reductions.

Greater commitment to energy efficiency One of the key themes that prevails throughout this year’s responses is companies’ focus on energy efficiency. Whether it is engaging policy makers, implementing energy saving initiatives or developing new energy-efficient products, it is clear that Asia ex-Japan companies are serious about tackling energy use.

Of the 54 companies directly engaged in climate change policy activities, half of them focus their efforts on energy efficiency. More importantly, these companies’ actions are going beyond policy promotion. Nearly half of the companies actively engaged on meeting emissions reduction targets also report a dedicated budget for energy efficiency investments. This financial commitment is reflected in the numerous initiatives implemented on energy efficiency, specifically 314 out of 499 total reported initiatives.

The results from the sample are aligned with other studies on the region. A recent PwC sustainability survey of 211 companies from the ASEAN-52 countries showed that companies recognized energy and carbon-related costs as the number one sustainability driver in the region in the next five years3.

Energy security is another serious challenge that companies will have to manage as the region becomes more reliant on oil and gas imports to sustain the growing energy demand. Without greater use of renewable energy and further investment in energy efficiency, Asia will increasingly become more vulnerable to external energy shocks and remain on track to become the largest contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions by 20354.

of top 20 emitters with third party verification / assurance underway or completed

85%

1 CDP selected the Asia ex-Japan 400 sample covered in this report through a combination of weighted representation by country and market capitalization. 2 ASEAN-5 represents the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ five largest developing countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand 3 Going beyond philanthropy? Pulse-check on sustainability (February 2013). PwC Malaysia. 4 Asian Development Outlook 2013: Asia’s Energy Challenge. Asian Development Bank.

09

Measurement constraints threaten data accuracyThis year, nearly three-quarters of companies provided information on their evaluations of Scope 1 and 2 data accuracy, which is a 12% increase from 2012. There is greater confidence in Scope 2 data with 59% (50) of companies confident that their reported figures may deviate by up to 2% from actual emissions levels, compared to 44% (37) for Scope 1.

However, as more companies start to measure and report their emissions data, it is only logical that these companies also begin to recognize the challenges associated with data gathering.

For both Scope 1 and 2 emissions, the main cause of data uncertainty is in metering and measurement constraints, as 57% (48) and 48% (41) of companies report this issue for each Scope respectively – a considerable increase from 2012. About a quarter of respondents also believe that there are uncertainties with assumptions and data gaps. Companies operating regionally seem to be most affected citing issues such as having various financial reporting years, making it difficult to consolidate data, and having to manage data gathering from multiple locations.

More risks to manage, more opportunities to seizeRisk management is playing an important role in mitigating climate change impacts. Compared to 2012, an average of 50% more companies identify climate change risks in all three categories: regulatory, physical and other climate-related developments (Figure 2). Two-thirds of responses for other climate-related developments are either about reputation or changing consumer behavior.

However, the risks of climate change also have associated opportunities. Asia ex-Japan companies are embracing changes, recognizing the new opportunities that have emerged. The number of companies identifying regulatory and physical climate change opportunities has increased 65% and 77% respectively from 2012. There is a nearly five-fold increase in those that identify potential opportunities in other climate-related developments, especially with regards to reputation and changing consumer behavior. These two aspects are fast becoming key drivers of change for leading companies that are aware of the potential opportunities. From Energy companies using cleaner fuel to Financial companies providing new insurance policies, companies from all sectors are seizing the opportunity to create new revenue streams whilst managing their reputation.

Climate change will create a reputational advantage or disadvantage in the minds of the public and stakeholders [...] In the face of growing public expectations, we are compelled to act beyond the basic legal requirements, and we may suffer a loss of reputation among our stakeholders, if we are perceived as failing to address climate change risks.

Hyundai MobisConsumer Discretionary, South Korea

Figure 2: Number of companies that identify risks versus opportunities (2012 & 2013).

Opportunity Risk

20122013

0 2080 4060 6040 8020 100100

Other developments

Physical

Regulatory

44

14

60

65

53

67

{{

99

78

81

95

96

81

10

71%of companies identified potential opportunities from other climate-related developments such as reputation and changing consumer behavior — an almost five-fold increase from CDP 2012.

Key Themes and Highlights continued

11

Physical climate change risks on top for the first timePhysical climate change impacts pose significant material risks to Asia ex-Japan companies. For the first time, more companies identify physical climate change risks as having the potential to substantially impact their business, over regulatory or other developments. The two biggest risks that companies identify are precipitation extremes and tropical cyclones, as 53% (51) of companies report that they are currently impacted, or will be in up to five years time (Figure 3).

Respondents are not only concerned about the impact on their capital and operational expenditure, but are also concerned that such risks have the potential impact to reduce and / or disrupt their production capacity, especially for the Information Technology sector.

Even though 2012 was a relatively mild year in comparison to 2011 in terms of disaster events, companies are still recovering from the economic aftermath of 2011’s events, estimated to be $294 billion1, whilst having to deal with more recent impacts. Floods and storms continue to impact the region, especially China and Philippines, causing a further US$15 billion in economic damage in the first 10 months of 20122.

Sadly, the Asian region appears to becoming more vulnerable to changes in the climate. According to the World Risk Report 20123, four of the top ten countries at highest risk of environmental degradation and disasters are in Asia. Multiple risk assessment studies have also shown that Asian cities are the most vulnerable to future climate change risks, and as the region continues to develop, so too does their exposure and vulnerability to such risks.

Within this context, it is positive that so many of the top regional companies identify these risks and are starting to manage them. While most companies now regularly assess their disaster preparedness and have in place contingency plans, some companies are going one step further and investing in new infrastructure and technology. Investment in disaster risk management is becoming increasingly important and seen less as a cost, but as more of an opportunity for value creation and to strengthen resilience, competitiveness and sustainability.

Extreme rains cause water logging during the monsoons, sometimes temporarily suspending the transport facilities due to road blocks. Considering India’s poor road conditions and further impact of rain on the roads, there is a greater impact on the supply chain as there can be disruption in raw material as well as final product transport.

ACCMaterials,India

1 The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2012: Reducing vulnerability and exposure to disasters. UNESCAP and UNISDR. 2 Floods deaths down but economic losses significant. 11 December 2012. 3 World Risk Report 2012.

Figure 3: Type of physical climate risk identified and expected timeframe of impact.

Change in precipitation extremes and droughts

Tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons)

Change in temperature extremes

Sea level rise

Change in mean (average) temperature

Change in mean (average) precipitation

Change in precipitation pattern

Other physical climate drivers

Uncertainty of physical risks

Snow and ice

Induced changes in natural resources

Current 1-5 years 6-10 years >10 years Unknown

305 3510 40 Number of companies15 20 250

{ {{ { {

12

Key Statistics

DisclosureThis year the Asia ex-Japan report analyzes responses from a sample of 400 companies, representing the top Asian companies based on market capitalization, outside of Japan.

147 companies responded to CDP of which 14 referred to a parent or holding company’s response and 19 submitted their response after the deadline for inclusion in analysis of the report. The percentages provided in Figures KS1 and KS2 incorporate these responses to provide a full picture of response rates (with the final figure taken on 1st October 2013), however the remaining analysis in this report is based on the lower total of 114, which excludes these 33 companies.

KS1: Year on year number of companies responding to CDP publicly and privately.

15050 1000

49982013

48812012

38712011

PublicPrivate

{{

KS2: Percentage response rate (public and private) by sector 2013.

2

11

CD

CS

EG

Y

FIN

HC

IND

IT MA

T

TC

OM

UT

IL

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

PublicPrivate

{{

1

CD Consumer Discretionary

CS Consumer Staples

EGY Energy

FIN Financials

HC Healthcare

IND Industrials

IT Information Technology

MAT Materials

TCOM Telecommunication Services

UTIL Utilities

53

3

44

11

4 534

96

810

16

13

KS3: Year on year number of companies disclosing Scope 1 or Scope 2 GHG emissions.

100604020 800

912013

842012

812011

KS4: Percentage of each sector disclosing Scope 1 or Scope 2 GHG emissions.

CD

CS

EG

Y

FIN

HC

IND

IT MA

T

TC

OM

UT

IL

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Statistics. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8 2 The number of companies disclosing Scope 1 or 2 emissions includes those that have disclosed their emissions as zero. 3 Only companies reporting Scope 3 emissions using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard named categories have been included in this analysis. Whilst in some cases “Other upstream” or “Other downstream” are legitimate selections, in most circumstances the data contained in these categories should be allocated to one of the named categories. Reporting companies are encouraged to use these specific categories where appropriate as not doing so and using “Other” greatly affects data quality and therefore the utility of the data for investors. An attempt to subjectively attribute categories where companies have selected “Other” has not been undertaken. In addition, only those categories for which emissions figures that are greater than zero and identified as relevant have been provided have been included.

EmissionsThe total Scope 1 emissions reported this year amounts to over 422 million metric tons CO2e, which is nearly equivalent to Indonesia’s total carbon emissions from energy consumption in 20111.

This year, 91 (80%) companies disclosed their Scope 1 or 2 emissions2 rising slightly by 8% since 2012. In addition, the Information Technology sector joined the Materials and Utilities sectors as the top performers, with every respondent disclosing both Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Marginally increasing since 2012, 68 companies report that verification / assurance of their emissions data is underway or has been completed.

Scope 33 reporting is on the rise, with the number of companies reporting more than five Scope 3 categories, increasing seven-fold from 2012. Similarly, the number

of companies reporting other Scope 3 categories has nearly quadrupled, highlighting the fact that companies are beginning to account for, and measure, more Scope 3 emission sources. Despite these positive findings, Asia ex-Japan still falls behind its global competitors as all global companies disclose at least one Scope 3 category compared to nearly half (49%) of Asia ex-Japan companies that do not report any Scope 3 category at all.

Transport and fuel-related categories continue to be the most common Scope 3 categories reported, with little improvement on disclosure of other categories that are significant components of the value chain, such as the processing and end of life treatment of sold products. Knowledge and understanding of how these Scope 3 categories are relevant to each company is still developing with up to a third of companies saying that some categories are not relevant or have yet to even be evaluated yet.

73 71 7175

92100 100 100

59

100

14

KS5: Total Scope 1 emissions reported by responding Asia ex-Japan companies (million tCO2e).

KS7: Total Scope 1 emissions reported by responding Asia ex-Japan companies by sector.

KS6: Total Scope 2 emissions reported by responding Asia ex-Japan companies (million tCO2e).

422

49

325

46

331

56

500

500

50

6050

100

100

10

10

200

200

20

20

300

300

30

million metric tons CO2e

million metric tons CO2e

million metric tons CO2e

million metric tons CO2e

30

400

400

40

40

0

0

0

0

2011

2011

2012

2012

2013

2013

KS8: Total Scope 2 emissions reported by responding Asia ex-Japan companies by sector.

CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL

CD CS EGY FIN HC IND IT MAT TCOM UTIL

Key Statistics continued

15

0 category1 category2 categories3 categories4 categories5 categories

Business travelPurchased goods and servicesEmployee commutingUpstream transportation and distributionDownstream transportation and distributionFuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or 2)Remaining Scope 3 categories

KS9: Number of Scope 3 categories (identified as relevant and reported with emissions data).

KS10: Commonly reported Scope 3 categories (identified as relevant and containing emissions data).

PerformanceThere are two key areas where the Asia ex-Japan company best practice performance has varied since the 2012 report — in disclosure of absolute versus intensity targets and in efforts taken towards rewarding climate change action.

Three-quarters of respondents have either an absolute or intensity emissions target or both. This year, however, reveals an increase in the number of companies disclosing intensity targets, with the opposite true for absolute targets. As absolute targets are much harder to achieve if companies are growing, these results may be the beginning of a growing trend of how companies are choosing to realistically meet their emissions. Indeed, when asked how their absolute emissions compared to the previous year, 61% (58) of companies that had emissions data report that their absolute emissions increased.

KS11: Third party verification/assurance of emissions reported and approved1 (complete or underway, any scope) (2011-2013).

KS12: Third party verification/assurance of emissions reported and approved (complete or underway, any scope) (2013).

8

4

4

60

59

48

705010 20 30 40 600

2013

2012

2011

CD

CS

EG

Y

FIN

HC

IND

IT MA

T

TC

OM

UT

IL

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Third party verification or assurance completeThird party verification or assurance underway

Third party verification or assurance completeThird party verification or assurance underway

{ {{ {

One way in which some companies are attempting to meet their targets is through engagement with their employees. Companies can engage with all levels of their operations by developing a bottom-up strategy where employees are encouraged to meet energy reduction targets or identify operations where energy can be saved. While not all companies reward employees for progress on climate change, the majority that do, choose to give monetary rewards. Companies identify multiple employee positions that are entitled to receive benefits from such incentives, ranging from board to officer levels. Out of the 62 companies that provide monetary rewards, 60% have incentives for all employees.

56

42

26

25

18

18

71

1915

10

7

12

14

1 CDP has been working to encourage greater levels of third party verification/assurance of data in response to demands for higher levels of data quality. The term “reported and approved” refers to the fact that the number of companies with verification is based on the scoring of the verification statements attached to their response. Where companies report verification/assurance of more than one Scope, they are only counted once in the statistics here.

15

8

12

955

2950

675871 7169

34

16

Key Statistics continued

Many companies are also providing attractive monetary rewards to employees who propose solutions that provide tangible monetary savings. Such rewards and incentives are providing a clear direction for employees to work towards and this is crucial in enabling companies to achieve their goals.

Companies disclosing to CDP indicate that they are establishing best practice in their operations. Ninety-one percent of companies have climate change embedded at the highest level with board or senior management oversight and even more have reported that climate change is being integrated into their overall business strategy. Many companies in the Asia ex-Japan region have

Companies may report multiple emission reductions due to implementation of activities, targets and reward incentives. In all of these cases, companies are only counted once in the statistics presented in this section, with the exception of the statistics on absolute and intensity targets where companies that have both types of target will be counted once in each type. The statistics presented in this section are based on reported data only. No further attempts to validate the information have been made.

become more aware of the material impacts that climate change will have to their business. Given that the region is responsible for over a third of global emissions, leadership is required from the region to mitigate these impacts. The report highlights that many companies in Asia ex-Japan are developing foundations on which further action can then be built. Already, more companies are setting emissions targets and are more aware of the cost-saving opportunities of energy efficiencies, with companies strategizing innovative ways of increasing energy efficiency such as monetary benefits to employees. In order to further complement these efforts, other major companies in the region need to get on board and recognize the need to take action and invest in managing their emissions.

KS13: Key performance statistics 2011-2013 (number of companies).

74

60

88

27

36

80

35

45

Board or other senior management oversight

Disclose absolute targets

Rewarding climate change progress

Disclose intensity targets

Reported disclosure of climate change information in mainstream filings or other external communications

Climate change reported as being integrated into the overall business strategy

Ahead of or met targets

Emissions reduction due to implementation of activities reported

201120122013{

{{

76

41

105

45

104

33

81

105

38

88

83

47

107

51

17

KS14: Percentage of responding companies with Board or other senior management oversight by sector.

KS16: Percentage of responding companies with demonstration of climate change being integrated into overall business strategy.

KS18: Percentage of responding companies that disclose intensity targets by sector.

KS20: Percentage of responding companies that reported disclosure of climate change information in mainstream filings or external communications.

KS15: Percentage of responding companies rewarding climate change progress by sector.

KS17: Percentage of responding companies that disclose absolute targets by sector.

KS19: Percentage of companies ahead of or met targets by sector.

KS21: Percentage of responding companies with emissions reduction due to implementation of activities by sector.

86

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

CD

CS

CS

CS

CS

CS

CS

CS

CS

EG

YE

GY

EG

YE

GY

EG

YE

GY

EG

YE

GY

FINFIN

FINFIN

FINFIN

FINFIN

HC

HC

HC

HC

HC

HC

HC

HC

IND

IND

IND

IND

IND

IND

IND

IND

ITIT

ITIT

ITIT

ITIT

MA

TM

AT

MA

TM

AT

MA

TM

AT

MA

TM

AT

TC

OM

TC

OM

TC

OM

TC

OM

TC

OM

TC

OM

TC

OM

TC

OM

UT

ILU

TIL

UT

ILU

TIL

UT

ILU

TIL

UT

ILU

TIL

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

80%

60%

60%

60%

60%

60%

60%

60%

60%

40%

40%

40%

40%

40%

40%

40%

40%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

BoardOther senior management

MonetaryOther incentives

{ {{ {

18

43 43

1217 24

73

43 43

8875 76

9281100 100 18

18

14

13

8

2314

25

45 43

7558

82 77 71 67

25

100

3625 25

41

71

3331

868683

88100 100 100 100100100

57

1413

100

50 50

71

92

2536

65

43

67

22

38

100

50

252936

67

4633

25 2529 29

82 82

57 5759

100

83 8394

77

50

73

18

Statistic

Asi

a ex

-Jap

an

Aus

tral

ia A

SX

200

Ben

elux

Bon

ds

Bra

zil

Can

ada

Cen

tral

&

Eas

tern

Eur

ope

Chi

na

Em

ergi

ng M

arke

ts

Ele

ctric

Util

ities

(G

loba

l)

Eur

ope

Fran

ce

DA

CH

(D

E, A

UT,

CH

)

Glo

bal 5

00

Iber

ia (E

S, P

T)

Indi

a

Irel

and

Italy

Japa

n

Kor

ea

Latin

Am

eric

a

New

Zea

land

N

ZX

50

Nor

dic

Rus

sia

Sou

th A

fric

a

Sw

itzer

land

Turk

ey

Tran

spor

t (G

loba

l)

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

FT

SE

350

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

S

&P

500

Ove

rall5

Number of companies in sample 400 200 150 180 100 200 100 100 800 250 300 250 350 500 125 200 30 100 500 250 80 50 260 50 100 100 100 100 350 500 N/A

% sample answering CDP 20131 33 50 34 86 56 58 27 19 37 37 90 38 52 81 44 27 40 46 45 36 53 42 59 18 83 64 28 55 74 68 N/A

Number of companies answering CDP 20131 131 99 51 154 56 115 27 19 296 92 271 94 182 403 55 54 12 46 225 89 42 21 153 9 83 64 28 55 260 342 2465

% of responders reporting Board or other senior management responsibility for climate change 91 94 96 99 88 90 100 68 93 96 99 98 86 97 92 98 92 89 97 89 95 86 93 100 99 94 85 91 95 91 91

% responders reporting incentives for the management of climate change issues 71 57 73 92 61 64 75 42 74 74 85 70 48 85 77 76 67 59 80 73 64 48 62 43 72 48 65 78 66 75 65

% of responders reporting climate change as being integrated into their business strategy 93 87 90 97 82 85 100 84 91 98 95 89 77 95 94 95 83 77 92 89 95 81 90 86 87 75 77 89 83 86 85

% of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on climate issues to encourage mitigation or adaptation

83 73 90 88 84 80 75 58 86 94 92 83 71 90 90 79 75 86 87 75 92 67 84 57 87 67 65 89 77 80 78

% of responders reporting emission reduction targets2 73 52 71 87 55 49 75 26 73 74 90 76 57 83 81 79 75 66 94 79 62 38 71 57 68 64 46 76 68 75 68

% of responders reporting absolute emission reduction targets2 32 30 48 58 27 28 50 26 39 48 56 39 33 50 54 10 42 50 69 48 31 33 34 43 37 36 38 28 37 43 40

% of responders reporting active emissions reduction initiatives in the reporting year 88 77 94 98 80 88 75 84 91 93 99 96 86 97 94 93 75 84 98 78 92 62 87 100 97 95 73 93 89 93 87

% of responders indicating that their products and services directly enable third parties to avoid GHG emissions

73 55 75 72 78 68 75 58 65 89 78 80 70 74 85 67 42 73 80 62 77 67 76 43 58 64 58 76 60 64 66

% of responders seeing regulatory risks 81 82 83 82 80 78 75 37 88 93 89 86 62 84 88 86 83 77 95 88 92 71 89 43 99 63 88 87 85 73 80

% of responders seeing regulatory opportunities 84 71 83 80 80 70 75 47 85 91 90 84 73 83 92 88 83 86 89 83 82 52 82 29 92 66 85 78 76 70 76

% of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope 1 and 2) have decreased compared to last year due to emission reduction activities

21 30 54 65 8 25 75 11 25 24 53 37 29 47 42 14 58 34 34 36 8 24 47 0 41 34 27 35 38 52 35

% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 1 emissions data as independently verified3 57 55 67 79 55 40 50 11 64 66 85 82 50 78 79 60 75 70 54 73 62 38 52 29 70 53 35 65 58 57 53

% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 2 emissions data as independently verified3 57 51 69 73 57 27 50 11 64 54 84 81 43 75 73 57 67 70 51 73 64 38 48 29 68 48 35 57 54 53 50

% of responders reporting emissions data for 2 or more named Scope 3 categories4 27 33 35 40 59 25 25 5 35 39 53 38 37 45 63 33 25 34 43 20 56 33 40 0 53 39 15 20 28 29 32

2013 Key Trends

The statistics presented in this key trends table may differ from those in other CDP reports for two reasons: (1) the data in this table is based on all responses received by 28 August 2013; (2) it is based on binary data (e.g. Yes/No or other drop down menu selection) reported to CDP and does not incorporate any validation of the follow up information provided or reflect the scoring methodology. The latter, in particular, is likely to lead to an over-reporting of data in this key trends table.

19

Statistic

Asi

a ex

-Jap

an

Aus

tral

ia A

SX

200

Ben

elux

Bon

ds

Bra

zil

Can

ada

Cen

tral

&

Eas

tern

Eur

ope

Chi

na

Em

ergi

ng M

arke

ts

Ele

ctric

Util

ities

(G

loba

l)

Eur

ope

Fran

ce

DA

CH

(D

E, A

UT,

CH

)

Glo

bal 5

00

Iber

ia (E

S, P

T)

Indi

a

Irel

and

Italy

Japa

n

Kor

ea

Latin

Am

eric

a

New

Zea

land

N

ZX

50

Nor

dic

Rus

sia

Sou

th A

fric

a

Sw

itzer

land

Turk

ey

Tran

spor

t (G

loba

l)

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

FT

SE

350

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

S

&P

500

Ove

rall5

Number of companies in sample 400 200 150 180 100 200 100 100 800 250 300 250 350 500 125 200 30 100 500 250 80 50 260 50 100 100 100 100 350 500 N/A

% sample answering CDP 20131 33 50 34 86 56 58 27 19 37 37 90 38 52 81 44 27 40 46 45 36 53 42 59 18 83 64 28 55 74 68 N/A

Number of companies answering CDP 20131 131 99 51 154 56 115 27 19 296 92 271 94 182 403 55 54 12 46 225 89 42 21 153 9 83 64 28 55 260 342 2465

% of responders reporting Board or other senior management responsibility for climate change 91 94 96 99 88 90 100 68 93 96 99 98 86 97 92 98 92 89 97 89 95 86 93 100 99 94 85 91 95 91 91

% responders reporting incentives for the management of climate change issues 71 57 73 92 61 64 75 42 74 74 85 70 48 85 77 76 67 59 80 73 64 48 62 43 72 48 65 78 66 75 65

% of responders reporting climate change as being integrated into their business strategy 93 87 90 97 82 85 100 84 91 98 95 89 77 95 94 95 83 77 92 89 95 81 90 86 87 75 77 89 83 86 85

% of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on climate issues to encourage mitigation or adaptation

83 73 90 88 84 80 75 58 86 94 92 83 71 90 90 79 75 86 87 75 92 67 84 57 87 67 65 89 77 80 78

% of responders reporting emission reduction targets2 73 52 71 87 55 49 75 26 73 74 90 76 57 83 81 79 75 66 94 79 62 38 71 57 68 64 46 76 68 75 68

% of responders reporting absolute emission reduction targets2 32 30 48 58 27 28 50 26 39 48 56 39 33 50 54 10 42 50 69 48 31 33 34 43 37 36 38 28 37 43 40

% of responders reporting active emissions reduction initiatives in the reporting year 88 77 94 98 80 88 75 84 91 93 99 96 86 97 94 93 75 84 98 78 92 62 87 100 97 95 73 93 89 93 87

% of responders indicating that their products and services directly enable third parties to avoid GHG emissions

73 55 75 72 78 68 75 58 65 89 78 80 70 74 85 67 42 73 80 62 77 67 76 43 58 64 58 76 60 64 66

% of responders seeing regulatory risks 81 82 83 82 80 78 75 37 88 93 89 86 62 84 88 86 83 77 95 88 92 71 89 43 99 63 88 87 85 73 80

% of responders seeing regulatory opportunities 84 71 83 80 80 70 75 47 85 91 90 84 73 83 92 88 83 86 89 83 82 52 82 29 92 66 85 78 76 70 76

% of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope 1 and 2) have decreased compared to last year due to emission reduction activities

21 30 54 65 8 25 75 11 25 24 53 37 29 47 42 14 58 34 34 36 8 24 47 0 41 34 27 35 38 52 35

% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 1 emissions data as independently verified3 57 55 67 79 55 40 50 11 64 66 85 82 50 78 79 60 75 70 54 73 62 38 52 29 70 53 35 65 58 57 53

% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 2 emissions data as independently verified3 57 51 69 73 57 27 50 11 64 54 84 81 43 75 73 57 67 70 51 73 64 38 48 29 68 48 35 57 54 53 50

% of responders reporting emissions data for 2 or more named Scope 3 categories4 27 33 35 40 59 25 25 5 35 39 53 38 37 45 63 33 25 34 43 20 56 33 40 0 53 39 15 20 28 29 32

1: This statistic includes those companies that respond by referencing a parent or holding company’s response. However the remaining statistics presented do not include these responses. 2: Companies may report multiple targets. However, in these statistics a company will only be counted once. 3: This takes into account companies reporting that verification is complete or underway, but does not include any evaluation of the verification statement provided. 4: Only companies reporting Scope 3 emissions using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard named categories have been included below. Whilst in some cases “Other upstream” or “Other downstream” are legitimate selections, in most circumstances the data contained in these categories should be allocated to one of the named categories. In addition, only those categories for which emissions figures have been provided have been included. 5: Includes responses across all samples as well as responses submitted by companies not included in specific geographic or industry samples in 2013.

20

2013 Climate DisclosureLeadership Index (CDLI)

Sector Company Country Disclosure Score

Performance Band

Consumer Discretionary LG Electronics South Korea 100 A-

Hyundai Mobis South Korea 94 B

Hyundai Motor South Korea 87 B

Mahindra & Mahindra India 83 B

Consumer Staples ITC India 85 B

Energy S-Oil South Korea 97 A-

PTT Exploration & Production Public Company

Thailand 85 C

PTT Thailand 84 B

Financials Shinhan Financial Group South Korea 95 A

Swire Pacific Hong Kong 90 B

YES Bank India 81 C

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance South Korea 76 B

Health Care Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories India 76 C

Industrials Samsung C&T South Korea 99 A

Noble Group Singapore 98 B

Samsung Heavy Industries South Korea 89 B

MTR Hong Kong 87 C

Cathay Pacific Airways Hong Kong 84 B

Larsen & Toubro India 83 B

Information Technology SK Hynix South Korea 100 A-

Samsung Electronics South Korea 99 A

Wipro India 98 A

Lenovo Group China 94 A Infosys India 92 A

United Microelectronics Taiwan 91 A

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing

Taiwan 90 B

Tata Consultancy Services India 89 A

Materials POSCO South Korea 97 B

LG Chem South Korea 95 B

Lotte Chemical South Korea 88 B

ACC India 87 B

China Steel Taiwan 86 B

Tata Steel India 85 B

PTT Global Chemical Thailand 78 B

Sesa Goa India 76 C

Telecommunication Services

KT South Korea 100 A

SK Telecom South Korea 91 B

DiGi.Com Malaysia 87 B

SingTel Singapore 76 C

Utilities Power Assets Holdings Hong Kong 96 B

CLP Holdings Hong Kong 94 B

Korea Electric Power South Korea 91 B

21

Sector Company Country Disclosure Score

Performance Band

Financials Shinhan Financial Group South Korea 95 A

Industrials Samsung C&T South Korea 99 A

Information Technology Samsung Electronics South Korea 99 A Wipro India 98 A

Lenovo Group China 94 A

Infosys India 92 A United Microelectronics Taiwan 91 A Tata Consultancy Services India 89 A Telecommunication Services

KT South Korea 100 A

2013 Climate PerformanceLeadership Index (CPLI)

22

2013 Leadership Criteria

What are the CDLI and CPLI criteria?

To enter the CDLI, a company must:

• MakeitsresponsepublicandsubmitviaCDP’s Online Response System

• Achieveascorewithinthetop10%of the total Global 500 population (59 companies in 2013)

To enter the CPLI (Performance Band A), a company must:

• MakeitsresponsepublicandsubmitviaCDP’s Online Response System

• Attainaperformancescoregreater than 85

• Scoremaximumperformancepointson question 12.1a for greenhouse gas emissions reductions due to emission reduction actions over the past year (4% or above in 2013)

• Disclosegrossglobalscope1and scope 2 figures

• Scoremaximumperformancepoints for verification of scope 1 and scope 2 emissions

• Furthermore,CDPreservestherighttoexclude any company from the CPLI if there is anything in its response or other publicly available information that calls into question its suitability for inclusion.

Each year, company responses are analyzed and scored against two parallel scoring schemes: disclosure and performance.

The disclosure score assesses the completeness and quality of a company’s response. Its purpose is to provide a summary of the extent to which companies have answered CDP’s questions in a structured format. A high disclosure score signals that a company provided comprehensive information about the measurement and management of its carbon footprint, its climate change strategy and risk management processes and outcomes.

The performance score assesses the level of action, as reported by the company, on climate change mitigation, adaptation and transparency. Its intent is to highlight positive climate action as demonstrated by a company’s CDP response. A high performance score signals that a company is measuring, verifying and managing its carbon footprint, for example by setting and meeting carbon reduction targets and implementing programs to reduce emissions in both its direct operations and supply chain.

The highest scoring companies for disclosure and/or performance enter the CDLI and/or CPLI. Public scores are available in CDP reports, through Bloomberg Terminals, Google Finance and Deutsche Boerse’s website.

How are the CDLI and CPLI used by investors?

Good disclosure and performance scores are used by investors as a proxy of good climate change management or climate change performance of companies. Investors identify and then engage with companies to encourage them to improve their score. The ‘Aiming for A’ initiative which was initiated by CCLA Investment Management is driven by a coalition of UK asset owners and mutual fund managers. They are asking 10 major UK-listed utilities and extractives companies to aim for inclusion in the CPLI. This may involve filing supportive shareholder resolutions for Annual General Meetings occurring after September 2013.

Investors are also using CDP scores for creation of financial products. For example, Nedbank in South Africa developed the Nedbank Green Index. Disclosure scores are used for selecting stocks and performance scores for assigning weight.

For further information on the CDLI and the CPLI and how scores are determined, please visit www.cdp.net/guidance

Note: Companies that achieve a performance score high enough to warrant inclusion in the CPLI, but do not meet all of the other CPLI requirements are classed as Performance Band A- but are not included in the CPLI.

23

Appendix I:Responding Companies by Sector

Company Name Country2013 Score

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Consumer DiscretionaryAstra International Indonesia 32 NP NP NPGreat Wall Motor Company China * NP NP NPHyundai Mobis  South Korea 94 B 40,967 291,957 1Hyundai Motor South Korea 87 B 877,211 1,533,990 3LG Electronics South Korea 100 A- 408,866 956,241 13Li & Fung Hong Kong 79 B NP NP NPLotte Shopping South Korea * NP NP NPMahindra & Mahindra India 83 B 52,883 180,107 5Sands China Hong Kong AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Shangri-La Asia Hong Kong 64 D 151,813 770,253Suning Appliance China * NP NP NPTata Motors  India AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L)Titan Industries India * NP NP NPConsumer StaplesCharoen Pokphand Foods PCL Thailand 19 NP NP NPColgate Palmolive India India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Health India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Godrej Consumer Products India * NP NP NPHenan Shuanghui Investment & Development

China AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L)

Hindustan Unilever India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)IOI Malaysia 53 E NP NP NPITC India 85 B 1,150,203 172,121 4KT&G South Korea * 1LG Household & Health Care South Korea * 5,534 34,173 1Luzhou Laojiao China * NP NP NPNestle India India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Uni-president Enterprises Taiwan 56 D NP NP NPWilmar International  Singapore AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L)EnergyCairn India India 44 909,029 7,458China Oilfield Services China * NP NP NPChina Shenhua Energy China * NP NP NPChina Petroleum & Chemical  China AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L)CNOOC China * NP NP NPIndian Oil India 58 C 14,154,000 106,000PetroChina China *PTT Thailand 84 B 29,332,000 1,583,000 3PTT Exploration & Production Public Thailand 85 C 4,431,143 1,649 2S-Oil South Korea 97 A- 7,088,188 944,858 3Shanxi Lanhua Sci-Tech-A China * NP NP NPYanzhou Coal Mining China * NP NP NP

24

Appendix I:Responding Companies by Sector continued

Company Name Country2013 Score

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

FinancialsAyala Land Philippines 55 D 10,580 230,911Bangkok Bank Thailand 19Bank of Beijing China * NP NP NPBank of Communications China *BOC Hong Kong Hong Kong AQ (L) NP NP NPCapitaCommercial Trust Singapore AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)CapitaLand Singapore 63 C NP NP NPCapitaMall Trust Singapore AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Cathay Financial Holding Taiwan 78 C NP NP NPChina Construction Bank China * NP NP NPChina Life Insurance Company China * NP NP NPChina Merchants Property Development China * NP NP NPChina Pacific Insurance Group China * NP NP NPChinatrust Financial Holding Taiwan 64 C 426 37,401City Developments Singapore 66 C 32,238 1Fubon Financial Holdings Taiwan 28 NP NP NPGemdale  China AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L)Hang Seng Bank Hong Kong 42 24,617HDFC Bank India 75 E 5,872 347,770 3Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Hong Kong 76 D NP NP NPIDBI Bank India 44 0 57,385IDFC India 68 D 241 2,721 4Indusind Bank India 59 D 2,451 27,742 2Industrial And Commercial Bank Of China China * NP NP NPKB Financial Group South Korea * 18,166 111,476Link Real Estate Investment Trust Hong Kong 65 C 169,242Malayan Banking Malaysia 67 C 652 88,427 1Oversea-Chinese Banking Singapore *Ping An Insurance Company of China  China *Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance South Korea 76 B 6,851 30,028 1Samsung Life Insurance South Korea * NP NP NPShanghai Pudong Development Bank China * NP NP NPShinhan Financial Group  South Korea 95 A 18,284 93,400 12State Bank of India India 16Swire Pacific Hong Kong 90 B 16,280,465 449,485 2Swire Properties Hong Kong AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Woori Financial Group South Korea *YES Bank India 81 C 922 24,537 4Yuanta Financial Holding Taiwan 10 NP NP NP

25

Company Name Country2013 Score

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Health CareDr. Reddy’s Laboratories India 76 C 195,879 205,373GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Shandong Dong-E E-Jiao China AQ (L) NP NP NPIndustrialsABB - Asea Brown Bovari India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Cathay Pacific Airways Hong Kong 84 B 16,013,724 56,086 1China Communications Construction  China AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L)China Merchants Holdings Company  China AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L)China Railway Construction  China AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L) AQ (L)Cummins India India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Far Eastern New Century Taiwan 50 D 190,263 306,305Hyundai Heavy Industries South Korea * 407,346 566,090Keppel Singapore 50 D NP NP NPLarsen & Toubro India 83 B 424,351 248,130 2MTR Hong Kong 87 C 53,568 1,171,764 4Noble Group Singapore 98 B 1,968,665 144,205 3Samsung C&T South Korea 99 A 37,971 35,304 3Samsung Heavy Industries South Korea 89 B 225,909 228,659 4Sany Heavy Industry China * NP NP NPSiemens India India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)Sime Darby Malaysia 65 D NP NP NPSingapore Airlines Singapore 54 E NP NP NPZoomlion Heavy Industry Science and Technology

China * NP NP NP

Information TechnologyAAC Technologies Holdings Hong Kong 54 D NP NP NPAdvanced Semiconductor Engineering Taiwan 83 B NP NP NPAsustek Computer Taiwan 65 D 253 17,353 2Delta Electronics Taiwan 87 B NP NP NPHCL Technologies India 70 D 56,278 112,992 1Hon Hai Precision Industry Taiwan AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)HTC Taiwan 51 E 1,871 54,317Infosys India 92 A 28,015 134,230 4Lenovo Group  China 94 A 3,595 100,641 6LG Display South Korea * NP NP NPQuanta Computer Taiwan 57 D 15,140 301,392Samsung Electronics South Korea 99 A 2,098,438 5,388,036 5SK Hynix South Korea 100 A- 1,358,163 2,472,107 14Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing

Taiwan 90 B 1,563,306 3,042,814 6

Tata Consultancy Services India 89 A 58,961 300,555 2United Microelectronics Taiwan 91 A 560,800 1,131,000 5Wipro India 98 A 88,033 230,222 8ZTE China * NP NP NP

26

Appendix key:

AQ (L): Answered questionnaire late and therefore is not scored.AQ (SA): See another - refers to another company response. NP: Not public, the company responded privately.Scope 3 column: Value indicates number of S3 categories that were reported as ‘relevant or calculated’.Bold: Companies that are in either CPLI (performance band A) or CDLI (disclosure score 97 or higher), or both.* : Company not scored or score not public.

Appendix I:Responding Companies by Sector continued

Company Name Country2013 Score

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

MaterialsACC India 87 B 15,383,520 565,856 4Ambuja Cements India 62 D 14,900,846 671,919Castrol India India AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA) AQ (SA)China Steel Taiwan 86 B 20,070,402 1,243,282 6Hindustan Zinc India 65 C 4,323,445 94,328 1Lotte Chemical South Korea 88 B 3,494,983 1,064,027 1JSW Steel India 48 26,314,342 2,326,057LG Chem South Korea 95 B 4,454,747 1,865,116 4POSCO South Korea 97 B 73,526,000 3,471,000 4PTT Global Chemical Thailand 78 B 4,654,772 1,072,122 2Sesa Goa India 76 C 707,175 51,870 2Sterlite Industries India 53 E 338,276 343,136 2Tata Steel India 85 B 18,802,944 1,174,594 4Ultratech Cement India 74 C 32,324,253 709,097Telecommunication ServicesChina Mobile China AQ (L) NP NP NPChina Telecom China *China Unicom China *Chunghwa Telecom Taiwan 65 D 23,169 785,792 1DiGi.Com Malaysia 87 B 16,963 107,002 1KT South Korea 100 A 63,251 1,035,219 14Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

Philippines 14 NP NP NP

SingTel Singapore 76 C 6,897 177,321 3SK Telecom South Korea 91 B 7,803 665,393 4UtilitiesCLP Holdings Hong Kong 94 B 38,245,000 219,000 2GAIL India 66 B 2,381,805 243,424Korea Electric Power South Korea 91 B 1,174,220 132,861Perusahaan Gas Negara Indonesia AQ (L) NP NP NPPower Assets Holdings Hong Kong 96 B 8,960,000 0 8Tata Power India 65 D 25,024,366 9,313 1

To read 2013 company responses in full please go to www.cdp.net/en-US/Results/Pages/responses.aspx

27

Company Name Country

Acer TaiwanAdvantech TaiwanAME TaiwanAreva T&D India IndiaAsiatan International ChinaAU Optronics TaiwanAVC International (Samoa) TaiwanBanpu Public ThailandBharat Aluminium IndiaBi-Link (Shanghai) ChinaBOE Technology Group ChinaBusan Bank South KoreaBusan Infrastructure South KoreaBYD ChinaCarsem Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. MalaysiaChaun-Choung Technology TaiwanChicony Electronics TaiwanChina Airlines TaiwanChina Taiping Insurance Holdings Hong KongChunghwa Picture Tubes TaiwanCompal Communications TaiwanCompal Electronics TaiwanCoretronic Corporation TaiwanD&T South KoreaE.Sun Financial Holding TaiwanEmerging Display Technologies TaiwanEssar Power IndiaEssar Steel IndiaFoxconn Technology ChinaGangdong-gu City Management South KoreaGemtek Technology TaiwanGETRAG (Jiangxi) Transmission ChinaGillette India IndiaGlow Energy Public Company ThailandGodrej Interio Division-Godrej & Boyce Mfg.

India

Gold Circuit Electronics TaiwanGVK Power & Infrastructure IndiaHaier Group Company ChinaHannStar Board Tech. (Jiangyin) ChinaHanwha General Insurance South KoreaHanwha Group South KoreaHanwha Investment & Securities South KoreaHong Kong Aircraft Engineering Hong KongHong Kong Airport Service Hong KongiGate Patni IndiaIL&FS Transportation Networks IndiaImpact Innovations Hong KongInnolux TaiwanInventec TaiwanJiangyin Changdian Advanced Packaging

China

Appendix II:Other Responding Companies

CDP would like to recognize the following companies within the Asia ex-Japan region which provided responses to the 2013 Investor CDP information request, either voluntarily or as part of another sample:

Company Name Country

Jubilant Life Sciences IndiaKansai Nerolac Paints IndiaKarrie Industrial Hong KongKeppel Land SingaporeKingbright TaiwanKORAIL RAILROAD South KoreaKorea East-West Power South KoreaLafarge Malayan Cement MalaysiaLawkim Motors Group division - Godrej and Boyce Mfg.

India

Lite-On Technology TaiwanLotes Guangzhou ChinaMahindra Lifespace Developers IndiaMAS Holdings Sri LankaMianyang Pulse Electronics ChinaMicro-Star International TaiwanMindTree IndiaMinor International PCL ThailandMitac International TaiwanNan Ya Printed Circuit Board TaiwanNanya Technology TaiwanNestle (Malaysia) MalaysiaOlam International SingaporeOplink Communications ChinaOVIS Enterprises TaiwanPacific Basin Shipping Hong KongPegatron TaiwanPowertech Technology TaiwanQinghai Salt Lake Potash ChinaQisda TaiwanSeaspan Hong KongShenzhen MYS Environmental Protection & Technology

China

Shin Zu Shing TaiwanShree Cement IndiaSiliconware Precision Industries TaiwanSimmtech South KoreaSimplo Technology TaiwanSTATS ChipPAC SingaporesTec Technology Sdn. Bhd. MalaysiaSuzhou RAKEN Technology ChinaTrue Corporation ThailandTXC TaiwanUnilever Indonesia IndonesiaUnimicron TaiwanUniversal Global Technology (Shenzhen) ChinaUTAC (Shanghai) ChinaVenture SingaporeWelspun-Gujarat Stahl Rohren IndiaWistron Taiwan

28

2013 INVESTOR SIGNATORY BREAKDOWN - TYPE

247 Mainstream Asset Managers167 Pension funds160 Banks51 Insurance39 SRI Asset Managers34 Foundations27 Other

Appendix III:Investor Members and Signatories

CDP works with investors globally to advance the investment opportunities and reduce the risks posed by climate change by asking over 5,000 of the world’s largest companies to report their climate strategies, GHG emissions and energy use through CDP’s

standardized format. To learn more about CDP’s member offering and becoming a member, please contact us or visit the investor pages at https://www.cdp.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/Pages/investors.aspx

ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar

ATP Group

Aviva Investors

Bank of America

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank

BlackRock

Boston Common Asset Management, LLC

California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)

California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS)

Calvert Group, Ltd.

Capricorn Investment Group

Catholic Super

CCLA Investment Management Ltd

Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd.

Generation Investment Management

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Henderson Global Investors

HSBC Holdings plc

Legg Mason, Inc.

KLP

London Pensions Fund Authority

Mobimo Holding AG

2013 INVESTOR SIGNATORY BREAKDOWN - REGION

Africa (15)

America - Latin & Caribbean (71)

America - North (174)

Asia (71)

Australia and New Zealand (61)

Europe - North & Western (294)

Europe - Southern & Eastern (39)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A.

Morgan Stanley

National Australia Bank

Neuberger Berman

Newton Investment Management Limited

Nordea Bank

Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)

Northwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEI Investments)

PFA Pension

Robeco

RobecoSAM AG

Rockefeller Asset Management

Royal Bank of Scotland Group

Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S

Schroders

Scottish Widows Investment Partnership

Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB)

Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.

Standard Chartered

Sun Life Financial Inc

Sustainable Insights Capital Management

TD Asset Management

The Wellcome Trust

INCREASING NUMBER OF INVESTORS REQUESTING CLIMATE DATA THROUGH CDP

• Investor signatory assets• Number of investor signatories

1 CDP INVESTOR SIGNATORIES & ASSETS (US$ TRILLION) AGAINST TIME

• Investor CDP Signatories• Investor CDP Signatory Assets

354.5

9510

15521

22531

31541

38557

47555

53464

55171

65578

72287

2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201320062005

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Ass

ets

(US

$ Tr

illio

ns)

Num

ber

of S

igna

torie

s

29

3Sisters Sustainable Management LLCAberdeen Asset ManagementAberdeen Immobilien KAG mbHABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência ComplementarAchmea NVActive Earth Investment ManagementAcuity Investment ManagementAddenda Capital Inc.Advanced Investment PartnersAdvantage Asset Managers (Pty) LtdAegon N.V.AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., LtdAFP IntegraAIG Asset ManagementAK PORTFÖY YÖNETİMİ A.Ş.AKBANK T.A.Ş.Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo)Alberta Teachers Retirement FundAlcyone FinanceAllenbridgeEpic Investment AdvisersAlliance TrustAllianz Elementar Versicherungs-AGAllianz Global Investors AGAllianz GroupAltira GroupAmalgamated BankAmlinAMP Capital InvestorsAmpegaGerling Investment GmbHAmundi AMANBIMA – Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos Mercados Financeiro e de CapitaisAntera Gestão de Recursos S.A.APG GroupAQEX LLCAquila CapitalArisaig PartnersArkx Investment ManagementARMA PORTFÖY YÖNETİMİ A.Ş.Armstrong Asset ManagementASM Administradora de Recursos S.A.ASN BankAssicurazioni GeneraliATI Asset ManagementAtlantic Asset ManagementATP GroupAuriel Capital ManagementAustralia and New Zealand Banking GroupAustralian Ethical InvestmentAustralianSuperAvaron Asset Management ASAvivaAviva InvestorsAXA GroupBaillie Gifford & Co.BaltCapBanco Bradesco S/ABanco Comercial Português SABanco de Credito del Peru BCPBanco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A.Banco do Brasil PrevidênciaBanco do Brasil S/ABanco Espírito Santo SABanco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social (BNDES)Banco Popular EspanolBanco SabadellBanco SantanderBanesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade SocialBanestoBANIF SABank Handlowy w Warszawie SABank Leumi Le IsraelBank of America Merrill LynchBank of MontrealBank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank)

Bank Sarasin & Cie AGBank VontobelBankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H.BankiaBankinterBankInvestbankmecuBanque DegroofBanque Libano-FrancaiseBarclaysBasellandschaftliche KantonalbankBASF Sociedade de Previdência ComplementarBasler KantonalbankBâtirenteBaumann and Partners S.A.Bayern LBBayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHBBC Pension Trust LtdBBVABedfordshire Pension FundBeetle CapitalBefimmo SABendigo and Adelaide BankBentall KennedyBerenberg BankBerti InvestmentsBioFinance Administração de Recursos de Terceiros LtdaBlackRockBlom Bank SALBlumenthal FoundationBNP Paribas Investment PartnersBNY MellonBNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft mbHBoston Common Asset Management, LLCBrasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A.Breckinridge Capital AdvisorsBritish Airways PensionsBritish Coal Staff Superannuation SchemeBritish Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcIMC)Brown AdvisoryBT Financial GroupBT Investment ManagementBusan BankCAAT Pension PlanCadiz Holdings LimitedCAI Corporate Assets International AGCaisse de dépôt et placement du QuébecCaisse des DépôtsCaixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF)Caixa Econômica FederalCaixa Geral de DepósitosCaixaBankCalifornia Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS)California State TreasurerCalvert Investment Management, IncCanada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB)Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC)Canadian Labour Congress Staff Pension FundCAPESESPCapital Innovations, LLCCapricorn Investment GroupCARE SuperCarmignac GestionCaser Pensiones E.G.F.PCathay Financial HoldingCatherine Donnelly FoundationCatholic SuperCBF Church of England FundsCBRE Group, Inc.Cbus Superannuation FundCCLA Investment Management LtdCeleste Funds ManagementCentral Finance Board of the Methodist ChurchCeresCERES-Fundação de Seguridade SocialChange Investment ManagementChinatrust Financial Holding Co LimitedChristian Brothers Investment Services Inc.Christian SuperChristopher Reynolds FoundationChurch Commissioners for EnglandChurch of England Pensions BoardCI Mutual Funds' Signature Global Advisors

722 financial institutions with assets of US$87 trillion were signatories to the CDP 2013 climate change information request dated February 1st 2013

City Developments LimitedClearBridge InvestmentsClimate Change Capital Group LtdCM-CIC Asset ManagementColonial First State Global Asset ManagementComerica IncorporatedComgestCommerzbank AGCommInsureCommonwealth Bank of AustraliaCommonwealth Superannuation CorporationCompton Foundation, Inc.Concordia Versicherungs-Gesellschaft a.G.Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust FundsConser InvestCo-operative Asset ManagementCo-operative Financial Services (CFS)Credit SuisseDaegu BankDaesung Capital ManagementDaiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Daiwa Securities Group Inc.Dalton Nicol ReidDanske Bank A/Sde Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A.DekaBank Deutsche GirozentraleDelta Lloyd Asset ManagementDesjardins Financial SecurityDeutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbHDeutsche Bank AGDeutsche Postbank AGDevelopment Bank of Japan Inc.Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)Dexia Asset ManagementDexus Property GroupDLM INVISTA ASSET MANAGEMENT S/ADNB ASADomini Social Investments LLCDongbu InsuranceDoughty Hanson & Co.DWS InvestmentsDZ BankEarth Capital Partners LLPEast Sussex Pension FundEcclesiastical Investment ManagementEcofi Investissements - Groupe Credit CooperatifEdward W. Hazen FoundationEEA Group LtdEkoElan Capital PartnersElement Investment ManagersELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e PrevidênciaEnvironment Agency Active Pension fundEpworth Investment ManagementEquilibrium Capital Groupequinet Bank AGErik Penser FondkommissionErste Asset ManagementErste Group Bank AGEssex Investment Management Company, LLCESSSuperEthos FoundationEtica SGREureka Funds ManagementEurizon Capital SGR S.p.A.Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay WorkersEvangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern CanadaEvli Bank PlcF&C Asset ManagementFACEB – Fundação de Previdência dos Empregados da CEBFAELCE – Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade SocialFAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária da Extensão Rural do Rio Grande do SulFASERN - Fundação COSERN de Previdência ComplementarFédéris Gestion d'ActifsFIDURA Capital Consult GmbHFIM Asset Management LtdFIM ServicesFinanciere de l'EchiquierFIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementar dos Empregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPqFIRA. - Banco de MexicoFirst Affirmative Financial Network, LLCFirst Commercial BankFirst State Investments

30

First State Superannuation SchemeFirst Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1)Firstrand LimitedFive Oceans Asset ManagementFlorida State Board of Administration (SBA)FolketrygdfondetFolksamFondaction CSNFondation de LuxembourgForma Futura Invest AGFourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4)FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft mbHFriends Fiduciary CorporationFubon Financial HoldingsFukoku Capital Management IncFUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários FederaisFundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - BrasiletrosFundação Atlântico de Seguridade SocialFundação Attilio Francisco Xavier FontanaFundação Banrisul de Seguridade SocialFundação BRDE de Previdência Complementar - ISBREFundação Chesf de Assistência e Seguridade Social – FachesfFundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da Companhia Riograndense de SaneamentoFundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES - FAPESFUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROSFundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social - FORLUZFundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e Assistência SocialFUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCOFundação Itaúsa IndustrialFundação Promon de Previdência SocialFundação Rede Ferroviaria de Seguridade Social – ReferFUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA E ASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL - FUSANFundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel)Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIAFUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIA COMPLEMENTAR DA CAESBFuturegrowth Asset ManagementGEAP Fundação de Seguridade SocialGeneral Equity Group AGGenerali Deutschland Holding AGGeneration Investment ManagementGenus Capital ManagementGerman Equity Trust AGGjensidige Forsikring ASAGlobal Forestry Capital S.a.r.l.GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eGGoldman Sachs Group Inc.GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale Vermögensentwicklung mbHGovernance for OwnersGovernment Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”), Republic of South AfricaGPT GroupGreater Manchester Pension FundGreen Cay Asset ManagementGreen Century Capital ManagementGROUPAMA EMEKLİLİK A.Ş.GROUPAMA SİGORTA A.Ş.Groupe Crédit CoopératifGroupe Investissement Responsable Inc.GROUPE OFI AMGrupo Financiero Banorte SAB de CVGrupo Santander BrasilGruppo Bancario Credito ValtellineseGruppo Monte PaschiGuardians of New Zealand SuperannuationHang Seng BankHanwha Asset Management CompanyHarbour Asset ManagementHarrington Investments, IncHauck & Aufhäuser Asset Management GmbHHazel Capital LLPHDFC Bank LtdHealthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP)Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHHenderson Global InvestorsHermes Fund Managers

HESTA SuperHIP InvestorHolden & PartnersHSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbHHSBC Holdings plcHSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHHumanisHyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd.IBK SecuritiesIDBI Bank LtdIDFC LtdIllinois State Board of InvestmentIlmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance CompanyImpax Group plcIndependent Planning GroupIndusind BankIndustrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.Industrial BankIndustrial Bank of KoreaIndustrial Development CorporationIndustry Funds ManagementInflection Point PartnersING GroupInsight Investment Management (Global) LtdInstituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREVInstituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - SEBRAEPREVInsurance Australia GroupIntReal KAGInvestec Asset ManagementInvesting for GoodIrish Life Investment ManagersItaú Asset ManagementItaú Unibanco Holding S.A.Janus Capital Group Inc.Jarislowsky Fraser LimitedJessie Smith Noyes FoundationJOHNSON & JOHNSON SOCIEDADE PREVIDENCIARIAJPMorgan Chase & Co.Jubitz Family FoundationJupiter Asset ManagementKaiser Ritter Partner Privatbank AG (Schweiz)KB Kookmin BankKBC Asset Management NVKBC GroupKCPS and CompanyKDB Asset Management Co., Ltd.KDB Daewoo Securities Co. Ltd.KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m. b. H.KEVAKeyCorpKfW BankengruppeKillik & Co LLPKiwi Income Property TrustKleinwort Benson InvestorsKlimaINVESTKLP InsuranceKorea Investment ManagementKorea Technology Finance CorporationKPA PensionLa Banque Postale Asset ManagementLa Financiere ResponsableLampe Asset Management GmbHLandsorganisationen i SverigeLaSalle Investment ManagementLBBW - Landesbank Baden-WürttembergLBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbHLD Lønmodtagernes DyrtidsfondLegal & General Investment ManagementLegg Mason, Inc.LGT Capital Management Ltd.LIG Insurance Co., Ltd.Light Green Advisors, LLCLiving Planet Fund Management Company S.A.Lloyds Banking GroupLocal Authority Pension Fund ForumLocal Government SuperLOGOS PORTFÖY YÖNETIMI A.Ş.London Pensions Fund Authority

Lothian Pension FundLUCRF SuperMacquarie GroupMagNet Magyar Közösségi Bank Zrt.MainFirst Bank AGMalakoff MédéricMAMA Sustainable Incubation AGMan Group plcMandarine GestionMAPFREMaple-Brown AbbottMarc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc.Maryland State TreasurerMatrix Asset ManagementMatrix GroupMcLean BuddenMEAG MUNICH ERGO Asset Management GmbHMediobancaMeeschaert Gestion PrivéeMeiji Yasuda Life Insurance CompanyMendesprev Sociedade PrevidenciáriaMerck Family FundMercy Investment Services, Inc.Mergence Investment ManagersMetallRente GmbHMetrus – Instituto de Seguridade SocialMetzler Investment GmbhMFS Investment ManagementMidas International Asset ManagementMiller/Howard InvestmentsMirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd.Mirae Asset SecuritiesMirvac GroupMissionary Oblates of Mary ImmaculateMistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental ResearchMitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,LtdMizuho Financial Group, Inc.Mn ServicesMomentum Manager of Managers (Pty) LtdMonega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHMongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A.Morgan StanleyMountain Cleantech AGMTAA Superannuation FundMutual Insurance Company Pension-FenniaNanuk Asset ManagementNatcan Investment ManagementNathan Cummings Foundation, TheNational Australia BankNational Bank of CanadaNational Bank Of GreeceNational Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity Supply Pension SchemeNational Grid UK Pension SchemeNational Pensions Reserve Fund of IrelandNational Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)Nativus Sustainable InvestmentsNatixis SANatural Investments LLCNedbank LimitedNeedmor FundNelson Capital Management, LLCNest SammelstiftungNeuberger BermanNew Alternatives Fund Inc.New Amsterdam Partners LLCNew ForestsNew Mexico State TreasurerNew York City Employees Retirement SystemNew York City Teachers Retirement SystemNew York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF)Newton Investment Management LimitedNGS SuperNH-CA Asset ManagementNikko Asset Management Co., Ltd.Nipponkoa Insurance Company, LtdNissay Asset Management CorporationNORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AGNordea BankNorfolk Pension FundNorges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)North Carolina Retirement System

Appendix III:Investor Members and Signatories continued

31

Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC)Northern Star GroupNorthern TrustNorthward CapitalNorthwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEI Investments)NykreditOceanRock Investments Inc.Oddo & Cieoeco capital Lebensversicherung AGÖKOWORLDOld Mutual plcOMERS Administration CorporationOntario Pension BoardOntario Teachers' Pension PlanOP Fund Management Company LtdOppenheim & Co LimitedOppenheim Fonds Trust GmbHOpplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment)OPSEU Pension Trust (OP Trust)Oregon State TreasurerOrion Energy SystemsOsmosis Investment ManagementPanahpurPark FoundationParnassus InvestmentsPax World FundsPensioenfonds VervoerPension DenmarkPension Fund for Danish Lawyers and EconomistsPension Protection FundPensionsmyndighetenPerpetual InvestmentsPETROS - Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade SocialPFA PensionPGGMPhillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd.PhiTrust Active InvestorsPictet Asset Management SAPinstripe Management GmbHPioneer InvestmentsPiraeus BankPKAPluris Sustainable Investments SAPNC Financial Services Group, Inc.Pohjola Asset Management LtdPolden Puckham Charitable FoundationPortfolio 21 InvestmentsPorto Seguro S.A.POSTALIS - Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e TelégrafosPower Finance CorporationPREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTARPREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do BrasilPREVIG Sociedade de Previdência ComplementarPrologisProvinzial Rheinland HoldingPrudential Investment ManagementPrudential PLCPsagot Investment House LtdPSP InvestmentsQ Capital Partners Co. LtdQBE Insurance GroupRabobankRaiffeisen Fund Management Hungary Ltd.Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H.Raiffeisen SchweizRathbone Greenbank InvestmentsRCM (Allianz Global Investors)Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência SocialREI SuperReliance Capital LtdRepresentative Body of the Church in WalesResolutionResona Bank, LimitedReynders McVeigh Capital ManagementRiver Twice Capital Advisors, LLCRLAMRobecoRobecoSAM AGRobert & Patricia Switzer FoundationRockefeller Asset ManagementRose Foundation for Communities and the EnvironmentRothschildRoyal Bank of CanadaRoyal Bank of Scotland Group

RPMI Railpen InvestmentsRREEF Investment GmbHRussell InvestmentsSampension KP Livsforsikring A/SSamsung Fire & Marine InsuranceSamsung Life InsuranceSamsung SecuritiesSanlamSanta Fé Portfolios LtdaSantam LtdSarasin & PartnersSAS Trustee CorporationSauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KGSchrodersScottish Widows Investment PartnershipSEB Asset Management AGSecond Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2)Seligson & Co Fund Management PlcSentinel FundsSERPROS - Fundo MultipatrocinadoService Employees International Union Benefit FundsServite FriarsSeventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7)Shiga Bank, Ltd.Shinhan BankShinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., LtdShinkin Asset Management Co., LtdSiemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHSignet Capital Management LtdSkandiaSkandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB)Smith Pierce, LLCSNS Asset ManagementSocial(k)Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - PrevdataSocrates Fund ManagementSolaris Investment ManagementSompo Japan Insurance Inc.Sonen Capital LLCSopher Investment ManagementSoprise! LLPSouthPeak Investment ManagementSPF Beheer bvSpring Water Asset Management, LLCSprucegrove Investment Management LtdStandard CharteredStandard Chartered Korea LimitedStandard Life InvestmentsState Bank of IndiaState Street CorporationStatewideSuperStocklandStorebrand ASAStrathclyde Pension FundStratus GroupSumitomo Mitsui Financial GroupSumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc.Sun Life Financial Inc.Superfund Asset Management GmbHSUSI Partners AGSustainable CapitalSustainable Development Capital LLPSustainable Insight Capital ManagementSvenska Kyrkan, Church of SwedenSvenska Kyrkans PensionskassaSwedbankSwift FoundationSwiss ReSwisscanto Holding AGSycomore Asset ManagementSyntrus Achmea Asset ManagementT. Rowe PriceT.GARANTİ BANKASI A.Ş.T.SINAİ KALKINMA BANKASI A.Ş.Tata Capital LimitedTD Asset ManagementTeachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities FundTelluride AssociationTempis Capital Management Co., Ltd.Terra Forvaltning ASTerraVerde Capital Management LLCTfL Pension FundThe ASB Community TrustThe Brainerd FoundationThe Bullitt FoundationThe Central Church Fund of FinlandThe Children's Investment Fund Foundation

The Clean Yield GroupThe Collins FoundationThe Co-operators Group LimitedThe Daly FoundationThe Environmental Investment Partnership LLPThe Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.The Joseph Rowntree Charitable TrustThe Korea Teachers PensionThe New SchoolThe Oppenheimer GroupThe Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Alliance of CanadaThe Pinch GroupThe Presbyterian Church in CanadaThe Russell Family FoundationThe Sandy River Charitable FoundationThe Sisters of St. AnnThe Standard Bank GroupThe Sustainability GroupThe United Church of Canada - General CouncilThe University of Edinburgh Endowment FundThe Wellcome TrustThird Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)Threadneedle Asset ManagementTobamTokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.Toronto Atmospheric FundTrillium Asset Management, LLCTriodos BankTri-State Coalition for Responsible InvestmentTrygTurner InvestmentsUBSUnibail-RodamcoUniCreditUnion Asset Management Holding AGUnion di Banche Italiane S.c.p.aUnion Investment Privatfonds GmbHUnionenUnipensionUNISON staff pension schemeUniSuper Unitarian Universalist AssociationUnited Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health BenefitsUnited Nations FoundationUnity Trust BankUniversities Superannuation Scheme (USS)Vancity Group of CompaniesVCH Vermögensverwaltung AGVentas IncVeris Wealth PartnersVeritas Investment Trust GmbHVermont State TreasurerVexiom Capital, L.P.VicSuperVictorian Funds Management CorporationVIETNAM HOLDING ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD.Vinva Investment ManagementVoigt & CollegenVOLKSBANK INVESTMENTSWaikato Community TrustWalden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust & Investment Management CompanyWARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbHWARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBHWater Asset Management, LLCWells Fargo & CompanyWest Yorkshire Pension FundWestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM)Westpac Banking CorporationWHEB Asset ManagementWhite Owl Capital AGWoori BankWoori Investment & SecuritiesYES BANK LimitedYork University Pension FundYouville Provident Fund Inc.Zegora Investment ManagementZevin Asset ManagementZurich Cantonal BankZurich Cantonal Bank

Our sincere thanks are extended to the following individuals in support of producing this report: Regina Cheah (Report writer), Yap Ni Yan (Report designer), Jack Cunningham (PwC), Yui Ku (PwC), Ji Yeon Kim (CDP) and Kristian Hardiman (CDP).

CDP Contacts

Stephanie CampbellDirector, Hong Kong andSouth East AsiaTel: +852 983 26 602Email: stephanie.campbell@cdp.net

Antigone Theodorou Director, Global Operations

Anthony DaySpecial Advisor

Sue HowellsCo-Chief Operating Officer

Daniel TurnerHead of Disclosure

James Hulse Head of Investor Initiatives

Carbon Disclosure Project40 Bowling Green LaneLondon, EC1R 0NEUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0) 20 7970 5660www.cdproject.net

PwC contacts

Malcolm PrestonPartner & Global Head of Sustainability Services

Andrew ChanHead of Sustainability Consulting, South East Asia

Elaine ChanProject Lead

PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Services (M) Sdn. Bhd.Level 10, 1 Sentral, Jalan Travers, Kuala Lumpur Sentral, 50706 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 (3) 2173 1188Fax: +60 (3) 2173 1288www.pwc.com/my

CDP Board of Trustees

Chairman:Alan BrownSchroders

James CameronClimate Change Capital & ODI

Ben GoldsmithWHEB

Chris PageRockefeller PhilanthropyAdvisors

Dr. Christoph Schroeder

Jeremy Smith

Takejiro Sueyoshi

Tessa Tennant

Martin WiseRelationship Capital Partners

Hannah RouthDirector

PricewaterhouseCoopers Limited22/F, Prince’s Building, Central, Hong KongTel: +(852) 2289 2968Fax: +(852) 2810 9888www.pwchk.com

Christine ChangDirector

PricewaterhouseCoopers,Taiwan27/F, 333 Keelung Rd Section 1, Taipei, TaiwanTel: +(886) 2-2729-6666 Fax: +(886) 2-2729-6686 www.pwc.tw