iberia 125 climate change report 2013

Report writer: Scorer:

The short-term risk: how economic recovery could affectGHG emissions from Iberia 125 companies

Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013

28 November 2013

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 throughshareholder 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 tobusiness, 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 Global500 engage with CDP to enable effective measurement of their carbonfootprint and climate change action;

CDP is a not-for-profit organization. If you would like to support ourvital work through donations or sponsorship opportunities, please email [email protected] or telephone +44 (0) 7703 184 312.

Contents

CEO Foreword 2

Letter from Spain 3

Letter from Portugal 4

Prologue from ECODES 5

PwC commentary 6

Executive summary: 2013 highlights 7

Corporate governance of climate change is improving, but it is not leading to

emissions reductions 8

Initiatives and investments to reduce emissions are increasingly short-term 11

Decline in external verification of GHG emissions 12

Challenges for corporate climate change strategies in Iberia 125 13

Respondent company interview: Obrascon Huarte Lain, S.A. 15

Iberia 125 2013 leaders 16

Interview: a company responding to CDP on its own initiative 18

Key statistics 19

Key disclosure statistics 19

Key emissions statistics 19

Key best practices statistics 22

Sector analysis 23

Introduction 23

Consumer Discretionary 24

Financials 26

Industrials 28

Materials 30

Utilities 32

Conveying ESG data to capital markets in Portugal 34

Appendix I: Non-responding companies 35

Appendix II: Responding companies, scores and emissions data 36

Appendix III: Investor members and signatories 37

01

Important Notice

The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the datareported 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 CDPbefore doing so.

Ecodes and 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) isgiven by Ecodes or 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 withoutobtaining specific professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, Ecodes and CDP do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyoneelse acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. All information and views expressed herein by CDP and/or Ecodes, is based ontheir 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 reportreflect 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/or employees, may have a position in thesecurities 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 ofinvestors; 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 and Ecodes. All rights reserved.

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

CEO Foreword

This year we passed a significant landmark of 400ppmof carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and are rapidlyheading towards 450ppm, accepted by manygovernments as the upper limit to avoid dangerousclimate change. he Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) 5th assessment report (AR5) strengthensthe scientific case for action.

Fears are increasing over future climate change impactsas we see more extreme weather events, HurricaneSandy the most noted with damages totalling some $42billion1. The unprecedented melting of the Arctic ice is aclear climate alarm bell, while the first 10 years of thiscentury have been the world’s hottest since recordsbegan, according to the World MeteorologicalOrganization.

The result is a seismic shift in corporate awareness ofthe need to assess physical risk from climate changeand to build resilience.

For investors, the risk of stranded assets has beenbrought to the fore by the work of Carbon Tracker. Theycalculate around 80 % of coal, oil and gas reserves areunburnable, if governments are to meet globalcommitments to keep the temperature rise below 2°C.This has serious implications for institutional investors’portfolios and valuations of companies with fossil fuelreserves.

The economic case for action is strengthening. Thisyear, we published the 3% Solution2 with WWF showingthat the US corporate sector could reduce emissions by3% each year between 2010 and 2020 and deliver $780billion in savings above costs as a result. 79% of UScompanies responding to CDP report higher ROI onemission reductions investments than on the average

business investment. Meanwhile, governments aretaking new action: The US Administration has launchedits Climate Action Plan, with a new emphasis onreducing emissions from utilities; China is developing airpollution measures and moving toward pilot cap andtrade schemes; the UK Government has mandatedgreenhouse gas emissions reporting for all large listedcompanies; the EU is looking at improving environmentaland other reporting.

The pressure on corporations, investors andgovernments to act continues. At CDP, we havebroadened our work to add forests to climate and waterso our programs now extend to an estimated 79% ofnatural capital, by value3. To reflect this, we rebranded atthe start of the year from the Carbon Disclosure Projectto CDP and are increasing our focus on projects toaccelerate action. One explores how corporationsinfluence public policy on climate change both positivelyand negatively. Some corporations are still acting – bothdirectly and through trade associations – to prevent theinevitable: nations need sensible climate regulation thatprotects the public interest over the long term.

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

Paul SimpsonCEO CDP

02

1 New York StateHurricane Sandy DamageAssessment; GovernorAndrew Cuomo;November 12, 2012http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/11262012-damageassessment

2 https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/3-percent-solution-report.pdf

3 Based on findings fromthe report Natural Capitalat Risk: The Top 100Externalities of Business,published by TEEB forBusiness Coalition inApril 2013

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.

Letter from Spain03

Progress towards a low-carbon economy, in addition tobeing necessary, has huge opportunities for expansion,competitiveness and savings. From the business point ofview, this development strengthens the most efficientcompanies, letting them to reduce their costs byreducing energy consumption, as well as investing ininnovation and, at the same time, improving its image byshowing their commitment to the environment.

Communicating this commitment to the citizens throughproducts and services, those companies are contributingto raise the society awareness about environmentprotection and, in particular, about climate change.

The data collected in CDP 2013 report, show that it ispossible to move towards more sustainable, low-carbonmodels. And, from the Government, we maintain thatgreater environmental protection is compatible with animprovement of the competitiveness of our economy.Moreover, we are convinced of the opportunity that itrepresents to stimulate growth and create jobs, bypromoting the most dynamic and innovative companies.Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food andEnvironment works to encourage emissions reductionsin our territory, setting the right incentives. It is all aboutto value those actions that preserve our climate systemand to compensate those who promote them.

So, we have promoted initiatives like “Clima” Projectswhich foster the development of actions to reduceemissions in sectors not subject to the emissions tradingsystem, through the purchase of the generated verifiedemission reductions. With two calls since its inception,the response of Spanish companies has been fullysatisfactory.

Additionally, we have launched PIMA Sun project, whichpromotes energy efficiency actions in hotels, and PIMA

AIR 2 to promote new sustainable mobility systems.Moreover, particularly linked to the efforts of companiesinvolved in this report, we are designing the legislativedocument that will create the registration mechanism forthe National Carbon Footprint System and sequestrationprojects for offsetting emissions.

Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013 shows thatmore and more companies are disclosing their reductiontargets and report having initiatives to this end. However,it is necessary to stress the importance of properlyframing these actions in the patterns of development ofour country, so that economic growth more effectivelydecouples from emissions increase. This is especiallyrelevant, not only for companies, but also from the pointof view of international commitments acquiredby Spain to reduce greenhouse gases emissions.

At the international level, it should be noted, as well, thatclimate change negotiations are going through a criticaltime. We are facing the challenge of developing a newinternational climate change agreement legally binding.This agreement will shape the international climate regimefrom 2020, setting a clear and ambitious framework,which also constitutes a safe and appealing horizon forinvestments in clean technologies, encouraging thegrowth and use of green employment niches.

I appreciate the initiative of CDP, ECODES and thecompanies and institutions that support this report. AndI encourage all our businesses, and especially those whohave participated in this edition, to move forwardtowards a low carbon economy, to lead the future intheir own benefit and in the benefit of the whole ofSpanish society.

Miguel Arias CañeteMinister of Agriculture, Food and the Environment

We are convinced of the opportunitythat environment protectionrepresents to stimulate growth andcreate jobs, by promoting the mostdynamic and innovative companies

Letter from Portugal

Climate change concerns are a great challenge thatneeds further reflection and improvement of policies.Latest reports from the IPCC strengthen the case foraction on mitigation while recognizing that adaptationmeasures will also need to play a key role in buildingmore resilient low carbon economies and societies.

In recent years the international community has explicitlyrecognized the scale of the climate change challenge ofreducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) throughits endorsement of the objective of limiting the increaseof the mean global temperature to not more than 2oC.This political challenge is nothing short of a revolution inmany areas of our daily lives.

This challenge should be seen as an opportunity toidentify pathways for future competitiveness in criticalsectors, including the emerging green technologies, andto address fundamental issues such as those ofsustainable development, job creation, energy and foodsecurity.

The business sector needs to play a strong role in thischange and it is with enthusiasm that we see more andmore Portuguese companies ready to respond to CDP.

Building a greener low carbon future is a story ofcompetitiveness and jobs, an opportunity for enhanceefficiency and seek for better practices. It is a positive-sum game whereby both the community and businesscan benefit and prosper. CDP represents a showcase ofsuch practices and opportunities and a preview of whata greener low carbon future could look like.

It is encouraging to see how companies in Portugal areable and willing to disclose their emissions data, energy

efficiency strategies and opportunities/risks associatedwith climate change. This transparency helps engagingother companies to face the challenge of reducing theircarbon footprints. It also contributes for the awarenessof the role of emission reduction as a driving force forsustainability and economic development.

I hope in the future we will continue to see increasingparticipation from Portuguese companies in CDP, as itcontinues its important mission of accelerating solutionsto climate change by putting relevant information at theheart of business, policy and investment decisions.

Jorge Moreira da SilvaMinister of Environment, Regional Planning and Energy

04

The challenge of reducing GHGemissions should be seen as anopportunity to identify pathways forfuture competitiveness and toaddress fundamental issues such asthose of sustainable development,job creation, energy and foodsecurity.

Prologue from ECODES05

Once again, I am pleased to present this report in whichwe try to take the pulse of how Spanish and Portuguesecompanies are managing an issue as important asclimate change.

Perhaps this year, more than ever before, the mix ofmessages we get instills fear, but it also encourages usto continue working for a low carbon future.

The IPPC has just started to publish its fifth assessmentreport showing the scientific knowledge: climate changeis most likely due to human action, its consequences aremore severe than what was assumed so far, and we stillhave a margin of action, although increasingly narrow, tolimit climate change to the security level of a 2°Cincrease. But meanwhile the carbon concentration in theatmosphere has reached its highest point since we haverecords.

In the European Union GHG emissions were reducedduring the last two years due to several factors,including rising energy prices and favorable weatherthat reduced energy consumption needs, in spite ofpositive, albeit modest, economic growth.

In the Iberian region, reduced economic activity thatboth Spain and Portugal have suffered since thebeginning of the crisis has resulted in a reduction ofdomestic consumption, energy consumption andtransportation. This fact contributed to a reduction ofGHG emissions at a rate similar to the evolution of GDP.Initial 2012 estimates indicate that GHG emissions weredown 1.6% in Spain and 4.0% in Portugal, while GDPcontracted by 1.4 % and 3.2 %,respectively in thesecountries.

The reduction would have been greater, but thefavorable weather has been offset, among otherreasons, by changes in the energy mix which caused acarbon intensity increase (the amount of GHG emissionsgenerated by each unit of GDP) in both countries.

It is not helpful for Spanish and Portuguese businessesthat at a time when they especially need to increase theirsources of funding, international investors see a risk in ascenario in which, in an economic recovery, emissions ofgreenhouse gases grow at levels greater than those priorto the crisis. So I hope that this report will raiseawareness about the need for companies to invest inlong- term actions to reduce their emissions and will alsogive visibility to the best practices that many Spanishand Portuguese companies are implementing to improvetheir climate change management performance.

Víctor ViñualesDirector, ECODES

I hope that this report will raiseawareness about the need forcompanies to invest in long-termactions to reduce their emissions.

PwC commentary06

Are we getting out? Aren’t we? … this is the daisyplucked by several people when speaking about crisis inour country. In Spain, as in the rest of the world, weurgently need to find growth strategies to reduce thealarming unemployment rate and improve life conditionsfor a share of the Spanish population. If this wasn’tenough, in addition to this unprecedented crisis,overwhelming scientific evidences of increasing climatechange have to be added. This is confirmed by theoutcomes of the last IPCC Report.

Within this context, finding an adequate balance tocombine urgent growth necessities for our country anddevelop a low carbon economy results in a fundamentalchallenge. This growth must allow decoupling economicdevelopment from the increase in GHG emissions, aswell as to improve impact and society’s life conditions.So far, no significant evidences have been found toprove progress in this direction. However, there areinitiatives such as the CDP that promote high qualityinformation to foster investors, firms and governments totake measures to avoid the climate change.

In this regard, the last results from the CDP report showseveral approaches. At a global level, it states that firmsare progressing in terms of transparency, as well as ontheir GHG monitoring and verification capabilities, andtheir capacity to start addressing impacts on their valuechain. In Spain, progress in monitoring is similar,although there is stagnation in the area of verificationagainst an increase of 14% showed by firms at globallevel. It is not a coincidence that the ISAE 3410, whichhas been developed exclusively for the finance world toverify carbon inventories, will be put into effect this year.

In Spain, there are several companies rating high in theglobal climate change indexes, way over to what wouldbe expected for our contribution as a country. Forinstance, transparency showed from companiesparticipating in the Global 500 CDP has improved in 25points since 2009, reaching an average score of 91points (over 100) in 2013.

However, our country’s social context demands newcompromises with expectations, sometimescontradictory, from the different stakeholders. Althoughfirms have already started to consider a widermanagement approach in terms of impacts, they face alack of valid models to take decisions in order tointegrate the measurement of the different impacts.

In regards to this question, PwC has been working withseveral clients and organizations to develop anintegrated approach for Total Impact Measurement andManagement (TIMM).

TIMM enables firms to have a better understanding, notonly of the environmental impacts of their activity, but ofthe social, economic and fiscal impacts too, in addition totheir financial results. This exercise allows firms to showtheir total contribution to the society in a wider sense, in amoment in which their role is sometimes being eitherquestioned or threatened by new regulations. Furthermore,it allows to compare strategies and take investmentdecisions using quantitative monetized data, as well as toevaluate the total impact for each decision andcommunicate it to the different stakeholders. The modelenables to measure, understand and compare impactscoming from different alternatives and thus, to takedecisions with a wider knowledge and disseminate betterthe relevant role of the business activity for the society.

TIMM can support on taking decisions based ondelivering better information, setting up the requiredtransformations to address the growing exigencies from alow emissions context and achieve an adequate balancebetween growth and environmental and social aspects.

Mª Luz Castilla Partner. PwC

Finding an adequate balance tocombine urgent growth necessitiesfor our country and develop a lowcarbon economy results in afundamental challenge which mustallow decoupling economicdevelopment from the increase inGHG emissions, as well as toimprove impact and society’s lifeconditions.

Executive summary: 2013 highlights

The CDP Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013 isthe sixth in the series of CDP reports for Spain and thethird for the pooled sample Iberia 125 of the 85 largestSpanish listed companies and the 40 largest Portugueselisted companies.

The aim of the report is to provide investors and otherstakeholders with first-hand insights on disclosure andperformance of Iberia 125 corporate climate changeaction.

This year’s CDP Investor Request for informationregarding Iberia 125 corporate climate change strategieswas issued on behalf of 722 institutional investors thatrepresent US$ 87 trillion in assets under management.55 companies met this request for information, 52 ofwhich submitted their response directly while three sentthe response via their parent company. This year thesample response rate was 44%, the highest so far forthe Iberia 125 sample (see Figure 1)1.

07

Company name Country Sector

ACS Actividades Spain Industrialsde Construcción y Servicios

Zardoya Otis Spain Industrials

Dia Spain Consumer staples

Prosegur Spain Industrials

Brisa2 Portugal Industrials

Corporación Financiera Alba Spain Financials

Grupo Catalana Occidente Spain Financials

Cimpor Portugal Materials

Jazztel Spain Information Technologies

Almirall Spain Health Care

Table 1. The 10 biggest non respondent companies by capitalisation in Iberia 125 (2013)

1 This response rate and the percentages in Figure 1 include indirect answers to provide a complete picture of theresponses received from companies by July 31, 2013. The remaining analysis in this report, except where

otherwise indicated, is based on direct responses of 52 companies, which excludes the three indirect answerswhose information was incorporated into their parent companies.

2 The company is no longer listed.

EDP responds to CDP since 2009.This activity has allowed us tosystematize and reflect upon our CO2 emissions strategy, targets and projects thus giving us a deep insight about how we can pursuit the path to a low carbon economy.

EDP

The Iberia 125 response rate is similar to that of otherneighbouring countries (France or Italy) but is far lowerthan sample response rates in the United Kingdom(74%) or the Global 500 which includes the 500 largestworld companies (81%).

In 2012 and following the trend from 2011, the carbonintensity in both Spain and Portugal increased due tochanges in the energy mix. As a consequence,emissions from business activities in both countries aregrowing decoupled from the economic slowdown.However, the real risk for companies is that a futurerecovery of the economy will be accompanied byaccelerating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.International investors might already factor that scenariointo their investment decisions, with obviousdisadvantages for Spanish and Portuguese companies.

Simultaneously, from the analysis of the companies’responses to CDP questionnaire we find that, although

Figure 1. Iberia 125 companies responding to the CDP questionnaire(2008-2013)

Spain Portugal

2013 answers40 15

2013 sample85 40

44%

2012 answers36 14

2012 sample85 40

40%

2011 answers35 14

2011 sample85 40

39%

2010 answers34 12

2010 sample85 40

37%

2009 answers35 7

2009 sample85 20

40%

2008 answers25

2008 sample35

71%

0 25 50 75 100 125

Executive summary: 2013 highlights continued

corporate governance of climate change is improving,total emissions reported by Iberia 125 companies havebarely changed from the previous year. Moreover, mostof the reported emission reductions from respondingcompanies are due to circumstantial factors such asdisinvestments or reduced industrial activity. As a matterof fact, the number of reported emission reductionactivities from Iberia 125 companies has significantlydecreased in the last year. In addition, emissionreduction investments in these companies are shifting toa more short term approach.

It is important to put these developments into context.In September, the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) released its fifth climate assessmentreport in which it confirmed with unprecedentedcertainty that anthropogenic activity has been thedominant cause for the rise in temperature since thelast mid century. If there is no substantial change inthe way we do business, continued GHG emission willcause further warming3 and it will be more difficultthan ever to limit warming to the commonly accepted2º C threshold which has been agreed bygovernments and scientific bodies as limiting theworst effects of climate change.

1. Corporate governance of climatechange is improving, but it is notleading to emissions reductions

While the economic context in which business activitiesare carried out in Spain and Portugal are having aninfluence on the companies’ climate strategies andperformance, businesses have a number ofmanagement measures at hand to reduce both theirimpact (emissions) and the climate change related risksto which they are exposed.

CDP’s Climate Change Program assesses the evolutionof the sample companies as to the best managementpractices of climate change.

Despite the fact that this year’s analysis shows thatsome new companies are still in the early stages ofclimate change management, respondent companiesdemonstrate an improvement of best practices in themanagement of climate change (see Figure 2).

It should be noted that 92% (48) of respondingcompanies have assigned responsibility for climatechange management to the board of directors, acommittee thereof, or a senior manager of the company.If we compare this result to companies in othercountries, Iberia 125 responding companies are, as inprevious years, slightly outperforming other samples.Perhaps as a result of this high level of responsibility wehave also observed that 90% (47) of respondingcompanies report their climate change management inmainstream reports, and that the rate of companiesoffering monetary incentives to their employees for theachievement of climate change objectives has increasedto 77% (40) from 71% (35) in 2012. In this respect, theIberia 125 sample is well above the global CDP averageof 65%. This fact is important because the existence ofincentives is one of the indicators, according to theGlobal 500 Climate Change Report 2013, that hasemerged as one of the key drivers to improve corporateperformance in climate change.

However, the evolution of GHG emissions is not followingthe improvement of climate change managementindicators. Although the reported Scope 1 emissions4 in2013 were reduced by 2% compared to the previous year(see KS4)5, a detailed analysis attributes this fact tocircumstantial factors rather than to proactive emissionsreduction activities. Thus, while in 2013 there are six newresponding companies, their reported emissions aremuch lower than those of the two companies thatanswered the questionnaire last year but have failed torespond this year. ACS alone, which reported 1.74MtCO2e in 2012, represents nine times the totalemissions reported by the six new companies together.

Secondly, the majority of Scope 1 emission reductionscould be allocated to only two companies, Repsol andArcelor Mittal, which have reduced their emissions by 9

08

3 http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf

4 For the purpose of thisreport, “reportedemissions” are globalemissions reported byIberia 125 firms in theCDP questionnaire andare not limited to theGHG taking place inSpain and Portugal.

5 KS refers to “keyindicators”. This is ananalysis of statistics inthe third chapter of thisreport intending tocollect in a graphical andconcise way the mainresults of the analysis ofresponses to climatechange CDPquestionnaire. Eachfigure in this chapter isnamed by adding thenumber of the initial KI.

Figure 2. Key indicators of best practices in climate changemanagement (2012-2013)

2013 2012

Board or other senior management oversight

Rewarding climate change progress

Demostration of climate change being integrated into overal businessstrategy

Disclose absolute targets

Disclose intensity targets

Ahead of or met targets

Evidence of disclosure of climate change information in mainstreamfilings or other external communications

Emissions reductions due to implementation of activities

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Number of companies

Figure 3. Percentage of companies reporting reasons for a decreasein emissions (2012-2013)7

Unidentified Other

Emissions reduction activities Divestment

Change in physical operating conditions Change in output

Change in methodology Change in boundary

and 3.8 MtCO2e respectively. Repsol’s reduction ismainly due to the expropriation of YPF in April 2012 andwhose emissions are not included in their 2013disclosure. If emissions declared by Repsol in 2012 didnot include those of YPF, the company’s reportedemissions in 2013 would have increased by around 12%over the previous year. As for Arcelor Mittal, they explaintheir emissions reductions as a result of reducedeconomic activity, although the intensity of emissions perrevenue has increased 11% in the last year.

In addition, the total reported Scope 2 emissions grewby 11%6 in the same period (see KS6). This increase of1.59 MtCO2e in Scope 2 emissions is primarily due tothe emissions increase in two utilities: Iberdrola (+2MtCO2e) and Endesa (+0.97 MtCO2e). Iberdrola’sincrease is explained primarily due to changes in thescope of their emissions inventory. Endesa’s response,on the other hand, has not provided a clear explanationfor their increase. Companies that have reduced theirScope 2 emissions include Repsol (0.75 MtCO2ereduction) and Arcelor Mittal (0.65 MtCO2e reduction).The reasons for this reduction are, again, divestmentand the reduction in activity.

According to information provided by the respondents,the figures indicate that proactive action to reduce netemissions has lost weight compared to reductions in thelevel of company activity and other reasons such aschanges in the inventory methodology. It is noteworthythat the most frequently cited cause is still theimplementation of reduction activities. However, in 2013this reason only accounts for 61% of total corporatereductions, down from 70% in 2012 (see Figure 3).Changes in the emission inventory methodology,accounting for 10% in 2013 (2% in 2012), and reducedbusiness activity with 8% (2% in 2012) have gainedprominence, however.

09

Figure 4. Reported reasons for an increase in emissions in percentage(2012-2013)

Other Change in physical operating conditions

Change in output Change in methodology

Change in boundary Acquisitions

2013

20%

10%

10%

23%

13%

25%

2012

42%

8%15%

12%

23%

Therefore, although it is clear that the improvement inthe management of climate change must have animpact on emissions performance in the medium andlong term, the current GHG emissions’ evolution is beingmodulated mostly according to circumstantial factorsrather than to a proactive corporate management.Without a stronger commitment to increase efficiencyand reduce GHG emissions, companies might face anabrupt increase in their emissions, in particular under ascenario of economic recovery, with serious

6 Please note that due to a change in CDP’s approach to Scope 2 accounting, Scope 2 emissions figures reportedin 2013 are not comparable with Scope 2 figures published in previous years. Companies calculating Scope 2

emissions are now able to incorporate the specific emissions factors associated with renewable energy purchaseswhere supported by an appropriate tracking instrument.

7 Please note that each company can explain its behavior from the combination of more than one of the caseshere presented, and whose net sum explains the evolution of the company’s emissions. Therefore, the grand total

of reasons in the graph does not match the number of responding companies.

When evaluating new businessopportunities, Abengoa vision acts asa filter, dismissing businesses notaligned with sustainability or in fightagainst climate change. ButAbengoa also intends for its productsand services not only to beconducive to sustainabledevelopment, but also to be realizedin a sustainable way to reduce theimpact in climate change.

Abengoa

20132%

2%4%

65%4%

5%

9%

11%

2012

2%12%

72%

5%

5%

2%2%

Executive summary: 2013 highlights continued10

Decreased Increased No change

First year of estimation No answer

Figure 5. Direction of change of combined scope 1 and 2 emissionsby sector in percentage (2013)9

CD

CS

EGY

FIN

HC

IND

IT

MAT

TCOM

UTIL

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 7. Reported absolute GHG emission reduction targets timeframe (2012-2013)

1-5 years 6-10 years

11-15 years More than 15 years

No target Absolute and intensity targetsIntensity target Absolute target

Figure 6. Reported GHG emission reduction targets by type of target(2011-2013)

2013

2012

2011

0 20 40 60 80 100

2013

68%

14%

14%

4%

2012

62%

5%

14%

19%

Figure 8. Number of emission reduction initiatives byactivity (2011-2013)

2013 2012 2011

Energy efficiency: processes

Energy efficiency: building services

Behavioral change

Product design

Low carbon energy installation

Transportation: fleet

Process emissions reductions

Energy efficiency: building fabric

Transportation: use

Fugitive emissions reductions

Low carbon energy purchase

Other

0 30 9060 120 150 180

Percentage of companies

accompanying financial impacts because of regulatory,physical and reputational risks.

As for the individual company performance in emissions,42% of the responding companies (22) state that in2013 the amount of combined Scope 1 and 2 emissionshas increased from the previous year (compared to 17companies in 2012), while the percentage of companiesthat has reduced their combined emissions remains at52% (27).

If we look at emissions by sector (Scope 1 and 2combined), figure 5 reflects how most companies in theless energy intensive industries, have reduced their GHGemissions (at least 60% of the companies in ConsumerDiscretionary, Consumer Staples, Financials and HealthCare sectors). Opposite to this behaviour we can findEnergy & Oil companies and Utilities, all of which haveincreased their GHG emissions in the same period.

While these companies report several reasons for theirincreased emissions, all electricity producers point to thelegal requirements in Spain8 that have led to increasedconsumption of coal compared to other primary energysources with lower carbon emissions. Gas NaturalFenosa quantified a 69% increase in coal consumptionover the previous year, while Endesa and EDP also claimto have increased their consumption without howeverquantifying it.

The companies’ behaviour in all the other sectors isconsistent with this shift to a more carbon-intensiveenergy mix in Spain and Portugal which results, inaddition to the growth of Scope 1 emissions of Utilities, inincreasing Scope 2 emissions from all other companies.

2. Initiatives and investments toreduce emissions are increasinglyshort-term

After analysing the current level of corporate GHGemissions, we turn now to an examination of possiblefuture trends in emissions based on an analysis of thecompanies’ reported emissions reduction targets, theactions that companies are implementing to achievereductions, and the levels of progress towards achievingthese targets.

Figure 6 shows how the rate of companies that reportedemission reduction targets increases in 2013, whetherwe speak of absolute targets (up from 45% to 54%) andrelative targets (up from 55% to 60%). 81% ofcompanies responding to the questionnaire reported atleast one GHG emission reduction target (absolute orrelative), a rate similar to that of the 500 largestcompanies (83%) and well above the global average ofcompanies responding to CDP (68%). Since 2011 therate of responding companies that do not publish

11

8 The Real Decreto134/2010 establishes a

quota of national coalconsumption of 15% of

total primary energyconsumption for

electricity production inthe Spanish market.

9 The abbreviations usedfor GISC sector names

are as follows:Consumer Discretionary(CD), Consumer Staples

(CS), Energy (EGY),Financials (FIN),

Healthcare (HC),Industrials (IND),Materials (MAT),

TelecommunicationServices (TCOM), Utilities

(UTIL).

targets has declined from 35% to 19%, showing a greatprogression in what used to be a weakness ofresponding companies in previous years.

However, the time frame of these objectives might bedirecting action by companies towards the short term.Figure 7 shows in fact how the vast majority of reportedabsolute targets (68%) have a maximum time frame offive years, a window too narrow to support corporateclimate change strategies. In addition, the reduction inthe relative number of long-term goals is confirmedagain this year, suggesting that most of the new targetsreported by companies are inherently short term.Therefore, although most of the responding companiesstate they have achieved their goals or are on the way toachieve them (71%), short-term approaches seem toinfluence the emission reduction activities undertaken bycompanies.

Indeed, another element that is worth noticing in thiscontext is the evolution of the Iberia 125 respondingcompanies’ approach to the implementation ofemissions reduction activities. In 2013, the formerlyfavourable trend has reversed and this year, although thenumber of emission reduction initiatives with economicreturns in the short and medium term (less than threeyears) has increased by 24 %, this increase does notoffset the 27 % reduction in the number of activitieswhose financial return is longer term (see Figure 8 and9). This reduction of almost a third in the number oflong-term initiatives clearly overshadows the previousupward trend.

Only three types of activities out of the eleven analyzedcategories have increased their number: low-carbon

Figure 9. Number of emission reduction initiatives by payback period(2011-2013)

< 1 year

1-3 years

> 3 years

Unknown

0 50 200150100 250

2013 2012 2011


energy installation, energy efficiency improvements inbuilding fabric and low carbon energy purchase (seeFigure 10). Indeed, these activities usually have a shortor medium term payback period, except for the lowcarbon energy installation (whose financial return islonger than three years in more than 50% of theinitiatives reported to CDP).

The downtrend is especially remarkable in two of themost important emissions reduction activities: improvingenergy efficiency in industrial processes (20.5% totalreduction in 2013 in the number of initiatives over theprevious year), and energy efficiency in building services(23.4% reduction).

A plausible explanation for the decrease in the numberof transport reduction initiatives is that at the beginningof the economic crisis, companies quicklyimplemented these initiatives (the low hanging fruit)and today have fewer possibilities. On the other hand,the decrease in the number of behaviour change

related measures might have to do with the reductionof the budget that companies devote to managingemissions domestically. As a matter of fact, from thereasons that companies report for investing inemissions reductions, only compliance with regulationsand standards have increased compared to theprevious year (from 17% in 2012 to 19% in 2013). Onthe contrary, the relative weight of reasons such as theexistence of a budget for energy efficiency or a budgetfor product development and low-carbon services hasfallen (see Figure 11).

As a conclusion, we can see a change of focus forcompanies regarding the destination of their emissionreduction investments, which are currently moving towardsactivities that generate an immediate return on investment.It follows that the main criterion for emission reductioninvestments is to obtain quick returns, which, whilestrengthening the business case for emission reductions,may jeopardise the opportunity to reduce GHG emissionsand achieve higher cost savings. In short, companies aredelaying investments and reforms necessary to adapt to oranticipate legislative changes and demands from theirstakeholders, risking to lose competitiveness against theirsector peers in other markets.

3. Decline in external verification of GHG emissions

As already noted, most of the climate change keyperformance indicators of the Iberia 125 companieshave improved in the last year. However, we havenoticed a decline in the number of companies thatperform a valid external verification of emissions10. Thepercentage of companies that have reported anexternal verification of its emissions has fallen in 2013to 58% (30 companies), down from 63% in 2012 (31companies) (see Figure KS12), meaning that thenumber of companies with valid emissions verificationhas not increased, even though six additionalcompanies have responded to the CDP questionnaire.This is in contrast to most regional samples of CDPand the world’s largest companies, which areincreasing the quality of the data by independentexternal verification of emission inventories, confirmingthe fact that emissions’ verification is already a goodpractice standard in measuring the impact ofcompanies and a factor of transparency and credibilityof the provided information.

The reasons for the drop in verification of emissions inIberia 125 are not clearly stated in the companies’responses to CDP. However, this reduction is a matterof concern since external GHG emissions verification isa priority for the process of disclosure as it contributesto an improvement in the quality of corporatemanagement information on carbon emissions. Thegrowing demand from investors, customers, regulators,

12

Figure 10. Reported emission reduction initiatives summary (2013)

< 1 year 1-3 years > 3 years Unknown

0 40 6020 80 100

Energy efficiency: processes

Energy efficiency: building services

Behavioral change

Product design

Low carbon energy installation

Transportation: fleet

Process emissions reductions

Energy efficiency: building fabric

Transportation: use

Fugitive emissions reductions

Low carbon energy purchase

Other

10 CDP considers asvalid an externalemissions verificationonly after analysing somerequirements for theverification reports thatcompanies attach totheir responses to theCDP questionnaire. Theverification report shouldclearly address GHGemissions Scopes 1 or 2and must be performedaccording to a standardaccepted by CDP. Formore information seehttps://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Respond/Pages/verification.aspx

11 More information onthe companies with validexternal verificationstatements is included inAppendix II.

Percentage of initiatives

13

NGOs and other stakeholders is increasing the need fortestable data to ensure transparency and quality ofclimate change related information. CDP’s scorings andreports alike increasingly recognise the importance ofthis aspect.11

4. Challenges for Iberian corporateclimate change strategies

The outcomes of CDP Climate Change Program sinceits introduction in Spain and Portugal show progress inclimate change management of Iberia 125 companies,particularly since the responses are evaluated in terms oftransparency (disclosure score) and performance(performance band). To illustrate this fact we haveclassified the companies that responded to thequestionnaire in the last three years in four groupsaccording to their performance scores. We have usedthe four development states defined and used by CDP inits guidance document “CDP Reporting Roadmap 2013:Climate Change”12, and we have counted the number ofcompanies in each of these states: 1) basic response; 2)developing capacity, 3) complete response and 4) bestpractices. Figure 12 shows the percentage ofresponding companies in each of the states for theperiod 2011-2013.

The most remarkable fact is the jump of companies thatare currently considered best practices: from 2% in 2011(one single company) up to 13% in 2013 (sevencompanies). This advance is confirmed by the decreasein the number of companies whose response isconsidered basic from 15% in 2011 (seven companies)to 8% in 2013 (four companies). In addition there wasalso a clear transition from a set of companies with“developing capacity” to a higher state.

Best practices Complete response

Developing capacity Basic response

Figure 12. Iberia 125 companies by their response developmentdegree (2013)

2013

2012

2011

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 11. Methods to drive investment in emissions reductionactivities (2012-2013)

Compliance with regulatoryrequirements/standards

Dedicated budget forenergy efficiency

Dedicated budget for lowcarbon product R&D

Dedicated budget for otheremission reduction activities

Employee engagement Financial optimizationcalculations

Internal price of carbon Internal incentives/recognitionprograms

Internal financemechanisms

Lower return of investment(ROI) specification

Marginal abatement costcurve

Partnering with governmentson technology development

Other

2013

32

36

1611

22

13

13

2

3

5

7

7

2012

5

55

3

25

35

1612

12

20

10

2

1

12 See “CDP ReportingRoadmap 2013: Climate

Change” athttps://www.cdproject.net/Docu

ments/Guidance/Roadmap-Climate-Change-2013.pdf

13 In 2013, companies includedin this definition are: Acerinox,

Atresmedia, Banco PopularEspañol, Banco Sabadell, Banif,Bankia, BBVA, Ercros, Gamesa,Indra, Mediaset España and Zon

Multimedia.

Since the second and third states accounttogether for 79% of responding companies, wewill illustrate here some next key steps for thesecompanies.

Companies developing capacity13

This group of companies includes those that,from the experience of using the CDP

Sonae Sierra leads the way regardingvoluntary carbon management inPortugal and this is an advantage if itbecomes compulsory. As first moversin its sector, the leadership and proactive and demanding approach toClimate Change creates a challengeconcerning the effort of complianceof future regulations which can bemultiplied and replicated along thevalue chain.

Sonae


Absolute numbers


questionnaire to answer investors request, have alreadyidentified the main necessary internal actions to manageclimate change and are developing and implementingthem. This allows companies to increasingly provide amore complete response to the questionnaire and todemonstrate its improved performance through themanagement of climate change related risks andopportunities and their gradual integration into thecompany’s strategy. The main benefit these companiesget from responding to the CDP questionnaire is thecreation of awareness within the company regarding theneed to manage climate change. Moreover, it facilitatesthe development of a long term plan for thismanagement.

The main recommendations for further progress in Iberia125 companies in this group are:

A. To set explicit and clear GHG emission reductiontargets. A quality emission reduction target shouldexplain the base year to which it relates and theemissions in the base year, the year to achieve thetarget, the scope to which it applies and the percentageof emissions covered. Besides, the objective shouldexpress the magnitude of reductions aimed at either inabsolute terms or relative (referring to another variablesuch as turnover, the number of employees or other), inwhich case it is advisable to estimate the equivalentabsolute reductions.

B. To report the mechanisms the company uses toinvest in emission reduction initiatives. Thismechanism of transparency is an important step tostructure the emission reduction investment aroundstrategies that go beyond mere compliance andachieving quick savings.

C. To publicly report on the company emissionsreduction initiatives and its products or services thathelp reduce emissions, if any. A good practice wouldinclude estimating the net annual emission reductions ofeach activity, resulting economic savings, investmentsand estimated return period. Consider only relevantinitiatives that generate significant emissions reductionsto achieve reduction targets.

D. To choose an external verification standard foremissions inventory and to prepare for compliance.The verification aims to ensure the quality of informationprovided in the questionnaire, for which the standardchosen must meet certain requirements concerning theirrelevance, competence, independence, terminology andaccessibility. To view the standards that meet thesecriteria according to CDP see “CDP’s approach toverification” in https://www.cdproject.net/en-us/respond/pages/verification.aspx

Companies with a complete response14

Companies within this group have several yearsexperience in responding to CDP Climate Change

questionnaire. They have developed policies andsystems and have already managed to respond to thefull questionnaire, providing detailed and quantifiedinformation, particularized for the company inquestion. Their challenge is not only to improve theresponse to the questionnaire but to go forward inreducing emissions and minimising the impact of theactivities on climate. They should provide very detailedreporting to stakeholders. These companies oftenclaim to have developed new business lines frompreviously identified opportunities associated withclimate change and have reduced costs throughmeasures to improve efficiency.

As noted, the challenge for these companies is tobecome performance leaders in GHG emissionsmanagement, and to achieve a real integration of climatechange into their business strategy for the long term.The main recommendations to achieve this are:

A. Companies that want to be leaders in their climatechange action should set absolute GHG emissionreduction targets for the long-term. We recommenda time frame of more than ten years, but at least itshould be more than five years. Besides, the goals mustbe meaningful, by which we mean that they shouldcover a good portion of their Scope 1 and 2 emissions,and that the magnitude of the reduction should be reallya challenge for the company, going beyond business asusual.

B. To link the budget for emission reduction withthe risks and opportunities identified and theclimate change strategy of the company.Companies must invest in emission reduction actionshaving long payback periods. Having a budget linededicated to emission reduction actions, energyefficiency and development of new low-carbon productscan help. Other advanced mechanisms may be setting adomestic price on carbon and establishing long-termpartnerships in technology development programs.

14

14 In 2013 companiesthat were included in thisdefinition are: Abertis,Amadeus, Arcelor Mittal,Banco ComercialPortugués, BancoSantander, Bankinter,CaixaBank, CIEAutomotive, EDP,Enagás, Endesa, FCC,Galp, Grifols, Iberdrola,Inditex, InternationalConsolidated Airlines,Jerónimo Martins,Mapfre, Melia HotelsInternational, Miquel yCostas, NH Hoteles,OHL, REE, REN, Repsol,Sonaecom, TécnicasReunidas and Telefónica.

MAPFRE recognized Climate Changeas an issue of long term strategicimportance for the company. Such isproven by the launch of multipleclimate change related insuranceproducts, in key fields such asrenewable energy, energy efficiency,forestation and many others.

MAPFRE

15

1. Are you integrating climate change considerations inyour products and services? How?

“Climate change is presented as one of our main concerns. Inthis regard, the climate change considerations are reflectedinto the Group commitments, such as the “Commitment toFight against Climate Change” adopted in 2011, which servesas a guideline for the OHL’s activities.

Some initiatives, among others, that have been carried out inorder to integrate climate change considerations are thefollowing:

to include an Environmental Management Plan foremissions and energy in all tenders and contracts;

to develop a Sustainable Mobility Plan, and

to start with the calculation of suppliers’ emissions.

OHL considers the CDP as an allied partner to progresstowards a low-carbon economy. As a direct consequence ofthe explained before, is that OHL’s performance in CarbonFootprint has improved, and this has been recognised by theCDP scoring of 94B in 2012 and including OHL among aselect group in the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index.”

2. What motivates you to incorporate environmentalexternalities into your decision-making and products?Are you experiencing any benefits or competitiveadvantage as a result?

“OHL is motivated to incorporate environmental externalitiesby the requirements of their customers, according with theGroup commitment to provide them the maximumsatisfaction. Also, the regulations and standards, theeconomic factors and the benefits for the surroundingenvironment are included among the main reasons.

The benefits obtained are basically:

wider access to procurement processes for thedevelopment of new projects or services;

improvement of the public image and

some cost savings that result, for example:

– from a reduction in energy consumption,

– from a sustainable use of other resources, and

– from a greater regulatory control.”

3. According to report findings, companies areincreasingly switching to a short-term approach toclimate change. Given that the Iberian economy isprojected to recover, how can you determine if thecompany has a long-term viable strategy to manageclimate change?

“OHL is ever more an international Group, with operationsacross the five continents and with a 67% of international salesat the end of 2012. In relation to the climate change strategy,the OHL Group needs to be focused with a worldwide scope.In this way, the Group pretends to stay ahead and to undertakethe last initiatives proposed all around the world.

At national level, the Spanish Government and the SpanishOffice for Climate Change (OECC) are working on a strategy,increasing guidelines and proposals, including, for example, thedevelopment of new regulations related with the calculation ofthe carbon footprint and its reduction, based on the EuropeanDecision No 406/2009/EC on the effort of Member States toreduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’sreduction commitments up to 2020. OHL is following theseefforts involved into the major working groups in the sector.”

Mr. Manuel Villén NaranjoChief Innovation and Sustainability Officer

Obrascon Huarte Lain, SA

Respondent company interview: Obrascon Huarte Lain, S.A.

C. These companies should pay special attention toimplement emissions reduction initiatives with longpayback periods (over 3 years). The initiatives mayextend efforts to reduce emissions of range 3, plus theScope 1 and 2. They must clearly contribute to a long-term low carbon strategy and go beyond legalrequirements compliance.

D. To annually conduct an emission inventoriesexternal verification, which at least covers Scope 1and 2 (Scope 3 also desirable) and according tostandards that meet the quality criteria of CDP (seeCDP’s approach to verificationhttps://www.cdproject.net/en-us/respond/pages/verification.aspx )

Iberia 125 2013 leaders

Criteria for 2013 leaders

Each year, company responses are analysed and scoredagainst two parallel scoring schemes: disclosure andperformance.

The disclosure score assesses the completeness andquality of a company’s response. Its purpose is toprovide a summary of the extent to which companieshave answered CDP’s questions in a structured format. A high disclosure score signals that a company providedcomprehensive information about the measurement andmanagement of its carbon footprint, its climate changestrategy and risk management processes and outcomes.

The performance score assesses the level of action, asreported by the company, on climate change mitigation,adaptation and transparency. Its intent is to highlightpositive climate action as demonstrated by a company’sCDP response. A high performance score signals that acompany is measuring, verifying and managing itscarbon footprint, for example by setting and meetingcarbon reduction targets and implementing programs toreduce emissions in both its direct operations andsupply chain.

The highest scoring companies for disclosure and/orperformance enter the Climate Disclosure LeadershipIndex (CDLI) and/or the Climate Performance LeadershipIndex (CPLI). Public scores are available in CDP reports,through Bloomberg Terminals, Google Finance andDeutsche Boerse’s website.

What are the CDLI and CPLI criteria?

To enter the Iberia 125 CDLI, a company must:

Make its response public and submit via CDP’s OnlineResponse System

Achieve a score within the top 10% of the Iberia 125population (14 companies in 2013)

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

Make its response public and submit via CDP’s OnlineResponse System

Attain a performance score greater than 85

Score maximum performance points on question12.1a (absolute emissions performance) for GHG

16

15 For furtherinformation on the CDLIand the CPLI and howscores are determined,please visitwww.cdproject.net/guidance

What about non-listed companies in CDP?Traditionally, only stock market listed companies are requestedto respond to CDP. But what about non-listed companies andfamily owned businesses that want to measure, manage anddisclose their climate change data and compare themselves totheir peers or customers?

For these companies - which anticipate opportunities fromresponding to CDP - we created the CDP non-listed initiative:This initiative allows non-listed companies of all sizes toevaluate their emissions management and their understandingof potential climate change impacts by using the leadinginternational CDP reporting standard. Members receive

support from CDP in-house experts as well as coaching fromour consultancy partners. In a second step, the companies’results will be subject to a detailed evaluation, highlightingareas of potential improvement and comparative analyses withrelevant competitors and/or customers. The focus of theinitiative is “support our members”.

Launched in Germany in 2011, CDP decided to expand theinitiative to the whole of Europe this year. We currently havetwo Southern European companies participating: CTT –Correios de Portugal who started off with a first-time score of86 B and the Sofidel Group, an Italian paper manufacturer,who achieved a score of 73 C.

5 good reasons to report voluntarily:Compare yourself with over 5,000 companies worldwide by

using the established CDP reporting standard

Evaluate your emissions management and discover newopportunities in your internal reporting infrastructure

Anticipate climate change related risks (e.g. mandatoryGHG-reporting in your country)

Be named in the prestigious local annual report (CDP IberiaReport/CDP Italy Report)

Become an active member of the CDP network andparticipate in the local launch events and spring workshops

For further information, please contact the CDP SouthernEurope Team | [email protected] or +39 02 3051 6041

CDP questionnaire goes beyond: companies responding on their own initiative

Current members of the CDP non-listed initiativeCTT – Portuguese PostDelipaperEvonikFlughafen MünchenGesobauHermesHSE

InfraservJean Müller Robert BoschSofidel GroupTetra PakWerra PapierWiedemann Wachswaren

reductions due to emission reduction actions over thepast year (4% or above in 2013)

Disclose gross global Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures

Score maximum performance points for verification ofScope 1 and Scope 2 emissions

Furthermore, CDP reserves the right to exclude anycompany from the CPLI if there is anything in itsresponse or other publicly available information that callsinto question its suitability for inclusion.

Note: Companies that achieve a performance score highenough to warrant inclusion in the CPLI, but do not meetall of the other CPLI requirements are classed asPerformance Band A- but are not included in the CPLI.

How are the CDLI and CPLI used byinvestors?

Good disclosure and performance scores are used byinvestors as a proxy of good climate change managementor climate change performance of companies.

Investors identify and then engage with companies toencourage them to improve their score. The ‘Aiming forA’ initiative which was initiated by CCLA InvestmentManagement is driven by a coalition of UK asset ownersand mutual fund managers. They are asking ten majorUK-listed utilities and extractives companies to aim forinclusion in the CPLI. This may involve filing supportiveshareholder resolutions for Annual General Meetingsoccurring after September 2013.

Investors are also using CDP scores for creation offinancial products. For example, Nedbank in SouthAfrica developed the Nedbank Green Index. Disclosurescores are used for selecting stocks and performancescores for assigning weight.15

Climate Disclosure Leadership Index

Disclosure scores of Iberia 125 responding companies in2013 have improved significantly from 2012, followingthe trend of previous years and proving that reporting onclimate change is a learning and improvement processfor businesses. While the increase in the average scoredoes not seem relevant (78 in 2013 up from 76 in 2012),the number of companies that have obtained a score of95 or more has increased from 6 to 14 in the sameperiod. The so-called “high scores”, companies with ascore higher than 70 points have increased from 52%(25) in 2011 to 73% (38) in 2013.

Table 2 shows the companies included in the Iberia 125CDLI. This year the minimum score in the CDLI is 95.

17

DisclosureCompany name Country Sector score

Gas Natural Fenosa Spain Utilities 100

Banco Espírito Santo Portugal Financials 99

Ferrovial Spain Industrials 99

Galp Energia Portugal Energy 99

Iberdrola Spain Utilities 99

Endesa Spain Utilities 98

Repsol Spain Energy 98

Sonae Portugal Consumer staples 98

Acciona Spain Industrials 97

CaixaBank Spain Financials 97

EDP – Energias de Portugal Portugal Utilities 97

Abengoa Spain Industrials 95

Sonaecom Portugal Telecommunication services 95

Telefónica Spain Telecommunication services 95

Table 2: Iberia 125 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index

PerformanceCompany name Country Sector band

Ferrovial Spain Industrials A

Sonae Portugal Consumer staples A

Abengoa Spain Industrials A

Gas Natural Fenosa Spain Utilities A

Acciona Spain Industrials A

Portugal Telecom Portugal Telecommunication services A

Table 4: Iberia 125 Climate Performance Leadership Index

PerformanceCompany name Country Sector band

Caixa Geral de Depósitos Portugal Financials

Table 5: Non-listed companies having reached a performance score in the CPLI band

DisclosureCompany name Country Sector score

Caixa Geral de Depósitos Portugal Financials 99

Table 3: Non-listed companies having reached a discloser score in the CDLI range

For the first time a company, Gas Natural Fenosa hasreached the maximum score of 100. Four morecompanies find themselves at just one point below(Banco Espírito Santo, Ferrovial, Galp Energia, Iberdrola),all of them improving their 2012 scores.

This year CDP wants to recognise as well thosecompanies that respond to the CDP questionnaire ontheir own initiative, i.e., without having received therequest from institutional investors CDP signatories,and that have obtained a score within the CDLI rangethat locates them in a leadership position. In table 3 wefind Caixa Geral de Depósitios, a non-listed companythat discloses through CDP on its own initiative andwhich managed to increase its discloser score by

Iberia 125 2013 leaders continued

12 percentage points to 99 in 2013. These resultsdemonstrate the high level of transparency of Iberianresponding companies.

Climate Performance LeadershipIndex

Improved disclosure has been accompanied,unsurprisingly, by improved levels of performance inclimate change management in Iberia 125 companies.While the number of companies that have achieved thehighest score band A remains at six, akin to last year, a

review of the performance levels immediately belowshows a clear improvement. In fact, the number ofcompanies in the A- and B bands has grown from 15 in2012 to 20 in 2013.

Table 4 shows the companies included in the CPLI.Ferrovial, Abengoa, Gas Natural Fenosa and Accionahave reconfirmed their climate performance leadershipposition. This year two Portuguese companies,Portugal Telecom and Sonae have entered the CPLI forthe first time. As a non-listed voluntary respondent,Caixa Geral de Depósitos has reached once again aCPLI level score.

18

1. Caixa Geral de Depósitos, who has repeatedly beenreporting to CDP on a voluntary basis, is one of thefinancial groups with the highest CDP climateperformance score in Iberia. What motivates you toreport to CDP and excel in climate mitigation andadaptation? Which benefits have you found in reporting(voluntarily) to CDP?

CGD established in 2007 its Programa Caixa Carbono Zero -Low Carbon Programme (LCP), an unique initiative in thePortuguese financial sector, which aligned CGD with internationalbest practices for facing climate change as a priority issue.

The LCP is the result of strategic reflection on the risks andopportunities that the issue poses to CGD’s activities and isbased on five lines of action: 1) CGD informs about its carbonemissions; 2) CGD reduces energy spending and carbonemissions; 3) CGD compensates inevitable carbon emissions; 4)CGD develops low carbon business and 5) CGD communicateson carbon literacy. These lines place CGD in a leading position inresponding to the new demands of an economy whererestrictions on carbon emissions are already a reality.

Voluntary reporting is a mean to communicate CGD’s LowCarbon Program and its results and reinforces theengagement of CGD with its stakeholders regarding climatechange. Also, it should be noted that the energy efficiencymeasures implemented by CGD have greatly contributed tothe improvement of the environmental performance, meaningrelevant reductions in operational costs.

2. What does your company do to increase people’scompetences and skills with regards to climate changemanagement?

CGD considerers that information together withcommunication, are essential for the success of its LCP andfor that has been working to build competencies andawareness regarding climate change management. CGDprovides training in environmental and climate change matters.An e-learning has been developed to all employees with theaim to provide knowledge on the environmental policy and

strategy of CGD, and also provide knowledge about howemployees can contribute to achieve CGD’s carbon relatedgoals, and which behaviours may help to minimize the carbonfootprint of CGD’s activity.

The Bank also shares information on climate change issues,through its internal communication tools (CaixaNotícias’ and‘NósCaixa’). As regards to external communication andawareness, CGD through its website disseminates information onclimate change management, namely: The Carbon Calculator;Practical Low Carbon Guides and Day by Day Zero Carbon.Other initiatives which aim to increase people’s awareness andknowledge are the New Generation of Polar ScientistsProgramme, Carbon Literacy Programme, Caixa Forest and theDesign Competition for Furniture Made with Recycled Materials.

3. Analysis from the G500 companies shows that currentreporting of indirect scope 3 emissions is still insufficientand does not reveal the full impact of companies’ valuechains. How do you identify which scope 3 emissionsmight be relevant, how do you measure them, and what,if anything, are you doing to address them?

CGD conducted an analysis of all the categories of Scope 3,according to the Guidelines ‘Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3)Accounting and Reporting Standard GHG Protocol’ and triedto report as much as relevant and possible. To this end, CGDtook into account several aspects, such as the internal andexternal information available, the business sector in whichoperates and the resources of the company available.

Based on the measurement of scope 3 emissions, CGDdefined several measures which aim the reduction of theglobal footprint, such as: Mobility Plan, Renewable EnergyCredit, CGD Zero Carbon Card and other environmentalrelated products.

CGD intends to improve its materiality analysis, working hardwith external stakeholders (e.g. suppliers and serviceproviders), in order to assess the applicability of each categoryin a more accurate way, and to calculate more rigorously theGHG emissions associated with each category.

Interview with a company responding CDP on its own initiative: Caixa Geral de Depósitos

Key statistics

This chapter includes the key statistics to track theevolution of responses every year and between sectors16.

Key disclosure statistics17

In 2013 six more companies have responded increasingthe response rate to 44%. This is the largest increasesince the sample Iberia 125 has been established,coinciding with a time when many companies affectedby the crisis have been forced to reduce the resourcesdevoted to reporting on non-financial issues in generaland climate change in particular.

This figure is slightly marred by the fact that the numberof Iberia 125 companies publicly responding hasstagnated since 2011 while the number of non-publicresponses is growing (see Figure KS1). Climate changeinformation transparency is not only an importantprinciple for investors meaning the first step in ensuringthe quality of information, but it is also a prerequisite forcompanies that intend to join CDLI and CPLI indexes.

This year the number of companies who explained itsrefusal to provide information on their emissions andclimate change strategy has increased too. 24% of thecompanies that explained its refusal to answer the CDPquestionnaire said they lacked the resources to do so,while 29% indicated that they are in the early phases ofclimate change monitoring. Moreover, 18% of thecompanies in the sample could not identify anyoneresponsible for reporting on climate change, which mostlikely also indicates that there are no dedicatedresources to this task.

Key emissions statistics

Total Scope 1 and 2 emissions reported bycompanies19 in 2013 add up to a total of 390 M tCO2e,an amount slightly lower than in the previous year (thereduction is less than 1%). The Utilities and Materialssectors remain by far the biggest emitters for emissionsof Scope 1 and 2, jointly standing for more than 83% ofthe total.

19

KS1 Responses summary (2011-2013)

Answered questionnaire,response publiclyavailable

Answered questionnaire,response not publiclyavailable

Indirect answer. The company refers to matrix

No response

Declined to participate

2013

2012

2011

0 25 50 75 100 125

KS2 Companies responding to CDP publicly and privately bysector in percentage (2013)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Public Non public

CD

CS

EGY

FIN

HC

IND

IT

MAT

TCOM

UTIL

22% 11%

20% 10%

100%

50% 9%

13%

30% 7%

14% 14%

17% 17%

60% 20%

100%

KS3 Year on year percentage of responding companiesdisclosing Scope 1 or Scope 2 GHG emissions (2011-2013)18

2013

2012

2011

98%

100%

92%

0 20 40 60 80 100

41 11 3 31 39

42 7 2 14 60

42 6 2 11 64

16 Here and in the sector analysis of this report we have used the GICS classification. Thesectors and the abbreviations used are: consumer discretionary (CD), consumer staples (CS),energy (EGY), financials (FIN), healthcare (HC), industrials (IND), information technologies (IT),materials (MAT), telecommunications services, (TCOM) and utilities (UTIL).

17 The CDP questionnaire was answered by 55 companies, of which three were referred to theresponse of a parent company. The percentages indicated in the figures KS1, KS2 and KS3include these responses to provide a complete picture of the response rate (with the final figureas of July 31, 2013), however the remaining analysis in this report is based on a total of 52responses from companies, which excludes 3 indirect responses via parent company. Thenumber of companies that report their emissions in Scope 1 or 2 includes those who have made“0” as the figure for their emissions.

18 The number of companies that report their emissions in Scope 1 or 2 includes those whohave made “0” as the amount of emissions.

19 It should be noted that although we are dealing with Spanish and Portuguese companies,their emissions and reporting are not limited to these countries. Reported emissions are thecompanies’ global emissions including those that occur anywhere in the world.

Number of companies

Key statistics continued

It should be noted that due to a change in CDPapproach to Scope 2 emissions, emissions figures ofthis scope in 2013 are not comparable with the figurespublished in previous years. When calculating Scope 2emissions, companies can now incorporate specificemission factors associated with energy supply fromrenewable sources, if there is an appropriate monitoringtool. This new approach can result in lower Scope 2emission figures than the previous one.

Measuring Scope 3 emissions follows a very slowprogression. 73% of companies that responded to the

questionnaire have identified and measured a maximumof two Scope 3 emissions categories, with “businesstravels” being the most reported category. Only 13% ofcompanies have measured more than four relevantsources of Scope 3 emissions, and only 10% haveevaluated emissions from the use of its products.Therefore we can see that Scope 3 measurement is stillnot a consolidated practice in Iberia 125 sample and,with few exceptions, most companies do not identify,measure and report their main sources of Scope 3emissions.

20

KS4 Total Scope 1 emissions reported by Iberia 125responding companies (M tCO2e) (2011-2013)

2013

2012

2011

350 (52 companies)

357 (49 companies)

333 (48 companies)

0 15010050 200 250 300 350 400

160.

000

140.

000

120.

000

100.

000

80.0

00

60.0

00

40.0

00

20.0

000

KS5 Total Scope 1 emissions reported by Iberia 125responding companies by sector (KtCO2e) (2013)

CD (6)

CS (3)

EGY (2)

FIN (12)

HC (1)

IND (10)

IT (2)

MAT (5)

TCOM (4)

UTIL (7)

175

407

100

83

8

134

17.383

38.452

158.752

134.742

KS6 Total Scope 2 emissions reported by Iberia 125responding companies (MtCO2e) (2011-2013)

2013

2012

2011

40 (52 companies)

36 (49 companies)

38 (48 companies)

0 2010 30 5040

20.0

00

18.0

00

16.0

00

14.0

00

12.0

00

10.0

00

8.00

0

6.00

0

4.00

0

2.00

00

KS7 Total Scope 2 emissions reported by Iberia 125responding companies by sector (KtCO2e) (2013)

CD (6)

CS (3)

EGY (2)

FIN (12)

HC (1)

IND (10)

IT (2)

MAT (5)

TCOM (4)

UTIL (7)

626

944

3.011

104

47

1.830

1.026

2.029

18.015

12.024

21

KS8 Number of Scope 3 categories identified by respondingcompanies as relevant and reported with emissions data (2013)20

KS9 Number of companies reporting data for relevant Scope3 categories, by category and sector (2013)

KS10 Third party verification/assurance of emissions reported and approved (complete or underway, any scope)(2011-2013)21

2013 (Iberia 125) 30

2012 (Iberia 125) 30

2011 (Iberia 125) 26

22 24 26 28 30 32

0 8642 10 12 14

CD (6) CS (3) EGY (2) FIN (12)

HC (1) IND (10) IT (2) MAT (5)

TCOM (4) UTIL (7)

Purchased goods and services1 6 1 1

Fuel and energy related activities1 1 1

Upstream transportation and distribution1

Waste generated in operations1 1

Business travel1 8 1 2

Employee commuting2 2 1 1

Downstream transportation and distribution1 1 1 1

Use of sold products2 2 1

None1 1 1 1 3 3

1

Companies with verification/assurance approved

Companies reporting verification/assurance underway,first year it has taken place

20 Only companies thatpublished their Scope 3

emissions categoriesusing the GreenhouseGas Protocol Scope 3

Standard have beenaccounted. While in

some cases the category“others” can be

legitimate elections, inmost cases, the data

contained in thesecategories should be

assigned to one of theabove categories.

Companies areencouraged to publish

their Scope 3 emissionsdata using these specific

categories whenappropriate, since in

case of failing to do soand using the categories

“other”, quality of thedata and therefore the

usefulness of the data forinvestors, are greatly

affected. We have madeno attempt to attributecategories subjectivelywhen companies have

selected “Other”.Moreover, we have onlyincluded the categories

for which emissions haveprovided figures that are

greater than zero areidentified as relevant in

the questionnaire.

21 In Figure KS10, theterm “communicated

and approved” refers tothe fact that the

calculation of companieswith verification is based

on CDP evaluation andscoring of the verification

reports attached to thequestionnaire responses.

Companies that reportemissions verification in

more than one scope,have been recorded only

once in the figure.

9

14

15

2

5

2

311 0 categories

1 category

2 categories

3 categories

4 categories

5 categories

6 categories

7 categories

8 categories

Number of companies Number of companies

Key statistics continued22

Key best practices statistics

As already noted, all indicators of best practices have improved in this edition with the exception of external verification ofemissions.

KS11 Board or other senior management oversight by sector (2013)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Board or other comitte


Other senior management oversight

CDCSEGYFINHCINDITMATTCOMUTIL

KS12 Rewarding climate change progress by sector (2013)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Monetary Reward


Other types of incentives


KS13 Demonstration of climate change being integrated intooverall business strategy by sector (2013)

0 20 40 60 80 100Percentage of companies


KI15 Emissions reduction due to implementation activities bysector (2013)22

0 20 40 60 80 100Percentage of companies


KS14 Disclose targets by sector (2013)

0 20 40 60 80 100


CD

CS

EGY

FIN

HC

IND

IT

MAT

TCOM

UTIL

Absolute Ahead of or metIntensity

Sector analysis23

Introduction

Sector analysis of CDP questionnaire responses bysector allows identifying trends that only make sensewhen taking into account the business context of eachsector.

Using CDP general criteria we have classified the samplecompanies according to the ten sectors defined by theGlobal Industry Classification Standard (GICS). However,of these ten sectors we have chosen only those whichhave more than five responding companies, as weconsider below this amount results may beunrepresentative. Thus, the sectors of this analysis areConsumer Discretionary (six companies), Financials (13companies), Industrials (ten companies), Materials (sixcompanies) and Utilities (eight companies)23.

As already noted, all key best practices statistics haveimproved in this edition with the exception of externalverification of emissions. Industrials and Utilities areabove the average in most indicators. Conversely, theMaterials sector, the biggest emitter in the sample, has alower performance in terms of best practices in all thesections. This shows the maturity of the Industrial andUtilities sector in climate change management and in theassumption of responsibility on the high impactgenerated.

Thus, from the response rate of 33% of the sectors ofDiscretionary Consumption and Materials, up to 100% ofresponses from Utilities, we observed response rates of37% in the Industrials sector and 59% in the Financialssector. Moreover, the Industrials sector is the topperformer with three companies with an A asperformance band, while one company from the Utilitiessector has the same band A, one company from theFinancials sector has a band A- and none fromConsumer Discretionary or Materials sectors reachesabove the B performance band.

22 Companies cancommunicate several

emission reductions dueto the implementation ofthe activities, targets or

performance incentives.In all these cases,

companies are countedonly once in the statistics

presented below, withthe exception of thestatistics of absolute

targets and objectivesrelating to companies

that have both types oftarget are counted once

in each type

23 These figures includeall the responses to CDP

questionnaire includingindirect answers fromcompanies that have

included information inthe response of its

parent company. Therest of the analysis in this

section has been madeonly from direct answers.

Companies that haveresponded indirectly are

indicated in the list ofcompanies that match

the initials “(SA)”.

Abertis promotes different measures in order to provideincentives to customers to adoptpractices that contribute to emissionsreduction, like carpooling or the useof electronic payment toll roadsystems.

Abertis

Consumer Discretionary24

SECTOR RESPONSE RATE

CIE AutomotiveInditexMelia Hotels InternationalNH Hoteles

Atresmedia (NP)Mediaset Espana

Comunicacion (NP)

(6 OUT OF 18)33%The Consumer Discretionary sector includes 11% of theIberia 125 responding companies in 2013, and isresponsible for 0.21% of total Scope 1 and 2 combinedemissions. It is a sector with low emissions in theirproduction processes whose Scope 3 emissions are notvery significant (slightly less than twice the emissions ofScope 1 and 2).

The heterogeneity of this sector does not allowgeneralisations in their emissions profile. The sampleincludes sub-industries as diverse as media, hotels, retailor automotive components. The Scope 3 emissionsinventories of these companies is rather limited withmost of the companies providing only the calculation forbusiness travel or commuting. Highlighted in this sectionis the inventory of emissions generated by the transportof Inditex products or emissions due to wastes andwaste treatment in the activity of NH Hoteles.

Over 80% of the Consumer Discretionary respondingcompanies are ahead of their emission reduction targets.However, their levels of disclosure and performance arebelow the average with an average score of 74 C.

Public policies that most interest this sector aremandatory reporting concerning climate changemanagement and adaptation to climate change, but onlya third of companies conduct direct engagement inthese areas.

According to the CDP Reporting Roadmapclassification, 66% of the Consumer Discretionaryresponding companies are currently providing acomplete response to the questionnaire that needs toincorporate best practices in order to approach theleaders. Some 33% of companies are still in the phaseof developing capacities to offer a complete answer.

Responding companies

AzkoyenCodereCofinaEstoril SolFluidra

Ibersol ImpresaMedia CapitalPrisaSAG

Toyota CaetanoVertice Trescientos

Sesenta

Non responding companies

175,144Scope 1 total reported emissions

tCO2e


tCO2e

1.98

74 CScope 3 / Scope 1+2 ratio

Scope 1+2 emissionpercentage from totalIberia 125 emissions

0.21%

Sector average disclosure score andperformance band

Figure 1CD. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector respondingcompanies

Performance BandE D C B A- A

100

90

80

70

60

50

Dis

clos

ure

Sco

re

Mediaset

Atresmedia

NH Hoteles

CIE Automotive Melia HotelsInternacional

Inditex

Under the Scope 3 Standard, Inditexis working to gather accurate andcomparable data from the supplychain. Also, Inditex is providingguidance and advice to suppliers onhow carbon reporting can enablethem to monitor emissions and obtaincosts savings.

Inditex

Scope 3 emissions categories most reported in the sectorEmployee commuting (2)Business travel (1)Downstream transportation and distribution (1)Waste generated in operations (1)

25

Figure 2CD. Percentage of companies with emissionreduction targets and level of achievement in the sector


0 20 40 60 80 100

0 10 20 30 40 50

Direct engagement

Trade associations

Funding research organizations

Other

No

0 3 6 129 15 18

Other

Adaptation resiliency

Mandatory carbon reporting



Figure 5CD. Most commonly reported risks

Changes in temperature extremes

0 2010 4030 50 60 70

Reputation

Changing consumer behaviour

Figure 3CD. Engagement methods reported by thecompanies in the sector


Figure 6CD. Most commonly reported opportunities

Changes in mean (average) temperature

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reputation



Figure 7CD. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company(2011-2013)

Figure 4CD. Engagement themes reported by the companiesin the sector

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

CIE Automotive

Inditex

Melia Hotels International

NH Hoteles

2011 2012 2013




Financials26


(13 OUT OF 22)59%

With 13 companies, the Financials sector is the largestin terms of companies that responded to thequestionnaire in 2013. The response rate (59%) is aboveaverage and just below that of the Utilities,Telecommunications and Energy sectors. The sector isresponsible for only 0.23% of reported Scope 1 and 2emissions from responding Iberia 125 companies. Itshould be emphasised, however, that the sector comethird in the amount of Scope 2 emissions, with 3.01million tCO2e and above sectors such as Industrials.

While Scope 3 emissions reported by Financials’companies represent only 35% of combined Scope 1 and2 emissions, Scope 3 emissions inventories of thesecompanies are very small and limited to the calculation ofemissions from business travels (eight companies),employee commuting (2) and purchased products (1). Nocompany has reported emissions from their investmentportfolios, although it is a common practice amongFinancials’ companies to report investments in renewableenergies as an indirect action to reduce GHG emissions.

Public policies in which most companies in this sectorare engaging are energy efficiency and clean energygeneration to represent a field needing funding andfinancial services. However it is surprising that only 8%of businesses state to engage on climate changefinancing, the same level as much less specific issues inthis sector as emissions’ trading or mandatory reportingon climate change.

Assessment of the actions of the Financials shows thatthey are underperforming with a score of 73 C. However,the group of companies form a very broad spectrumincluding companies with a very basic answer to leaderslike Banco Espírito Santo (99 A-) or CaixaBank (97 B).


Banco BPICorporación Financiera AlbaDinamia Capital PrivadoGrupo Catalana OccidenteQuabit Inmobiliaria

Realia BusinessRenta4 BancoSociedade ComercialOrey AntunesSonae Capital

Banco Comercial PortuguésBanco Espírito SantoBanco Popular EspañolBanco SabadellBanco Santander

BanifBankinterBBVACaixaBankMapfre

Bankia (NP)Bolsas y Mercados

Españoles (NP)Espírito Santo Financial

Group (SA



tCO2e


tCO2e

0.26



0.23%


Figure 1FIN. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector respondingcompanies


100

90

80

70

60

50

Dis

clos

ure

Sco

re

Bankia

BancoSabadell

Banif

Banco PopularEspañol

BBVA

Bankinter

Banco ComercialPortugués

Banco Santander

Banco Espirito Santo

Mapfre

Caixa Bank

Banco Espirito Santo understandsthat the changing consumerbehaviour is an interesting driver forproduct development and anopportunity to reinforce reputationthrough engagement and awareness.As public concern about climatechange grows, consumers areincreasingly interested in buyingproducts that have a positivecontribution to the environment.

Banco Espírito Santo

Informe CDP ingles 2013 27/11/13 09:47 Página 26

27

Scope 3 emissions categories most reported in the sectorBusiness travel (8)Employee commuting (2)Purchased goods and services (1)

Figure 2FIN. Percentage of companies with emissionreduction targets and level of achievement in the sector


0 2010 4030 50 60 70

Direct engagement

Trade associations


Other

No

0 5 10 2015 25 30

Other

Climate finance

Clean energy generation

Energy efficiency

Cap and trade




Figure 5FIN. Most commonly reported risks

Cap and trade schemes

0 20 40 60 80

Fuel/energy taxes and regulation

General environmental regulations, including planning

Changes in precipitation extremes and droughts

Reputation

Figure 3FIN. Engagement methods reported by thecompanies in the sector


Figure 6FIN. Most commonly reported opportunities

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reputation



0 2010 4030 50 60 70

Figure 7FIN. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company(2011-2013)

500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

Banco Com. PortuguésBanco Espirito SantoBanco Popular Español

Banco SabadellBanco SantanderBanif

BankinterBBVACaixa BankMapfre

2011 2012 2013

Figure 4FIN. Engagement themes reported by thecompanies in the sector




Industrials28

The Industrials sector is the second largest of thesample. With ten companies responding to thequestionnaire in 2013, it represents 19% of theresponses to the questionnaire. Industrial activity is thethird in volume of Scope 1 and 2 emissions with a totalof just above 40 million tCO2e (10.96% of the totalemissions of the sample).

The sector has some of the most advanced practices inmanaging emissions. For example, reported Scope 3emissions, representing 10.96 times the emissions fromScope 1 and 2, is a clear sign of the increasingsophistication on the indirect emission inventory fromIndustrial companies. As a matter of fact, six of the tencompanies in this sector have emission inventories andreported emissions generated by its suppliers as part ofthe emissions of its value chain.

Other indicators that demonstrate the advancedmanagement level of these companies is that 80% ofindustrials companies have reported absolute targets forreducing emissions and 90% are ahead of theseobjectives.

Industrials companies are the most active in publicpolicy engagement: 70% of companies reported directengagement with clean energy generation as the topicmost often addressed. Not surprisingly many of thesecompanies have diversified over the past decade fromconstruction activities towards renewable energy andhave now become a major player in this activity which isstrongly influenced by government action.

Average levels for disclosure and performance inindustrials are 79 B, above the average for allresponding companies. This sector includes three of thefour companies that are part of both CDLI and CPLIindices simultaneously (Ferrovial, Acciona and Abengoa).

Figure 1IND. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector respondingcompanies


100

90

80

70

60

50

Dis

clos

ure

Sco

re

Gamesa

FCC

TécnicasReunidas

OHL

Ferrovial

Albertis

IAG

Acciona

Abengoa

Ferrovial has worked in recent yearson the development of new models offinance, based on public-privatecooperation which could make itpossible gradually to renew the currentstock of buildings in the medium tolong term. It is an alternative for thebuilding sector, but also a greatopportunity for the country as a wholebecause of its potential to generateeconomic activity and jobs.

Ferrovial


(10 OUT OF 27)37%Responding companies

ACSBrisa Auto-Estradas

de PortugalCAFDuro FelgueraFersa Energías

Renovables

Grupo Empresarial San José

Grupo Soares da CostaMota-EngilProsegurSacyr VallehermosoSemapa

Service Point SolutionsSolaria Energía y Medio

AmbienteSonae IndústriaTeixeira DuarteVuelingZardoya Otis

AbengoaAbertis InfraestructurasAccionaFerrovial

GamesaInternational

ConsolidatedAirlines Group

MartiferOHLFCC (NP)Técnicas Reunidas (NP)


38,452,203Scope 1 total reported emissions

tCO2e


tCO2e

10.96

79 BScope 3 / Scope 1+2 ratio


10.44%



29

Scope 3 emissions categories most reported in the sectorPurchased goods and services (6)Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or 2) (1)Business travel (1)Downstream transportation and distribution (1)

Three other companies (OHL, IAG and Abertis) issued acomplete response to the questionnaire. On the otherhand, 17 companies in this sector did not respond toCDP questionnaire in 2013, including ACS, an IBEX35company which answered the questionnaire until 2012.

Figure 2IND. Percentage of companies with emissionreduction targets and level of achievement in the sector


0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80

Direct engagement

Trade associations


Other

0 10 20 4030 50 60

Other

Climate finance



Energy efficiency

Carbon tax

Cap and trade




Figure 5IND. Most commonly reported risks


0 2010 4030 50 60 70



Reputation

Figure 3IND. Engagement methods reported by thecompanies in the sector


0 2010 4030 50 60 70


Figure 6IND. Most commonly reported opportunities


Reputation

Figure 7IND. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company(2011-2013)

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0

Acciona

Ferrovial

OHL

Abengoa

Abertis

Gamesa

IAG

2011 2012 2013

Figure 4IND. Engagement themes reported by thecompanies in the sector




Materials30


AcerinoxArcelor MittalErcros

Corticeira Amorim (NP)Miquel y Costas (NP)Cementos Portland Valderrivas (SA)

(6 OUT OF 18)33%

With a response rate of only 33%, and with only fivecompanies directly responding to the questionnaire, theMaterials sector is the biggest GHG emitter, responsiblefor 46% of total Scope 1 and 2 emissions in the Iberia125 sample.

However, emissions management practices in the sectorare far below that of other sectors. Unsurprisingly then,their average disclosure and performance scores are thelowest of the sectors analysed: 70 C.

The sector’s Scope 3 emissions inventory is testimonial.Just one single company is assessing emissions from itssuppliers and evaluating emissions from other energy-related activities. However, the amount of GHGemissions from Scope 1 and 2 is so high that somecompanies justify their focus on these emissions as themost relevant.

Due to the strong coupling between their production andtheir emissions, most companies in the materials sectoropt for the establishment of intensity reduction targets(80% of companies) versus absolute targets. However,only 40% of companies are achieving or improving theirreduction targets, the lowest rate, by far, of the fivesectors analyzed.

Engagement in public policy is also very limited in thissector. Only 40% of companies report engagement, withemissions trading and carbon taxes as the issuesrelevant to the sector.

There is no company from the Materials sector with ahigh-level disclosure or performance score. Two of thefive companies in the sector offer a comprehensiveresponse to the questionnaire not reaching though thelevel of best practice (Arcelor Mittal and Miquel y Costas)while two others are in the phase of developing capacityto fully respond to the questionnaire.


AdveoAltriCimporEnce Energía y CelulosaEuropacF. Ramada Investimentos

InapaLa Seda BarcelonaPortucelSniaceTubacexTubos Reunidos



tCO2e


tCO2e

0.07



46%


Figure 1MAT. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector respondingcompanies


100

90

80

70

60

50

Dis

clos

ure

Sco

re

Acerinox

Ercros

Miquel y Costas

Arcelor Mittal

We engage with our key suppliers onGHG emissions and climate changestrategy as part of our suppliers’evaluation process. We ask them inparticular: Do they measure theirGHG emissions? If yes, do theiremissions improve year on year?Have they set publically availablereduction targets? Is their GHG dataexternally verified?

Arcelor Mittal

31

Scope 3 emissions categories most reported in the sectorPurchased goods and services (1)Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or 2) (1)

Figure 2MAT. Percentage of companies with emissionreduction targets and level of achievement in the sector


0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 6040 80

Direct engagement

Trade associations

Other

0 105 20 3025 35 40

Other

Carbon tax

Cap and trade



Figure 5MAT. Most commonly reported risks


0 2010 4030 50 60 70


Figure 3MAT. Engagement methods reported by thecompanies in the sector


Figure 6MAT. Most commonly reported opportunities


0 20 40 60 80 100



Figure 7MAT. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company(2011-2013)

200,000,000

180,000,000

160,000,000

140,000,000

120,000,000

100,000,000

80,000,000

60,000,000

40,000,000

20,000,000

0

Acerinox ErcrosArcelor Mittal

2011 2012 2013

Figure 4MAT. Engagement themes reported by thecompanies in the sector




Utilities32


EDP Energías de PortugalEnagásEndesaGas Natural Fenosa

IberdrolaREERENEDP Renováveis (SA)

(8 OUT OF 8)100%

EDP). It is a highly regulated sector with high carbonintensity, and so it has been requested to act proactivelyin climate change management.

While the Utilities represent 13% of all Iberia 125responding companies, they are responsible for 38% oftotal Scope 1 and 2 emissions, only behind the Materialssector and well above the third sector (Industrials, with10.44% emissions). They also have a large indirectimpact through their Scope 3 emissions that are 26times greater than their combined Scope 1 and 2emissions. Indirect emissions from this sector are veryhigh both upstream (mining and extraction and refiningof oil and gas) and downstream (electricity and gastransport to consumers and sale of gas for combustion).

Aware of the high impact of their activities and the highreputational risk linked to climate change the sectorfaces, the corporate management of climate change iswell underway in these companies: the 90 B in theaverage score of disclosure and performance is thehighest of the sectors analysed, and well above also theaverage of the sample Iberia 125 (78 C).

All companies in this sector state they are meeting orexceeding their emissions reduction targets.

The Utilities sector is very active in engaging with climatechange public policy, both directly (100% of companiesare active in this line) and indirectly, mainly throughbusiness associations (86% of companies).

Four of the companies in this sector (Gas NaturalFenosa, Iberdrola, Endesa and EDP) are among thehighest disclosure scorers in Iberia 125 (the ClimateDisclosure Leadership Index). Gas Natural Fenosa is thecompany with the highest total score in the sample, witha disclosure score of 100 points and a performanceband A. In addition, all companies sent a completeresponse to the CDP questionnaire, demonstrating long-term action that has already passed the developingcapacity phase.



tCO2e


tCO2e

26.08

90 BScope 3 / Scope 1+2 ratio


38%


Figure 1UTIL. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sectorresponding companies


100

90

80

70

60

50

Dis

clos

ure

Sco

re

REE

REN

Iberdrola

EDP

Enagás

Endesa Gas NaturalFenosa

Gas Natural Fenosa´s long termstrategy is driven by the EU EnergyRoad Map which sets an emissionreduction to 50% below 1990 levelsby 2030 and to 80-95% by 2050. Inthis context Research andDevelopment actions are key.

Gas Natural Fenosa

The Utilities sector has the highest rate of response ofthe sectors analyzed. All the Iberia 125 companies in thissector responded in 2013 to CDP questionnaire (one ofthem, EDP Renováveis, through its parent company

33

Scope 3 emissions categories most reported in the sectorPurchased goods and services (1)Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or 2) (1)Upstream transportation and distribution (1)Use of sold products (1)

Direct engagement

Trade associations


Other

Other

Climate finance



Energy efficiency

Carbon tax

Cap and trade


Figure 5UTIL. Most commonly reported risks

International agreements

0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80



Uncertainty surronding new regulation

Changes in temperature extremes


Sea level riseFigure 3UTIL. Engagement methods reported by thecompanies in the sector


Figure 6UTIL. Most commonly reported opportunities

International agreements



Other regulatory drivers


Figure 7UTIL. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company(2011-2013)

60,000,000

50,000,000

40,000,000

30,000,000

20,000,000

10,000,000

0

EDPGas Natural FenosaREN

EnagásIberdrola

EndesaREE

2011 2012 2013

Figure 2UTIL. Percentage of companies with emissionreduction targets and level of achievement in the sector


0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100



Figure 4UTIL. Engagement themes reported by thecompanies in the sector




Conveying ESG data to capital markets in Portugal34

Bank Credit vs. Capital MarketsHistorically, the banking activity in Portugal commences inclose relation to big industrial groups, this may be partly whytoday we see Portuguese companies resorting essentially tobanks to meet their finance needs. This trait is not specific tothe Portuguese economy and generally common in Europe.However, since Portugal begun in 2011 its financial assistanceprogramme, Portuguese companies have increasingly turnedfrom bank credit to capital markets. Commercial banks starteddeleveraging operations and recapitalising, forced to bringdown their credit to deposit ratio and up their core tier 1

capital ratio to improve resilience. Thus companies soughtother ways to back themselves; several listed companiesissued bonds in the primary market for retail investors orsearched for institutional investors and high-net-worthindividuals to reinforce their share capital.

Asset ManagersThis reinforced relation of Portuguese companies with capitalmarkets should serve as a reminder that non-financialinformation requested by investors also plays an importantrole. The investors’ community is more and more sensitive toEnvironmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues and theirpotential positive and negative impacts on company financials.For example, according to Eurosif, in 2011 there were €3.2trillion assets under management (AuM) in Europe run with theexplicit inclusion, by asset managers, of ESG risks andopportunities into traditional financial analysis and investmentdecisions. This figure not only grew 6.8% from 2009 to 2011,but also makes for an impressive number considering the totalof European AuM in 2011 estimated by EFAMA was €13.8trillion. Bloomberg as well estimated an increase upwards of50% since 2009 in access to CDP and other ESG dataprovided by its terminals. A company reporting to CDP itsemission reduction activities and emission reduction targets, isESG data of pivotal importance for an investor. That can beone of the reasons why in 2013 only Iberia 125 10 respondingcompanies had “no target”, with a steady decline in numbersince 2011.

Institutional Investors Within the circle of institutional investors, the insurance sectordeserves a closer look; it understood early-on the added valuein CDP’s data. One reason being that climate change data hasa dual purpose in their arena, as it can play a serious role inrisk insurance analysis, adding to investment purposes. ThePortuguese insurance sector has €50.25 billion AuM; almost40% of this capital is invested in corporate shares and bonds,the latter being the largest of the asset classes used by thesector.Pension funds too can play a leading role in use of ESG data,as they are naturally long term investors. Companiesdisclosing to CDP only short-term investment in emissionreduction initiatives can be overlooked by investors of this sort;we see precisely this trend in the Iberia sample with initiativeswith <1year and 1-3years payback periods gaining in numberssince 2011. When speaking of pension funds one should

highlight Norges Bank Investment Management, which ownsroughly 2% of European equities, and is a significant player inPortugal with shares in more than 20 companies listed in PSI

Geral. They are a signatory of CDP managing the NorwegianGovernment Pension Fund Global, the largest pension fund inthe world, and are considered a proxy worldwide in use ofESG information in investment analysis.

Retail InvestorsThe most remarkable news on use of ESG data by retailinvestors comes from the 2012 EU proposal for Regulation ofKey Information Documents (KID) for Investment Products.This proposal covers four groups of investment products(investment funds, insurance-based investment products, retailstructured securities and structured term deposits) that makeup for a market in Europe worth up to €10 trillion. The nexuswith ESG is the proposal’s requirement for the KID to include“an indication of whether the investment product manufacturer

targets specific environmental, social or governance

outcomes, either in respect of his conduct of business or in

respect of the investment product, and if so, an indication of

the outcomes being sought and how these are to be

achieved”. The responsibility of preparing the KID belongs tothe investment product manufacturer, meaning more assetfirms will research ESG data of listed companies, if the productbasket/investment fund entails corporate shares, bonds, etc.Pre-empting information demands like such by disclosing inCDP’s platform is of obvious value to listed companies in Iberiain the short-term, as the full proposal is expected to be inplace by end of 2014.

In conclusion, more and more stakeholders see a need of ESGdisclosure. That is also why the European Commission in Aprilthis year presented a legislative proposal mandating largeEuropean companies (>500 employees) to report materialnon-financial information. Also noteworthy is the UKGovernment initiative of July 2013, introducing mandatorycorporate GHG disclosure to every company listed in theLondon stock exchange. Euronatura hopes moregovernments can follow this lead by launching and endorsingdisclosure initiatives that can, not only promote cost andefficiency savings as a result of measurement andmanagement, but furthermore advance corporatetransparency in financial markets, benefitting companies andinvestors.

André BaltazarResearcher, Euronatura

Appendix I - Non-responding companies

Company name Country 2013 status

Consumer Discretionary

Azkoyen Spain NR

Codere Spain NR

Cofina Portugal NR

Estoril Sol Portugal NR

Fluidra Spain NR

Ibersol Portugal NR

Impresa Portugal NR

Media Capital Portugal NR

Prisa Spain NR

SAG Portugal NR

Toyota Caetano Portugal NR

Vértice 360 Spain NR

Consumer Staples

Baron de Ley Spain NR

Bodegas Riojanas Spain NR

Dia Spain NR

Pescanova Spain NR

Sumol Compal Portugal NR

Viscofan Spain NR

Vista Alegre Atlantis Portugal NR

Financials

Banco BPI Portugal NR

Corporacion Financiera Alba Spain NR

Dinamia Capital Privado Spain NR

Grupo Catalana Occidente Spain NR

Quabit Inmobiliaria Spain NR

Realia Business Spain NR

Renta 4 Banco Spain NR

Sociedade Comercial Orey Antunes Portugal NR

Sonae Capital Portugal NR

Healthcare

Almirall Spain NR

Biosearch Spain NR

Clinica Baviera Spain NR

Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi Spain NR

Natra Spain NR

Natraceutical Spain NR

Zeltia Spain NR

Company name Country 2013 status

Industrials

Prosegur Spain DP

ACS Actividades de Construccion y Servicios Spain NR

Brisa- Auto-Estradas de Portugal Portugal NR

Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles Spain NR

Duro Felguera Spain NR

Fersa Energias Renovables Spain NR

Grupo Empresarial San José Spain NR

Grupo Soares da Costa Portugal NR

Mota-Engil Portugal NR

Sacyr Vallehermoso Spain NR

Semapa Portugal NR

Service Point Solutions Spain NR

Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente Spain NR

Sonae Indústria Portugal NR

Teixeira Duarte Portugal NR

Vueling Spain NR

Zardoya Otis Spain NR

Information Technology

Grupo Ezentis Spain NR

Jazztel Spain NR

Novabase Portugal NR

Reditus Portugal NR

Tecnocom Spain NR

Materials

Adveo Spain DP

Altri Portugal NR

Cimpor Portugal NR

Ence Energia y Celulosa Spain NR

Europac Spain NR

F. Ramada Investimentos Portugal NR

Inapa Portugal NR

La Seda de Barcelona Spain NR

Portucel Portugal NR

Sniace Spain NR

Tubacex Spain NR

Tubos Reunidos Spain NR

Telecommunication Services

Amper Spain NR

Appendix Key:

AQ: Answered QuestionnaireDP: Declined to ParticipateNR: No ResponseSA: See Another - refers to another company responseNot public: the company responded privatelyNL: Non Listed CompanyScope 3 column: value indicates number of S3 categories that were reported as ‘relevant and calculated’*: the asterisk on scope 1 or scope 2 emissions figure indicates full points were awarded for verification that is complete or underwayusing an approved standard“Bold: companies that are in either CPLI (performance band A) or CDLI (disclosure score 95 or higher); or both”

35

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

Appendix II - Responding companies, scores and emissions data36

2013 Scope Scope Scope Company name Country Score 1 2 3

Consumer Discretionary

Atresmedia Spain 60 D Not public

CIE Automotive Spain 85 C 44,639 111,847

Inditex Spain 80 B 24,478* 290,119* 2

Mediaset España Comunicación Spain 55 E Not public

Melia Hotels International Spain 83 B 51,305 151,605 2

NH Hoteles Spain 78 C 53,193 61,585 1

Consumer Staples

Ebro Foods Spain 36 Not public

Jerónimo Martins Portugal 66 C 239,509 652,906 4

Sonae Portugal 98 A 57,225* 271,235 3

Energy

Galp Energia Portugal 99 B 3,319,758* 214,685* 4

Repsol Spain 98 B 14,062,806* 811,243* 3

Financials

Banco Comercial Português Portugal 80 C 18,626* 60,510* 2

Banco Espírito Santo Portugal 99 A- 7,186* 20,044* 2

Banco Popular Espanol Spain 59 D 788* 14,012* 2

Banco Sabadell Spain 64 D 378* 381* 1

Banco Santander Spain 84 B 31,857* 342,928* 2

Banif Portugal 63 D 4,134 5,124 1

Bankia Spain 52 D Not public

Bankinter Spain 80 C 312* 8,508* 1

BBVA Spain 76 D 9,267 295,771 1

Bolsas y mercados espanoles Spain 48 Not public

Caixa Geral de Depósitos (AQ-NL) Portugal 99 A 4,581* 26,812* 2

CaixaBank Spain 97 B 12,346* 15,939* 2

Espirito Santo Financial Group Luxemburgo SA(AQ)(See Banco Espirito Santo)

Mapfre Spain 78 B 6,897* 32,711* 2

Healthcare

Grifols Spain 90 B 83,005* 103,605,3 2

2013 Scope Scope Scope Company name Country Score 1 2 3

Industrials

Abengoa Spain 95 A 2,995,171* 658,190* 8

Abertis Infraestructuras Spain 83 B 37,743* 100,520* 4

Acciona Spain 97 A 607,528* 201,003* 7

CTT – Correios de Portugal (AQ - NL) Portugal 86 B 14,568* 10,842* 5

Ferrovial Spain 99 A 502,496* 105,672* 6

Fomento de Construcciones Spain 75 C Not publicy Contratas (FCC)

Gamesa Corporación Tecnológica Spain 64 D 14,202 33,454 1

International Consolidated Airlines Group Spain 88 B 23,230,095* 131,636* 5

Martifer Portugal 13 0

Obrascon Huarte Lain (OHL) Spain 90 B 251,757* 51,038 1

Técnicas Reunidas Spain 81 C Not public

Information Technology

Amadeus IT Holding Spain 79 B Not public

Indra Spain 62 D 6,437* 28,818* 1

Materials

Acerinox Spain 75 D 167,876 217,573

Arcelor Mittal Luxemburgo 88 B 158,192,000* 17,256,000* 1

Cementos Portland Valderrivas (See FCC) Spain SA(AQ)

Corticeira Amorim Portugal 40 Not public

Ercros Spain 74 D 321,539* 514,122*

Miquel y Costas Spain 73 C Not public

Telecommunication Services

Portugal Telecom Portugal 83 A 17,528* 124,215* 2

Sonaecom Portugal 95 B 3,664* 29,027* 2

Telefónica Spain 95 B 111,124* 1,649,137* 6

ZON Multimédia Portugal 60 D Not public

Utilities

EDP - Energias de Portugal Portugal 97 B 18,045,570* 1,454,760* 6

EDP Renováveis (See EDP) Spain SA(AQ)

Enagás Spain 83 B 387,651 61,377

Endesa Spain 98 B 54,676,230* 1,317,120* 5

Gas Natural Fenosa Spain 100 A 26,062,058* 956,889* 2

Iberdrola Spain 99 B 35,461,092* 7,189,301*

Red Eléctrica de España Spain 71 C 77,355 880,011 1

REN - Redes Energéticas Nacionais Portugal 80 C 32,520* 164,611*

Appendix Key:

AQ: Answered QuestionnaireDP: Declined to ParticipateNR: No ResponseSA: See Another - refers to another company responseNot public: the company responded privatelyNL: Non Listed CompanyScope 3 column: value indicates number of S3 categories that were reported as ‘relevant and calculated’*: the asterisk on scope 1 or scope 2 emissions figure indicates full points were awarded for verification that is complete or underwayusing an approved standard“Bold: companies that are in either CPLI (performance band A) or CDLI (disclosure score 95 or higher); or both”

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

Appendix III - Investor members and signatoires37

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

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

ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira dasEntidades Fechadas de PrevidênciaComplementarATP GroupAviva InvestorsBank of AmericaBendigo and Adelaide BankBlackRockBoston Common Asset Management, LLCCalifornia Public Employees' RetirementSystem (CalPERS)California State Teachers' RetirementSystem (CalSTRS)Calvert Group, Ltd.Capricorn Investment GroupCatholic SuperCCLA Investment Management LtdDaiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd.Generation Investment ManagementGoldman Sachs Group Inc.Henderson Global InvestorsHSBC Holdings plcLegg Mason, Inc.KLPLondon Pensions Fund AuthorityMobimo Holding AG

Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A.Morgan StanleyNational Australia BankNeuberger BermanNewton Investment Management LimitedNordea BankNorges Bank Investment Management(NBIM)Northwest and Ethical Investments L.P.(NEI Investments)PFA PensionRobecoRobecoSAM AGRockefeller Asset ManagementRoyal Bank of Scotland GroupSampension KP Livsforsikring A/SSchrodersScottish Widows Investment PartnershipSkandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB)Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.Standard CharteredSun Life Financial IncSustainable Insights Capital ManagementTD Asset ManagementThe Wellcome Trust

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Ass

ets

(US

$ Tr

illion

s)

Num

ber

of S

igna

torie

s

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Figure 13. Increasing number of investors requesting climate data through CDP

Investor signatory assets Number of investor signatoires

35 95 155 225 315 385 475 534 551 655 7224.5 10 21 31 41 57 55 64 71 78 87

Figure 15. 2013 Signatory investorbreakdown

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

Figure 14. Investor signatorybreakdown - 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 30025020015010050


Investor signatories

3Sisters Sustainable Management LLCAberdeen Asset ManagementAberdeen Immobilien KAG mbHABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das EntidadesFechadas 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 dosMercados 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 eSocial (BNDES)Banco Popular EspanolBanco SabadellBanco SantanderBanesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade SocialBanestoBANIF SABank Handlowy w Warszawie SABank Leumi Le IsraelBank of America Merrill Lynch

Bank of MontrealBank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank)Bank Sarasin & Cie AGBank VontobelBankhaus Schelhammer & SchatteraKapitalanlagegesellschaft 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 TerceirosLtdaBlackRockBlom 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 ManagementCorporation (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 doNordeste 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 Super

Christopher Reynolds FoundationChurch Commissioners for EnglandChurch of England Pensions BoardCI Mutual Funds' Signature Global AdvisorsCity 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 InvestmentgesellschaftmbHDeutsche 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 Planfor Clergy and Lay WorkersEvangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern CanadaEvli Bank PlcF&C Asset ManagementFACEB – Fundação de Previdência dos Empregadosda CEBFAELCE – Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade SocialFAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária daExtensão Rural do Rio Grande do SulFASERN - Fundação COSERN de PrevidênciaComplementarFédéris Gestion d'ActifsFIDURA Capital Consult GmbHFIM Asset Management LtdFIM ServicesFinanciere de l'Echiquier

38

722 financial institutions with assets of US$87 trillionwere signatories to the CDP 2013 climate changeinformation request datedFebruary 1st 2013

Investor signatories continued39

FIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementardos Empregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPqFIRA. - Banco de MexicoFirst Affirmative Financial Network, LLCFirst Commercial BankFirst State InvestmentsFirst 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 CompanhiaRiograndense de SaneamentoFundação de Assistência e Previdência Social doBNDES - FAPESFUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADESOCIAL - ELETROSFundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social -FORLUZFundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e AssistênciaSocialFUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCOFundação Itaúsa IndustrialFundação Promon de Previdência SocialFundação Rede Ferroviaria de Seguridade Social –ReferFUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA EASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL - FUSANFundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel)Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social -VALIAFUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIACOMPLEMENTAR 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 globaleVermögensentwicklung 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 Ltd

Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP)Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHHenderson Global InvestorsHermes Fund ManagersHESTA SuperHIP InvestorHolden & PartnersHSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland)GmbHHSBC Holdings plcHSBC INKA Internationale KapitalanlagegesellschaftmbHHumanisHyundai 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 ServicesInc.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 SOCIEDADEPREVIDENCIARIAJPMorgan 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 InvestmentgesellschaftmbHLD 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 AuthorityLothian 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 EnvironmentalResearchMitsubishi 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 ElectricitySupply 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

Investor signatories continued40

Northern Ireland Local Government Officers'Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC)Northern Star GroupNorthern TrustNorthward CapitalNorthwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEIInvestments)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 ChurchEndowment)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 dosCorreios e TelégrafosPower Finance CorporationPREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTARPREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários doBanco 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 eAssistência 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 theEnvironmentRothschild

Royal Bank of CanadaRoyal Bank of Scotland GroupRPMI 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 ManagementCo., 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 daDataprev - 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 Trust

The Brainerd FoundationThe Bullitt FoundationThe Central Church Fund of FinlandThe Children's Investment Fund FoundationThe 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 PublicService 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 Pensionand 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 BostonTrust & Investment Management CompanyWARBURG - HENDERSONKapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbHWARBURG INVESTKAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT 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

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

Spanish Collaborators:

Portugal partner:Spanish Lead Sponsor: Portugal Lead Sponsors:

The sole responsibility lies with the author and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Co-funded by the LIFE+ programme of theEuropean Union

CDP contacts

Steven TebbeManaging [email protected]

Diana GuzmanDirector, Southern [email protected]

Katharina LütkehermöllerProject Officer, Southern [email protected]

CDP EuropeReinhardtstraße 1410177 BerlinGermanyTel: +49 (0)30 311 777 168www.cdp.net, Twitter: @cdp

Carbon Discloser Project gGmbHExecutive Officers: Steven Tebbe;Sue Howells; Roy Wilson; RegisteredCharity no.HRB119156 B; local courtof Charlottenburg, Germany

ECODES contacts

Víctor ViñualesDirector [email protected]

Aurelio GarcíaDirector de Aná[email protected]

Marta [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Martí[email protected]

Ecología y [email protected]

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

EURONATURA contacts

Hugo CostaExecutive [email protected]

André [email protected]

EURONATURAwww.euronatura.pt [email protected] das Pimenteiras 6A1600 - 576 LisboaPortugal

PwC contacts

María Luz CastillaSocio, Sostenibilidad y Cambio Climá[email protected]

Pablo BasconesDirector, Sostenibilidad y Cambio Climá[email protected]

Marga de Roselló[email protected]

Paula [email protected]

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

Torre PwCPaseo de la Castellano, 259 BMadrid 28046

Avenida Diagonal, 640Barcelona 08012

Claudia [email protected]

Carlos de Llera [email protected]

PwC Portugalwww.pwc.com/ptTel: +351 213 599 000Palácio SottomayorRua Sousa Martins 1-2Lisbon 1069-316

CDP Board of Trustees

Chairman: Alan BrownSchroders

James CameronClimate Change Capital & ODI

Ben GoldsmithWHEB

Chris PageRockefeller Philanthropy Advisors

Dr. Christoph Schroeder

Jeremy Smith

Takejiro Sueyoshi

Tessa Tennant

Martin WiseRelationship Capital Partners