Carbon Disclosure Project: Asia exc. Japan 2012 (FULL)

1Increased opportunitiesfrom emerging regulationCDP Asia ex-Japan Climate Change Report 2012On behalf of 655 investors with assets of US$ 78 trillionGold Data Partner & Report WriterScoring Partner2Contents“For HSBC, climate change is a cornerstone of our ongoing business strategy... The reporting framework that the CDP has pioneered over the past decade has helped us both as respondent and signatory to improve our understanding of the strategic risks and opportunities in this area.”Douglas Flint, Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plcCDP Foreword Paul Simpson, CEO Carbon Disclosure Project 3Report Writer Foreword Dr. Richard Mattison, CEO Trucost Plc 4Executive Summary 5CDP Investor Members 2012 7Key Themes and Highlights of Responses for Asia ex-Japan in 2012 11Regulations to drive opportunities and risks 11Exposure to climate change impacts 12Risks and opportunities are imminent 12Carbon intensity has fallen across the region 13Carbon targets vs. performance 14Companies tackle data challenges 16Carbon Leadership 17Disclosure leaders 18Performance leaders 20Key Statistics 22Disclosure 23Emissions 24Performance 26CDP 2012 Global Key Trends 273The pressure is growing for companies to build long-term resilience in their business. The unprecedented debt crisis that has hit many parts of the world has sparked a growing understanding that short-termism can bring an established economic system to breaking point. As some national economies have been brought to their knees in recent months, we are reminded that nature’s system is under threat through the depletion of the world’s finite natural resources and the rise of greenhouse gas emissions. Business and economies globally have already been impacted by the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events, which scientists are increasingly linking to climate change1. Bad harvests due to unusual weather have this year rocked the agricultural industry, with the price of grain, corn and soybeans reaching an all time high. Last year, Intel lost $1 billion in revenue and the Japanese automotive industry were expected to lose around $450 million of profits as a result of the business interruption floods caused to their Thailand-based suppliers.It is vital that we internalize the costs of future environmental damage into today’s decisions by putting an effective price on carbon. Whilst regulation is slow, a growing number of jurisdictions have introduced carbon pricing with carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes. The most established remains the EU Emissions Trading Scheme but moves have also been made in Australia, California, China and South Korea among others.Enabling better decisions by providing investors, companies and governments with high quality information on how companies are managing their response to climate change and mitigating the risks from natural resource constraints has never been more important. CDP has pioneered the only global system that collects information about corporate behaviour on climate change and water scarcity, on behalf of market forces, including shareholders and purchasing corporations. CDP works to accelerate action on climate change through disclosure and more recently through its Carbon Action program. In 2012, on behalf of its Carbon Action signatory investors CDP engaged 205 companies in the Global 500 to request they set an emissions reduction target; 61 of these companies have now done so.CDP continues to evolve and respond to market needs. This year we announced that the Global Canopy Programme’s Forest Footprint Disclosure Project will merge with CDP over the next two years. Bringing forests, which are critically linked to both climate and water security, into the CDP system will enable companies and investors to rely on one source of primary data for this set of interrelated issues. Accounting for and valuing the world’s natural capital is fundamental to building economic stability and prosperity. Companies that work to decouple greenhouse gas emissions from financial returns have the potential for both short and long-term cost savings, sustainable revenue generation and a more resilient future.Paul SimpsonCEO Carbon Disclosure ProjectCDP Foreword“CDP has pioneered the only global system that collects information about corporate behaviour on climate change and water scarcity, on behalf of market forces, including shareholders and purchasing corporations.”1: The State of the Climate in 2011 report, led by the National Oceano-graphic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and published as part of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)4Trucost Foreword“Forward-thinking companies are positioning their brands for the growing market for green products. They will need hard evidence to back up their environmental claims and maximize opportunities.”The Asia Pacific region is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of climate change on Asian economies is tangible – in the last year alone significant droughts and floods have caused major disruption and volatility. Perhaps not surprisingly, awareness of climate-related risks has grown among companies responding to the CDP information request in 2012. They provided more than 500 answers to CDP questions on regulatory risk from carbon controls, physical risks from climate change impacts and market risk from a switch to low-carbon products. What’s more, most companies see the risks as imminent, within the next five years. Companies also identified near term opportunities, such as the growth in sales of carbon-efficient goods and services. Forward-thinking companies are identifying opportunities and gearing up to position their brands for the growing market for green products. They will need hard evidence to back up their environmental claims as businesses and consumers become more discerning in their purchases. Opportunities are at the heart of policy instruments that aim to spur a shift to resource-efficient economies. This is a key part of the drive for green growth across many Asian countries.Many companies are already facing serious resource constraints as environmental challenges contribute to high food, energy and commodity prices. Asia Pacific is consuming more resources than its ecosystems can replenish, threatening the region’s forests and rivers.1 The region’s consumption of biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores/industrial minerals and construction minerals has grown rapidly. 2 It uses three times more resources than the rest of the world to create each unit of GDP, and the region’s resource intensity has increased, in contrast to declines in other parts of the world.3 Resource-intensive growth has made Asia Pacific more vulnerable to resource price volatility.The largest companies are recognizing this. Information provided by this year’s responding companies shows that more are reducing their carbon intensity than increasing it. Most companies have targets to reduce carbon intensity or cut absolute emissions. Better reporting on progress against targets provides more transparency to investors – robust, standardized carbon data can be used to understand risks from exposure to carbon costs. Overall, more companies responded to the CDP information request, although there is still much progress to be made with many yet to report on their climate strategy and carbon emissions. CDP has been a catalyst for more widespread reporting on the implications of climate change for business. As more companies disclose information, investors and other stakeholders will expect better quality data and more information on risks and opportunities to enable them to compare and contrast investment opportunities. Companies that can transparently demonstrate they are more resource and carbon-efficient will be well placed to attract investors. Dr. Richard MattisonCEO Trucost Plc 1: Asia Development Bank, Ecological Footprint and Investment in Natural Capital in Asia and the Pacific, 2012 2: http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/flagpubs/ggrap/documents/Full-Report.pdf, accessed 25 October 2012 3: http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/lcgg/documents/A_summary_for_policymakers_FINAL_15_6_12.pdf, accessed 25 October 20125Executive SummaryThis report analyzes responses in the Asia ex-Japan 400 20121 sample. These are considered to be the companies of greatest interest to investors and which could be meaningfully compared to each other in terms of size and importance to the region’s economy. This year 32%2 (129) of companies from Asia ex-Japan responded to CDP – an almost 20% increase from 27% in 2011. These responses provide valuable insight into how companies are operating in an environment with increased business opportunities from emerging regulation to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. South Korea and Taiwan are the most represented countries relative to the overall Asia ex-Japan population (see Figure 3). Regulations expected to spur low-carbon growthCompanies responding in 2012 reveal expectations that regulations that could lead to rising costs for reporting and reducing GHG emissions will also be the main sources of climate-related business opportunities. Although 57% of responding companies raised concerns about exposure to regulatory risks such as the operating and capital costs of complying with government policies to tackle climate change, 51% foresee related opportunities. Opportunities identified include the potential to generate carbon credits for sale to companies covered by carbon trading schemes, and revenue growth from low-carbon products and services. On the flipside, the main risk drivers identified for companies that are unprepared for a low-carbon economy are brand damage or greening consumer choices. Low-carbon branding opportunities are expected to generate financial benefits equivalent to risks borne by firms unprepared for changes in purchasing patterns.Approximately 30% of responding companies see regulatory risks and opportunities as immediate issues. More than one-third expect regulatory opportunities to emerge within the next five years, while 42% expect risks to hit in the same timeframe. Some 28% of responding companies think that they can already capitalize on low-carbon opportunities. Awareness of potential benefits from regulatory frameworks to address climate change is greatest among Financials and Information Technology (IT) companies. Their response rates, carbon management strategies, carbon performance and product development reflect the inclusion of climate change issues in decision-making to position themselves for low-carbon business opportunities. The Financials and IT sectors have the greatest uptake of emissions-reduction activities in Asia ex-Japan. Energy efficiency dominates the IT industry’s responses, while many financial services companies are purchasing renewable energy and developing green products. Climate change impacts costlyWhen it comes to the physical effects of climate change, concerns about risks from impacts overshadow optimism about business opportunities. 65 responding companies discuss physical risks, compared with 44 “As consumers become increasingly conscious about their impact on the environment, companies which make an effort to be sustainable in the long term will gain a competitive advantage. As an exchange, we are encouraging our listed companies to engage in sustainability reporting by leading the way.”Singapore Exchange, Financials, Singapore6identifying related opportunities to facilitate adaptation to impacts such as more frequent and severe floods and droughts. On the whole, responding companies are concerned that risks to profit margins from extreme weather events will outweigh related revenue growth. Half of respondents already see water availability and cyclones disrupting production and increasing costs. Performance vs. targets57% of responding companies report changes in carbon intensity, measured as emissions from operations per unit of revenue. Their combined increases and decreases relative to their respective baselines result in an overall 6% fall in carbon intensity. More companies are reducing their carbon intensity than increasing it. 42% of responding companies report declines in carbon intensity whereas 15% disclosed increases.68 companies disclosed targets to reduce their GHG emissions. 40% of responding companies that disclosed carbon reduction targets report that they met or exceeded these (or other earlier targets to reduce carbon emissions or energy use). 41 companies set intensity-based targets. More companies that set targets to reduce emissions per unit of revenue reduced their carbon intensity than the number of companies that made progress towards absolute emissions-reduction targets. 71% of companies with targets to reduce carbon intensity report a fall in emissions relative to revenue. 68% of companies with targets to reduce absolute GHG emissions said they had cut carbon, although 21% also said that their emissions had increased.Data quality72% of companies provide data on emissions from operations, electricity purchases or value chains. More reliable emissions monitoring and reporting is required to improve data accuracy. While 64% of responding companies report on data accuracy, 33 companies are confident that their carbon data are accurate with a margin of error of up to 2%. Many companies see data gaps, metering/measurement constraints or data management as key challenges in providing reliable figures.54% of responding companies are verifying or assuring their carbon data. Companies with more robust, reliable carbon measurement and reporting will be better prepared for the rise of mandatory and voluntary initiatives to encourage greater disclosure of environmental information by companies listed in Asia ex-Japan. Companies that provide robust information, including carbon data in line with international carbon reporting standards such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, could be well placed to attract capital from investors that integrate environmental, social and governance information in decision making.1: CDP selected the Asia ex-Japan 400 sample covered in this report through a combination of weighted representation by country and market capitalization2: This percentage includes companies that reference a holding company’s response. Analysis of the remainder of this report is based on responses received by 10th September 2012 and does not include companies that reference a holding company’s response1 BREAKDOWN OF ASIA EX-JAPAN 400 RESPONDING COMPANIES BY COUNTRY• 2012• 20112 PERCEPTIONS OF THE TIMING OF REGULATORY RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES• Opportunity• RiskIndiaSouth KoreaChinaTaiwanSingaporeMalaysiaThailandIndonesiaPhilippinesHong Kong3528242223101415763222120 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 405115140102030405060708090100>10 years6-10 years1-5 yearsCurrentNote: Some companies identified risks and/or opportunities in more than one time periodNumber of companies Number of responding companies Note: Includes companies that reference a holding company’s response7CDP Investor Members 2012AegonAKBANK T.A.S.Allianz Global InvestorsAviva InvestorsAXA GroupBank of America Merrill LynchBendigo and Adelaide BankBlackrockBP Investment ManagementCalifornia Public Employees Retirement System - CalPERSCalifornia State Teachers Retirement Fund - CalSTRSCalvert Asset Management CompanyCatholic SuperCCLADaiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd.Generation Investment ManagementHSBC HoldingsKLPLegg MasonLondon Pension Fund AuthorityMongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S/AMorgan StanleyNational Australia BankNEI Investments Neuberger BermanNewton Investment Management LtdNordea Investment ManagementNorges Bank Investment ManagementPFA PensionRobecoRockefeller & Co.SAM GroupSampension KP Livsforsikring A/SSchrodersScottish Widows Investment PartnershipSEBSompo Japan Insurance IncStandard CharteredTD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc.The RBS GroupThe Wellcome TrustCDP works with investors globally to advance the investment opportunities and reduce the risks posed by climate change by asking almost 6,000 of the world’s largest companies to report on their climate strategies, GHG emissions and energy use in the standardized Investor CDP format. To learn more about CDP’s member offering and becoming a member, please contact us or visit the CDP Investor Member section at https://www.cdproject.net/investormembers4 2012 SIGNATORY INvESTOR BREAKDOWN259 Asset Managers 220 Asset Owners143 Banks33 Insurance13 Other3 CDP INvESTOR SIGNATORIES & ASSETS (US$ TRILLION) AGAINST TIME• Investor CDP Signatories• Investor CDP Signatory Assets39+33+22+4+239%33%21%5% 2%1 CDP INVESTOR SIGNATORIES & ASSETS (US$ TRILLION) AGAINST TIME• Investor CDP Signatories• Investor CDP Signatory Assets35 95 155 225 315 385 475 534 551 6554.5 10 21 31 41 57 55 64 71 782003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012700600500400300200100080706050403020100Assets (US$ Trillions)Number of Signatories78655 financial institutions withassets of US$78 trillion weresignatories to the CDP 2012information request datedFebruary 1st, 2012Aberdeen Asset ManagersAberdeen Immobilien KAG mbHABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência ComplementarAchmea NVActive Earth Investment ManagementAcuity Investment ManagementAddenda Capital Inc.Advanced Investment PartnersAEGON N.V.AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., LtdAFP IntegraAIG Asset ManagementAK Asset Management Inc.AKBANK T.A.S.Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo)Alberta Teachers Retirement FundAlcyone FinanceAllenbridgeEpic Investment Advisers LimitedAllianz Elementar Versicherungs-AGAllianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHAllianz GroupAltira GroupAmalgamated BankAMP Capital InvestorsAmpegaGerling Investment GmbHAmundi AMANBIMA – Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos Mercados Financeiro e de CapitaisAntera Gestão de Recursos S.A.APGAQEX LLCAquila CapitalArisaig Partners Asia Pte LtdArma Portföy Yönetimi A.S.ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A.ASN BankAssicurazioni Generali SpaATI Asset ManagementATP GroupAustralia and New Zealand Banking Group LimitedAustralian Ethical InvestmentAustralianSuperAvaron Asset Management ASAviva InvestorsAviva plcAXA GroupBaillie Gifford & Co.BaltCapBANCA CÍVICA S.A.Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena GroupBanco Bradesco S/ABanco Comercial Português S.A.Banco de Credito del Peru BCPBanco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A.Banco do Brasil S/ABanco Espírito Santo, SABanco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social - BNDESBanco Popular EspañolBanco Sabadell, S.A.Banco SantanderBanesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade SocialBanestoBank Handlowy w Warszawie S.A.Bank of America Merrill LynchBank of MontrealBank VontobelBankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H.BANKIA S.A.BANKINTERBankInvestBanque DegroofBanque Libano-FrancaiseBarclaysBasellandschaftliche KantonalbankBASF Sociedade de Previdência ComplementarBasler KantonalbankBâtirenteBaumann and Partners S.A.Bayern LBBayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHBBC Pension Trust LtdBBVABedfordshire Pension FundBeetle CapitalBEFIMMO SCABendigo & Adelaide Bank LimitedBentall KennedyBerenberg BankBerti InvestmentsBioFinance Administração de Recursos de Terceiros LtdaBlackRockBlom Bank SALBlumenthal FoundationBNP Paribas Investment PartnersBNY MellonBNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage GesellschaftBoston Common Asset Management, LLCBP Investment Management LimitedBrasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A.British Airways Pension Investment Management LimitedBritish Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcIMC)BT Investment ManagementBusan BankCAAT Pension PlanCadiz Holdings LimitedCaisse de dépôt et placement du QuébecCaisse des DépôtsCaixa Beneficente dos Empregados da Companhia Siderurgica Nacional - CBSCaixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF)Caixa Econômica FederalCaixa Geral de DepositosCaixaBank, S.ACalifornia Public Employees’ Retirement SystemCalifornia State Teachers’ Retirement SystemCalifornia State TreasurerCalvert Investment Management, IncCanada Pension Plan Investment BoardCanadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC)Canadian Labour Congress Staff Pension FundCAPESESPCapital Innovations, LLCCARE SuperCarmignac GestionCatherine Donnelly FoundationCatholic SuperCBF Church of England FundsCBRECbus Superannuation FundCCLA Investment Management LtdCeleste Funds Management LimitedCentral Finance Board of the Methodist ChurchCeresCERES-Fundação de Seguridade SocialChange Investment ManagementChristian Brothers Investment ServicesChristian SuperChristopher Reynolds FoundationChurch Commissioners for EnglandChurch of England Pensions BoardCI Mutual Funds’ Signature Global AdvisorsCity Developments LimitedClean Yield Asset ManagementClearBridge AdvisorsClimate Change Capital Group LtdCM-CIC Asset ManagementColonial First State Global Asset ManagementComerica IncorporatedCOMGESTCommerzbank AGCommInsureCommonwealth Bank AustraliaCommonwealth Superannuation CorporationCompton FoundationConcordia VersicherungsgruppeConnecticut Retirement Plans and Trust FundsCo-operative Financial Services (CFS)Credit SuisseDaegu BankDaesung Capital ManagementDaiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd.Daiwa Securities Group Inc.Dalton Nicol Reidde Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A.DekaBank Deutsche GirozentraleDelta Lloyd Asset ManagementDeutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbHDeutsche Bank AGDevelopment Bank of Japan Inc.Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)Dexia Asset ManagementDexus Property GroupDnB ASADomini Social Investments LLCDongbu InsuranceDWS Investment GmbHEarth Capital Partners LLPEast Sussex Pension FundEcclesiastical Investment ManagementEcofi Investissements - Groupe Credit CooperatifEdward W. Hazen FoundationEEA Group LtdElan 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 BankEssex Investment Management Company, LLCESSSuperEthos FoundationEtica SgrEureka Funds ManagementEurizon Capital SGREvangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay WorkersEvangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern CanadaEvli Bank PlcF&C InvestmentsFACEB – FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDÊNCIA DOS EMPREGADOS DA CEBFAELCE – Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade SocialFAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária da Extensão Rural do Rio Grande do SulFASERN - Fundação COSERN de Previdência ComplementarFédéris Gestion d’ActifsFIDURA Capital Consult GmbHFIM Asset Management LtdFIM ServicesFIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementar dos Empregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPqFIRA. - Banco de MexicoFirst Affirmative Financial Network, LLCFirst Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1)Firstrand Group 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 mbHFukoku Capital Management IncFUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários FederaisFundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - BrasiletrosFundação Atlântico de Seguridade SocialFundação Attilio Francisco Xavier FontanaFundação Banrisul de Seguridade SocialFundação BRDE de Previdência Complementar - ISBREFundação Chesf de Assistência e Seguridade Social – FachesfFundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da Companhia Riograndense de SaneamentoFundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES - FAPESFUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROSFundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social - FORLUZFundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e Assistência SocialFUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCOFundação Itaúsa IndustrialFundação Promon de Previdência SocialFundação Rede Ferroviária de Seguridade Social - ReferFUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA E ASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL - FUSANCDP Signatory Investors 20129Fundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel)Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIAFUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIA COMPLEMENTAR DA CAESBFuturegrowth Asset ManagementGaranti BankGEAP Fundação de Seguridade SocialGenerali Deutschland Holding AGGeneration Investment ManagementGenus Capital ManagementGjensidige Forsikring ASAGlobal Forestry Capital SARLGLS Gemeinschaftsbank eGGoldman Sachs Group Inc.GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale Vermögensentwicklung mbHGovernance for OwnersGovernment Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”), Republic of South AfricaGPT GroupGraubündner KantonalbankGreater Manchester Pension FundGreen Cay Asset ManagementGreen Century Capital ManagementGROUPAMA EMEKLILIK A.S.GROUPAMA SIGORTA A.S.Groupe Crédit CoopératifGroupe Investissement Responsable Inc.GROUPE OFI AMGrupo Financiero Banorte SAB de CVGrupo Santander BrasilGruppo Bancario Credito ValtellineseGuardians of New Zealand SuperannuationHanwha Asset Management CompanyHarbour Asset ManagementHarrington Investments, IncHauck & Aufhäuser Asset Management GmbHHazel Capital LLPHDFC Bank LtdHealthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP)Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHHenderson Global InvestorsHermes Fund ManagersHESTA SuperHIP InvestorHolden & PartnersHSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbHHSBC Holdings plcHSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHHUMANISHyundai Marine & Fire Insurance. Co., Ltd.Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd.IBK SecuritiesIDBI Bank LtdIllinois State Board of InvestmentIlmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance CompanyImpax Asset ManagementIndusInd Bank LimitedIndustrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.Industrial Bank (A)Industrial Bank of KoreaIndustrial Development CorporationIndustry Funds ManagementInfrastructure Development Finance CompanyING Group N.V.Insight Investment Management (Global) LtdInstituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos- PostalisInstituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREVInstituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - SEBRAEPREVInsurance Australia GroupIntReal KAGInvestec Asset ManagementInvesting for Good CIC LtdIrish Life Investment ManagersItau Asset ManagementItaú Unibanco Holding S AJanus Capital Group Inc.Jarislowsky Fraser LimitedJOHNSON & JOHNSON SOCIEDADE PREVIDENCIARIAJPMorgan Chase & Co.Jubitz Family FoundationJupiter Asset ManagementKaiser Ritter Partner (Schweiz) AGKB Kookmin BankKBC Asset Management NVKBC GroupKCPS Private Wealth ManagementKDB Asset Management Co., Ltd.KDB Daewoo SecuritiesKEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m. b. H.KevaKfW BankengruppeKillik & Co LLPKiwi Income Property TrustKleinwort Benson InvestorsKlimaINVESTKLPKorea Investment Management Co., Ltd.Korea Technology Finance Corporation (KOTEC)KPA PensionKyrkans pensionskassaLa Banque Postale Asset ManagementLa Financiere ResponsableLampe Asset Management GmbHLandsorganisationen i SverigeLBBW - Landesbank Baden-WürttembergLBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbHLD Lønmodtagernes DyrtidsfondLegal & General Investment ManagementLegg Mason Global Asset ManagementLGT Capital Management Ltd.LIG Insurance Co., LtdLight Green Advisors, LLCLiving Planet Fund Management Company S.A.Lloyds Banking GroupLocal Authority Pension Fund ForumLocal Government SuperLocal SuperLogos portföy Yönetimi A.S.London Pensions Fund AuthorityLothian Pension FundLUCRF SuperLupus alpha Asset Management GmbHMacquarie Group LimitedMagNet Magyar Közösségi Bank Zrt.MainFirst Bank AGMAMA Sustainable Incubation AGManMAPFREMaple-Brown AbbottMarc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc.Maryland State TreasurerMatrix Asset ManagementMATRIX GROUP LTDMcLean BuddenMEAG MUNICH ERGO AssetManagement GmbHMeeschaert Gestion PrivéeMeiji Yasuda Life Insurance CompanyMendesprev Sociedade PrevidenciáriaMerck Family FundMercy Investment Services, Inc.Mergence Investment ManagersMeritas Mutual FundsMetallRente GmbHMetrus – Instituto de Seguridade SocialMetzler Asset Management GmbhMFS Investment ManagementMidas International Asset ManagementMiller/Howard InvestmentsMirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd.Mirae Asset SecuritiesMirvac Group LtdMissionary Oblates of Mary ImmaculateMistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental ResearchMitsubishi UFJ Financial GroupMitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,LtdMizuho Financial Group, Inc.Mn ServicesMomentum Manager of Managers (Pty) LimitedMonega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHMongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S/AMorgan StanleyMountain Cleantech AGMTAA Superannuation FundMutual Insurance Company Pension-FenniaNanuk Asset ManagementNatcan Investment ManagementNathan Cummings Foundation, TheNational Australia BankNational Bank of CanadaNATIONAL BANK OF GREECE S.A.National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity Supply Pension SchemeNational Grid UK Pension SchemeNational Pensions Reserve Fund of IrelandNational Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)NATIXISNedbank LimitedNeedmor FundNEI InvestmentsNelson Capital Management, LLCNeuberger BermanNew Alternatives Fund Inc.New Amsterdam Partners LLCNew 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 Investment ManagementNorfolk Pension FundNorges Bank Investment ManagementNorth Carolina Retirement SystemNorthern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC)NORTHERN STAR GROUPNorthern TrustNorthward Capital Pty LtdNykreditOddo & CieOECO Capital Lebensversicherung AGÖKOWORLDOld Mutual plcOMERS Administration CorporationOntario Teachers’ Pension PlanOP Fund Management Company LtdOppenheim & Co. LimitedOppenheim Fonds Trust GmbHOpplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment)OPTrustOregon State TreasurerOrion Energy SystemsOsmosis Investment ManagementParnassus InvestmentsPax World FundsPensioenfonds VervoerPension DenmarkPension Fund for Danish Lawyers and EconomistsPension Protection FundPensionsmyndighetenPerpetual InvestmentsPETROS - The Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade SocialPFA PensionPGGM VermogensbeheerPhillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd.PhiTrust Active InvestorsPictet Asset Management SAPioneer InvestmentsPIRAEUS BANKPKAPluris Sustainable Investments SAPNC Financial Services Group, Inc.Pohjola Asset Management LtdPolden-Puckham Charitable FoundationPortfolio 21 InvestmentsPorto Seguro S.A.Power Finance Corporation LimitedPREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTARPREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do BrasilPREVIG Sociedade de Previdência ComplementarProLogisProvinzial Rheinland HoldingPrudential Investment ManagementPrudential PlcPsagot Investment House LtdPSP InvestmentsQ Capital PartnersQBE Insurance GroupRabobankRaiffeisen Fund Management Hungary Ltd.Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H.Raiffeisen Schweiz GenossenschaftRathbones / Rathbone Greenbank InvestmentsRCM (Allianz Global Investors)Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência SocialRei SuperReliance Capital Ltd10ResolutionResona Bank, LimitedReynders McVeigh Capital ManagementRLAMRobecoRobert & Patricia Switzer FoundationRockefeller Financial (trade name used by Rockefeller & Co., Inc.)Rose Foundation for Communities and the EnvironmentRothschildRoyal Bank of CanadaRoyal Bank of Scotland GroupRPMI Railpen InvestmentsRREEF Investment GmbHRussell InvestmentsSAM GroupSAMPENSION KP LIVSFORSIKRING A/SSAMSUNG FIRE & MARINE INSURANCESamsung SecuritiesSanlam Life Insurance LtdSanta Fé Portfolios LtdaSantamSarasin & Cie AGSAS Trustee CorporationSauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KGSchrodersScotiabankScottish Widows Investment PartnershipSEBSEB Asset Management AGSecond Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2)Seligson & Co Fund Management PlcSentinel InvestmentsSERPROS - Fundo MultipatrocinadoService Employees International Union Pension FundSeventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7)Shinhan BankShinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., LtdShinkin Asset Management Co., LtdSiemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbHSignet Capital Management LtdSmith Pierce, LLCSNS Asset ManagementSocial(k)Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - PrevdataSocrates Fund ManagementSolaris Investment Management LimitedSompo Japan Insurance Inc.Sopher Investment ManagementSouthPeak Investment ManagementSPF Beheer bvSprucegrove Investment Management LtdStandard Bank GroupStandard CharteredStandard Chartered Korea LimitedStandard Life InvestmentsState Bank of IndiaState Street CorporationStatewideSuperStoreBrand ASAStrathclyde Pension FundStratus GroupSumitomo Mitsui Financial GroupSumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc.Sun Life Financial Inc.Superfund Asset Management GmbHSUSI Partners AGSustainable CapitalSustainable Development CapitalSvenska Kyrkan, Church of SwedenSwedbank ABSwift FoundationSwiss ReSwisscanto Asset Management AGSyntrus Achmea Asset ManagementT. Rowe PriceT. SINAI KALKINMA BANKASI A.S.Tata Capital LimitedTD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc.Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities FundTelluride AssociationTempis Asset Management Co. LtdTerra Forvaltning ASTerraVerde Capital Management LLCTfL Pension FundThe ASB Community TrustThe Brainerd FoundationThe Bullitt FoundationThe Central Church Fund of FinlandThe Children’s Investment Fund Management (UK) LLPThe Collins FoundationThe Co-operative Asset ManagementThe Co-operators Group LtdThe Daly FoundationThe Environmental Investment Partnership LLPThe Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.The Joseph Rowntree Charitable TrustThe Korea Teachers Pension (KTP)The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Alliance of CanadaThe Pinch GroupThe Presbyterian Church in CanadaThe Russell Family FoundationThe Sandy River Charitable FoundationThe Shiga Bank, Ltd.The Sisters of St. AnnThe United Church of Canada - General CouncilThe University of Edinburgh Endowment FundThe Wellcome TrustThird Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)Threadneedle Asset ManagementTOBAMTokio Marine Holdings, IncToronto Atmospheric FundTrillium Asset Management CorporationTriodos Investment ManagementTri-State Coalition for Responsible InvestmentTrygUBSUnibail-RodamcoUniCredit SpAUnion Asset Management Holding AGUnion Investment Privatfonds GmbHUnione di Banche Italiane S.c.p.a.UnionenUnipensionUNISON staff pension schemeUniSuperUnitarian Universalist AssociationUnited Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health BenefitsUnited Nations FoundationUnity Trust BankUniversities Superannuation Scheme (USS)Vancity Group of CompaniesVCH Vermögensverwaltung AGVentas, Inc.Veris Wealth PartnersVeritas Investment Trust GmbHVermont State TreasurerVexiom Capital, L.P.VicSuperVictorian Funds Management CorporationVietNam Holding Ltd.Voigt & Coll. GmbHVOLKSBANK INVESTMENTSWaikato Community Trust IncWalden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust & Investment Management CompanyWARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbHWARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBHWater Asset Management, LLCWells Fargo & CompanyWest Yorkshire Pension FundWestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM)Westpac Banking CorporationWHEB Asset ManagementWhite Owl Capital AGWinslow Management, A Brown Advisory Investment GroupWoori BankWoori Investment & Securities Co., Ltd.YES BANK LimitedYork University Pension FundYouville Provident Fund Inc.Zegora Investment ManagementZevin Asset ManagementZurich Cantonal Bank“One area of clear progress is thegrowing use of climate-relatedshareholder resolutions. CalSTRSstrongly believes that this is animportant tool for investors touse as an engagement strategy,and CDP data is essential tothe company as it developsand executes its shareholderresolutions.”CalSTRS (California State Teachers’ Retirement System)11Key Themes and Highlights of Responses for Asia ex-Japan in 2012This analysis covers 117 responses from a sample of the 400 largest companies in Asia, based on market capitalization, outside of Japan. The CDP information request was sent to companies across 10 Asia ex-Japan countries. Regulations to drive opportunities and risksAsian companies see sources of regulatory risk as the main drivers of climate-related business opportunities. 60 responding companies (51%) report regulatory opportunities in 2012. 67 responding companies (57%) report regulatory risk in 2012. They provided 266 answers to questions on regulatory risk linked to government policies to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Expected policy measures include carbon taxes and mandatory carbon reporting. Companies were particularly concerned about the rising costs of reporting on climate change issues. 59% of all regulatory risk responses reveal expectations that these carbon constraints will cause increased operating costs, while 17% show expectations of national climate change policies resulting in higher capital costs.Carbon trading in particular is expected to generate risks and opportunities. Carbon credits are widely viewed as a great opportunity due to markets created by regulatory measures to reduce emissions. Many respondents believe planned cap-and-trade programs in South Korea and China will create opportunities. China’s 12th Five-Year Plan includes a target to reduce carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 17% by 2015,1 to be achieved through measures including carbon trading. China is currently developing seven carbon trading pilots, with emissions trading set to start in Beijing, Shangai and Guangdong in 2013. In May 2012, South Korea’s parliament passed the Act on Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowances2 to establish Asia’s first nationwide emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2015. Carbon permits will initially be allocated free of charge based on average emissions over a three-year period. The proportion of emissions covered by free allocations will fall to below 90% in the third phase from 2021. Companies under the first phase of the ETS from 2015 to 2017 will have to report verified GHG emissions and energy use information to the scheme regulator annually. The ETS is likely to cover more than 468 companies that must already comply with emissions-reduction obligations under an Emissions Target Management Scheme that has been in place since January 2012.3 In October 2012, South Korea doubled a target to cut GHG emissions from local industrial and power sectors by 17.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) in 2013 to enhance competitiveness before the cap-and-trade scheme starts.4 Several responding companies said that they were exposed to regulatory risk and rising costs under the scheme.5 1: Lan Lan, China to reduce carbon intensity by 17% by 2015, 29 July 20112: International Emissions Trading Association, Greenhouse Gas Market 2012, New Markets, New Mechanisms, New Opportunities3: http://www.generalphysics.co.uk/downloads/GP-FP-MOE-Case-Study-v1.0-Aug-2011[193].pdf, accessed 5 October 20124: South Korea doubles 2013 emissions reduction target, Reuters, 15 October 20125: http://www.generalphysics.co.uk/downloads/GP-FP-MOE-Case-Study-v1.0-Aug-2011[193].pdf, accessed 5 October 201280 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80Regulatory6760Physical6544Other developments53145 NUMBER OF RESPONDING COMPANIES THATIDENTIFY RISKS vERSUS OPPORTUNITIES• Opportunity • RiskNumber of companies “S-OIL’s GHG emission intensity by sales revenue for 2010 and 2011 were 350 ton/billion KRW and 256 ton/billion KRW respectively. […] The reason for the decrease in intensity is [mainly due to an increase in revenue] by [the energy-efficient] new operation of #2 Aromatic Complex in 2011.” S-OIL Corporation, Energy, South Korea1112Exposure to climate change impactsPerceptions of physical risk outweigh expectations of opportunities linked to climate change impacts such as more frequent and severe floods and drought. 44 responding companies (38%) discussed potential opportunities from physical impacts, and many are developing products and services to facilitate climate change adaptation. Industries sensitive to temperature changes, water and natural resource stress are establishing markets for targeted adaptive goods and services. However, in general, respondents fear that risks to corporate margins from changes in climate and weather patterns will be greater than the related potential for top line growth. Overall, 65 responding companies (56%) were concerned about the need to adapt to climate change impacts. They provided 165 answers to the CDP question on physical risks. More than 70 of the responses on risks from the physical impacts of climate change concerned India. The country is vulnerable to impacts on water availability due to receding glaciers, declining rainfall and increased flooding, which could threaten food security and adversely affect energy and infrastructure investments.6 Companies were most wary of the the financial impact of more frequent, extreme weather conditions. Half of respondents recognized that water availability and cyclones commonly disrupt production and push up operating costs. For instance, floods in China in 2011 disrupted production facilities and businesses, causing economic losses totalling some 43.2 billion yuan (US$6.65 billion).7 Indirect financial impacts also accumulated along value chains across Asia. Many electronics firms globally were hit by shortages of key components from their supply chains due to floods in Thailand in 2011. Responding companies in the IT sector identifed the most physical risks, particularly ongoing concern about water availability and unpredictable weather.Risks and opportunities are imminentMost of the risks and opportunities are already manifesting or expected to do so imminently. Approximately one-third of responding companies see both regulatory risks and opportunities as current issues. 32% of responding companies say that they already face risk management challenges. 28% of responding companies have identified current regulatory opportunities. 42% expect regulatory risks to emerge over the next five years, while 34% see related opportunities arising in the near term. Almost one-third of responding companies say that they already face risk management challenges. In general, respondents focus on near term, direct risks, with few considering the long-term and indirect consequences of climate change adaptation, which is a common trend for CDP respondents in North America and Europe as well.Most of the 45% of responding companies that discussed other risks, notably reputation and changes in consumer behaviour, also saw these occuring within five years. Brand damage or greening consumer choices were among the most common risk drivers identified for companies that are unprepared for a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy. Financial benefits from low-carbon branding opportunities are thought to be equivalent to risks borne by firms unprepared to accommodate the growing bracket of low-carbon consumers. Many responding companies have incorporated some key climate-related themes into business development strategies. Business opportunities identified most often relate to increasing sales from existing and new products and services. 6: Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 20127: Floods cause direct economic loss of 43.2 billion yuan in China, Xinhua, 30 June 20116 PERCEIvED TIMEFRAME FOR EXPECTED RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES• Current • 1 - 5 years 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%OpportunitesRisksRegulatory PhysicalOpportunitesRisksOthers including reputational and consumer behaviourOpportunitesRisksNote: Some companies identified risks and/or opportunities in more than one time period• 6 - 10 years• >10 years• Unknown“Our generation, transmission and distribution facilities are subject to damage by typhoons which would increase maintenance costs and reduce plant availability.”Power Assets Holdings, Utilities, Hong Kong13Many respondents also emphasize the potential gains from strategic branding strategies. In Asia, a low-carbon, low-polluting image can now influence a company’s reputation, and is expected to become more important in corporate strategy as consumers increasingly make informed and greener choices. Across all opportunity types, more than 70% of responses show that companies expect to capitalize on revenue growth from low-carbon opportunities within five years.Financials and IT companies are most attuned to numerous potential benefits from regulatory developments. They are most likely to consider regulatory, climate and consumer preference changes as market makers for innovative products. This reflects their broader engagement on climate change issues. The Financials and IT sectors had the highest response rates to the CDP information request, and have consistently produced the highest number of good quality responses. Responses from financial services companies have improved considerably since 2011. More IT companies across the region are now incorporating climate change factors into their decision-making. Energy efficiency is among the perceived opportunities in the IT industry, for internal operational improvements as well as external sales growth. Opportunity drivers include uptake of IT product efficiency standards and a growing market demand for more energy-efficient equipment that helps customers to reduce their energy costs and carbon footprints.Several banks in the region have also begun to establish practices to recognize climate change opportunities. Financial institutions are considering how best to promote green products and services in order to harness markets boosted by policy initiatives such as China’s Green Credit Policy and carbon intensity targets in the Government’s 12th Five Year Plan. The Ministry of Environmental Protection is currently developing criteria to evaluate banks and enterprises on their implementation of its green credit policy.8 Guidelines issued by the China Banking Regulatory Commission in 2012 require banks and financial institutions in China to adjust lending practices to facilitate energy saving and environmental protection through initiatives such as greater support for the low-carbon economy. For instance, by prioritising credit for green projects.9 Opportunities for financial service providers are likely to include funds to facilitate greater investment in mitigation activities, infrastructure, and carbon-efficient equities. Materials and Consumer Discretionary firms also discuss upside sales potential from carbon controls. Carbon intensity has fallen across the regionIntensity measurements such as metric tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted by a company to generate each unit of revenue can be useful to track changes in carbon intensity or efficiency. Investors and procurement managers can compare emission intensities to benchmark companies on carbon performance, regardless of size. In 2012, 67 responding companies (57%) report changes in emissions from operations (Scope 1) and electricity purchases (Scope 2) per unit of total revenue that amount to an overall 6% fall in carbon intensity. Companies report the percentage changes in emissions against a variety 8: http://www.ethicalmarkets.com/2012/08/07/cbrc-working-on-evaluation-crite-ria-for-green-credit-policy/, accessed 22 October 20129: http://www.ukti.gov.uk/uktihome/premiumcontent/296340.html; http://www.cbrc.gov.cn/EngdocView.do?docID=3CE646AB629B46B9B533B1D8D9FF8C4A, accessed 22 October 20127 NUMBER OF RESPONDING COMPANIESIDENTIFYING REGULATORY OPPORTUNITIES BY SECTORNote: Excludes the Health Care sector. See page 22 for a key to sector abbreviations.0246810121416CSTCOMUTILEGYCDINDMATFINITNumber of responding companies “Manufacturing plants in South Korea are subject to Government policy on energy intensive industry and buildings... Our Czech plant is subject to the European Union ETS and is expected to receive its first allocation in 2013. Our plant in [the] U.S. [is] subject to mandatory emission reporting [...] Our plants in China, India, Turkey and Russia […] are likely to [see] similar regulation in [the] near future.” Hyundai Motor, Consumer Discretionary, South Korea14of baseline years. However, more reliable emissions monitoring is required to reduce the potential margin of error in data accuracy (see page 16). 49 responding companies (42%) report a year-on-year decline in carbon intensity. On average, their emissions normalized by revenue declined by 12%. India and South Korea jointly have the most respondents reducing their carbon intensity, with 16 companies in each country improving their carbon efficiency. Companies based in Hong Kong, Taiwan and India also contributed to improvements in carbon efficiency in the region, with revenue growth accelerating faster than their carbon footprints.However, 18 of the responding companies (15%) report an increase in carbon intensity, with an average 12% rise in their emissions relative to revenue. Three of five companies with the greatest increases in carbon intensity were based in India, with one reporting a 40% increase. Despite China’s national carbon intensity target for 2015 and plans to trial carbon trading, only one responding company in China reports a fall in emissions intensity. Two responding companies in China have now set targets to reduce emissions. The IT and Financials industries report the largest number of measures to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. Energy efficiency is the most popular measure to cut carbon across responding companies in Asia ex-Japan. Broader improvements in resource efficiency are also among mitigation measures. Several IT and Materials firms describe dedicated internal funds to cut long-term energy bills. A focus on energy efficiency in India is likely to be driven by frequent power shortages due to the lack of upstream infrastructure10 and a policy focus on energy efficiency in the country. Government initiatives include a market-based mechanism to make energy-efficiency improvements in energy-intensive large industries and facilities more cost effective, through certification of energy savings that could be traded.11 The Indian economy is exposed to a growing gap between energy demand and supply and associated environmental externalities.12 Many financial services companies are purchasing energy from renewable sources and exploring opportunities to develop green products. Materials and Utilities companies across several Asia ex-Japan countries tend to have compliance-driven carbon reduction programs. Utilities firms are among many companies strengthening carbon management to prepare for expected regulatory or market-based controls on emissions.Carbon targets vs. performance68 responding companies (58%) report emissions-reduction targets in 2012, compared with 65% in 2011. South Korea led in target setting, with 20 of the 25 respondents reporting emissions-reduction targets. Seven of the South Korean companies with targets report a cut 10: Ernst & Young, India’s energy security, Key issues impacting the Indian oil and gas sector, 201111: National Action Plan on Climate Change, Government of India, 201012: Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2012Company Decrease IncreaseNumber of respondents reporting a change in carbon intensity (tonnes of CO2e/revenue) from previous year 49 18Mean change in carbon intensity -12% +12%Overall change in carbon intensity -6%1 CARBON INTENSITY PERFORMANCEDISCLOSURES“...We have been positioning our portfolio to manage the transition to lower carbon emissions. Since 2007 we have built and now operate one of Australia’s most efficient gas-fired power stations at Tallawarra in NSW...We also have a strong portfolio of renewable generation assets, including 144 MW of wind and a number of potential wind farm development sites across the National Electricity Market.” CLP Holdings, Utilities, Hong Kong 15in emissions intensity as well as absolute emissions, while several link their worsening carbon performance to growth strategies, operational expansion and calculation methodology alterations.41 respondents set targets to reduce their carbon intensity, 38 set targets to reduce absolute emissions. Of these, 10 attempted to combine the two types of targets. The targets cover a range of emissions sources, with combinations of operational, electricity and value chain emissions. Take up of targets among responding companies was highest in the IT and Financials sectors, reflecting expectations of opportunities to achieve energy cost savings and develop low-carbon markets. 18 IT companies and 12 Financials report absolute, intensity or combined targets. 10 of these IT companies reduced their carbon intensity while 7 reduced their absolute emissions. Most firms appear to use intensity targets in the early stages of carbon reporting and management. Carbon intensity targets were popular in the Materials sector (nine responding companies). Several target setters in the IT, Telecommunications Services and Energy sectors appear to commit to reduction goals, before even reporting current and historical emissions data.28 companies report that they had met or exceeded their emissions reduction targets. 40% of responding companies that disclosed targets report that they met or exceeded these (or previous energy or carbon targets). Companies with goals based on metric tonnes per million dollars in revenue generally found it easier to achieve their targets. 29 of the 41 companies (71%) with targets to reduce their carbon intensity report a fall in emissions relative to revenue. The majority of companies that had targets and report a reduction in carbon intensity were in the IT and Financials sectors (10 and 9 respectively).These sectors also had the highest number of companies with targets to reduce absolute emissions (eight Financials and seven IT companies). Across all 38 companies that set absolute carbon reduction targets, 26 (68%) report a fall in emissions, although eight of them (21%) also report that they emitted more. Several companies are using carbon offsetting to reduce emissions by purchasing carbon credits for projects by third parties to mitigate GHGs. Carbon offsetting is generally recommended as part of a carbon management strategy for emissions that cannot be avoided.13 Companies in many Asian countries stand to gain from the sale of carbon credits under the UN Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism.14 India and China are currently the main source of projects for Certified Emission Reductions under the CDM globally.1513: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/co2_offsetting/co2_offset-ting.aspx, accessed 24 October 201214: http://cdm.unfccc.int/, accessed 22 October 201215: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Statistics/Files/hpnum.pdf, accessed 24 October 20128 IMPLEMENTED EMISSION REDUCTION ACTIvITIES BY SECTOR• Other• Transportation: use• Transportation: fleet• Product designNumber of implemented emission reductions0102030405060708090IT FIN MAT IND EGY CD CS TCOM UTIL• Process emissions reductions• Low carbon energy purchase• Low carbon energy installation• Fugitive emissions reductions • Energy efficiency: processes • Energy efficiency: building services• Energy efficiency: building fabric• Behavioral change Note: This excludes the Health Care sector16Companies tackle data challenges84 companies (72%) provided data on Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions, with 47% of all responding companies providing figures for one or more Scope 3 categories. The CDP information request asks companies to estimate the level of uncertainty of the total global Scope 1 and 2 emissions figures provided, and to specify the sources of uncertainty in data gathering, handling and calculations. 75 companies (65%) provided information on their evaluations of Scope 1 data accuracy. Of these, 33 (44% of responding companies) consider reported figures to deviate by up to 2% from actual emissions levels. 30% of the 75 companies are confident that their reported GHG numbers are within 2%-10% of the actual amount emitted, while 6% stated uncertainty of more than 10%. More than 29% of responders perceive data gaps, metering/measurement constraints or data management as key challenges to Asia ex Japan companies’ attempts to report accurate emission data, while more than 10% thought that their assumptions or use of emissions factors can cause inaccuracies. Companies can use the international GHG Protocol corporate accounting standard for guidance on how to measure emissions.More South Korean respondents assess their data’s accuracy than do their counterparts based in India, despite submitting fewer total responses. This finding, combined with the level of Scope 1 and 2 data verification, suggests that South Korean companies are seeking to achieve greater data accuracy to both manage internal emissions-reduction programs and to improve transparency with robust greenhouse gas reporting.63 responding companies in Asia ex-Japan verified or assured their carbon data in 2012, compared with 52 in 2011. Governments and stock exchanges in Asia ex-Japan are using mandatory and voluntary guidance to encourage greater disclosure of non-financial information. For instance, the Securities and Exchange Board of India now requires the top 100 listed companies to include “business responsibility” reports in annual reports, following the Government of India’s National Voluntary Guidelines on Social, Environmental and Economic Responsibilities by Business.16 The Hong Kong Stock Exchange plans to make it recommended best practice for listed companies to report on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues from the end of 2012. Bursa Malaysia has required listed companies to disclose corporate social responsibility activities since 2007, or explain why they have not done so. The Singapore Exchange launched a program in July 2012 to help SGX listed companies to understand and address environmental issues – SGX Environmental Benchmark Insights.17 Better disclosures can facilitate the use of ESG criteria to select companies for inclusion in sustainability indices.18 The Stock Exchange of Thailand and Bursa Malaysia are currently developing sustainability indices. Improved disclosure can lower the cost of and improve access to capital.1916: http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/attachdocs/1344915990072.pdf, accessed 2 November 201217: http://www.asria.org/news/press/1342523575, accessed 1 November 201218: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/Financial_markets/Sustain-able_Stock_Exchanges.pdf, accessed 2 November 201219: Deutsche Bank, Sustainable Investing, Establishing Long-Term Value and Performance, June 2012“Swire Pacific Offshore (SPO), is reducing part of its carbon footprint that it cannot mitigate by voluntarily developing its own carbon credit. [A] REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) forest conservation scheme in Paraguay is expected to generate around one million tonnes of carbon credits by 2030.” Swire Pacific, Financials, Hong Kong172012 Leaders Introduction to disclosure and performance scoring Each year, company responses are reviewed, analyzed and scored for the quality of disclosure and performance on actions taken to mitigate climate change. How are the disclosure and performance leaders determined? To be recognized as a leader on disclosure among Asia ex-Japan companies1, a company must: • Make its response public and submit it via CDP’s Online Response System • Achieve a disclosure score higher or equal to 85 To be recognized as a leader on performance among Asia ex-Japan companies (Performance Band A), a company must: • Make its response public and submit it via CDP’s Online Response System • Attain a performance score greater than 85 • Score maximum performance points on question 13.1a (absolute emissions performance for GHG reductions due to emission reduction activities over the past year) • Disclose gross global Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures • Score maximum performance points for verification of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsNote: Companies that achieve a performance score high enough to achieve the score threshold for an A performance band but do not meet the additional requirements for an A band such as scoring maximum points for verification, are classed as Performance Band A-.Why are disclosure and performance scores important to investors? Analyzes of high-scoring company responses provide insights into the characteristics and common trends among the leading companies on carbon disclosure and performance. They highlight good practices in reporting, governance, risk management, verification and emissions reductions activities toward climate change adaptation and mitigation. Additionally, good carbon management and disclosure may be used as a proxy to assess where management is applying superior understanding of risk profiles and opportunities to help increase financial returns and the sustainability of businesses. High-scoring companies typically show a deeper understanding of, and address more pro-actively, the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. Managers build this into their strategy, risks and opportunities management and reporting processes. This transparency, and willingness to disclose information, is attractive to investors as they can make a more informed decision based on this information.1: For further information on how scores are determined, please visit https://www.cdproject.net/guidance“LGE completed a GHG inventory of global manufacturing operations and proceeds 3rd party verification every year. After announcing its long-term reduction goal for manufacturing, LGE checks the progress globally at least twice a year from 2009. LGE is expanding its GHG emissions management and setting a reduction target for [its] whole value chain.”LG Electronics, Consumer Discretionary, South Korea18The Asia ex-Japan Disclosure Leaders 20122 The average disclosure score for all Asia ex-Japan companies was 62 in 2012. The average score of the disclosure leader companies is 92.5. 64% of the scored companies either increased their score or achieved the same as in 2011. This indicates that the general quality and completeness of company responses has improved this year. In 2012, 20 companies are recognized as leaders on disclosure. Eight out of the 10 sectors were represented and Industrials was the most represented sector (five companies).Geographically, South Korea is strongly over-represented among Asia ex-Japan disclosure leaders relative to the overall number of South Korean companies in the Asia ex-Japan sample (12 South Korean companies are among the top scoring companies on disclosure, relative to 30 in the sample), with LG Electronics achieving a 100 disclosure score. In second place is Hong Kong with five companies. All of these companies but one (95% of companies leading on disclosure) are setting absolute and/or intensity targets to monitor progress (outside of the disclosure leadership group: 58%). By already integrating climate change into their mainstream business processes, the vast majority of leading companies are ideally placed to meet future reporting requirements and are at the forefront of driving change in adapting to a sustainable future.2: This does not take into account company responses from all Chinese companies, which were not all scored as part of the Investor CDP program in 2012“Our portfolio of solutions and products that enable GHG reduction include: Clean Energy (Platform Enabled) - Through WEM (Wipro Energy Manager), a device which enables remote management of power plant infrastructure...b) Energy Management Services ... c) Green Computing - in use...d) Green Building Services...e) Smart grid and smart metering for utility companies. Total avoided emissions: 195,540 tons over a 5-year period for each of the above initiatives.” Wipro, IT, IndiaSector Company CountryDisclosure ScorePerformanceBandConsumer Discretionary Hyundai Motor South Korea 88 BLG Electronics South Korea 100 AEnergy S-Oil Corporation South Korea 85 BFinancials Swire Pacific Hong Kong 88 BIndustrials Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd Hong Kong 88 CMTR Corporation Hong Kong 91 CNoble Group Singapore 92 BSamsung C&T South Korea 97 ASamsung Engineering South Korea 96 BInformation Technology Lenovo Group China 85 BSamsung Electronics South Korea 96 BSK Hynix South Korea 99 AWipro India 95 BMaterials Honam Petrochemical Corp. South Korea 94 BLG Chem South Korea 93 BPOSCO South Korea 94 BTelecommunication Services KT South Korea 89 BSK Telecom South Korea 90 BUtilities CLP Holdings Ltd Hong Kong 92 BPower Assets Holdings Ltd Hong Kong 99 B19What does a CDP carbon disclosure score represent? • Disclosure scores are an assessment of the quality and completeness of a company’s response; they are not a measure of a company’s performance in relation to climate change management• Scores are plotted over a 100-point normalized scaleGenerally, companies scoring within a particular range suggest levels of commitment to, and experience of, carbon disclosure. The indicative description of each level is provided below for guidance only; investors should read individual company responses to understand the context for each business.How is the disclosure score determined?In determining the disclosure score for each company, we assess the following: • The level of understanding and disclosure of company-specific exposure to climate-related risks and opportunities • The level of strategic focus and commitment to understanding the business issues related to climate change, emanating from the top of the organization • The extent to which a company has measured its carbon emissions • The extent of the internal data management practices for understanding GHG emissions, including energy useFigure 9 Carbon Disclosure ElementsWhat does a disclosure score typically represent?High (>70) Senior management understand thebusiness issues related to climate change and are building climate-related risks and opportunities into core businessMidrange (50-70) Increased understanding andmeasurement of company-specificrisks and opportunities related to climate changeLow (>50) Limited or restricted ability to measure and disclose climate-related risks, opportunitiesand overall carbon emissionsDisclosure score (max. 100)The Journey to LeadershipCompliance Managing for value Strategic advantage1920The Asia ex-Japan PerformanceLeaders 20123 Sector Company CountryDisclosure ScorePerformanceBandConsumer Discretionary LG Electronics South Korea 100 AIndustrials Samsung C&T South Korea 97 AInformation Technology SK Hynix South Korea 99 AThe criteria for an A performance band were raised in 2012 and companies now need to: achieve a performance score of more than 85, score maximum performance points on question 13.1a (absolute emissions performance), and disclose and verify Scope 1 and 2 emissions.In 2012, three companies from South Korea achieved the top performance band and therefore are leaders among the Asia ex-Japan companies. This is not surprising given the implementation in 2011 in South Korea of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Energy Target Management System, a mandatory government-driven emissions reporting and management system. We envisage that, as regulation around emissions reporting materializes in the “In 2011, SK Hynix has been increasing R&D investment according to our medium- and long-term climate change strategy (production of low-power products) and invested 830 billion KRW in R&D, increased by 40 billion KRW from 2010. To secure technological competitiveness in the development of next-generation memory, which boasts high- performance and electricity-saving technology, we have been collaborating with renowned global companies.”SK Hynix, Information Technology, South Korearest of the Asia ex-Japan countries, companies from other countries will also reach this highest level of performance on climate change in future years.Companies achieving an A performance band typically show a deeper understanding of, and address more pro-actively, the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. They highlight good practices in reporting, governance, verification and emissions reduction activities toward climate change adaptation and mitigation.3: This does not take into account company responses from all Chinese companies, which were not all scored as part of the Investor CDP program in 2012“In 2011, 3,392 tCO2 were offset by our passengers, including several companies in Hong Kong, China and Taiwan, representing an increase of 10% from 2010. Cathay Pacific and Dragonair also offset the CO2 impact on staff travelling on business, amounting to 14,575 tCO2, at an approximate cost of HK$788,000.” Cathay Pacific Airways, Industrials, Hong Kong21What does a CDP carbon performance band represent? All companies with a sufficiently high disclosure score received a performance band; the qualifying threshold to receive a performance band was a disclosure score of 50. Disclosure scores of less than 50 do not necessarily indicate poor performance; rather, they indicate insufficient information to evaluate performance. However, it is reasonable to assume that companies which do not disclose well may not be taking much action on climate change. Performance is grouped in six bands: A, A-, B, C, D and E which are defined by the following characteristics. Figure 10 Carbon Performance ElementsPerformance scoring is an instructive exercise for all stakeholders. The score provides an indication of the extent to which companies are addressing the potential opportunities and risks presented by climate change. CDP recognizes that this is a process that will evolve over time. It is important for investors to keep in mind that the carbon performance band is not: • A measure of how low carbon a company is • An assessment of the extent to which a company’s actions have reduced carbon intensity relative to other companies in its sector • An assessment of how material a company’s actions are relative to the business; the score simply recognizes evidence of actionBand A/A- (>85)Fully integrated climate change strategy driving significant maturity in climate change initiativesBand B (>60)Integration of climate change recognized as priority for strategy, not all initiatives fully establishedBand C (>40)Some activity on climate change with varied levels of integration of those initiatives into strategyBand D (>20)Limited evidence of mitigation or adaptation initiatives and no, or limited, strategy on climate changeBand E (=20)Little evidence of initiatives on carbon management potentially due to companies just beginning to take action on climate changeDisclosure score (max. 100)Performance Band (A is highest)No performance score allocated below a disclosure score of 50%2122Key StatisticsCD Consumer DiscretionaryCS Consumer StaplesEGY EnergyFIN FinancialsHC Health CareIND Industrials IT Information TechnologyMAT MaterialsTCOM TelecommunicationsUTIL Utilities“The company has recognized the importance of climate change through the Noble Carbon Neutral Project, which Noble Group started in 2007 with a commitment to calculate and offset the carbon footprint to become carbon neutral in a variety of business operations and products. Since 2007 the scope of the project has been extended and again in 2011 Noble’s beneficiary ships, all Noble offices worldwide, Noble’s publications and high-level management events achieved carbon neutrality.” Noble Group, Industrials, Singapore2223Key disclosure statisticsThis year the Asia ex-Japan report analyzes responses from a sample of 4001 companies, representing the top Asian companies based on market capitalization, outside of Japan. Of those, 129 companies responded to CDP, of which 12 referred to a parent or holding company’s response. The percentages provided in Figure KS1 incorporate these responses to provide a full picture of overall disclosure (with the final figure taken on 10th September 2012). However, the remaining analysis in this report is based on the lower total of 117 which excludes these 12 companies. All companies analyzed are categorized into 10 sectors based on the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). Nine of the 10 GICS sectors are shown in Figure KS2. The Health Care sector was excluded, as the only information provided was not made publicly available.The number of companies disclosing Scope 1 or 2 emissions includes those that have disclosed their emissions as zero. This is a change in approach from previous years.Climate Change Reporting FrameworkThe Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), a special project of CDP, is an international organization committed to the integration of climate change-related information into mainstream corporate reporting. CDSB’s internationally accepted Climate Change Reporting Framework (CCRF) is designed for use by companies in making disclosures in, or linked to, their mainstream financial reports about the risks and opportunities that climate change presents to their strategy, financial performance and condition. Designed in line with the objectives of financial reporting and rules on non-financial reporting, the CCRF offers a leading example of how to apply the principles of integrated reporting with respect to reporting on climate change.1: CDP selected the Asia ex-Japan 400 sample covered in this report through a combination of weighted representation by country and market capitalization, as follows: The largest 100 companies by market capitalization in China (the same number included in the 2010 and 2011 Asia ex-Japan reports); the largest 100 companies by market capitalization in India; the largest 30 companies by market capitalization in South Korea; 170 of the largest companies in the Asia ex-Japan, India, China and South Korea, selected on the basis of market capitalization and a country weighting determined by the relative market capitalization of each country’s stock market. A minimum number of companies from each country was also set at 10 Key disclosure statisticsKS1 YEAR ON YEAR PERCENTAGE OF COMPANIESRESPONDING TO CDP PUBLICLY & PRIvATELY• Responding publicly to CDP• Responding privately to CDPKS2 PERCENTAGE RESPONSE RATE (PUBLIC ANDPRIvATE) BY SECTOR 2012• Responding publicly to CDP• Responding privately to CDP0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%2011201263% 37%65% 35%KS3 YEAR ON YEAR NUMBER OF COMPANIESDISCLOSING SCOPE 1 OR SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSIONS• 2012• 20110 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90201120128481KS4 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING COMPANIES INEACH SECTOR DISCLOSING SCOPE 1 OR SCOPE 2 GHG EMISSIONS (2012) • 2012 Note: This excludes the Health Care sector0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%UTILTCOMMATITINDFINEGYCSCD837158 598084100 10050IND1780%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%UTILTCOMMATITFINEGYCSCD921 21 194525 26151792114243164HC1010Percentage of responding companies24Key emissions statisticsKS5 TOTAL SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS REPORTED BYRESPONDING ASIA EX-JAPAN COMPANIES (MILLION tCO2e)• 2012• 2011300 310 320 330 340 35032533120112012Million metric tons CO2eKS6 TOTAL SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS REPORTED BYRESPONDING ASIA EX-JAPAN COMPANIES (MILLION tCO2e) • 2012• 20110 20 40 60201120124656Million metric tons CO2eNote: This excludes the Healthcare sectorKey emissions statisticsThere has been a change in the way in which Scope 1 and 2 emissions reported under the CCRF are calculated, although this is not expected to cause a major change in reported emissions. In 2011 the Scope 1 and 2 figure was taken as parent and subsidiaries under control of the parent whereas in 2012 joint ventures are also included.Only companies reporting Scope 3 emissions using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard named categories have been included on page 25. Whilst in some cases “Other upstream” or “Other downstream” are legitimate selections, in most circumstances the data contained in these categories should be allocated to one of the named categories. Reporting companies are encouraged to use these specific categories where appropriate as not doing so and using “Other” greatly affects data quality and therefore the utility of the data for investors. An attempt to subjectively attribute categories where companies have selected “Other” has not been undertaken. In addition, only those categories for which emissions figures have been provided have been included. Scope 3 data has only been included for 2012 due to changes in Scope 3 categories occurring between the 2011 and 2012 reporting cycles as a result of the publication of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard. 84 companies report data for Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions that amounted to more than 371 million metric tons of CO2e. This equates to 70% of GHG emissions in South Korea in 2008.2 88% of emissions data disclosed were Scope 1 from operations. Companies that measure and report direct Scope 1 emissions from operations frequently disclose Scope 2 emissions that result from the generation of electricity that they purchase. 82 responding companies in Asia ex-Japan disclosed both Scope 1 and 2 emissions data. The Materials and Utilities sectors outperform all other industries, with every respondent disclosing both Scope 1 and 2 emissions. 53 companies disclosed data on Scope 3 emissions. For most companies, the majority of emissions are produced in supply chains. Suppliers that are more carbon intensive than sector averages are likely to try to pass through carbon liabilities, under emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes, in higher prices. Reported Scope 3 emissions are predominantly from transport-related sources. 32 companies provided data on business travel, the most commonly cited Scope 3 emissions generating activity. This is likely to be due to the relative ease with which transport emissions can be calculated, rather than their materiality. Data on fuel expenditure spend or distance conversion factors can be applied to calculate these emissions. 18 companies provided Scope 3 data for purchased goods and services and/or upstream transportation and distribution. Despite existing gaps between reporting levels across the different sources of emissions, many of the companies analyzed intend to account for Scope 3 emissions in the future. Upstream emissions can be measured using methods outlined in the GHG Protocol Initiative Corporate Value Chain Standard (2011).3 63 companies report verification/assurance as complete or underway. CDP has been working to encourage greater levels of third party verification/assurance of data in response to demands for higher levels of data quality. This led to a change in the way in which verification/assurance was reported in 2011. Therefore only data for 2011 and 2012 for verification/assurance is included in Figure KS11. The term “reported” refers to the information that a company has submitted to CDP. However the validity of the reported information has not been checked. Where companies reported verification/assurance of more than one scope, they are only counted once in the statistic provided. 2: http://envirocenter.yale.edu/uploads/pdf/South_Korea_Climate_Policy_Data_Sheet.pdf, accessed 16 October 20123: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard, accessed 25 September 201225KS7 TOTAL SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS REPORTED BYASIA EX-JAPAN RESPONDING COMPANIES BY SECTOR (MILLION tCO2e) • Consumer Discretionary • Consumer Staples • Energy • Financials • Industrials0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Million metric tons CO2e• Information Technology• Materials• Telecommunications• UtilitiesKS8 TOTAL SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS REPORT BY ASIAEX-JAPAN RESPONDING COMPANIES BY SECTOR (MILLION tCO2e) • Consumer Discretionary • Consumer Staples • Energy • Financials • Industrials• Information Technology• Materials• Telecommunications• Utilities0 10 20 30 40 50Million metric tons CO2eKS11 vERIFICATION/ASSURANCE OF EMISSIONSREPORTED (COMPLETE OR UNDERWAY, ANY SCOPE) (2011-2012)• Verification/assurance of emissions reported (complete) • Verification/assurance of emissions reported (underway) Number of companiesNote: This excludes the Health Care sectorNote: This excludes the Health Care sectorKS9 NUMBER OF COMPANIES REPORTING SCOPE 3CATEGORIES WITH EMISSIONS DATA • 0 categories • 1 category • 2 categories • 3 categories • 4 categories• 5+ categoriesKS10 COMMONLY REPORTED SCOPE 3 CATEGORIES(WITH EMISSIONS DATA PROvIDED) • Business travel • Employee commuting • Downstream transportation and distribution • Purchased goods & services • Fuel- and energy-related activities (not included inScopes 1 or 2)• Upstream transportation & distribution• Remaining Scope 3 categories3212920189126424971120 10 20 30 40 50 60 702011201259 4448“Emissions from product transportation were estimated based on the CO2e reports re-ceived from 4 key Lenovo’s carriers which represent 58% of worldwide global logistics spend.” Lenovo Group, Information Technology, China2526Key performance statisticsKS13 KEY PERFORMANCE STATISTICS 2011-12 • 2012• 2011Board or other senior management oversightRewarding climate change progressDemonstration of climate change being integrated into overall business strategyDisclose absolute targetsDisclose intensity targetsEvidence of disclosure of climate change information in mainstream filings or other external communicationsEmissions reduction due to implementation of activities1057476601058838274136888045350 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120Number of companiesKey disclosure statisticsCompanies may report multiple emission reductions due to implementation of activities, targets and reward incentives. In all of these cases, companies are only counted once in the statistics presented below, with the exception of the statistics on absolute and intensity targets where companies that have both types of targets will be counted once in each type. The statistics presented are based on reported data only. No further attempts to validate information have been made. Evolving business strategies to adapt to climate change impacts and carbon constraints often requires top down initiatives. Most responding companies in Asia ex-Japan have board-level or board-elected committees responsible for climate change adaptation. Boards are increasingly considering climate change issues such as carbon management programs and strategies. 90% of responding companies report that climate change-related decision making is elevated to board level and that many top managers have financial and other incentives to achieve carbon reduction targets. The majority of incentives are monetary rewards, with directors most likely to be incentivized. 90% of responding companies already incorporate climate change impacts when managing business risk and even more are considering the impacts when formulating business strategies.KS15 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING COMPANIESREWARDING CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRESS BY SECTOR (2012) • Offering monetary incentives• Offering other incentives0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%UTILTCOMMATITINDFINEGYCSCD42254333829186020741670305075KS16 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING COMPANIESINTEGRATING CLIMATE CHANGE INTO BUSINESS STRATEGY BY SECTOR (2012) KS21 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING COMPANIESWITH EMISSIONS REDUCTION DUE TO ACTIvITIES BY SECTOR (2012)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%UTILTCOMMATITINDFINEGYCSCD9210092100829095100750%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%UTILTCOMMATITINDFINEGYCSCD3329335029 30637525Note: This excludes the Health Care sector Note: This excludes the Health Care sectorNote: This excludes the Health Care sector27Key performance statistics CDP 2012 Global Key TrendsThe statistics presented in this key trends table may differ from those in other CDP reports for two reasons: (1) the data in this table is based on all responses received by 3rd September 2012; (2) it is based on binary data (e.g. Yes/No or other drop down menu selection) reported to CDP and does not incorporate any validation of the follow up information provided or reflect the scoring methodology. The latter, in particular, is likely to lead to an over-reporting of data in this key trends table. 1: This statistic includes those companies that respond by referencing a parent or holding company’s response. However the remaining statistics presented do not include these responses2: Companies may report multiple targets. However, in these statistics a company will only be counted once3: This takes into account companies reporting that verification is complete or underway, but does not include any evaluation of the verification statement provided4: Only companies reporting Scope 3 emissions using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard named categories have been included below. Whilst in some cases “Other upstream” or “Other downstream” are legitimate selections, in most circumstances the data contained in these categories should be allocated to one of the named categories. In addition, only those categories for which emissions figures have been provided have been included5: Includes responses across all samples as well as responses submitted by companies not included in specific geographic or industry samples in 2012Statistic Asia ex-JapanAustraliaBeneluxBrazilCanadaCentral & Eastern EuropeChinaEmerging MarketsElectric Utilities (Global)EuropeFTSE All-WorldFranceDACH (DE,AU,CH)Global 500IberiaIndiaIrelandItalyJapanKoreaLatin AmericaNew ZealandNordicRussiaSouth AfricaTurkeyTransport (Global)United Kingdom FTSE All-ShareUnited States S&P 500Overall5Number of companies in sample 400 200 150 80 200 100 100 800 250 300 800 250 350 500 125 200 40 100 500 250 50 50 260 50 100 100 100 615 500 N/ANumber of companies answering CDP 20121 129 99 57 52 107 23 23 291 101 275 625 81 193 405 50 52 17 46 227 99 32 21 148 4 78 17 54 329 343 2418% sample answering CDP 20121 32 50 38 65 54 23 23 36 40 92 78 32 55 81 40 26 43 46 45 40 64 42 57 8 78 17 54 53 69 N/A% of responders reporting Board or other senior management responsibility for climate change90 96 98 91 87 100 70 90 96 99 95 95 83 96 98 90 100 95 97 87 100 90 92 67 96 93 93 96 92 91% responders reporting incentives for the management of climate change issues65 63 65 51 51 75 30 66 64 77 77 70 44 82 71 64 59 53 76 65 50 48 58 33 65 87 80 65 69 61% of responders reporting climate change as being integrated into their business strategy90 89 96 81 77 100 78 86 94 91 92 88 73 95 94 86 65 79 92 86 79 86 90 33 81 80 91 84 83 84% of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on climate issues to encourage mitigation or adaptation75 72 81 77 69 25 48 77 90 85 83 78 64 87 85 79 59 65 78 70 82 57 74 33 84 73 83 73 70 71% of responders reporting emission reduction targets2 64 52 72 36 43 75 30 63 64 82 80 71 57 82 75 60 65 58 96 72 39 43 71 67 59 47 72 68 70 65% of responders reporting absolute emission reduction targets234 28 43 26 21 50 17 37 38 44 46 33 31 49 46 12 41 40 71 44 21 29 32 67 28 33 30 35 39 37% of responders reporting active emissions reduction initiatives in the reporting year32 84 98 81 81 75 83 86 89 97 96 91 83 98 94 88 76 81 99 74 86 67 72 67 96 80 93 88 92 87% of responders indicating that their products and services directly enable third parties to avoid GHG emissions26 60 76 74 60 75 61 62 85 70 72 75 66 74 83 55 41 65 79 61 71 48 88 67 56 67 74 58 62 64% of responders seeing regulatory risks 80 84 81 81 75 75 52 87 93 84 81 69 58 91 90 86 76 72 94 85 86 62 83 33 99 93 78 82 69 78% of responders seeing regulatory opportunities 76 68 87 79 65 50 48 78 87 83 78 83 67 79 94 86 59 74 84 76 79 57 77 33 92 73 70 72 64 73% of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope 1 and 2) have decreased compared to last year due to emission reduction activities32 29 48 15 20 25 4 35 27 59 54 40 36 59 58 19 35 28 56 45 18 14 47 33 57 27 39 48 49 44% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 1 emissions data as independently verified350 61 74 53 37 50 4 57 64 81 70 71 47 77 83 52 71 67 42 73 61 33 49 33 64 33 69 54 53 52% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 2 emissions data as independently verified350 59 72 55 24 50 4 55 42 75 66 65 40 72 77 48 59 60 42 72 54 33 45 0 63 33 59 51 48 47% of responders reporting emissions data for 2 or more named Scope 3 categories426 36 46 74 25 25 4 39 39 55 45 53 37 50 63 38 35 35 34 20 50 29 48 0 68 20 26 36 33 3728CDP 2012 Global Key TrendsStatistic Asia ex-JapanAustraliaBeneluxBrazilCanadaCentral & Eastern EuropeChinaEmerging MarketsElectric Utilities (Global)EuropeFTSE All-WorldFranceDACH (DE,AU,CH)Global 500IberiaIndiaIrelandItalyJapanSouth KoreaLatin AmericaNew ZealandNordicRussiaSouth AfricaTurkeyTransport (Global)United Kingdom FTSE All-ShareUnited States S&P 500Overall5Number of companies in sample 400 200 150 80 200 100 100 800 250 300 800 250 350 500 125 200 40 100 500 250 50 50 260 50 100 100 100 615 500 N/ANumber of companies answering CDP 20121 129 99 57 52 107 23 23 291 101 275 625 81 193 405 50 52 17 46 227 99 32 21 148 4 78 17 54 329 343 2418% sample answering CDP 20121 32 50 38 65 54 23 23 36 40 92 78 32 55 81 40 26 43 46 45 40 64 42 57 8 78 17 54 53 69 N/A% of responders reporting Board or other senior management responsibility for climate change90 96 98 91 87 100 70 90 96 99 95 95 83 96 98 90 100 95 97 87 100 90 92 67 96 93 93 96 92 91% responders reporting incentives for the management of climate change issues65 63 65 51 51 75 30 66 64 77 77 70 44 82 71 64 59 53 76 65 50 48 58 33 65 87 80 65 69 61% of responders reporting climate change as being integrated into their business strategy90 89 96 81 77 100 78 86 94 91 92 88 73 95 94 86 65 79 92 86 79 86 90 33 81 80 91 84 83 84% of responders reporting engagement with policymakers on climate issues to encourage mitigation or adaptation75 72 81 77 69 25 48 77 90 85 83 78 64 87 85 79 59 65 78 70 82 57 74 33 84 73 83 73 70 71% of responders reporting emission reduction targets2 64 52 72 36 43 75 30 63 64 82 80 71 57 82 75 60 65 58 96 72 39 43 71 67 59 47 72 68 70 65% of responders reporting absolute emission reduction targets234 28 43 26 21 50 17 37 38 44 46 33 31 49 46 12 41 40 71 44 21 29 32 67 28 33 30 35 39 37% of responders reporting active emissions reduction initiatives in the reporting year32 84 98 81 81 75 83 86 89 97 96 91 83 98 94 88 76 81 99 74 86 67 72 67 96 80 93 88 92 87% of responders indicating that their products and services directly enable third parties to avoid GHG emissions26 60 76 74 60 75 61 62 85 70 72 75 66 74 83 55 41 65 79 61 71 48 88 67 56 67 74 58 62 64% of responders seeing regulatory risks 80 84 81 81 75 75 52 87 93 84 81 69 58 91 90 86 76 72 94 85 86 62 83 33 99 93 78 82 69 78% of responders seeing regulatory opportunities 76 68 87 79 65 50 48 78 87 83 78 83 67 79 94 86 59 74 84 76 79 57 77 33 92 73 70 72 64 73% of responders whose absolute emissions (Scope 1 and 2) have decreased compared to last year due to emission reduction activities32 29 48 15 20 25 4 35 27 59 54 40 36 59 58 19 35 28 56 45 18 14 47 33 57 27 39 48 49 44% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 1 emissions data as independently verified350 61 74 53 37 50 4 57 64 81 70 71 47 77 83 52 71 67 42 73 61 33 49 33 64 33 69 54 53 52% of responders reporting any portion of Scope 2 emissions data as independently verified350 59 72 55 24 50 4 55 42 75 66 65 40 72 77 48 59 60 42 72 54 33 45 0 63 33 59 51 48 47% of responders reporting emissions data for 2 or more named Scope 3 categories426 36 46 74 25 25 4 39 39 55 45 53 37 50 63 38 35 35 34 20 50 29 48 0 68 20 26 36 33 3729Sector AnalysisThis section provides more insight into responses from companies in four sectors: Utilities, Materials, Industrials and Financials. These sectors have the potential to make significant contributions to reducing emissions from their operations and/or value chains. Utilities and Materials companies are energy-intensive and upstream in the supply chains of all other sectors. Utilities companies that reduce dependency on fossil fuels stand to gain from the shift to low-carbon power generation. Electric Utilities that switch to low-carbon fuels and promote energy efficiency can play a key role in reducing the Scope 2 carbon footprints of companies in other sectors. Industrials companies manufacture and distribute capital goods, including construction, engineering & building products, electrical equipment and industrial machinery, as well as providing commercies services and supplies and transportation for freight.1 In addition, Financials companies have the potential to develop climate-related criteria for investments and loanbooks.56% of responding companies in the Financials sector disclosed Scope 1 and 2 emissions amounting to more than 18 million tonnes of CO2e. 44% disclosed Scope 3 emissions that amounted to less than 1 Mt CO2e. However, figures disclosed are likely to exclude downstream emissions from investment portfolios. The GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle and Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standards provide guidance on how financial institutions can begin to take stock of emissions linked to portfolios.2 All 10 responding companies in the Materials sector disclosed Scope 1 and 2 emissions data, while 70% report some 1: http://www.msci.com/resources/pdfs/GICSSectorDefinitions.pdf, accessed 22 October 20122: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard, accessed 7 October 20123: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm, accessed 2 November, 2012 information on Scope 3 emissions. 97% of more than 169 Mt CO2e report is emitted from operations and purchased electricity. Four Steel companies and two Diversified Metals & Mining were among the 10 responding companies. Iron and steel production is energy intensive, with processes often involving coal combustion. Activities to improve energy efficiency in production dominate the Materials sector’s emissions-reduction measures.Of the 10 Industrial companies that responded to the CDP information request in 2012, 80% disclosed data for Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Direct operational emissions totalling more than 37 Mt CO2e were low compared to indirect emissions from value chains. 78% of responding companies disclosed Scope 3 emissions, which amounted to more than 162 Mt CO2e. The sector includes airlines that are likely to pay for a share of carbon dioxide emitted during flights to and from Europe from 2012, as these emissions are now covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Airlines under the EU ETS are likely to try to pass on carbon costs in passenger and freight surcharges. The carbon trading system is a potential first step towards a global agreement to tackle emissions from flights.3“All new railways incorporate specific design standards for energy efficiency based on life-cycle cost and carbon footprint assessment of the rail line, considering both construction and operation phases.” MTR Corporaton, Industrials, Hong Kong30MOST COMMON METHODS TO DRIvE INvESTMENT IN EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACTIvITIES8 Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards 7 Dedicated budget for energy efficiency 6 Employee engagement4 Dedicated budget for other emission reductionactivities 3 Financial optimization calculations2 Internal incentives/recognition programs10 OtherFINANCIALSAsia ex-Japan response rate:Financials overall: 30% (34 out of 112)Key industries within the sectorDiversified Banks (18 out of 51), Diversified Real Estate Activities (5 out of 16)20%15%8%25%18%10%5%PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING FINANCIALS COMPANIES DISCLOSING EMISSIONS BY SCOPE0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Scope 1Scope 2Scope 344%56%56%MOST COMMON METHODS TO DRIvE INvESTMENT IN EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACTIvITIES3 Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards2 Dedicated budget for energy efficiency2 Employee engagement 4 Financial optimization calculations 2 Internal incentives/recognition programs5 OtherINDUSTRIALSAsia ex-Japan response rate:Industrials overall: 17% (10 out of 60)Key industries within the sectorConstruction & Engineering (3 out of 8), Airlines (2 out of 2), Trading Companies & Distributers (2 out of 4)22%11%11%28%17%11%PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING INDUSTRIALS COMPANIES DISCLOSING EMISSIONS BY SCOPE0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Scope 1Scope 2Scope 378%80%80%3031MOST COMMON METHODS TO DRIvE INvESTMENT IN EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACTIvITIES4 Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards 8 Dedicated budget for energy efficiency 4 Dedicated budget for other emission reductionactivities16 OthersMATERIALSAsia ex-Japan response rate:Materials overall: 25% (10 out of 40)Key industries within the sectorSteel (2 of 6), Construction Materials (2 out of 9) , Commodity Chemicals (2 out of 8)25%50%12.5%12.5%PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING MATERIALS COMPANIES DISCLOSING EMISSIONS BY SCOPE0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Scope 1Scope 2Scope 370%100%100%MOST COMMON METHODS TO DRIvE INvESTMENT IN EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACTIvITIES3 Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards 3 Employee engagement2 Internal incentives/recognition programs3 OthersUTILITIESAsia ex-Japan response rate:Utilities overall: 15% (4 out of 25)Key industries within the sectorElectric Utilities (3 of 12)27%27%27%18%PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDING UTILITIES COMPANIES DISCLOSING EMISSIONS BY SCOPE0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Scope 1Scope 2Scope 375%100%100%3132Appendix - Asia ex-Japan SampleCompany name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeAAC Technologies Holdings Hong Kong IT AQ X 51 E 88,495 6,785 81,710ABB - Asea Brown Bovari India IND SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SAAboitiz Equity Ventures Philippines IND SA NR SA NP NP NP NP NPAboitiz Power Corporation Philippines UTIL AQ AQ 39 NP NP NP NP NPACC India MAT AQ AQ 72 16,434,824 15,809,662 62,5162 1 IntAdani Enterprises India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAdani Power Ltd India UTIL DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPAditya Birla Nuvo India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAdvanced Info Service Thailand TCOM NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAdvanced Semiconductor EngineeringTaiwan IT AQ AQ 67 D NP NP NP NP NPAgricultural Bank of China LtdChina FIN IN NR IN IN IN IN IN INAIA Group Ltd. Hong Kong FIN DP X DP DP DP DP DP DPAlibaba.Com Ltd. Hong Kong IT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAluminum Corporation of ChinaChina MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAmbuja Cements India MAT AQ AQ 68 14,427,970 14,056,831 371,139 IntAMMB Holdings Malaysia FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAnhui Conch Cement China MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAscendas Real Estate Investment TrustSingapore FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRAsian Paints India MAT NR AQ NR NR NR NR NR NRASM Pacific Technology Hong Kong IT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAstra International Indonesia CD AQ AQ 11 NP NP NP NP NPAsustek Computer Inc Taiwan IT AQ AQ 63 D 19,009 258 18,751 1 Abs Axiata Group Berhad Malaysia TCOM NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAxis Bank India FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRAyala Land Inc Philippines FIN AQ IN 45 84,321 10,912 73,409 Abs Bajaj Auto India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBangkok Bank Thailand FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBank Central Asia Indonesia FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRBank Mandiri Indonesia FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBank of Baroda India FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBank of Beijing (A) China FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBank of China China FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBank of Communications China FIN AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPBank of East Asia Limited Hong Kong FIN DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DPBank of India India FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBank Of Nanjing China FIN NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRBank of Ningbo China FIN NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRBank of The Philippine Islands Philippines FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBank Rakyat Indonesia Indonesia FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRBaoshan Iron & Steel China MAT NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRBDO Unibank Inc Philippines FIN NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRBeijing Enterprises China IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBelle International Hong Kong CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBharat Electronics India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBharat Heavy Electricals India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBharat Petroleum Corporation India EGY DP AQ DP DP DP DP DP DPBharti Airtel India TCOM NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBOC Hong Kong Hong Kong FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRPlease refer to the Key on page 41 for further explanation of the abbreviations used33Company name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeBosch Ltd India CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBrilliance China Automotive China CD NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRBumi Resources Indonesia EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRBursa Malaysia Malaysia FIN AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPCadila Healthcare India HC DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPCairn India India EGY AQ AQ 38 698,816 691,065 7,751Canara Bank India FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCapitaland Ltd Singapore FIN AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPCapitaMall Trust Singapore FIN SA SA SA NP NP NP NP NPCastrol India India MAT SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SACathay Financial Holding Taiwan FIN AQ AQ 13 NP NP NP NP NPCathay Pacific Airways Ltd Hong Kong IND AQ AQ 88 C 16,340,400 16,286,705 53,695 1 IntCharoen Pokphand Foods PCL Thailand CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCheung Kong Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCheung Kong Infrastructure HoldingsHong Kong UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Citic Bank China FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Coal Energy China EGY NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Communications ConstructionChina IND AQ AQ *China Construction Bank China FIN AQ IN * NP NP NP NP NPChina Everbright Ltd China FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Gas Holdings Hong Kong UTIL NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Gezhouba Group CompanyChina IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Life Insurance Company LimitedChina FIN NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Mengniu Dairy Company LimitedHong Kong CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Merchants Bank China FIN NR AQ NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Merchants Holdings Company LtdChina IND AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPChina Merchants Property Development (A)China FIN AQ NR * NP NP NP NP NPChina Minsheng Banking China FIN NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Mobile China TCOM AQ NR * NP NP NP NP NPChina National Building Materials Company LimitedChina MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Oilfield Services China EGY AQ NR * NP NP NP NP NPChina Overseas Land & InvestmentChina FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Pacific Insurance Group China FIN AQ IN * NP NP NP NP NPChina Petroleum & Chemical CorporationChina EGY NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Resources Enterprise China CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Resources Land China FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Resources Power Holdings Company LimitedChina UTIL NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Shanshui Cement Group LimitedHong Kong MAT NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Shenhua Energy China EGY AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPChina Shipbuilding Industry Co LtdChina IND NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRChina State Construction Engineering Corp. Ltd.China IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Steel Taiwan MAT AQ AQ 79 C 22,500,348 21,128,989 1,371,359 Int34Company name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeChina Telecom China TCOM AQ IN * NP NP NP NP NPChinatrust Financial Holding Co LtdTaiwan FIN AQ(L) AQ AQ(L) AQ(L) AQ(L) AQ(L) AQ(L) AQ(L)China Unicom China TCOM AQ NR * NP NP NP NP NPChina United Network CommunicationsChina TCOM NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Vanke China FIN NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Yangtze Power Co., Ltd. China UTIL NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRChina Yurun Food Group Ltd Hong Kong CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRChow Tai Fook Jewellery Group Hong Kong CD NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRChunghwa Telecom Taiwan TCOM AQ AQ 70 E 910,879 25,322 885,556 1 Abs CIMB Group Holdings Malaysia FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCipla India HC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCitic Securities China FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCity Developments Ltd Singapore FIN AQ AQ 66 D 33,440 1,908 31,532 1 IntCLP Holdings Ltd Hong Kong UTIL AQ AQ 92 B 44,450,000 44,260,000 190,000 1 IntCNOOC China EGY AQ AQ 33 NP NP NP NP NPCoal India India EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRColgate Palmolive India India CS SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SAComfortDelGro Corporation LimitedSingapore IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCompal Electronics Taiwan IT AQ DP 65 D 152,208 12,470 139,738 IntContainer Corporation of India India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCountry Garden Holdings Co Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCP ALL PCL Thailand CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRDabur India India CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRDaqin Railway China IND NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRDBS Group Holdings Singapore FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRDelta Electronics Taiwan IT AQ AQ 78 B NP NP NP NP NPDigi.com Malaysia TCOM AQ AQ 57 E 110,710 13,179 97,531 1 Abs Digital China Holdings Ltd Hong Kong IT NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRDLF India FIN DP AQ DP DP DP DP DP DPDongfang Electric Corporation LimitedChina IT NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRDongfeng Motor Group China CD NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRDr. Reddy’s Laboratories India HC AQ NR 60 NP NP NP NP NPE-MART Co., Ltd South Korea CS NR X NR NR NR NR NR NREnergy Development Corp Philippines UTIL SA NR SA SA SA SA SA SAENN Energy Holdings Hong Kong UTIL NR X NR NR NR NR NR NREsprit Holdings Hong Kong CD AQ NR 12 NP NP NP NP NPEssar Oil India EGY AQ AQ 72 2,526,400 2,489,006 37,394 Abs Evergrande Real Estate Group LtdHong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRFirst Pacific Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRFormosa Chemicals & Fibre CorporationTaiwan MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRFormosa Petrochemical Taiwan EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRFormosa Plastics Corp Taiwan MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRFoxconn International Holdings Hong Kong IT AQ AQ 47 NP NP NP NP NPFraser and Neave Singapore CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRFubon Financial Holdings Taiwan FIN AQ NR 19 NP NP NP NP NPGAIL India UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRGalaxy Entertainment Group Hong Kong CD NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRGCL-Poly Energy Holdings Ltd. Hong Kong IT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRGD Midea Holding China IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR35Company name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeGD Power Development China UTIL NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRGemdale China FIN AQ IN *Genting Malaysia CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRGenting Malaysia Malaysia CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRGenting Singapore Singapore CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRGF Securities China FIN NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRGlaxoSmithKline PharmaceuticalsIndia HC SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SAGodrej Consumer Products India CS AQ AQ 48 NP NP NP NP NPGolden Agri-Resources Singapore CS NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRGolden Eagle Retail Group Ltd Hong Kong CD NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRGOME Electrical Appliances HoldingsHong Kong CD NR AQ NR NR NR NR NR NRGrasim Industries India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRGree Electric Appliances China IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRGudang Garam Indonesia CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRGuoco Group Hong Kong FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRHaitong Securities China FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHana Financial Group South Korea FIN AQ AQ * 24,668Hang Lung Group Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHang Lung Properties Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHang Seng Bank Hong Kong FIN AQ AQ 30 23,620 Abs HCL Technologies India IT AQ AQ 66 154,323 34,592 119,731 1 IntHDFC Bank Ltd India FIN AQ AQ 71 E 276,422 4,880 271,542 4Henan Shuanghui Investment & Development (A)China CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHenderson Land Dev Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHengan Intl Group Hong Kong CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHero Motocorp Ltd India IND DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPHindalco Industries India MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHindustan Copper India MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHindustan Petroleum CorporationIndia EGY NR AQ NR NR NR NR NR NRHindustan Unilever India CS SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SAHindustan Zinc India MAT AQ AQ 64 4,799,273 4,619,113 180,160 2 IntHon Hai Precision Industry Taiwan IT SA SA SA NP NP NP NP NPHonam Petrochemical Corp. South Korea MAT AQ AQ 94 B 4,302,021 3,316,493 985,528 4 IntHong Kong & China Gas Hong Kong UTIL NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRHong Kong Exchanges & ClearingHong Kong FIN AQ AQ 79 D NP NP NP NP NPHongkong Land Holdings Hong Kong FIN DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPHopewell Holdings Hong Kong FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRHousing Development & InfrastructureIndia FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHTC Corporation Taiwan IT AQ AQ 44 NP NP NP NP NPHua Xia Bank China FIN NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRHutchison Whampoa Hong Kong IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHysan Development Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRHyundai Heavy Industries South Korea IND NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRHyundai Mobis South Korea CD AQ AQ 77 C 357,127 65,255 291,872 1* IntHyundai Motor South Korea CD AQ AQ 88 B 2,283,795 821,374 1,462,421 3 Abs ICICI Bank Limited India FIN AQ AQ 74 E 67,404 3,415 63,989 2*IDBI Bank Ltd India FIN AQ AQ 36 47,132 0 47,132Idea Cellular India TCOM NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRIndian Oil Corporation India EGY AQ DP 53 14,260,000 14,154,000 106,000Indusind Bank India FIN AQ AQ 52 NP NP NP NP NP36Company name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeIndustrial And Commercial Bank Of China LtdChina FIN AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPIndustrial Bank China FIN NR AQ NR NR NR NR NR NRIndustrial Bank of Korea South Korea FIN AQ AQ 83 C 40,283 11,019 29,264 1 Abs Infosys Limited India IT AQ AQ 72 C 178,953 20,294 158,659 2 IntInner Mongolia Baotou Steel Rare-Earth Hi-TechChina MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRInner Mongolia Yili Industrial GroupChina CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRInner mongolia Yitai Coal Company Ltd.China EGY AQ NR * NP NP NP NP NPIOI Malaysia CS NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRIRB Infrastructure Developers India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRITC Limited India CS AQ AQ 82 B 1,316,954 1,156,678 160,277 1Jaiprakash Associates India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRJardine Cycle & Carriage Singapore CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRJardine Matheson Hong Kong IND NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRJardine Strategic Hong Kong IND NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRJiangsu Yanghe Breweries JSC LtdChina CS NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRJiangxi Copper Company Ltd China MAT NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRJindal Steel & Power India MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRJSW Energy India UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRKangmei Pharmaceutical China HC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRKasikornbank Thailand FIN DP IN DP DP DP DP DP DPKB Financial Group South Korea FIN AQ AQ 76 C 39,601 1,868 37,733 1 Abs Keppel Corp Singapore IND NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRKerry Properties Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRKia Motors South Korea CD NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRKingboard Chemicals Holdings Hong Kong IT NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRKorea Electric Power CorporationSouth Korea UTIL NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRKotak Mahindra Bank India FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRKT South Korea TCOM AQ AQ 89 B 1,173,257 63,678 1,109,579 1 Abs KT&G South Korea CS AQ AQ * 0 0 0Kuala Lumpur Kepong Malaysia CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRKunlun Energy Company Ltd China EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRKweichow Moutai China CS NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRLarsen & Toubro India IND AQ AQ 73 759,458 572,828 186,630 2 IntLenovo Group China IT AQ AQ 85 B 91,593 2,295 89,297 4 Abs LG South Korea IND NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRLG Chem South Korea MAT AQ AQ 93 B 5,887,625 4,207,796 1,679,829 1 IntLG Electronics South Korea CD AQ AQ 100 A 1,361,035 442,169 918,866 4 Abs LG Household & Health Care South Korea CS AQ AQ * 41,878 5,476 36,402 1 IntLi & Fung Hong Kong CD AQ AQ 74 B NP NP NP NP NPLiaoning Cheng Da China CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRLIC Housing Finance India FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRLifestyle International Holdings Hong Kong CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRLink REIT Hong Kong FIN AQ AQ 51 C NP NP NP NP NPLotte Shopping South Korea CD AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPLuk Fook Holdings International Hong Kong CD NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRLupin India HC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRLuzhou Laojiao China CS AQ IN * NP NP NP NP NPMahindra & Mahindra India CD AQ AQ 82 NP NP NP NP NPMalayan Banking Malaysia FIN AQ AQ 58 D NP NP NP NP NPMangalore Refinery and PetrochemicalsIndia EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRManila Electric Philippines UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR37Company name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeMaruti Suzuki India India CD NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRMaxis Bhd Malaysia TCOM NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRMediaTek Taiwan IT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRMega Financial Holding Taiwan FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRMISC Malaysia IND NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRMMTC India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRMTR Corporation Hong Kong IND AQ AQ 91 C 1,196,173 39,543 1,156,630 3*Mundra Port & Special Economic ZoneIndia IND NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRNan Ya Plastics Taiwan MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRNARI Technology Development China IND NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRNational Aluminium Co. India MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRNational Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd (NHPC)India UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRNational Thermal Power (NTPC) India UTIL DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPNestlé India India CS SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SANew World Development Hong Kong FIN DP AQ DP DP DP DP DP DPNeyveli Lignite Corporation India UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRNHN South Korea IT AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPNMDC India MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRNoble Group Singapore IND AQ AQ 92 B 2,765,524 2,544,055 221,469 3* IntNWS Holdings LTD Hong Kong IND NR X NR NR NR NR NR NROil & Natural Gas India EGY NR AQ NR NR NR NR NR NROil India Ltd. India EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NROlam International Singapore CS AQ AQ 54 E 241,613 157,033 84,580 4Oracle Financial Services SoftwareIndia FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NROrient Overseas International LtdHong Kong IND NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NROversea-Chinese Banking Singapore FIN AQ NR 5 0 0 0Pangang Group Steel Vanadium & TitaniumChina MAT NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRParkson Retail Group Ltd Hong Kong CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRPCCW Hong Kong TCOM NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRPerusahaan Gas Negara Indonesia UTIL NR AQ NR NR NR NR NR NRPETROCHINA Company Ltd China EGY AQ IN * 0 0 0 Abs Petronas Chemicals Group BerhadMalaysia MAT NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRPetronas Gas Malaysia UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRPetronet LNG India EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRPhilippine Long Distance Telephone CompanyPhilippines TCOM AQ NR 8 0 0 0PICC Property & Casualty China FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRPing An Insurance Company of ChinaChina FIN AQ IN *Poly Real Estate Group China FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRPOSCO South Korea MAT AQ AQ 94 B 78,227,000 7,460,2000 3,625,000 3 IntPower Assets Holdings Ltd Hong Kong UTIL AQ AQ 99 B 8,631,000 863,1000 0 Abs, IntPower Finance Corporation India FIN AQ NR 6 0 0 0Power Grid Corpn. of India India UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRPresident Chain Store Corp Taiwan CS IN NR IN IN IN IN IN INPTT Thailand EGY AQ NR 63 D NP NP NP NP NPPTT Exploration & Production Public Company LtdThailand EGY AQ AQ 62 D 2,752,725 2,751,322 1,403 2PTT Global Chemical Thailand MAT NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRPublic Bank BHD Malaysia FIN NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRPunjab National Bank India FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRQingdao Haier Co., Ltd. China IND NR X NR NR NR NR NR NR38Company name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeQinghai Salt Lake Industry China MAT NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRQuanta Computer Taiwan IT AQ AQ 54 E 329,243 15,255 313,988 IntRanbaxy Laboratories India HC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRReliance Communications India TCOM NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRReliance Industries India EGY DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPReliance Infrastructure India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRReliance Power India UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRRural Electrification Corpn. India UTIL DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPSaic Motor Corporation China CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSamsung C&T South Korea IND AQ AQ 97 A 49,966 12,195 37,771 3 Abs, IntSamsung Electronics South Korea IT AQ AQ 96 B 11,303,978 4,045,113 7,258,865 3* IntSamsung Engineering South Korea IND AQ AQ 96 B 80,713 67,824 12,889 2 Abs, IntSamsung Fire & Marine InsuranceSouth Korea FIN AQ AQ 78 C 41,584 9,071 32,513 1 Abs Samsung Life Insurance South Korea FIN AQ DP * 129,461 29,547 99,914Sands China LTD Hong Kong CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSany Heavy Industry China IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSembCorp Industries Singapore IND DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPSembcorp Marine Singapore IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSemen Gresik Indonesia MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSesa Goa India MAT AQ AQ 70 740,248 671,529 68,719 2Shandong Dong-E E-Jiao China HC NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRShandong Gold-Mining China MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRShanghai Pudong Development BankChina FIN AQ IN *Shangri-La Asia Hong Kong CD AQ AQ 48 NP NP NP NP NPShanxi Lanhua Sci-Tech-A China EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRShanxi Xishan Coal and Electricity PowerChina EGY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRShenzen Overseas Chinese Town HoldingsChina CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRShenzhen Development Bank China FIN NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRShimao Property Holdings Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRShinhan Financial Group South Korea FIN AQ AQ 78 C 36,765 3,868 32,897 Abs, IntShriram Transport Finance Co. India FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSiam Cement Thailand MAT NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRSiam Commercial Bank PCL Thailand FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSiemens India India IND SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SASime Darby Bhd Malaysia IND AQ DP 51 D NP NP NP NP NPSingapore Airlines Singapore IND AQ AQ 47 NP NP NP NP NPSingapore Exchange Singapore FIN NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRSingapore Press Holdings Singapore CD DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPSingapore Technologies EngineeringSingapore IND NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRSingapore Telecom Singapore TCOM IN AQ IN IN IN IN IN INSino Land Hong Kong FIN NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRSJM Holdings Limited Hong Kong CD NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRSK Hynix South Korea IT AQ AQ 99 A 3,595,167 1,321,435 2,273,732 4 Abs, IntSK Innovations South Korea EGY NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRSK Telecom South Korea TCOM AQ AQ 90 B 608,055 9,560 598,495 2* Abs SM Investments Philippines IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSM Prime Hldgs Philippines FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSoho China Ltd. Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRS-Oil Corporation South Korea EGY AQ AQ 85 B 8,182,218 7,308,137 874,081 Abs State Bank of India India FIN AQ AQ 19 0 0 0Steel Authority of India India MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR39Company name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeSterlite Industries India MAT AQ AQ 61 615,519 182,318 433,201 4 IntSun Hung Kai Props Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSun Pharmaceutical Industries India HC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSun TV Network India CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSuning Appliance China CD AQ IN * NP NP NP NP NPSuntec REIT Singapore FIN NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRSwire Pacific Hong Kong FIN AQ AQ 88 B 16,865,559 16,396,828 468,731 1* IntSwire Properties Hong Kong FIN SA X SA SA SA SA SA SATaiwan Cement Taiwan MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRTaiwan Mobile Co. Ltd. Taiwan TCOM IN AQ IN IN IN IN IN INTaiwan Semiconductor ManufacturingTaiwan IT AQ AQ 76 B 4,286,217 1,375,110 2,911,107 5 Abs, IntTangshan Jidong Cement Co-AChina MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRTata Consultancy Services India IT AQ AQ 78 C 335,022 34,219 300,803 4 IntTata Motors India CD AQ AQ 44 610,460 197,094 413,366Tata Power Co India UTIL AQ AQ 66 11,071,714 11,071,714 0 1 IntTata Steel India MAT AQ DP 73 17,072,158 16,283,032 789,126 IntTbea Co Ltd-A China IND NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRTCL Corporation China CD NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRTechtronic Industries Hong Kong IND NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRTelekomunikasi Indonesia Indonesia TCOM NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRTelevision Broadcast Hong Kong CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRTencent Holdings Hong Kong IT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRTingyi (Cayman Islands) Holdings Hong Kong CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRTitan Industries India CD AQ AQ 48 NP NP NP NP NPTorrent Power India UTIL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRTsingtao Brewery Company LimitedChina CS NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRUltratech Cement India IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRUnion Bank of India India FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRUni-President Enterprises Taiwan CS AQ AQ 50 E NP NP NP NP NPUnited Microelectronics Taiwan IT AQ AQ 76 B 1,802,000 595,000 1,207,000 4 Abs, IntUnited Overseas Bank Singapore FIN DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPUnited Spirits India CS DP NR DP DP DP DP DP DPUnited Tractors Indonesia IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRUOL Group Singapore FIN NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRVTECH Hong Kong IT NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRWant Want China Holdings Ltd. Hong Kong CS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRWeichai Power Co,.Ltd. China IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRWestern Mining China MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRWharf Holdings Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRWheelock Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRWilmar International Limited Singapore CS NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRWing Hang Bank Hong Kong FIN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRWipro India IT AQ AQ 95 B 307,095 65,129 241,966 7 Abs, IntWoori Financial Group South Korea FIN AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPWuliangye Yibin Co Ltd-A China CS NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRWynn Macau Ltd Hong Kong CD NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRXcmg Construction Machin-A China IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRXinjiang Goldwind Science & TechnologyChina IND NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRXinyi Glass Holding Hong Kong CD NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRYangquan Coal Industry China EGY NR X NR NR NR NR NR NRYanzhou Coal Mining China EGY AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPYES BANK Ltd India FIN AQ AQ 73 15,319 0 15,319 3Youngor Group China IND NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NR40Company name Country Sectora2012 response statusb2011 response status2012 scorecTotal Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissionsScope 1Scope 2Number of Scope 3 categories reporteddTargets reportedeYuanta Financial Holding Taiwan FIN AQ AQ 11 NP NP NP NP NPYue Yuen Industrial Hong Kong IND NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRYUNNAN BAIYAO GROUP China HC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRZee Entertainment Enterprises India CD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRZhongjin Gold China MAT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRZijin Mining Group Co., Ltd China MAT NR DP NR NR NR NR NR NRZoomlion Heavy Industry Science and Technology (A)China IND NR IN NR NR NR NR NR NRZTE China IT AQ AQ * NP NP NP NP NPa CD Consumer Discretionary,CS Consumer Staples,EGY Energy, FIN Financials,HC Health Care,IND Industrials,IT Information Technology,MAT Materials,TCOM Telecommunications,UTIL Utilitiesb AQ Answered Questionnaire,AQ(L) Answered Questionnaire Late (after analysis cut off date of 10th September 2012)DP Declined to Participate, IN Provided Information,NR Not Responded,NP Non Public,SA See AnotherX Company did not fall into oneof the CDP samples in that year* Company not scored or score not publicc The 2012 score is comprized of the disclosure score number and performance score letter. Only companies that have scored more than 50 for their disclosure score are given a performance score. Companies that have not responded have the relevant response status code in this column. See key b for detailsd Only Scope 3 categories reported using the GreenhouseGas Protocol Scope 3 named categories (as provided inthe Online Response System) are included when determining the number of categories reported. Companies that have reported one or more additional categories of “Other upstream” and/or “Other downstream” are indicated with an asterix (*). Where companies have not provided emissions data or wherethey have not reported a named Scope 3 category according to the GHG Protocol Scope 3 standard, thiscolumn is blank.e Abs Absolute target,Int Intensity target, based on entering a value for “% reduction from base year”KEY TO APPENDIX41Scoring PartnerGold Data Partner & Report WriterConsultancy PartnerScoring Partner for Asia ex-Japan, India, China and South KoreaTo reduce the carbon emissions associated with printing the CDP Asia ex-Japan Climate Change Report 2012, we only reproduce the Forewords, Executive Summary, Leaders and Responding Companies sections in this summary version. The full version of the CDP Asia ex-Japan Climate Change Report 2012 is available at www.cdproject.netIn recognition of its work to catalyze the transition to a profitable low carbon economy, drive greenhouse gas emissions reduction and sustainable water use by business and cities, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) has been awarded the top accolade in the SME & NGO category of the Zayed Future Energy Prize.This document is printed on FSC certified paper.Important NoticeThe contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP or the contributing authors and presented in this report. If you intend to repackage or resell any of the contents of this report, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so. Trucost Plc and CDP have prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2012 information request. No representation or warran-ty (express or implied) is given by Trucost Plc 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 without obtaining specific professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, Trucost Plc and CDP do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. All information and views expressed herein by CDP and/or Trucost Plc are based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report reflect the views of their respective authors; their inclusion is not an endorsement of them.Trucost Plc 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 the securities of the companies discussed herein. The securities of the companies mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates.‘Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refer to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330.42CDP ContactsAntigone TheodorouBusiness Development Manager, Asia ex-JICKHong KongTel: +852 947 68 678Email: antigone.theodorou@cdproject.netAnthony DaySpecial AdvisorSue HowellsCo-Chief Operating Officer Frances WayCo-Chief Operating Officer Daniel TurnerHead of DisclosureMarcus NortonHead of Investor Initiatives and WaterCarbon Disclosure Project40 Bowling Green LaneLondon EC1R 0NEUnited KingdomTel: +44 (0) 20 7970 5660www.cdproject.netTrucost ContactsLauren SmartExecutive DirectorChaoni HuangHead of Business Development AsiaTrucost Plc22 Chancery Lane, LondonWC2A 1LS, United KingdomTel: +44 (0) 207 160 9800Email: info@trucost.comwww.trucost.comCDP Board of TrusteesChairman: Alan BrownSchrodersJames CameronClimate Change CapitalChris PageRockefeller Philanthropy AdvisorsDr. Christoph SchroederTVM CapitalJeremy SmithBerkeley EnergyTakejiro SueyoshiTessa TennantThe Ice OrganisationDr. Christoph SchroederTVM CapitalMartin WiseRelationship Capital PartnersOur sincere thanks are extended to the following individuals in support of producing the Asia ex-Japan Climate Change Report 2012:CDP – Jenni Hagland, Ji Yeon Kim, Eva Murray, Sarah RobertsonTrucost Plc – Liesel van Ast, Rebecca Edwards, Rebecca Maclean, Aaron Re’em