cdp 2009 australia new zealand report

8/8/2019 CDP 2009 Australia New Zealand Report

1/66

On behal o 475 investors with assets o over $US55 trillion

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009Australia & New Zealand

Carbon Disclosure Project

CDP Partnerwww.igcc.org.auNathan Fabian+61 2 9255 [email protected]

CDP Sponsorwww.gsjbw.com

Andrew Gray+61 3 9679 [email protected]

CDP Sponsorwww.cs.com.auRobert Clancy+61 3 9648 [email protected]

CDP Sponsorwww.booz.com.auGreg Lavery+61 2 9321 [email protected]

print next >> exit


2/66

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009 Australia & New Zealand

2

Carbon Disclosure Project 2009

This report and all o the public

responses rom corporations areavailable to download ree o chargerom www.cdproject.net.

CDP Members 2009

ABRAPP - AssociaoBrasileira das EntidadesFechadas de PrevidnciaComplementar Brazil

Aegon N.V. Netherlands

AIG Investments US

APG InvestmentsNetherlands

ASN Bank Netherlands

ATP Group Denmark

Aviva Investors UK

AXA Group France

Bank o America CorporationUS

BBVA Spain

BlackRock US

BP InvestmentManagement Limited UK

Caisse de dpt etplacement du QubecCanada

Caliornia Public EmployeesRetirement System US

Caliornia State TeachersRetirement System US

Calvert Group US

Catholic Super Australia

CCLA InvestmentManagement Ltd UK

CIBC Canada

Daiwa AssetManagement Co. Ltd Japan

Essex InvestmentManagement, LLC US

Ethos Foundation Switzerland

Folksam Sweden

Fortis Investments Belgium

Generation InvestmentManagement UK

Grupo Santander Brasil BrazilING Netherlands

KLP Insurance Norway

Legg Mason, Inc. US

Libra Fund, L.P. US

London Pensions FundAuthority UK

Mistra, Foundation orStrategic Environmental

Research SwedenMitsubishi UFJ FinancialGroup (MUFG) Japan

Morgan Stanley InvestmentManagement US

National Australia BankLimited Australia

Neuberger Berman US

Newton Investment

Management Limited UKNorthwest and EthicalInvestments LP Canada

Pictet Asset Management SASwitzerland

Rabobank Netherlands

Robeco Netherlands

Russell Investments UK

Schroders UK

Second Swedish NationalPension Fund (AP2) Sweden

Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.Japan

Standard Chartered PLC UK

Sun Lie Financial Inc.Canada

Swiss Reinsurance CompanySwitzerland

The RBS Group UK

The Wellcome Trust UK

Zurich Cantonal BankSwitzerland


3/66

3

CDP Signatories 2009

475 institutional investors with assets

o over US$55 trillion were signatoriesto the CDP 2009 inormation requestdated 1st February 2009, including:

Aachener GrundvermgenKapitalanlagegesellschat mbH Germany

Aberdeen Asset Managers UK

Acuity Funds Canada

Addenda Capital Inc. Canada

Advanced Investment Partners US

Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd South Arica

Aegon N.V. Netherlands

Aeneas Capital Advisors US

AGF Management Limited CanadaAIG Investments US

Alberta Investment Management Corporation(AIMCo) Canada

Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Canada

Alcyone Finance France

Allianz Group Germany

Altshuler Shacham LTD Israel

AMP Capital Investors Australia

AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Germany

APG Investments Netherlands

ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance)Australia

Arkitekternes Pensionskasse Denmark

Artus Direct Invest AG GermanyASB Community Trust New Zealand

ASN Bank Netherlands

ATP Group Denmark

Australia and New Zealand Banking GroupLimited Australia

Australian Ethical Investment Limited Australia

AustralianSuper Australia

Aviva Investors UK

Aviva plc UK

AXA Group France

Baillie Giord & Co. UK

Bakers Investment Group Australia

Banco SwedenBanco Bradesco S.A Brazil

Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Argentina

Banco do Brazil Brazil

Banco Santander, S.A. Spain

Banesprev Fundo Banespa de SeguridadeSocial Brazil

Bank o America Corporation US

Bank Sarasin & Co, Ltd Switzerland

Bank Vontobel Switzerland

BANKINTER S.A. Spain

Barclays Group UK

BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbHGermany

BBC Pension Trust Ltd UKBBVA Spain

Bedordshire Pension Fund UK

Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd Canada

BlackRock US

Blue Marble Capital Management Limited Canada

BMO Financial Group Canada

BNP Paribas Investment Partners France

Boston Common Asset Management, LLC US

BP Investment Management Limited UK

Brasilprev Seguros e Previdncia S/A. Brazil

British Columbia Investment ManagementCorporation (bcIMC) Canada

BT Financial Group Australia

BT Investment Management Australia

Busan Bank South Korea

CAAT Pension Plan Canada

Caisse de dpt et placement du Qubec Canada

Caisse des Dpts France

Caixa de Previdncia dos Funcionrios do Bancodo Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Brazil

Caixa Econmica Federal Brazil

Caixa Geral de Depsitos Portugal

Caliornia Public EmployeesRetirement System US

Caliornia State Teachers Retirement System US

Caliornia State Treasurer US

Calvert Group US

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Canada

Canadian Friends Service Committee(Quakers) Canada

CAPESESP Brazil

Capital Innovations, LLC US

CARE Super Pty Ltd Australia

Carlson Investment Management SwedenCarmignac Gestion France

Catherine Donnelly Foundation Canada

Catholic Super Australia

Cbus Superannuation Fund Australia

CCLA Investment Management Ltd UK

Central Finance Board o theMethodist Church UK

Ceres, Inc. US

Cheyne Capital Management (UK) LLP UK

CI Mutual Funds Signature Advisors Canada

CIBC Canada

Clean Yield Group, Inc. US

ClearBridge Advisors, Socially Aware InvestmentUS

Close Brothers Group plc UK

Colonial First State Global Asset ManagementAustralia

Comite syndical national de retraite BtirenteCanada

Commerzbank AG Germany

CommInsure Australia

Companhia de Seguros Aliana do Brasil Brazil

Compton Foundation, Inc. US

Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds US

Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) UK

Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn.Bhd. Malaysia

Crdit Agricole Asset Management France

Credit Suisse Switzerland

Daegu Bank South Korea

Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Japan

DB Advisors Deutsche Asset ManagementGermany

DEFO Deutsche Fonds rImmobilienvermgen GmbH Germany

DEGI Deutsche Gesellschat rImmobilienonds mbH Germany

Deka FundMaster Investmentgesellschat mbHGermany

Deka Investment GmbH Germany

DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Germany

Deutsche Bank Germany

Deutsche Postbank Privat InvestmentKapitalanlagegesellschat mbH Germany

Development Bank o Japan Japan

Development Bank o the Philippines (DBP)Philippines

Dexia Asset Management France

DnB NOR ASA Norway

Domini Social Investments LLC US

DPG Deutsche Perormancemessungs-Gesellschat r Wertpapierportolio mbh Germany

East Sussex Pension Fund UK

Economus Instituto de Seguridade Social Brazil

ELETRA Fundao Celg de Seguros ePrevidncia Brazil

Environment Agency Active Pension und UK

Epworth Investment Management UK

Erste Group Bank AG Austria

Essex Investment Management, LLC US

Ethos Foundation Switzerland

Eureko B.V. Netherlands

Eurizon Capital SGR ItalyEvangelical Lutheran Church in Canada PensionPlan or Clergy and Lay Workers Canada

Evli Bank Plc Finland

F&C Management Ltd UK

Faelba Brazil

FAELCE Fundao Coelce de Seguridade SocialBrazil

Fdris Gestion dActis France

First Armative Financial Network US

First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Sweden

FirstRand Ltd. South Arica

Fishman & Co. Israel

Five Oceans Asset Management Pty Limited

AustraliaFlorida State Board o Administration (SBA) US

Folksam Sweden

Fondaction CSN Canada

Fonds de Rserve pour les Retraites FRR France

Fortis Bank Nederland Netherlands

Fortis Investments Belgium

Forward Management, LLC US

Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4)Sweden

Frankurter Service KapitalanlagegesellschatmbH Germany

FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment GesellschatmbH Germany

Franklin Templeton Investment Services GmbhGermany

Frater Asset Management South Arica

Friends Provident UK

Front Street Capital Canada

> exit


4/66


4

Fukoku Capital Management Inc Japan

Fundao AMPLA de Seguridade Social Brasiletros Brazil

Fundao Atlntico de Seguridade Social BrazilFundao Banrisul de Seguridade Social Brazil

Fundao CEEE de Seguridade Social ELETROCEEE Brazil

Fundao Codesc de Seguridade Social FUSESC Brazil

Fundao de Assistncia e Previdncia Social doBNDES FAPES Brazil

Fundao Forluminas de Seguridade Social FORLUZ Brazil

Fundao Promon de Previdncia Social Brazil

Fundao So Francisco de Seguridade SocialBrazil

Fundao Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social VALIA Brazil

FUNDIGUA - Fundao de Previdncia daCompanhia de Saneamento e Ambiental doDistrito Federal Brazil

Gartmore Investment Management Ltd UK

Generation Investment Management UK

Genus Capital Management Canada

Gjensidige Forsikring Norway

GLG Partners LP UK

Goldman Sachs & Co. US

Governance or Owners UK

Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF),Republic o South Arica South Arica

Green Cay Asset Management Bahamas

Green Century Funds US

Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. CanadaGROUPE OFI AM France

GrowthWorks Capital Ltd. Canada

Grupo Banco Popular Spain

Grupo Santander Brasil Brazil

Gruppo Monte Paschi Italy

Guardian Ethical Management Inc Canada

Guardians o New Zealand SuperannuationNew Zealand

Hang Seng Bank Hong Kong

HANSAINVEST Hanseatische Investment GmbHGermany

Harrington Investments US

Hastings Funds Management Limited Australia

Hazel Capital LLP UK

Health Super Fund Australia

Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbHGermany

Henderson Global Investors UK

Hermes Fund Managers UK

HESTA Super Australia

Hospitals o Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP)Canada

HSBC Holdings plc UK

Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co, LtdSouth Korea

IDBI Bank Limited India

Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company

FinlandImpax Group plc UK

Industrial Bank China

Industry Funds Management Australia

Inrastructure Development Finance CompanyLtd. (IDFC) India

ING Netherlands

Inhance Investment Management Inc CanadaInsight Investment Management (Global) Ltd UK

Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios eTelgraos- Postalis Brazil

Instituto Inraero de Seguridade Social INFRAPREV Brazil

Insurance Australia Group Australia

Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbHGermany

Investec Asset Management UK

Ita Unibanco Banco Mltiplo S.A. Brazil

J.P. Morgan Asset Management US

Janus Capital Group Inc. US

Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Canada

Jubitz Family Foundation USJupiter Asset Management UK

K&H Investment Fund Management/K&HBeektetsi Alapkezel Zrt Hungary

KB Kookmin Bank South Korea

KBC Asset Management NV Belgium

KCPS and Company Israel

KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. South Korea

Kennedy Associates Real Estate Counsel, LP US

KW Bankengruppe Germany

Kibo Technology Fund South Korea

KLP Insurance Norway

Korea Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd.South Korea

KPA Pension Sweden

Kyobo Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd.South Korea

La Banque Postale Asset Management France

La Financiere Responsable France

LBBW Landesbank Baden-WrttembergGermany

LBBW Asset Management GmbH Germany

LD Lnmodtagernes Dyrtidsond Denmark

Legal & General Group plc UK

Legg Mason, Inc. US

Lend Lease Investment Management Australia

Libra Fund, L.P. US

Light Green Advisors, LLC US

Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A.Switzerland

Local Authority Pension Fund Forum UK

Local Government Superannuation SchemeAustralia

Local Super SA-NT Australia

Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie Switzerland

London Pensions Fund Authority UK

Lothian Pension Fund UK

Maci Gestion France

Macquarie Group Limited Australia

Magnolia Charitable Trust US

Maine State Treasurer US

Man Group plc UKMaple-Brown Abbott Limited Australia

Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. US

Maryland State Treasurer US

McLean Budden Canada

MEAG Munich Ergo Asset Management GmbHGermany

MEAG Munich ErgoKapitalanlagegesellschat mbH Germany

Meeschaert Gestion Prive France

Meiji Yasuda Lie Insurance Company Japan

Merck Family Fund US

Mergence Arica Investments (Pty) LimitedSouth Arica

Meritas Mutual Funds Canada

Metzler Investment Gmbh Germany

Midas International Asset ManagementSouth Korea

Miller/Howard Investments US

Mirae Investment Asset ManagementSouth Korea

Mistra, Foundation or StrategicEnvironmental Research Sweden

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Japan

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd. Japan

Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Japan

Mn Services Netherlands

Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbH Germany

Morgan Stanley Investment Management US

Motor Trades Association o AustraliaSuperannuation Fund Pty Ltd Australia

MP Pension Pensionskassen or Magistreog Psykologer Denmark

Munich Re Group Germany

Mutual Insurance CompanyPension-Fennia Finland

Natcan Investment Management Canada

Nathan Cummings Foundation, The US

National Australia Bank Limited Australia

National Bank o Canada Canada

National Bank o Kuwait Kuwait

National Grid Electricity Group o theElectricity Supply Pension Scheme UK

National Grid UK Pension Scheme UK

National Pensions Reserve Fund o Ireland Ireland

Natixis France

Needmor Fund US

Nest Sammelstitung Switzerland

Neuberger Berman US

New Alternatives Fund Inc. US

New Jersey Division o Investment USNew Mexico State Treasurer US

New York City Employees Retirement System US

New York City Teachers Retirement System US

New York State Common Retirement Fund(NYSCRF) US

Newton Investment Management Limited UK

NFU Mutual Insurance Society UK

NH-CA Asset Management South Korea

Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Japan

Nissay Asset Management Corporation Japan

Nordea Investment Management Sweden

Norolk Pension Fund UK

Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)Norway

Norinchukin Zenkyouren AssetManagement Co., Ltd Japan

North Carolina State Treasurer US

Northern Ireland Local Government OcersSuperannuation Committee (NILGOSC) UK


5/66

5

Northern Trust US

Northwest and Ethical Investments LP Canada

Oddo & Cie France

Old Mutual plc UK

OMERS Administration Corporation Canada

Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Canada

Opplysningsvesenets ond(The Norwegian Church Endowment) Norway

Oregon State Treasurer US

Orion Asset Management LLC US

Pax World Funds US

PBU Pension Fund o Early Childhood TeachersDenmark

Pension Fund or Danish Lawyers and EconomistsDenmark

Pension Protection Fund UK

Pensionskassen or Jordbrugsakademikere

og Dyrlger DenmarkPETROS The Fundao Petrobrasde Seguridade Social Brazil

PFA Pension Denmark

PGGM Netherlands

Phillips, Hager & North InvestmentManagement Ltd. Canada

PhiTrust Active Investors France

Pictet Asset Management SA Switzerland

Pioneer Alapkezel Zrt. Hungary

Pioneer InvestmentsKapitalanlagegesellschat mbH Germany

PKA Denmark

Portolio 21 Investments US

Portolio Partners AustraliaPorto Seguro S.A. Brazil

PPM Premiepensionsmyndigheten Sweden

PRECE Previdncia Complementar Brazil

PREVI Caixa de Previdncia dos Funcionriosdo Banco do Brasil Brazil

Principle Capital Partners Limited UK

PSP Investments Canada

QBE Insurance Group Limited Australia

Q Capital Partners South Korea

Railpen Investments UK

Rathbones/Rathbone Greenbank Investments UK

Real Grandeza Fundao de Previdncia eAssistncia Social Brazil

Rei Super Australia

Rhode Island General Treasurer US

RLAM UK

Robeco Netherlands

Rose Foundation or Communities andthe Environment US

Royal Bank o Canada Canada

RREEF Investment GmbH Germany

Russell Investments UK

SAM Group Switzerland

Sanlam Investment Management South Arica

Santa F Portolios Ltda Brazil

Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen Germany

Savings & Loans Credit Union (S.A.) Limited.Australia

Schroders UK

Scotiabank Canada

Scottish Widows Investment Partnership UK

SEB Sweden

SEB Asset Management AG Germany

Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2)

SwedenSeligson & Co Fund Management Plc Finland

Sentinel Funds US

SERPROS Fundo Multipatrocinado Brazil

Service Employees International UnionBenet Funds US

Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7)Sweden

Shinhan Bank South Korea

Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment TrustManagement Co., Ltd South Korea

Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Japan

Shinsei Bank Limited Japan

Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschat mbH Germany

Signet Capital Management Ltd SwitzerlandSkandia Nordic Division Sweden

SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD Japan

Smith Pierce, LLC US

SNS Asset Management Netherlands

Social(k) US

Socit Gnrale France

Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Japan

Souls Funds Management Limited Australia

SPF Beheer bv Netherlands

Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Canada

Standard Chartered PLC UK

Standard Lie Investments UK

State Street Corporation USStatewide Superannuation Trust Australia

Storebrand ASA Norway

Strathclyde Pension Fund UK

Stratus Group Brazil

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Japan

Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited Japan

Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., LtdJapan

Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Japan

Sumitomo Trust & Banking Japan

Sun Lie Financial Inc. Canada

Superund Asset Management GmbH Germany

Svenska Kyrkan, Church o Sweden SwedenSwedbank Sweden

Swiss Reinsurance Company Switzerland

Swisscanto Holding AG Switzerland

Syntrus Achmea Asset Management Netherlands

TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc.Canada

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund(TIAA-CREF) US

Tempis Capital Management South Korea

Terra Forvaltning AS Norway

TL Pension Fund UK

The Bullitt Foundation US

The Central Church Fund o Finland FinlandThe Collins Foundation US

The Co-operators Group Ltd Canada

The Daly Foundation Canada

The Dreyus Corporation US

The Japan Research Institute, Limited Japan

The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust UK

The Local Government Pensions Insitution (LGPI)(keva) Finland

The Presbyterian Church in Canada CanadaThe RBS Group UK

The Russell Family Foundation US

The Shiga Bank, Ltd. Japan

The Standard Bank o South Arica LimitedSouth Arica

The Sustainability Group at the Loring,Wolcott & Coolidge Oce US

The Travelers Companies, Inc. US

The United Church o Canada General CouncilCanada

The University o Edinburgh Endowment Fund UK

The Wellcome Trust UK

Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3)Sweden

Threadneedle Asset Management UK

Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.Japan

Toronto Atmospheric Fund Canada

Trillium Asset Management Corporation US

Triodos Bank Netherlands

TrygVesta Denmark

UBS AG Switzerland

Unibanco Asset Management Brazil

UniCredit Group Italy

Union Asset Management Holding AG Germany

Union Investment Institutional GmbH Germany

Union Investment Privatonds GmbH Germany

Union Investment Service Bank AG Germany

Union PanAgora Asset Management GmbHGermany

UniSuper Australia

Unitarian Universalist Association US

United Methodist Church General Board oPension and Health Benets US

United Nations Foundation US

Universal Investment Gesellschat mbH Germany

Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) UK

Vancity Group o Companies Canada

VERITAS SG INVESTMENT TRUST GmbH Germany

Vermont State Treasurer US

VicSuper Pty Ltd AustraliaVictorian Funds Management CorporationAustralia

Viso Prev Sociedade de PrevidenciaComplementar Brazil

Waikato Community Trust Inc New Zealand

Walden Asset Management, a division o BostonTrust and Investment Management Company US

Warburg-Henderson Kapitalanlagegesellschatr Immobilien mbH Germany

West Yorkshire Pension Fund UK

WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM)Germany

Westpac Investment Management Australia

Winslow Management Company US

WOORI BANK South KoreaYES BANK Limited India

York University Pension Fund Canada

Youville Provident Fund Inc. Canada

Zurich Cantonal Bank Switzerland

> exit


6/66


6

Investor Group on ClimateChange

Economies around the world are now

responding to the threat o climate change.

As more inormation about the need to

address climate change becomes available,

accurate reporting on the corporate carbon

ootprint has already become the minimum

expectation o institutional investors.

Institutional investors also want thecorporations they own to address the risks

and opportunities arising rom a price on

emissions over time and rom a changing

physical environment. Ultimately investors

need to assess the uture prospects or

their investments as they transition their

portolios to a low-emissions and climate

change-resilient ooting.

Analysis o the Carbon Disclosure Project

(CDP) questionnaire responses provides

investors with a unique understanding

o how Australian and New Zealandcompanies are responding to climate

change and preparing their operations

or a low emissions economy. Responses

by companies to the CDP in 2009 have

generally strengthened compared to 2008

but much more detail is needed in uture.

As global greenhouse gas emissions

continue to grow and scientic indicators

increasingly point towards outcomes

that are beyond predicted worst case

scenarios, institutional investors and the

companies they own have a signicant part

to play in avoiding catastrophic climate

change impacts.

IGCC endorses the important ongoing

role o the CDP as a vehicle to provide

investors with the inormation they need to

prepare or a low-carbon uture. We thank

all organisations that have responded in the

CDP this year

Nathan Fabian

Chie Executive Ofcer

Message rom the CDP Australiaand New Zealand Partner andSponsors

Thank you!IGCC, Goldman Sachs JBWere, Catholic Super and Booz & Company recognise

the time and eort it takes or companies to respond to the CDP questionnaire

and would like to thank everyone that has done so this year. This inormation is

important to investors as it assists them to understand how companies in which

they invest will be impacted by climate change and by the government and

community response to climate change. It also assists investors to understand

how companies are managing and mitigating the risks associated with climate

change and harnessing the opportunities.

We would particularly like to thank those companies that have allowed their

responses to be made publicly available. CDP responses that are publicly available

can be can be downloaded rom www.cdproject.net.

Although the ormal response period has lapsed we strongly encourage

ASX200 and NZX50 companies that have not submitted a response to the CDP

questionnaire to do so. We would also encourage other listed companies, o

any size, to volunteer a response to the CDP questionnaire. We look orward to

receiving many more responses in uture years.


7/66

Message rom the CDP Australia and New Zealand Partner and Sponsors

7

Goldman Sachs JBWere

Goldman Sachs JBWere (GSJBW) is

proud to continue its support o the

Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) in

Australia and New Zealand, as part o our

broader commitment to ESG issues and

understanding their impact on investments.

The CDP is the pre-eminent mechanism or

promoting the necessary dialogue between

companies and investors on climate-change and carbon-exposure issues.

2009 marks the ourth year that the CDP

has partnered with the Investor Group on

Climate Change (IGCC) to survey Australian

and New Zealand listed companies on

their strategic and operational response

to climate change and carbon exposure

issues. As the Carbon Pollution Reduction

Scheme moves toward implementation in

Australia, disclosure on carbon emissions,

in particular, will be undamental so that

companies can maintain transparency withtheir investors and wider stakeholders.

We would like to thank those organisations

that have taken the time to respond.

Stephen Fitzgerald, Co-Chie Executive

Ofcer, GSJBW

Simon Rothery, Co-Chie Executive

Ofcer, GSJBW

Catholic Super

Catholic Super has recognised the

signicant risk a changing global climate

poses to its members investments.

Thats why it was the rst Australian

nancial institution to sign up to the

Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and

remains a oundation member o this vital

international initiative and the Investor

Group on Climate Change.

The CDP provides the worlds largest

institutional investor collaboration on the

business implications o climate change.

The Project represents an ecient process

whereby many institutional investors

collectively sign a single global request or

disclosure o inormation on greenhouse

gas emissions.

The CDP has now developed as

an important longitudinal study into

greenhouse gas emissions over 1900

companies globally at a time whenemission trading is about to be introduced

in Australia and New Zealand.

Catholic Super remains as determined

as ever to oster and promote the CDP

in an eort to gather as much relevant

inormation as is possible or quantiying

and assessing the level o risk acing us

over the medium and long term.

It is heartening to see the number o

companies responding to the CDP

questionnaire rising each year and wethank those who have taken the time and

care in returning this critically important

inormation to the CDP and the investors

behind it.

Frank Pegan

Chie Executive Ofcer

Booz & Company

A rapidly warming climate is one o the

greatest challenges o this decade.

Booz & Company is assisting clients to

respond to this challenge in a number

o ways: by assisting governments in

Australia and around the world to design

and implement ground-breaking policy

to internalise the cost o carbon into

their economies; and through helpingbusinesses to manage the risks and seize

the opportunities presented by changes

in the physical environment, community

attitudes and regulatory landscape.

The CDP serves as a valuable tool to

measure the progress o the business

sector towards embracing the low carbon

uture and rightly engages key shareholders

in this important journey.

Through our work with megacommunities

around the world, we have seen thepower o collaboration in addressing big

challenges. The CDP is an outstanding

example o how to stimulate direct

collaboration between the business

and investment sectors on climate

change, whilst providing a scorecard or

government and community sectors to

understand the corporate perspective.

Our thanks to all those who have taken the

time to respond to this important survey.

Tim JacksonManaging Director, Australia,

New Zealand and South East Asia

> exit


8/66


8

Message rom the CDP Australia and New Zealand Partner and Sponsors 7

Executive Summary 9

1: Overview o CDP 13

1.1 The Global Context 13

1.2 The Australian & New Zealand Context 15

1.3 CDP in Australia and New Zealand 17

2: Response to CDP 2009 20

2.1 The Global Response 20

2.2 The Australian Response 21

2.3 The New Zealand Response 23

3: Climate Disclosure Leadership Index 24

4: Key Trends 27

4.1 Key Trends Globally 27

4.2 GFC: Stimulus to climate change opportunities 28

4.3 Making Sense o Physical Risks 32

4.4 Emissions Reporting transition and improvement 34

4.5 Changing the Business Climate: Investment in Climate Change Opportunities 41

Appendices Appendix A CDP 2009 Questionnaire 45

Appendix B Australian and New Zealand Response Rate 56

Appendix C Company Listing & Breakdown or Analysis 57

Contacts Rear cover

Contents


9/66

Executive Summary

9

ExecutiveSummary

In 2009 the CarbonDisclosure Project (CDP)inormation request wasonce again sent to thelargest 200 companieslisted on the AustralianStock Exchange and thelargest 50 companieslisted on the New ZealandStock Exchange. Whilecompany response ratesincreased only marginallyover 2008, the numbers olocal investors supportingthe CDP increased byalmost 50%, indicating theimportance local investorsare placing on CDPinormation.

Overview o CDP 2009

2009 saw a new disclosure trend emerge.

For the rst time companies identied

signicant opportunities, rather than

risks rom climate change regulation. The

opportunities include improved business

eciencies and development o new

products and services. This is a striking

result and likely to be driven by two

broader trends; companies are starting to

understand their likely obligations under

proposed climate change regulation and

secondly are seeing broader business

benets in reducing their energy use and

emissions and developing new products

and services. Investors are encouraged by

the increased awareness and reporting o

opportunities in 2009 disclosures.

On the risk management side however,

company responses are telling or what

they dont include - particularly clear

analysis on business supply chain impactsrom climate change and specic plans

and targets on how the variety and

magnitude o potential climate change

exposures will be managed. While

increased awareness o opportunities is

a positive or investors, the possibility that

some businesses are not considering,

or at best not disclosing, second order

supply chain and longer term value

impacts and plans to address them is still

o concern.

More than in any other country, Australianand New Zealand CDP respondents are

recognising their susceptibility to the

physical impacts rom climate change.

The ocus o respondents is clearly

shiting rom catastrophic events with the

potential to occur sometime in the distant

uture to near term, albeit potentially

smaller scale impacts that are already

impacting companies. However, it remains

a signicant challenge or companies to

adequately manage and adapt to the many

and varied physical impacts o climate

change across the ull range o company

operations up and down the supply chain.

Investors understand this challenge but

believe companies must ultimately perorm

more analysis and disclosure in this area.

While mandatory reporting obligations in

Australia and New Zealand will provide

greater consistency and accuracy o

reported emissions data or investors and

is a positive move, mandatory reporting

will not provide all the inormation investors

need. Investors will continue to seek

emissions data based on equity share,

broken down by acility and type and will

continue to do so through the CDP in the

oreseeable uture.There was a clear indication in responses

this year that emissions reduction is

underway in Australian and New Zealand

companies. However, or investors to be

able to oset potential emissions liabilities

in their investment analysis investors will

need to see more credible mitigation

strategies including clearer commitments

to targets and investment in emissions

reduction, particularly rom emissions

intensive companies.

Improved response ratedespite the Global FinancialCrisis (GFC)

The most impressive response rate

across the various segments o the

Australian and New Zealand market was

or the ASX50. The response rate or

the ASX50 increased rom 82% to 96%

indicating the signicant engagement

o large Australian companies. The

response rate or the ASX100 was

comparable to last year at 73%.

While the number o greenhouse

intensive companies responding to

CDP 2009 increased slightly the overall

response rate or ASX100 companies

categorised as greenhouse-intensive

declined rom 86% to 76% which is

o concern to investors as they seek

to incorporate potential emissions

liabilities into their investment analysis.

The number o ASX200 ex100

companies completing the CDP 2009inormation request increased, although

the response rate remained relatively

low with just less than one third o

companies responding. While the

response rate indicates a lower level o

> exit


10/66


10

engagement with investors on climate

change by smaller companies in the

ASX200, a urther contributing actor is

the act that a quarter o the ASX200

ex100 companies were new to the

ASX200 in CDP 2009.

The response rate or the NZX50 saw a

modest increase this year, clearing the

50% threshold or the rst time.

Less than a third o New Zealand

companies categorised as emissions

intensive responded to CDP 2009. The

response rate or NZX50 companies

categorised as exposed to other

climate change risks was high at 82%.

Compared with their counterparts

globally, the ASX100 response rate was

higher than the average overall response

rate across all the geographic and sector

samples (55%). The NZX50 response

rate was on par with the average overall

response rate while the ASX200 ex100

response rate ell below average.

New Carbon DisclosureLeadership Index or 2009

The Carbon Disclosure Leadership

Index (CDLI) recognises those

companies that provided the most

comprehensive disclosure o their

emissions and climate change

exposures in 2009.

The CDLI is useul to investors as it

identies leading CDP disclosures

which will assist investors understand

the potential implications rom climate

change and how these catalyse into

nancial outcomes.

For the rst year CDP Australia and

New Zealand used the global CDLI

Scoring Methodology to provide

consistency and comparability between

scoring or Australian and New Zealand

companies and their global peers.

The CDLI comprises the top scoring

third o the ASX200 and NZX50

respondents: 38 CDLI constituents

in total.

Companies rom all sectors are

included in the CDLI excepting the

Inormation Technology Sector.

The greatest number o CDLI

companies is ound in the nancials

sector and within this sector the real

estate industry sector has the highest

representation with 7 included on the

CDLI. This is not surprising given the

number o companies in this sector

listed on the ASX200 and NZX50

and the competitive approach that

companies in these sectors are taking

to prepare and position or transition to

a low-carbon economy.

Companies in the Australia and

the New Zealand CDLI perormed

comparably with companies in the

Global CDLI.

7 companies in the Australia and New

Zealand CDLI were also on the Global

CDLI (listed here in alphabetical order):

Australia and New Zealand Banking

Group

BHP Billiton

Commonwealth Bank

National Australia Bank

Rio Tinto

Westpac

Woolworths

Table i: Australia and New Zealand CDLI Constituent Listing

Sector Company

Consumer Discretionary Billabong International

InvoCare

News Corporation

Ten Network Holdings

Consumer Staples Coca-Cola Amatil

Lion Nathan

Sanord

Woolworths

Energy Boral

Contact Energy

Origin Energy

Santos

Financials Australand Property Group

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group

Commonwealth Bank o Australia

Commonwealth Property Ofce Fund

Insurance Australia Group

Kiwi Income Property Trust

Lend Lease Corporation

Mirvac Group

National Australia Bank

PerpetualStockland

Westpac Banking

Westfeld Group

Health Care CSL

Industrials Auckland International Airport

Corporate Express Australia

Downer EDI

Transurban Group

Materials Amcor

BHP Billiton

Fletcher Building

Macarthur Coal

Rio Tinto

Telecommunication Services Optus (SingTel)

Telstra Corporation

Utilities AGL Energy


11/66

Executive Summary

11

Impact o the GFC onregulatory risks and

opportunities rom climatechange

In spite o, or possibly in response to,

the challenging economic environment,

the large majority o Australian and New

Zealand respondents identied a range

o opportunities stemming rom climate

change regulation. This was particularly

true or ASX100 respondents with over

90% identiying opportunities rom

climate change regulation.

Respondents were ocussed on

opportunities to develop new products

or services or to increase demand

or existing products or services that

provide market advantages in light o

the emerging regulatory environment.

The combined infuence o the GFC

and climate change regulation has

resulted in respondents identiying

opportunities to enhance business

processes, improve eciency and save

costs. Over 50% o ASX100 and over

a third o ASX200 ex100 and NZX50respondents identied opportunities in

this area.

The GFC did not seem to exacerbate

perceived risks rom climate change.

As in previous years, the majority o

respondents, 87% o ASX100, 69%

o NZX50 and 66% o ASX200 ex100

respondents identied risks rom

climate change regulation, however,

the percentage identiying risks

declined slightly.

The percentage o ASX100

respondents identiying regulatory

risks and opportunities rom climate

change was substantially above the

global average while the percentage

o ASX200 ex100 and NZX50

respondents identiying regulatory risks

and opportunities rom climate change

was generally consistent with the global

average.

Emissions trading continued to be the

key regulatory risk identied in both theAustralian and New Zealand markets.

In the Australian market this was closely

ollowed by mandatory greenhouse gas

and energy reporting.

As part o their strategy to identiy and

manage climate change regulation,

over 80% o ASX100 companies were

engaging with policy makers.

Making sense o physical risks

This year responses on the physical

risks rom climate change have

continued to shit rom a ocus on

catastrophic events with the potential to

occur sometime in the distant uture to

near term, albeit potentially smaller scale

impacts already impacting companies.

A range o climate change related

events has contributed to a substantialmajority considering their company

to be exposed to physical risks rom

climate change.

It is notable that the 90% o ASX100

respondents considering their company

to be exposed to physical risks rom

climate change is one o the highest o

any other CDP geographic or sector

sample globally, slightly higher than the

South Arica 100 at 89%.

Consistent with responses last year the

most common impacts rom climate

change identied by respondents

were property damage, interruption

to business operations and reduced

access to water.

CDP 2009 was the rst year in which

a number o companies identied

potential threats to employee health

and saety, particularly rom the

increased prevalence o diseases such

as malaria.

Disclosure o emissions data

There was signicant improvement in

the disclosure o emissions data thisyear. 94% o ASX100 respondents

disclosed Scope 1 and Scope 2

emissions or global operations

compared to 78% last year while 65%

o NZX50 respondents disclosed

Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions or

global operations compared with 56%

last year.

The number o respondents reporting

emissions generated in Australia

increased by 47% while the number

o companies reporting emissions

generated in New Zealand increased

39%.

Largely as a result o the increased

number o respondents disclosing

emissions, reported Australian

emissions increased by approximately

18 million tonnes or close to 17% while

reported New Zealand emissions

increased by approximately 200,000

tonnes or 3%.

> exit


12/66


12

National Greenhouse and Energy

Reporting has clearly been a driver in

the increased disclosure o emissions

data and has the potential to improve

the consistency and accuracy o

emissions data reporting.

For the rst time this year CDP

requested respondents to report

Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data

broken down by business divisions

and acilities. While a relatively small

number o respondents provided this

data (approximately 40% o ASX100

respondents provided a breakdown o

emissions data by business division),increased disclosure o disaggregated

emissions data is important in

assisting investors to more accurately

estimate the potential exposure o

investee companies. This is an area

that investors will be seeking greater

disclosure in uture years.

A substantial proportion o Australian

and New Zealand respondents - 65%

o ASX100 respondents, 68% o

ASX200 ex100 respondents and 82%

o NZX50 respondents provided someScope 3 emissions data.

However, companies still dont report

equity based exposure o emissions

which is a signicant problem or

investors.

Changing the businessclimate: Investment inclimate change opportunities

Despite the GFC and residual

regulatory uncertainty companies

continued to identiy risks and

opportunities and to take actions to

mitigate or adapt to risks and to exploit

opportunities.

Emissions reduction was the most noted

strategy to reduce risk and take the

opportunity to reduce business costs.

There was a signicant increase in the

percentage o ASX100 respondents

(60% to 76%) who had emissions

reduction plans. This percentage wasabove the global average or emissions

reduction plans but the ASX200 ex100

and the NZX50 recorded percentages

below the global average.

There was a signicant increase in the

ASX100 respondents (46% to 66%)

and the NZX50 companies (44% to

58%) with emission reduction targets

however there remains a large number

o companies which are yet to develop

targets. This is clearly an area where

investors expect to see improvements

in CDP 2010.

The lack o emission reduction targets

may be o concern to investors as it

may indicate that emission reduction

actions are not being strategically

planned. Targets provide evidence o

an emission reduction commitment by

a company and indicate to investors

the possible extent o mitigation oemissions liabilities.

Only a small number o companies

were able to report specic investment

in emissions reduction, which is also o

concern to investors.

Chart i: Reported emissions in Australia and New Zealand CDP 2009compared with CDP 2007 and CDP 2008

CDP 200779,210,290

6,452,232

7,160,157

78,062,033CDP 2008

471,415

25,547,555CDP 2007

475,012

30,294,244CDP 2008

Scope 2(tonnes CO2-e)

Scope 1(tonnes CO2-e)

Australia New Zealand

662,046

33,672,794CDP 2009

7,170,893

93,262,927CDP 2009


13/66

Executive Summary

13

1.1 The Global Context

The turmoil in the nancial markets

and the global economy over the last

year has highlighted the importance o

eective disclosure and high-quality

risk management. The nancial crisis

o 2008 suggests we need to better

understand systemic risks that can cause

signicant de-stabilizing impacts in the

global economy. Climate change has thepotential to cause disruption in the orm o

unoreseen, high-impact events (such as

extreme weather) as well as a longer term

re assignment o value across countries,

industries and corporations.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) predicts that uture climate

impacts show that the consequences could

vary rom disruptive to catastrophic1. So

it is vital that policymakers, companies

and investors have a ull understanding

o the associated risks and opportunities.According to HSBC research2, governmentsaround the world have allocated US$430

billion in scal stimulus to key climate

change themes. Those providing the low

carbon solutions are very well positioned

to benet, while those who ignore the risks

gamble on being let behind.

By convening the collective power o the

investment community, represented in 2009

by more than 475 investors, with US$55

trillion in assets under management, CDP

motivates more than 1800 companies

globally to report their climate change

strategies and greenhouse gas emissions.

This global system provides the market,

investors, policymakers and procurement

directors with a clear understanding o

how companies are positioned as we

move towards a low carbon economy

and ensures corporations provide ull

transparency on climate change.

This year has seen considerable growth in

responses rom emerging economies such

as China, South Arica and Korea, and

CDP expanded in Russia in 2009 where

major companies such as Gazprom andNovatek reported. CDPs reach continuesto grow with the launch o the rst CDP

Europe report, covering the largest 300

European listed companies, as well asexpansion into countries within Central

and Eastern Europe. We have also

opened new oces in Germany and Brazil,

both key economies in the ght against

climate change.

While the quantity and quality o data

available has increased signicantly, so

has the use o the data, which is acting as

a catalyst or changing business behavior.

CDP data is increasingly being integrated

into mainstream nancial analysis, is

available through Bloomberg ProessionalServices, and used to provide sector based

analysis to CDP signatory members. A

recent report produced by Mercer supports

this view.

Some CDP signatories, such as CalSTRSare going a step urther, using shareholder

resolutions to encourage companies

to report through CDP and implement

climate change management strategies.

We are also working with the Principles

o Responsible Investment (PRI) to drive

awareness and improve climate change

reporting. CDP has recently entered a

new partnership with nancial inormation

services company Markit to build a suiteo indices based on the Carbon Disclosure

Leadership Index, which will be licensed to

exchange-traded und (ETF) and structured

product providers.

CDP now works with more than 55

organizations including Dell, Unilever,Wal-Mart Stores and departments othe British Government to measure and

assess climate change risk and opportunity

through the supply chain. More than 800

companies report their climate change

strategies through the CDP system to their

customers and as a result we have seena signicant increase in the use o CDP

data in procurement operations. Now

procurement proessionals can understand

how their supply chains may be impacted

and as a result begin to uture-proo their

procurement systems against climate

change.

The process o measuring emissions is

central to emissions management and

reduction. As regulatory rameworks

develop to mandate emission reductions,

CDPs role will expand. We will continueto work with corporations, policymakers

and inormation users to produce practical

and robust results that complement the

development o mandatory reporting rules.

In order to continue to provide the global

hub or carbon reporting, CDP is currently

undergoing a signicant systems upgrade,

designed to improve data comparability,

acilitate benchmarking services and

ultimately deliver data that is appropriate

or investment analysis and regulatory

submissions. In countries like the US andUK, where mandatory carbon reporting

is on the horizon, CDPs systems will help

companies prepare or such requirements

and will eventually integrate with existing

national registries to enable corporations

to disclose more detailed and standardized

data. Climate change is a global problem,

which requires a global solution and

by bridging the gaps between national

governments and international businesses

across the globe, CDP will help to connect

the national and international climate

change ecosystem.

1

Overview o CDP

1 http://unccc.int/essential_background/eeling_the_heat/items/2905.php

2 HSBC Global Research: A Climate or Recovery The colouro stimulus goes green.

> exit


14/66


14

Highlights in carbonregulation and outlook

or Copenhagen2009 has witnessed signicant progress

in the global approach to climate change.

The Obama administration has introduced

a new era in climate change policy in

the US and, as a result, a global deal in

Copenhagen this December appears

more tangible. China, so integral to the

success o Copenhagen, is set to meet

ambitious renewable energy and energy

eciency targets and hosts some o

the worlds largest renewable energy

companies. Brazil entered the new yearwith a new National Plan on Climate

Change and national governments in

industrialized countries including Japan

and Australia are introducing new

legislation to reduce emissions.

Whilst the July G8 meeting agreed to

prevent global temperatures rising beyond

2 Celsius (3-4 Fahrenheit) against pre-

industrial levels, and agreed on aims to cut

greenhouse gas emissions by between 50

and 80% by mid-century they disappointed

many by ducking the issue o mediumterm targets. Although the multilateral

architecture still needs work, there is much

to report on at a regional level.

In Europe, the Energy and Climate Change

package was approved in December

2008 which sets out the policy ramework

and accompanying measures to reduce

emissions through the continuation (and

expansion) o the EU Emissions Trading

Scheme (EU ETS); targets or non-ETS

sectors and new targets or the promotion

o renewable energy.

In the US, the Obama administration

moved early to set out its ambitions around

climate change mitigation:

We will harness the sun and the

winds and the soil to uel our cars

and run our actories.7

The Waxman-Markey bill was nally put

beore the House o Representatives in

June and passed by a narrow margin. The

proposed legislation would commit the US

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by17% below 2005 levels by 2020 through a

cap-and-trade

system beginning in 2012. The bill will pass

through various Senate Committees where

amendments will be debated, beore being

put to a vote; most likely in October.

In Australia, urther work has progressed

on the detail o the Carbon Pollution

Reduction Scheme (CPRS) despite political

challenges over possible competitive

impacts in the ace o the economic

downturn. The Scheme, which would cover

around 75% o total Australian emissions, is

due to ace a key vote later this year.

Given the multinational nature o many

companies, the evolution o these policies

is likely to have signicant implications onstrategic direction and operations and

many o the worlds largest companies

want to seize early mover advantage.

O course, the role o government

is crucial in providing the regulatory

rameworks. But investors and businesses

will also play an essential role by driving

capital fows towards the technologies

which will allow economies to fourish and

innovation to thrive as we transition to a

low carbon economy.

Already these same investors and

businesses are being directly aected by

climate change. Many companies report

to CDP the material impacts o climate

change on their operations, through

increased fooding, water shortage, spread

o disease and changing local weather

patterns. Within the public sector, cities

reporting through CDP also explain how

they are planning to adapt to changes in

weather patterns such as extreme heat and

extreme precipitation.Investors, policymakers, procurement

directors and other stakeholders need

to build up the necessary comparable

datasets in order to monitor and analyze

changes; both in terms o the response

to mitigation measures (such as carbon

regulation) and adaptation policies and

programmes. Integral to the success

o the deal in Copenhagen will be the

availability o this accurate reported data:

i businesses dont measure current

emissions now, it will be impossible orthem to manage and reduce them in the

uture. This is where CDPs role is crucial.

Progress on reportingstandards

While CDP has set the tone on matters odisclosure over the years and, or the rst

time this year, is now widening its approach

to encompass perormance, there are other

valuable and complementary initiatives

underway to address the clear requirement

or the creation o a global carbon

measurement and reporting system.

While the nancial accounting system has

taken several hundred years to develop,

carbon accounting is in its inancy. In order

to achieve a coherent global system CDP is

leading the work o the Climate Disclosure

Standards Board (CDSB), working with

Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG andPricewaterhouseCoopers to developrobust accounting standards to enable

carbon reporting through annual nancial

reports. CDP and CDSB will also work with

the World Economic Forum to advise the

G20 group o nations on climate change

accounting in 2010.

The CDP process demonstrates that

corporations can lead the way in takingaction that can be Measured, Reported

& Veried (MRV). It also shows how

international companies can reduce

their emissions across the entirety o

their operations on a global basis, even

when subject to a range o dierent

regulatory requirements. As more and

more countries introduce climate change

regulation, the CDP system supports

companies by bridging the gap between

international business and national

reporting requirements and helps reduce

the reporting burden on companies.

The CDP Global Forum is part o the

inaugural Climate Week NYC, when

business leaders, heads o state and the

worlds major investors congregate in New

York to prepare or negotiations at COP15.

An agreement there will be a vital step

towards success, but it is just as important

to look beyond Copenhagen and to build

the global systems required to combat

dangerous climate change. CDP remains

ocused on and dedicated to this work and

thanks all o the organizations that

work with us to help realize this goal.

7 (Obama inauguration speech, January 21st, 2009)


15/66

Executive Summary

15

Emissions Trading andRenewable EnergyRegulation

Consistent with the development

o regulation globally, Australian

and New Zealand governments are

progressing carbon regulation and

reporting requirements.

Australia

The regulatory response by the Australian

Government, key elements o which arean emissions trading scheme and an

expanded renewable energy target, is

driving company action on climate change.

The Australian Federal Government has

outlined an emissions trading scheme

known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction

Scheme (CPRS) which will cover

approximately 75% o total Australian

emissions with obligations placed on

approximately 1,000 entities. Most sectors,

including stationary energy and industrial

processes will be included within the CPRS

at the commencement date. Sectors to be

included within the Scheme at a later date

include agriculture.

Originally intended to commence on

1 July 2010, the Federal Government

announced in May 2009 that

commencement o the CPRS would be

delayed until 1 July 2011 in response to

the impact o the Global Financial Crisis.

Also, included in the announcement was

a cap on permit price o $10 per tonneCO2e or the rst year o the CPRS and

urther nancial assistance to emissions

intensive trade-exposed industries.

Amidst considerable debate regarding

key eatures o the CPRS, the proposed

legislation was rejected by the Senate

during its recent August sitting. However,

the Government has committed to

reintroduce the legislation to Parliament

later in 2009.

Over the past year there has been much

policy debate over the uture o the Federal

Governments Mandatory Renewable

Energy Target (MRET) and the various

State based targets. Originally established

to require an additional 9,500 GigaWatt

hours o electricity rom renewable energy

sources, MRET was due to expire in 2010.

To deliver on the Governments goal o

20% renewable energy in Australias by

2020, a national Renewable Energy Target

(RET) scheme was passed into law in

August 2009 which will expand Australias

renewable energy target over our times to

achieve a target o 45,000 GigaWatt in 2020.

New Zealand

The regulatory response in New Zealandwas uncertain or much o 2009 and

resulted in a wait and see approach by

many companies.

In September 2008 the Climate Change

(Emissions Trading and Renewable

Preerences) Bill 2007 was passed. The

Bill outlined the details o the New Zealand

Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS).

The NZ ETS is to be phased in across the

various sectors o the economy between

2008 and 2013. Forestry is the rst sector

included within the NZ ETS with stationaryenergy and industrial processes to be

included within the Scheme in 2010.

The NZ ETS remains in place, but the

new National Government elected in New

Zealand in late 2008 initiated a review o

the NZ ETS. The review o the NZ ETS

was conducted by a special Parliamentary

Select Committee in the rst hal o 2009.

As a result o the review and subsequent

discussions in the NZ parliament at the

time o printing, a substantially modied

NZ ETS is expected to be in place by late2009 to become eective rom 2010.

The Labour Government also released the

New Zealand Energy Strategy (NZES) and

adopted a target or renewable electricity

generation o 90% o New Zealands

electricity generation by 2025. The Climate

Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable

Preerences) Bill created a preerence

or renewable electricity generation by

providing or a 10-year restriction on new

ossil-uelled thermal generation, except to

the extent required to ensure the security

o New Zealands electricity supply. This

restriction was subsequently lited by the

National Government.

New Zealands Unique Emissions Profle

The response to climate change by

companies in New Zealand is strongly

infuenced by New Zealands emissions

prole which is unique or an industrialised

country1. In the majority o industrialised

countries, CO2 rom energy generation and

transport accounts or more than 75% o

total emissions. In contrast New Zealands

emissions o CO2 rom these sources

accounts or only approximately 28% o

total emissions.This prole is due partly to the large

quantity o total emissions (48.5 %) which

come rom methane emissions rom

sheep and cattle and nitrogen emissions

rom agriculture soils. In comparison,

or the European Union, emissions rom

these sources account or approximately

12% o total emissions and or Australia,

approximately 16% o total emissions.

It is also infuenced by the signicant

contribution o renewable energy in New

Zealands energy generation sector. In

2005 hydro, geothermal and wind made up

about 64% o total electricity generation2.

Emissions Reporting

More imminent or many Australian

companies responding to CDP this year

is the obligation or corporations emitting

more than 125,000 tonnes CO2e per

annum to report energy and greenhouse

gas emissions under the National

Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act

and subordinate legislation (reerred to

throughout this Report as the National

Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme

or NGERS). The rst reports under

NGERS are due to be submitted to the

Government in October 2009. Reports are

or the nancial year ending 30 June 2009.

At this stage there is no equivalent

mandatory reporting legislation in place

in New Zealand. Mandatory reporting

o greenhouse gas emissions or the

stationary energy and industrial processes

is scheduled to commence in 2010 with

1.2 The Australian & New Zealand Context

1 Defned as Annex I countries under the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

2 www.me.govt.nz

> exit


16/66


16

the rst reports to be submitted to the

Government in March 2011. Reports

will be or the calendar year ending 31

December 2010.

Notwithstanding mandatory reporting

requirements, many companies in Australia

and New Zealand are choosing to disclose

climate change inormation and emissions

data voluntarily to the market. Whether

through other reporting mechanisms such

as Annual or Sustainability Reporting or

through company websites, companies are

making a range o inormation available to

investors and consumers alike.

CDP in Australia and NewZealand post mandatoryreporting

Some stakeholders, including companies

in the CDP Australia and New Zealand

sample, have questioned the need or

CDP ollowing the public disclosure o

mandatory greenhouse gas reporting (in

February 2010 in the case o NGERS).

The Investor Group on Climate Change

(IGCC), the Australian and New Zealand

CDP Partner, acknowledges the time andeort involved in responding to the CDP

and supports the streamlining o company

reporting on greenhouse and energy

and as such has careully considered the

questions raised by stakeholders. However,

representing the interests o the investment

community in Australia and New Zealand,

IGCC will continue to support CDP in

Australia or the ollowing reasons:

Being a single questionnaire supported

by 475 investors CDP reduces

duplicative requests rom investors

CDP provides a consistent set o

inormation and data to investors with

global investment strategies.

CDP ocuses on the investment

relevance o climate change risks,

management, mitigation strategies and

opportunities.

Emissions and energy data reported

under NGERS can be used in response

to the CDP request (or Australianoperations) so as to avoid duplication.

The purpose o mandatory reporting

requirements is to collect emissions

and energy data to underpin the CPRS

and the NZ ETS and as such will not

provide investors with:

the requisite level o detail or

analysis, including equity-based

exposure

contextual and qualitative

inormation on company strategy,

risk management and mitigation

action

inormation on companies that do

not trigger the reporting threshold

inormation on operations o

companies outside Australia and

New Zealand

inormation on overseas or

international companies

timely disclosure o inormation to

the market.

Inormation and data on an equity basis

is particularly critical to investors as is

the only basis that aligns with investmentboundaries and provides an accurate

indication o risk exposure through

investments.

As such, NGERS and mandatory reporting

in New Zealand will not provide adequate

disclosure to investors. For this reason CDP

still plays an important role.

Non-regulatory responses toclimate change

In addition to the Governments regulatory

response to climate change, the marketis also responding to climate change in

a variety o ways. In particular, changes

to consumer demand as a result o

concerns over climate change are

prompting companies to enhance their

environmental reputation and improve

their environmental perormance.

As mentioned in previous years,

New Zealand companies in key sectors

such as the ood and beverage sector

continue to benet rom and reinorce the

positioning that New Zealand has a pristine

natural environment.


17/66

Executive Summary

17

The CDP Partners

IGCC is the CDP Partner in Australia and

New Zealand. As the CDP Partner, IGCC is

responsible or the inclusion o Australian

and New Zealand companies in the CDP

inormation request.

The IGCC represents investors with total

unds under management o over AUD500

billion and others in the investment

community interested in the impact o

climate change on investments. The

Environment Protection Authority o

Victoria is also a proud supporter o

IGCC. As at 31 July 2009, membership

o IGCC comprised:

1.3 CDP in Australia and New Zealand

Citi Investment Research is also an IGCC member.

australianethicalinvestment

R

> exit


18/66


18

CDP Sponsors in Australiaand New Zealand

To acilitate the continued inclusion oASX200 and NZX50 companies in the CDP,

IGCC is supported by sponsors Goldman

Sachs JBWere, Catholic Super and Booz

& Company.

Goldman Sachs JBWere

Goldman Sachs JBWere has supported

the IGCC to expand the CDP inormation

request to Australian and New Zealand

companies over the last our years.

Goldman Sachs JBWere recognises

the importance o a dialogue betweeninvestors and companies on the issues

o climate change and emissions trading

so that investment considerations around

these issues can be ully understood. As

such, Goldman Sachs JBWere welcomes

the participation o Australian and New

Zealand companies in the CDP.

Catholic Super

For the second year running Catholic Super

has also directly supported the expansiono the CDP to Australian and New

Zealand companies. Catholic Super has

recognised that climate change poses a

signicant long term risk to their members

retirement savings. Catholic Super actively

supports CDP to ensure inormation

fows to investors are sucient to acilitate

assessment and quantication o the risks

and opportunities associated with climate

change acing investors and their members

over the medium and long term.

Booz & Company

Booz & Company are delighted to be

supporting the Carbon Disclosure Project.Assisting capital markets to avoid the

risks and capture the opportunities in the

transition to a low carbon economy is an

urgent and vital need - made all the more

important by the potential impacts on our

climate o human induced greenhouse

gas emissions. Booz & Company actively

supports the CDP as a valuable tool

to measure the progress o business

towards embracing the low carbon uture.

2009 40

2008 27

2007 17

2006 11

Chart 1: Number o Australian and New Zealand signatories to CDP

Australian and New Zealand Signatories to CDP 2009

Investor support or CDP in Australia and New Zealand extends beyond the members

o IGCC. Broad investor support or the CDP 2009 inormation request is indicated by

the number o CDP Signatories. Globally over 475 investors have become signatories

to CDP.

In Australia and New Zealand the number o investors becoming CDP signatories has

grown by almost 50% this year.


19/66


20/66


20

In February 2009 the CDP inormation

request was sent to 4700 companies

globally. Over 2500 companies answered

the questionnaire an overall response rate

o 55%. The response rate or the di erent

geographic and industry samples ranged

rom 81% or the Global 500 to 8% or the

Central & Eastern Europe 100.

The ASX100 response rate was higher

than the overall response rate across

all the CDP geographical and industry

samples (55%). This places the ASX100

companies answering the questionnaire

5th out o 29 geographic and industry

samples (up rom 12th last year). While

lower than the response rate or the Global

500 and some key European samples, the

ASX100 response rate was higher than the

response rate or the US S&P500 (66%).

The percentage o NZX50 companiesanswering the questionnaire (52%) this

year is consistent with the overall response

rate across all the CDP geographical

and industry samples (55%). This

places the NZX50 companies answering

the questionnaire 13th out o the 29

geographical and industry samples.

2

Response to CDP2009

% of sample answering CDP 2009

% of sample answering CDP 2008

UK FTSE 10095

90

Europe 300 82

Global 50081

77

Brazil 80*

76

83

Australia 10073

72

South Africa 10068

58

Global Transport 10067

58

US S&P 500 6664

Nordic 200* 6558

Netherlands 5062

52

France 12058

63

UK FTSE 2505758

Switzerland 1005657

New Zealand 5052

50

Germany 20051

55

Korea 100*50

32

Latin America 50*50

52

Global Electric Utility 25049

52

Canada 20049

55

Spain 85*41

71

Portugal 20 38

Japan 500*37

72

Italy 60*35

46

Ireland 45 33

Asia-ex JICK 100*31

35

Australia 200 ex10031

23

India 2001819

Russia 50 13

China 10010

5

Central & Eastern Europe 100 8

Chart 2: Response rate by geographic and industry sample comparison between CDP 2009 and CDP 20081

1 Response rates or CDP 2008 are as o 31 July 2008

2.1 The Global Response

* The size o these samples increased betweenCDP 2008 and CDP 2009 e.g.: sample size inBrazil increased rom 75 to 80 companies; and the

sample size in Japan increased rom 150 to 500.

** New samples launched in 2009 include Ireland,Portugal, Europe, Russia and Central & EasternEurope.


21/66

Response to CDP 2009

21

ASX100 Companies

Since the inclusion o Australian companies

in the CDP inormation request, there has

been a steady increase in the response

rate each year. However, this year the

response rate rom ASX100 companies

was comparable to last year at 73%.

The 73% response rate or ASX100

companies is positive in light o the GFC

and the tough economic environment inwhich companies are currently operating

and provides some indication that

climate change is embedded within many

companies business management and

operational practices.

In contrast to commentary suggesting that

companies could not aord to ocus on

climate change during harsh economic

times, the response rom companies

indicates that mitigating risks, minimising

costs and exploiting opportunities to deliver

new markets, products and servicesassociated with climate change is part o

a core strategy or thriving during tough

economic times.

ASX200 ex100 Companies

The response rate rom the ASX200 ex100

companies showed some improvement,

increasing rom 23% to 31%. However, the

response rate or the ASX200 ex100 does

indicate a lower level o engagement with

investors on climate change by smaller

companies in the ASX200.

Nearly 25% o ASX200 ex100 companies

were new to the ASX200 and hencewere rst time participants in the CDP

inormation request. Recasting the

response rate to include only companies

that have been in the ASX200 or at least

two years, the response rate improves

urther to 41%.

ASX50 Companies

The most impressive response rate or any

subsection o the Australian sample was

rom the top 50 companies listed on the

Australian Stock Exchange, the ASX50. Theresponse rate rom the ASX50 increased

17% rom 82% to 96% this year.

This year the response rate rom ASX50

companies was higher than or any o the

subsections o companies categorised

as exposed to climate change whether

through their greenhouse intensity or

potential physical impacts. This indicates

that company size has been a stronger

determinant as to whether or not a

company responds to the CDP inormation

request than a companys potential

exposure to climate change.

Companies Exposed toClimate ChangeResponses have also been analysed

according to whether or not a company is

exposed to either emissions risk or other

climate change risks such as physical

impacts. More specically, responses were

analysed according to the ollowing climate

change exposure categories:

Greenhouse intensive sectors primarily companies operating in

sectors with relatively high greenhouse

gas emissions, including Utilities,Chemicals, Construction Materials,

Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels, Metals

& Mining and Transportation (not

including Inrastructure).

Other climate change exposedsectors primarily companies operating

in sectors that are exposed to physical

risks o climate change including

Property and Food & Beverage or are

vulnerable to greenhouse or physical

risks through their customer base

including Mining contractors, Financeand Food and Beverage.

Less exposed sectors the remainingsectors.

In CDP 2008 the highest response rate or

any subsection o the Australian sample

was rom ASX100 companies categorised

as greenhouse intensive and thereore

exposed to regulatory requirements

relating to greenhouse emissions. While

the number o greenhouse intensive

companies responding to CDP 2009increased slightly the overall response rate

or ASX100 companies categorised as

greenhouse intensive declined rom 86%

to 76% due to an increase in the number o

companies in this category.

Not included in CDP 2006CDP 2006

Not included in CDP 2007CDP 2007

23%CDP 2008

31%CDP 2009

ASX200

ex

100

55%CDP 2006

58%CDP 2007

72%CDP 2008

73%CDP 2009

ASX100

Chart 3: ASX100 and ASX200 ex100 response rates CDP 2006-2009

Not reportedCDP 2006

74%CDP 2007

82%CDP 2008

96%CDP 2009

ASX50

Chart 4: ASX50 response rates CDP 2006-2009

2.2 The Australian Response

> exit


22/66


22

That almost a quarter o greenhouse

intensive companies are not responding

to CDP is a major concern to investors

as they seek to incorporate potential

emissions liabilities into their investment

analysis. Investors also expect that

resource exploration companies are

actively considering their uture emissions

prole and the consequences o

managing potential obligations over the

medium to long term.

The response rate rom companies

categorised as exposed to other climate

change risk such as physical risks or risks

through their supply chain or customerbase increased rom 73% to 85%.

Only 50% o ASX100 companies with

less exposure to greenhouse gas or

other climate change risks completed the

questionnaire compared with 58% last year.

The lack o response rom companies

categorised as greenhouse intensive or

exposed to other climate change risk

such as physical risks or risks through their

supply chain or customer base is likely to

be o concern to investors as they seek

inormation to undertake appropriate risk

analysis on their investee companies.

Companies not completingthe inormation request

While the response rate or ASX100

companies was positive in light o the

Global Financial Crisis, it is o concern

to investors that 27% o potential

investee companies in the ASX100 did

not answer the CDP questionnaire. O

those companies that did not answer

the questionnaire, 10 acknowledged the

inormation request with many providing

reasons or declining to participate.

The number o ASX100 companies not

responding to the CDP 2009 in any mannerincreased rom 13% to 16% this year.

However, the majority o these companies

are categorised as less exposed to

greenhouse gas or other climate change

risks (56%).

This year there was a decrease in the

number o ASX200 ex100 companies

notiying CDP that they declined toparticipate in the CDP 2009 inormation

request 8% compared with 16% last

year. There was also a slight increase in

the number o ASX200 ex100 companies

that did not respond to CDP in any manner.

The number o ASX200 ex100 companies

not responding was signicant at almost

60% o the sample (up rom 57% in 2008).

Although, as mentioned previously, 24% o

companies in the ASX200 ex100 received

the CDP inormation request or the rst

time in 2009. 88% o companies receivingthe CDP inormation request or the rst

time did not respond to CDP in any manner.

The details o the ASX100 and ASX200

ex100 response rate or CDP 2009 are

provided in Appendix B. The response

status o individual companies is provided

in Appendix C.

Chart 5: ASX100 response rate by dierent climate change risk exposure

50%

85%

76%

58%

73%

86%

Less exposed

Other climate

change exposed

Greenhouseintensive

CDP 2009 CDP 2008


23/66

Response to CDP 2009

23

NZX50 Companies

Following the relatively large increase in the

response rate to CDP 2008, the growth in

the response rate rom NZX50 companies

was more modest this year up rom 50%

to 52%.

The relatively low response rate is no

doubt infuenced by New Zealand unique

emissions prole which is dominated by

methane emissions rom sheep and cattle

and nitrogen emissions rom agriculture

soils and is infuenced by the signicantcontribution o renewable energy in New

Zealands energy generation sector.

30% o NZX50 companies responding

to the CDP inormation request this year

are also listed on the Australian Stock

Exchange. The details o the NZX50

response rate or CDP 2009 are provided

in Appendix B. The response status

o individual companies is provided in

Appendix C.

NZX10 Companies

This year there was no increase in the

response rate rom the largest companies

on the New Zealand stock exchange,

the NZX10.

Companies Exposed toClimate Change

Consistent with CDP 2008, the highest

response rate or any subsection o the

New Zealand sample was rom NZX50

companies categorised as exposed toother climate change risks. 82% o NZX50

companies identied as exposed to other

climate change risks, such as physical

risks or risks through their supply chain or

customer base answered the CDP 2009

questionnaire, a slight decline rom the

88% response rate in 2008.

The high response rate or the NZX50

companies exposed to other climate

change risks which includes banks,

insurance companies, real estate

investment trusts, ood and beverage

companies, may be a product o New

Zealands continued strong commitment to

a clean and green brand and image.

The response rate rom New Zealand

companies identied as greenhouse

intensive and thereore exposed to

regulatory requirements relating to

greenhouse emissions ell rom 45% to

27% this year. The decline in the response

rate was due to two companies (o a

total o 11) that responded to the CDP

inormation request in previous years not

responding in 2009.

This low response rate or NZX50

companies identied as greenhouse gas

emissions intensive and thereore exposed

to regulatory requirements relating to

greenhouse gas emissions is o serious

concern to investors. Despite the act

that the NZ ETS was under Parliamentary

review at the time, investors do not

consider non-disclosure acceptable or

greenhouse intensive companies.

Companies not completingthe inormation request

This year the number o NZX50 companies

that declined to participate in the CDPinormation request decreased rom our

to three.

The number o New Zealand companies

not responding in any manner to the

CDP inormation request remains high,

particularly given that most (90%) o

those not responding have received theCDP inormation request or at least

two years (and 65% have received the

CDP inormation request each year or

the last our years). While the majority o

companies not responding to CDP in any

manner were in sectors that are classied

as less exposed (55%), there was still

a signicant number o not responding

companies that were categorised asexposed to greenhouse gas emissions risk

or other climate change risks (30%).

The details o the NZX50 response rate

or CDP 2009 are provided in Appendix

B. The response status o individual

companies is provided in Appendix C.

2.3 The New Zealand Response

Chart 6: NZX50 response rates CDP 2006-2009

38%

5

cdp 2009 australia new zealand report

Documents