CDP S&P Report 2011 by Environmental Indonesia

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

On behalf of 551 investors with assets of US$71 trillion

Report written for Carbon Disclosure Project by:

Carbon Disclosure Project www.cdproject.net +1 212 378 2086 info@cdproject.net

2011 Carbon Disclosure Project Investor Members CDP 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 www.cdproject.net/investormembers

ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar AEGON N.V. AKBANK T.A.S. Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH ATP Group Aviva Investors Bank of America Merrill Lynch BlackRock BP Investment Management Limited California Public Employees’ Retirement System California State Teachers’ Retirement System Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc.

Catholic Super CCLA Investment Management Ltd Ethos Foundation Generation Investment Management HSBC Holdings plc ING KB Kookmin Bank KLP Legg Mason, Inc. London Pensions Fund Authority Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Morgan Stanley National Australia Bank NEI Investments Neuberger Berman Newton Investment Management Limited Nordea Investment Management

PFA Pension Raiffeisen Schweiz Royal Bank of Scotland Group Robeco Rockefeller & Co., Inc. SAM Group Schroders Scottish Widows Investment Partnership SEB Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Standard Chartered Sun Life Financial Inc. TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc. The Wellcome Trust Zurich Cantonal Bank

2011 Carbon Disclosure Project Investor Signatories Carbon Disclosure Project 2011 551 financial institutions with assets of US$71 trillion were signatories to the CDP 2011 information request dated February 1st, 2011 Aberdeen Asset Managers Aberdeen Immobilien KAG mbH ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Active Earth Investment Management Acuity Investment Management Addenda Capital Inc. Advanced Investment Partners Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd AEGON Magyarország Befektetési Alapkezelo ´´ Zrt. AEGON N.V. AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd AFP Integra AIG Asset Management Ak Asset Management AKBANK T.A.S. Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Alcyone Finance Allianz Elementar Versicherungs-AG Allianz Group Altira Group Amalgamated Bank AMP Capital Investors AmpegaGerling Investment GmbH Amundi AM ANBIMA – Associação Brasileira das Entidades dos Mercados Financeiro e de Capitais Antera Gestão de Recursos S.A. APG Group Aprionis Aquila Capital ARIA (Australian Reward Investment Alliance) Arisaig Partners Asia Pte Ltd ARK Investment Advisors Inc. Arma Portföy Yönetimi A.S. ASB Community Trust ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. ASN Bank Assicurazioni Generali Spa ATP Group Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited Australian Central Credit Union incorporating Savings & Loans Credit Union Australian Ethical Investment Limited AustralianSuper Aviva Aviva Investors AXA Group Baillie Gifford & Co. Bakers Investment Group (Australia) Pty Ltd Banco Bradesco S/A Banco de Credito del Peru BCP Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Banco do Brasil S/A Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social - BNDES Banco Santander Banesprev – Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social Banesto (Banco Español de Crédito S.A.) Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of Montreal Bank Sarasin & Cie AG Bank Vontobel Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H. BANKINTER S.A. BankInvest Banque Degroof Barclays

Baumann and Partners S.A. BAWAG P.S.K. INVEST GmbH Bayern LB BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH BBC Pension Trust Ltd BBVA Bedfordshire Pension Fund Bentall Kennedy Beutel Goodman and Co. Ltd BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Terceiros Ltda BlackRock Blumenthal Foundation BNP Paribas Investment Partners BNY Mellon BNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage Gesellschaft Boston Common Asset Management, LLC BP Investment Management Limited Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcIMC) BT Investment Management Busan Bank CAAT Pension Plan Cadiz Holdings Limited Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Caisse des Dépôts Caixa Beneficente dos Empregados da Companhia Siderurgica Nacional - CBS Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Caixa Econômica Federal Caixa Geral de Depositos Caja de Ahorros de Valencia, Castellón y Valencia, BANCAJA Caja Navarra California Public Employees’ Retirement System California State Teachers’ Retirement System California State Treasurer Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) CAPESESP Capital Innovations, LLC CARE Super Pty Ltd Carlson Investment Management Carmignac Gestion Catherine Donnelly Foundation Catholic Super Cbus Superannuation Fund CCLA Investment Management Ltd Celeste Funds Management Limited Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Ceres Christian Super Christopher Reynolds Foundation Church Commissioners for England Church of England Pensions Board CI Mutual Funds’ Signature Global Advisors Clean Yield Group, Inc. Cleantech Invest AG ClearBridge Advisors Climate Change Capital Group Ltd CM-CIC Asset Management Colonial First State Global Asset Management Comerica Incorporated Comite syndical national de retraite Bâtirente Commerzbank AG CommInsure Commonwealth Bank of Australia Compton Foundation, Inc. Concordia Versicherungsgruppe Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) Corston-Smith Asset Management Sdn. Bhd. CRD Analytics Crédit Agricole Credit Suisse Gruppo Credito Valtellinese Daegu Bank Daiwa Securities Group Inc.

de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A. DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Deutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH Deutsche Bank AG Deutsche Postbank Vermögensmanagement S.A. Development Bank of Japan Inc. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Dexia Asset Management Dexus Property Group DnB NOR ASA Domini Social Investments LLC Dongbu Insurance DWS Investment GmbH Earth Capital Partners LLP East Sussex Pension Fund Ecclesiastical Investment Management Ecofi Investissements - Groupe Credit Cooperatif Edward W. Hazen Foundation EEA Group Ltd Elan Capital Partners Element Investment Managers ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência Environment Agency Active Pension fund Epworth Investment Management Equilibrium Capital Group Erste Asset Management Erste Group Bank Essex Investment Management Company, LLC ESSSuper Ethos Foundation Eureko B.V. Eurizon Capital SGR Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Evli Bank Plc F&C Management Ltd FAELCE – Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade Social FAPERS- Fundação Assistencial e Previdenciária da Extensão Rural do Rio Grande do Sul FASERN - Fundação COSERN de Previdência Complementar Fédéris Gestion d’Actifs FIDURA Capital Consult GmbH FIM Asset Management Ltd FIPECq - Fundação de Previdência Complementar dos Empregados e Servidores da FINEP, do IPEA, do CNPq FIRA. - Banco de Mexico First Affirmative Financial Network, LLC First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP1) Firstrand Limited Five Oceans Asset Management Pty Limited Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) Folketrygdfondet Folksam Fondaction CSN Fondation de Luxembourg Fondiaria-SAI Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites – FRR Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund (AP4) FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment-Gesellschaft mbH Fukoku Capital Management Inc FUNCEF - Fundação dos Economiários Federais Fundação AMPLA de Seguridade Social - Brasiletros Fundação Atlântico de Seguridade Social Fundação Attilio Francisco Xavier Fontana Fundação Banrisul de Seguridade Social Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES - FAPES FUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROS Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social - FORLUZ FUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCO Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIA Fundação Rede Ferroviaria de Seguridade Social – Refer Fundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel) FUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIA COMPLEMENTAR DA CAESB Futuregrowth Asset Management Gartmore Investment Management Ltd GEAP Fundação de Seguridade Social Generali Deutschland Holding AG

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

Generation Investment Management Genus Capital Management Gjensidige Forsikring ASA GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GOOD GROWTH INSTITUT für globale Vermögensentwicklung mbH Governance for Owners Government Employees Pension Fund (“GEPF”), Republic of South Africa Green Cay Asset Management Green Century Capital Management Groupe Crédit Coopératif Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. GROUPE OFI AM Grupo Banco Popular Grupo Santander Brasil Gruppo Credito Valtellinese Gruppo Montepaschi Guardian Ethical Management Inc Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Guosen Securities Co., LTD. Hang Seng Bank Harbourmaster Capital Harrington Investments, Inc Hauck & Aufhäuser Asset Management GmbH Hazel Capital LLP HDFC Bank Ltd Health Super Fund Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) Henderson Global Investors Hermes Fund Managers HESTA Super HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbH HSBC Holdings plc HSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance. Co., Ltd. Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. Ibgeana Society of Assistance and Security SIAS / Sociedade Ibgeana de Assistência e Seguridade (SIAS) IDBI Bank Ltd Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company Impax Group plc IndusInd Bank Limited Industrial Bank (A) Industrial Bank of Korea Industry Funds Management Infrastructure Development Finance Company ING Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos- Postalis Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREV Instituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - SEBRAEPREV Insurance Australia Group Investec Asset Management Irish Life Investment Managers Itau Asset Management Itaú Unibanco Holding S A Janus Capital Group Inc. Jarislowsky Fraser Limited JPMorgan Chase & Co. Jubitz Family Foundation Jupiter Asset Management Kaiser Ritter Partner (Schweiz) AG KB asset Management KB Kookmin Bank KBC Asset Management NV KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m. b. H. KfW Bankengruppe KlimaINVEST KLP Korea Investment Management Co., Ltd. The Korea Teachers Pension (KTP) Korea Technology Finance Corporation (KOTEC) KPA Pension La Banque Postale Asset Management La Financiere Responsable Lampe Asset Management GmbH Landsorganisationen i Sverige

LBBW - Landesbank Baden-Württemberg LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH LD Lønmodtagernes Dyrtidsfond Legal & General Investment Management Legg Mason, Inc. LGT Capital Management Ltd. LIG Insurance Co., Ltd Light Green Advisors, LLC Living Planet Fund Management Company S.A. Local Authority Pension Fund Forum Local Government Super Local Super Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie London Pensions Fund Authority Lothian Pension Fund Lupus alpha Asset Management GmbH Macif Gestion Macquarie Group Limited MAMA Sustainable Incubation AG Man Maple-Brown Abbott Limited Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. Maryland State Treasurer Matrix Asset Management McLean Budden MEAG MUNICH ERGO Asset Management GmbH Meeschaert Gestion Privée Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Mendesprev Sociedade Previdenciária Merck Family Fund Meritas Mutual Funds MetallRente GmbH Metrus – Instituto de Seguridade Social Metzler Investment Gmbh MFS Investment Management Midas International Asset Management Miller/Howard Investments Mirae Asset Global Investments Co. Ltd. Mirae Asset Securities Co., Ltd. Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Mistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Mn Services Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Morgan Stanley Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia Natcan Investment Management Nathan Cummings Foundation, The National Australia Bank National Bank of Canada National Grid Electricity Group of the Electricity Supply Pension Scheme National Grid UK Pension Scheme National Pensions Reserve Fund of Ireland National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) NATIXIS Nedbank Limited Needmor Fund NEI Investments Nelson Capital Management, LLC Nest Sammelstiftung Neuberger Berman New Amsterdam Partners LLC New Mexico State Treasurer New York City Employees Retirement System New York City Teachers Retirement System New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF) New Zealand Earthquake Commission Newton Investment Management Limited NGS Super NH-CA Asset Management Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Nikko Cordial Securities Nissay Asset Management Corporation NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG Nordea Investment Management Norfolk Pension Fund

Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) North Carolina Retirement System Northern Ireland Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) Northern Trust Nykredit Oddo & Cie OECO Capital Lebensversicherung AG Old Mutual plc OMERS Administration Corporation Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan OP Fund Management Company Ltd Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment) OPSEU Pension Trust Oregon State Treasurer Orion Asset Management LLC Parnassus Investments Pax World Funds Pensioenfonds Vervoer Pension Denmark Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists Pension Protection Fund Pensionsmyndigheten PETROS - The Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Social PFA Pension PGGM Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd. PhiTrust Active Investors Phoenix Asset Management Inc. Pictet Asset Management SA PKA Pluris Sustainable Investments SA PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Pohjola Asset Management Ltd Portfolio 21 Investments Porto Seguro S.A. PREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTAR PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Brasil PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Provinzial Rheinland Holding Prudential Investment Management Psagot Investment House Ltd PSP Investments PSS - Seguridade Social Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd QBE Insurance Group Rabobank Raiffeisen Schweiz Railpen Investments Rathbones / Rathbone Greenbank Investments Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência Social Rei Super Reliance Capital Ltd Resolution Resona Bank, Limited Reynders McVeigh Capital Management RLAM Robeco Rockefeller Financial Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment Royal Bank of Canada Royal Bank of Scotland Group RREEF Investment GmbH SAM Group SAMPENSION KP LIVSFORSIKRING A/S SAMSUNG FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE Samsung Securities Sanlam Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda SAS Trustee Corporation Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG Schroders Scotiabank Scottish Widows Investment Partnership SEB SEB Asset Management AG Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP2) SEIU Master Trust

CDP Signatories

Trillium Asset Management Corporation Triodos Investment Management Tryg UBS UniCredit Group Union Asset Management Holding AG Unipension UNISON staff pension scheme UniSuper Unitarian Universalist Association United Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health Benefits United Nations Foundation Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) Vancity Group of Companies VCH Vermögensverwaltung AG Veris Wealth Partners Veritas Investment Trust GmbH Vermont State Treasurer Vexiom Capital, L.P. VicSuper Pty Ltd Victorian Funds Management Corporation VietNam Holding Ltd. Vision Super VOLKSBANK INVESTMENTS Waikato Community Trust Inc Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust & Investment Management Company WARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbH WARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH Wells Fargo & Company West Yorkshire Pension Fund WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM) Westpac Banking Corporation White Owl Capital AG Winslow Management, A Brown Advisory Investment Group Woori Bank Woori Investment & Securities Co., Ltd. YES BANK Limited York University Pension Fund Youville Provident Fund Inc. Zegora Investment Management Zevin Asset Management Zurich Cantonal Bank

Figure A: 2011 Signatory Investor Breakdown

23%

5% 1%

37%

34%

Asset Managers Asset Owners Banks Insurance Other

Figure B: CDP Investor Signatories & Assets over time 80

600

500

60 400

50 40

300

200

20 100

Assets (US$ trillions)

Number of Signatories

Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Sentinel Investments SERPROS - Fundo Multipatrocinado Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) Shinhan Bank Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH Signet Capital Management Ltd SMBC Friend Securities Co., LTD Smith Pierce, LLC SNS Asset Management Social(k) Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - Prevdata Solaris Investment Management Limited Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Sopher Investment Management SPF Beheer bv Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Standard Chartered Standard Chartered Korea Limited Standard Life Investments State Bank of India State Street Corporation StatewideSuper StoreBrand ASA Strathclyde Pension Fund Stratus Group Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Sumitomo Mitsui Card Company, Limited Sumitomo Mitsui Finance & Leasing Co., Ltd Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group The Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd. Sun Life Financial Inc. Superfund Asset Management GmbH SUSI Partners AG Sustainable Capital Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Swedbank AB Swiss Re Swisscanto Holding AG Syntrus Achmea Asset Management T. Rowe Price T. SINAI KALKINMA BANKASI A.S. T.GARANTI BANKASI A.S. Tata Capital Limited TD Asset Management Inc. and TDAM USA Inc. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) Telluride Association Tempis Asset Management Co. Ltd Terra Forvaltning AS TerraVerde Capital Management LLC The Brainerd Foundation The Bullitt Foundation The Central Church Fund of Finland The Collins Foundation The Co-operative Asset Management The Co-operators Group Ltd The Daly Foundation The GPT Group The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. The Japan Research Institute, Limited The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust The Local Government Pensions Institution The Pension Plan For Employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada The Pinch Group The Presbyterian Church in Canada The Russell Family Foundation The Shiga Bank, Ltd. The Standard Bank Group The United Church of Canada - General Council The University of Edinburgh Endowment Fund The Wellcome Trust Third Swedish National Pension Fund (AP3) Threadneedle Asset Management Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Toronto Atmospheric Fund

10 0

0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Signatories

2008

2009

2010

2011

Assets

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

CEO Foreword Corporations, investors and governments today are faced with a choice: to compete aggressively for finite resources, or to advance towards a low-carbon economy that enables sustainable, profitable growth, whilst reducing reliance on increasingly scarce materials. Last year global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions reached a record high. The International Energy Agency estimates made for bleak reading but compounded the necessity to take bold and decisive action if we are to have any chance of limiting temperature increase to the 2°C level agreed by world leaders to protect against catastrophic climate change. What’s more, rising energy demands are competing for a limited supply of fossil fuels. The competition for increasingly scarce natural resources is putting pressure on commodity prices and having a growing impact both socially and economically. It is clear that today, more than ever, we must build momentum to decouple economic growth from emissions. Managing carbon emissions and protecting the business from climate change impacts is fundamental to achieving sustainable and strong shareholder returns. Earlier this year, investment consultancy Mercer released a report concluding that the best way for institutional investors to manage portfolio risk associated with climate change may be to shift 40% of their portfolios into climate-sensitive assets with an emphasis on those that can adapt to a low-carbon environment. An important part of an investor’s strategy should be to engage with the companies in which they invest to encourage performance improvement. Carbon Action is a new initiative launched by CDP this year. It is driven by a leading group of investors to encourage their portfolio companies to reduce emissions by investing in emissions reducing activities with a satisfactory payback period. Carbon Action reflects a growing recognition that there is a huge range of carbon reducing activities that companies can undertake that have a very clear business case. It is therefore in the interests of all investors and not just the more active owners of investments to ensure these actions are taken. As the management of carbon continues to move into companies’ core business strategies and mainstream investment thinking, demand for primary corporate climate change information grows around the world. As well as working on behalf of 551 institutional investors to gather relevant information from large corporations around the world, CDP is also working with global businesses and governments to strengthen the resilience and sustainability of their supply chains through the CDP Supply Chain program. CDP Cities has launched to help the world’s major cities reduce climate change risk and bolster economic growth; and CDP Water Disclosure is now in its second year of working with major global companies to improve water management. A key part of CDP’s strategy is to ensure the effective use of data collected. To assist with this companies are able to obtain tools that help them to measure, report and manage carbon more effectively, through CDP Reporter Services. It is through partnerships that CDP can achieve the largest impact. We are delighted to be working again this year with PwC, our Global Advisor, as well as with Accenture, Microsoft, SAP and Bloomberg. These and our other partners around the world are integral to the acceleration of CDP’s mission. Whilst we wait patiently for much needed global regulation, business must continue to forge ahead, innovate and seek out opportunities by doing more with less. The decisions that perpetuate a legitimate, low-carbon and high growth economy will bring considerable value to those that have the foresight to make them. The information contained in this report and the companies’ responses assist in illuminating that path.

Paul Simpson CEO Carbon Disclosure Project 5

Contents

CEO Foreword Executive Summary

2011 Themes and Highlights

Risk management Operational effectiveness Business opportunity Strategic advantage Commentary: Jack Ehnes, Chief Executive Officer, CalSTRS

Commentary: Douglas J. Kangos, Partner, PwC

2011 Leaders

The 2011 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI)

The 2011 Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI)

Appendix 1: Selected data from the 2011 CDP questionnaire results

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

Executive Summary

s the management of A carbon continues to move into companies’ core business strategies and mainstream investment thinking, demand for primary corporate climate change information grows around the world. Paul Simpson, CEO CDP

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) sent its 2011 questionnaire to the S&P 500 companies on behalf of 551 signatory institutional investors representing $71 trillion of assets. The corporations were asked to measure and disclose their climate change relatedactivities. The responses indicate that US corporations are integrating greenhouse gas (GHG) management into their nearand long-term business strategies.

• 91% (306) of 2011 S&P 500 respondents disclosed GHG emissions, up from 88% (294) in 2010. Responses show a marked improvement in GHG emissions measurement and reporting.

Specifically:

• 72% (242) of the 2011 S&P 500 respondents identified risks and 69% (233) identified opportunities that have the potential to substantively impact business operations. Responses indicate that a growing number of S&P 500 companies see a path forward from risk management and operational effectiveness to significant business opportunities and actionable, longterm strategic advantage.

• 87% (292) of S&P 500 respondents reported board or senior executive oversight of their company’s climate change programs, up from 68% (226) in 2010. With two-thirds of the S&P 500 index participating in this year’s questionnaire, this translates to at least 58% of the index viewing climate change as a mission-critical issue. • 6 5% (219) of respondents reported that climate change issues are integrated into their overall business strategy, up from 35% (116) in 2010. • 5 4% (183) of respondents provided monetary incentives for managing climate change issues, up from 35% (116) in 2010.

• 64% (214) of 2011 respondents disclosed absolute and/or intensity emissions reduction targets, up from 51% (170) in 2010.

• O ver 60% (667) of emissions reduction projects reported by the 2011 S&P 500 respondents have a payback period of three years or less. Companies reported a higher number of opportunities to reduce emissions and those reflect increasingly innovative and creative approaches to GHG emissions reductions.

2011 Themes and Highlights

From risk management to strategic advantage Corporate sustainability efforts evolve over time. This journey is often undertaken initially to address imminent compliance and risk management concerns, such as regulatory, operational or reputational risk. As companies become more sophisticated regarding the business implications of climate change, their efforts often lead to increased efficiency, effectiveness, lower costs, and improved brand image, thereby gaining the attention of senior management. Once these benefits are recognized, many companies begin to consider how sustainability can be

Finding strategic advantage through climate change action

incorporated into the overall business strategy to protect enterprise value and generate strategic advantage. According to the results of the questionnaire, climate change has become an operational, fiscal, and strategic imperative for the S&P 500 companies, resulting in greater senior executive attention and focus. As illustrated in Figure 2, nearly 90% (292) of S&P 500 respondents indicated board or senior management oversight, indicating that climate change is viewed as a strategic imperative. This shift has been triggered by both external and internal factors.

A growing number of companies believe sustainability offers significant first-mover advantages, such as reduced operating costs, improved brand image, and greater market responsiveness. This trend is reflected in the number of companies reporting integration of climate change into their overall business strategies and by those companies reporting monetary and other incentives for meeting certain emissions reduction targets. As shown in Figure 3, 54% (183) reported the use of monetary incentives related to climate change and 65% (219) of respondents reported integrated strategy. This equates to a year over year increase of 85% in respondents reporting integration of climate change into their overall business strategies.

Figure 1: The Sustainability Enterprise Value Continuum: Leading companies are gaining strategic advantage by embedding climate change action throughout their overall business strategies

ition Recogn r o t ves n I and

In cr ea si

lue a eV s i pr r te n E Risk Management

Strategic Advantage

Business Opportunity • Brand Enhancement Operational Effectiveness • Market Leading • Product Innovation • Operational Efficiency • Emissions Reduction • Product Efficiency

• Investor/Public Pressure • Operational Risk • Reputational Risk • Regulatory Compliance

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

S&P 500 leaders gave sustainability boardlevel attention and firmly embedded climate change risks and opportunities into their broader strategies and objectives. Companies that embraced this integrated approach were more likely to establish emissions reduction targets.

Figure 2: S&P 500 respondents reporting board or senior management oversight of climate change

222 (68%) 226 (68%) 292 (87%) 0

100

150

200

250

300

350

Number of companies

 2009  2010  2011

Figure 3: S&P 500 respondents reporting monetary incentives and an integration of climate change into their overall business strategy Monetary incentives

116 (35%) 183 (54%) Integrated strategy

116 (35%) 219 (65%) 0

100

150

200

250

Number of companies

 2010  2011

Figure 4: S&P 500 respondents disclosing GHG emissions and absolute and/or intensity emissions reduction targets Disclose GHG emissions

262 (80%) 294 (88%) 306 (91%) Disclose emissions reduction targets

169 (52%) 170 (51%) 214 (64%) 0

100

150

200

Number of companies

 2009  2010  2011

250

300

350

2011 Themes and Highlights

I. Risk management Companies generally enter the enterprise value continuum from a risk perspective, depending on their industry and sector. The foremost risk is national and international pressure from both governmental and non-governmental organizations to meet new emission and reporting standards. This has occurred despite the lack of political and policy consensus in many countries, including the US. In addition, there are new pressures from investors, customers, banks, insurers, and global business partners to contain GHG emissions. As companies move along the continuum from risk management toward strategic advantage, the results indicate they are becoming conversant in the risks posed by regulation and the physical effects of climate change (see Figure 5). Some emerging risks are more challenging to quantify, such as those relating to reputation and consumer behavior. Policy drivers and the internationalization of risk Multinational companies are exposed to a variety of different policies regulating GHG emissions in markets where they operate. Companies are adjusting business practices across their operations to reflect environmental regulations, cap and trade schemes and carbon taxes that occur by jurisdiction.

• E urope. The European Union (EU) has longstanding mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases. In 2007 EU leaders endorsed an integrated approach to climate and energy policy and committed to transforming Europe into a highly energy-efficient, low carbon economy. They made a unilateral commitment that Europe would cut its emissions by at least 20% of 1990 levels by 2020 through a cap and trade regime. This commitment is being implemented through a package of binding legislation. The EU has also offered to increase its emissions reduction to 30% by 2020, on condition that other major emitting countries in the developed and developing worlds commit to do their fair share under a future global climate agreement. 1 To implement its climate change regulation, the EU operates the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which covers the Utilities sector and most industrial emissions in EU states. The price of carbon allowances in the EU ETS in 2011 has ranged from e11.46 to e20.80, an inherent cost of doing business in the EU to which companies operating there have had to adjust.2

Figure 5: Risks identified by S&P 500 respondents 250

Number of companies

Companies that embraced the integrated approach to climate change were also more likely to disclose both their GHG emissions and emissions reduction targets, reflecting the principle that emissions measurement can result in strategic emissions management. As indicated in Figure 4, 91% (306) of respondents have disclosed their GHG emissions and 64% (214) have disclosed absolute and/or intensity emissions reduction targets.

211 (63%)

200

198 (59%) 136 (40%)

150

72 (21%)

100

0 Regulatory

Physical

Reputation Other and Customer behavior

• Asia-Pacific. China’s new 12th Five Year Plan aims to build sustainable development practices into Chinese industries. The new targets intend to lower energy intensity by 16% over the next five years, to cut CO2 emissions by 17%, and to increase alternative energy use from 8% to 14%.3 1. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm 2. www.theice.com/marketdata/reports/ReportCenter. shtml?reportId=83 3. http://deltabridges.com/news/prd-news/12th-five-year-planhailed-‘greenest-fyp-china’s-history’

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

In July 2011, the Australian government announced a comprehensive plan that includes putting a price on carbon emissions, promoting innovation and investment in renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and creating opportunities in the land sector to cut pollution. Under the plan, Australia estimates that it can cut 159 million tons a year of carbon pollution by 2020.4 Some Australian companies are also mandated to undergo energy efficiency assessments and report publicly on opportunities that exist for projects with a financial payback of up to four years.5 New Zealand recently passed new regulations for emissions trading and India is expected to soon follow suit. • North America. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued interpretative guidance in early 2010 highlighting climate change disclosures that should be considered by registrants. Several federal and local programs already require the reporting of GHG emissions information, including the Environmental Protection Agency’s mandatory GHG reporting rule for large emitters. In addition, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 will require certain facilities in California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative also requires reductions among utilities. Physical risks Businesses face growing risks from the physical impacts of climate change, including the increased intensity and frequency of severe weather events such as prolonged droughts, floods, storms and sea level rise. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the year 2011

already represents the highest damage cost-to-date (US$32 billion) in the US since 1980, the year NOAA began tracking disasters. The April tornadoes in the Midwest alone were responsible for approximately half of the losses and over 500 deaths.6 In general, industrial companies — especially in the Utilities and Energy sectors (see Figure 6) — were most concerned with regulatory and weatherrelated risks. “Climate change may increase either the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, which could affect our operations. The Gulf of Mexico is of particular importance to our industry because two thirds of imported oil enters the country through this region and it houses many of the oil and gas pipelines that move domestic resources from the Outer Continental Shelf to the rest of the country. Chevron has developed a number of risk management mechanisms that are applied to siting and construction of new facilities as well as the operation of existing ones. These mechanisms help reduce our vulnerability to sea level rise, tropical cyclones, water shortages, and other environmental factors.” Chevron “As a food producing company, Sara Lee is heavily dependent on globally sourced agricultural production process inputs. Therefore, Sara Lee is exposed to climate change, on a global scale, to impacts and physical risks that vary from region to region.” Sara Lee Within the services sectors, property and casualty insurers were concerned that climate change could have a profound global impact on insured losses and potentially lead to insurer solvency problems.

“Allstate is engaged in an ongoing evaluation of climate change and natural catastrophes as it relates to Allstate’s future risk exposure and America’s ability to prepare for and manage these catastrophe related risks moving forward. Allstate monitors all significant enterprise risks and opportunities, including those related to climate change on a regular basis, with fluid risk identification processes to reflect a continuously shifting external and internal risk environment.” Allstate Market risk and the risk of inaction Respondents, led by both the Utilities and Consumer Staples sectors, expressed growing concern over reputational risk, value chain risk, and changing patterns in consumer behavior and expectations. Respondents believe failure to craft and execute a credible climate change strategy could create a risk of inaction and turn the sentiments of stakeholders (including investors, civil society groups, customers and employees) against the company (see Figure 6). Many companies are beginning to take a proactive approach to addressing these concerns. Procter & Gamble and WalMart Stores recently announced plans to reduce GHG emissions in their global supply chains. In July 2010, the General Services Administration announced plans to give greater preference to vendors that track and reduce GHG emissions. Similarly, an increasing number of questionnaires and requests for proposal now require potential vendors to provide GHG emissions information, as well as plans for reduction.

4. www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/government-launches-‘cleanenergy-package’/ 5. www.ret.gov.au/energy/efficiency/eeo/about/summary/ 6. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html

2011 Themes and Highlights

Figure 6: Percentage respondents by sector identifying regulatory, physical, reputation and customer behavior risks related to climate change Sector

Regulatory

Physical

Reputation and Customer behavior

Energy

100%

59%

41%

Utilities

100%

84%

56%

Materials

76%

62%

43%

Industrials

75%

55%

28%

Information Technology

59%

49%

42%

Financials

58%

69%

37%

Consumer Discretionary

53%

55%

43%

Consumer Staples

49%

62%

49%

Health Care

39%

48%

36%

Telecommunication Services

33%

17%

All sectors

63%

59%

40%

“Brand reputation extends beyond customer perception to retention of internal constituents and appeal to potential investors. As climate change awareness increases and consumer behaviors change accordingly, demand for low carbon products will increase as will the backlash against products and their manufacturers perceived to have a negative impact on the environment. This can also negatively impact a company’s ability to attract and retain investors and employees.” Life Technologies

We consider our reputation to act with integrity and accountability and operate responsibly and sustainably to be very important to our business and our customers. The potential financial implications of this risk extend from the ability to access markets to retaining customers to being able to operate within countries and communities. Negative changes in reputation are known to affect brand value. In 2010, Interbrand placed HP’s brand value at US$26.9 billion.” Hewlett-Packard

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

nergy costs represent a E significant component of the S&P 500 respondents’ operational spend, making efficiency and effectiveness an ongoing area of focus at the board and management level.

II. Energy efficiency and operational effectiveness Rising energy prices are expected to impact S&P 500 companies for the foreseeable future. Emerging markets now account for more than half of world demand for oil. In June, the International Energy Agency raised its five-year oil price forecast by US$19 a barrel, citing that oil demand will increase more than previously expected in a supply-constrained market.7 In addition to these higher cost inputs, S&P 500 companies realize that higher energy prices will continue to pinch household discretionary incomes.

Opportunities for reduced costs and increased margins have encouraged S&P 500 companies to move along the enterprise value continuum from risk management toward a greater emphasis on energy efficiency and operational effectiveness. As shown in Figure 7, energy costs represent a significant component of the S&P 500 respondents’ operational spend, making efficiency and effectiveness an ongoing area of focus at the board and management level. To reduce this overhead, S&P 500 companies have been examining their energy or carbon footprints across their global value chains, including how suppliers, internal operations, and consumers use the company’s products and services.

Figure 7: Energy costs as a percentage of operational spend disclosed by S&P 500 respondents 8 Utilities

24% Materials

14% Financials

10% Energy

8% Information Technology

8% Consumer Staples

5% Health Care

5% Consumer Discretionary

5% 7. www.marketwatch.com/story/iea-raises-five-year-oil-priceforecast-by-19brl-2011-06-16 8. Energy costs as a percentage of operational spend per the 2011 CDP Information Request is defined as the amount a company spends for energy to operate the company within its organizational boundary as a percentage of total operational spend.

Industrials

5% Telecommunication Services

3% 0%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2011 Themes and Highlights

Over 67% (226) of respondents indicated a variety of reduction activities, with 60% (667) realizing a payback period for increased energy and operational efficiency to be three years or less (see Figure 8). Most respondents report multiple projects in each category which resulted in over 1,000 total projects disclosed. The colors of the bars in the figure portray the percentage of projects reported that fall into each payback category.

“UPS uses more than 95,000 ground vehicles, more than 200 aircraft, and the services of many other transportation companies. Therefore, reducing fuel and energy consumption and implementing low carbon fuels is a business imperative. In 2010, routing technology provided savings of 63.5 million miles or 6.3 million gallons of fuel. The initiative applies to the U.S. Package Delivery Vehicles and reduces Scope 1 emissions (fuel). Idle time reduction saved 103,000 gallons of fuel.” UPS

Figure 8: Emissions reduction activities and payback periods disclosed by S&P 500 respondents Efficient building services

21%

44%

36%

Efficient processes

Behavioral change

Transportation: fleet

Low carbon energy installation

Efficient building fabric

Transportation: use

Process emissions reductions

Low carbon energy purchase

Product design

Fugitive emissions reductions

Other

 <1 year (% responses)  1-3 years (% responses)  >3 years (% responses)

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

o reduce energy costs, T S&P 500 companies have been examining their energy or carbon footprints across their global value chains, including how suppliers, internal operations, and consumers use the company’s products and services.

“All of GE’s industrial businesses conducted emissions reduction projects during 2010. 238 projects were completed that saved just over US$7 million with an overall payback period of 1.47 years. An additional 75 projects were identified but are still being explored. The types of projects that were completed ranged from new technologies, to enhancing the efficiency of existing equipment, to engaging employees in energy conservation efforts. Discrete projects included implementing alternative sources of fuel, upgrading or closing buildings, improving electrical distribution efficiency, implementing heat recovery solutions, optimizing industrial gas use, enhancing steam system recovery efforts, installing solar panels, and driving employee engagement and awareness efforts, among many others.” General Electric “Marriott set an aggressive goal in 2007 to reduce energy and water consumption by 25% per available room from 2007 levels by 2017. Since that time, Marriott has implemented linen and towel reuse practices; replaced more than 28,000 PTAC guestroom air conditioning units for a 20% reduction in energy use; replaced more than 1,700 heat pumps with units that are 16% more energy efficient; and installed over 18,000 electronic digital thermostats with motion detection, yielding another 15% in energy use improvement. We also adopted new standards for roof replacements in our full-service hotels that call for extra insulation, thus reducing roof thermal load by at least 25% when a new roof is installed and replaced 450,000 light bulbs with fluorescent lighting.” Marriott International

“In 2009, Praxair voluntarily started collecting environmental key performance indicators (EKPIs) being saved in productivity projects. In 2010, some 8% of projects were tagged “sustainable development” resulting in savings of US$32.9 million, including 278,000 metric tonnes CO2-e (Scopes 1 & 2 GHG savings). Going forward, this process will be embedded in our productivity organization and environmental targets, including Scopes 1 & 2 (direct GHG and energy) reduction targets, established for each business and overall. In addition to reporting these savings, we feel this information will start to add real value in the short and long term as we look for new ways to reduce costs and improve our environmental impact. Moreover, no additional investment was required as this work was accomplished with existing resources.” Praxair “Our underground refrigerated storage facility is built into the natural limestone caves at Springfield, Missouri. Not only do the naturally cool caves require 65% less energy than conventional storage facilities, their large size and central location enable us to consolidate inventory and transport our products to our customers more efficiently. That’s an annual savings of 680,000 liters (180,000 gallons) of fuel, 1,800 metric tonnes (4 million pounds) of carbon dioxide emissions and more than 1.6 million kilometers (one million miles) of truck travel.” Kraft Foods

2011 Themes and Highlights

Commentary Jack Ehnes, CEO, CalSTRS Today, climate risk management remains one of the signature issues in CalSTRS corporate governance program. We work hard to improve our portfolio companies’ climate risk awareness and management. Our partnership with CDP remains essential to the CalSTRS corporate governance engagement efforts that seek to boost long-term shareholder value.

CalSTRS was one of the first public pension funds in North America to support the efforts of the Carbon Disclosure Project. We recognized the growing risk to our investment portfolio that carbon emissions presented and we realized that managing carbon risk needed to be one of the top priorities of our corporate governance program. We believed that the CDP survey presented an ideal means for us to gauge which companies were and were not paying attention to carbon risk.

We depend on data from CDP surveys to evaluate which companies are and are not adequately disclosing the steps being taken to mitigate climate risk. Earlier this year, to further support the efforts of the CDP, CalSTRS sent letters to all U.S. companies that did not respond to last year’s questionnaire, encouraging them to participate this year. We began dialogues with many of these companies and advised them of the importance of climate risk management and requested that they reconsider their decision to not respond. CalSTRS supports the growing use of climate-related shareholder resolutions. We strongly believe this is an important tool for investors to use as an engagement strategy, and here again, CDP data is essential to the development and execution of CalSTRS shareholder resolutions.

For the past several years, CalSTRS has filed resolutions at portfolio companies that did not respond to the CDP questionnaire. These proposals asked companies to improve their level of disclosure on their carbon emissions exposure. In today’s economic environment, there is strategic advantage to addressing climate risk. Complying with CDP initiatives implies you proactively deal with risk factors and that can lead to benefits for both corporations and institutional investors. Companies that measure their carbon emission exposure are better positioned to respond to changing regulatory requirements and to take advantage of efficiency opportunities that can increase shareholder value. Green is a good brand and it appeals to a new generation of sophisticated investors. Institutional investors look for opportunities to remind companies to recognize and report their climate risks and liabilities. Working together we can lead the way as addressing the challenges of climate change becomes ever more critical to sustainable investment growth. On behalf of CalSTRS, I thank the CDP for the work that went into producing the 2011 S&P 500 report.

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

Figure 9: Opportunities identified by S&P 500 respondents 250

210 (62%)

Number of companies

200

145 (43%)

150

159 (47%)

100

46 (14%)

0 Regulatory

Physical

Reputation Other and Customer behavior

III. Business opportunity Many S&P 500 companies have already examined how they might deliver new products and services to meet customer concerns regarding regulatory and physical risks from climate change (see Figure 9). These opportunities are related to carbon and energy taxes, cap and trade, and increased business from mandated activities. New Demands As regulation continues to emerge, leading companies also see this as an opportunity to surpass the competition in handling the new requirements and standing out as a true leader in carbon performance. Nearly 50% (159) of S&P 500 respondents also indicated reputational and customer behavior opportunities from the impact associated with positive perceptions of a company’s carbon performance and changing consumer preferences for more environmentally friendly products and services. “To the extent that the government implements any of the well-publicized cap and trade schemes, we will likely have an advantage over our competition. A cap and trade scheme would introduce incentives to reduce carbon emissions from operations to earn a financial instrument or carbon offset credit. These carbon offsets, once earned, will have a positive economic value that Dean can hold as an asset or sell for revenue as the price of carbon changes. Also, because we have operations in Europe and the United States, the potential to generate offset credits from internal projects to meet any future regulatory obligations is a unique and distinct advantage.” Dean Foods “We operate an active carbon market services business that provides risk management, market access and liquidity, and structured finance to a

variety of corporate clients looking to reduce carbon emissions or manage their carbon exposure within the context of mandatory cap and trade schemes. Our Global Carbon Markets business is a top liquidity provider in the EU ETS, the world’s largest carbon market; which accounts for 80% of the value transacted in the global carbon markets and is also an active deal originator in the carbon credits (offsets) segment of the market. To date, we have transacted more than one billion metric tons in the EU ETS. We also participate in the developing carbon markets in California. As individual countries and regions explore the potential for introducing cap and trade schemes, we have the opportunity to advise on how these might be structured, work with clients to take advantage of these new markets; and develop trading and risk management-related solutions for supporting client activity.” Bank of America “Any tax that puts a price on carbon could drive new markets and/or grow existing ones. However to grow new markets, the cost on carbon would be key. In order to stimulate interest in our CO2 capture technologies, which also require large amounts of oxygen, the carbon price would need to be set high enough to make carbon capture sequestration economical. Carbon taxes could also grow existing markets.” Air Products & Chemicals Marketplace impact Greater climate change responsiveness was also perceived as providing favorable reputational and marketplace impact. A proactive stance was viewed as offering long-term growth opportunities, appearing more innovative and attractive to customers and providers of capital, and helping companies to attract and retain premier current and future employees. As indicated in Figure 10, perceptions of these opportunities vary by sector, industry, and company.

2011 Themes and Highlights

Companies are increasingly capitalizing on these opportunities to generate revenues while also reducing the impact of their products on the environment. “We view the opportunities presented by emissions reporting obligations and voluntary agreements as a way to demonstrate Campbell’s executional leadership among our peers. We also see these as opportunities to demonstrate our leadership and transparency with stakeholders that include our customers, suppliers, consumers, and policymakers. In order to manage these opportunities we seek to work with our suppliers and take advantage of efficiencies that either they implement or we implement in our transportation and logistics systems. We have also instituted a smart way certification requirement for our shippers and have recently launched a sustainability scorecard across our North American logistics network.” Campbell Soup “Increasing consumer demand for environmentally friendly products and services has led Best Buy to provide new energy efficient products and a means to recycle old products. We helped our U.S. Best Buy customers purchase over 22 million ENERGY STAR® qualified products in calendar year 2010 and encouraged our vendors to participate in the ENERGY STAR program. In calendar 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that our sales of these products resulted in customer savings of 1.12 billion kilowatt hours of energy, generating over US$120 million in electric utility bill savings, while preventing over 1.7 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.” Best Buy

Figure 10: Percentage respondents by sector identifying regulatory, physical, reputation and customer behavior opportunities related to climate change Sector

Regulatory

Physical

Reputation and Customer behavior

Utilities

96%

68%

60%

Energy

82%

29%

41%

Materials

81%

48%

43%

Industrials

75%

58%

Financials

62%

48%

52%

Information Technology

61%

34%

51%

Consumer Staples

54%

51%

Consumer Discretionary

51%

32%

43%

Telecommunication Services

50%

33%

17%

Health Care

30%

24%

All sectors

62%

43%

47%

“We are utilizing a number of methods to highlight the potential fuel economy and cost benefits of our transportation products. In 2010, Alcoa Wheel and Transportation Products released an updated version of its online tool called “Calcu-Lighter”; which helps truck fleets and owners instantly calculate their potential fuel and GHG savings and return on investment when comparing wheel options. New Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and GHG emissions standards could potentially double the demand for our transportation products by 2015.” Alcoa

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

Toward strategic advantage The ability to achieve strategic advantage through climate change action is no doubt a work in progress for most, if not all, companies, even those recognized as leaders in the CDP questionnaire results. Most of the leaders are global or regional companies with superior management and the financial strength to plan beyond quarterly results. On the other hand, similar types of companies in the same industries have adapted at a slower rate. What separates the leaders? To a large extent, it appears to be a matter of perspective and vision. Leaders see managing GHG emissions as meeting a broad array of business challenges and opportunities, now and into the future. Yet others may only see the business case — if at all — as little more than prudent risk management. This difference in perspective matters a great deal. The more relevant, reliable, and timely a company’s carbon reporting data, the easier it is for management to distill enterprise value from it. The firms that are in possession of such data appear to be using it to achieve cost savings, risk mitigation, brand enhancement, and new product development. By reducing their environmental impact, some companies are also reducing the need for future remediation, regulation and litigation. That has a savings component as well.

A lack of high-quality sustainability data, however, can have the opposite effect. Boards and management with incomplete data are hampered in their ability to respond to regulator and investor demands for information. Squeezing out waste and costs becomes more difficult, leading to a competitive disadvantage. Finally, management is unprepared to research, develop, and market the type of energy efficient products that the market is demanding — not just domestically, but worldwide. Investor recognition An important strategic opportunity cited by respondents is the chance to shape investor perceptions regarding the company’s sustainability posture. They believe investors are increasingly conscious of how the environmental efficiency of an organization may have a financial impact on future corporate earnings, and are looking at both potential risks and opportunities from a long-term investment perspective. Respondents also noted that investors tend to view a company’s sustainability and climate change performance as a proxy for the overall quality of a company’s management and the company’s risk and opportunity management systems. “We acknowledge the increasing evidence of linkages between share value and environmental performance. As we grow, we believe that our environmental sustainability commitments will become of increasing interest to our shareholders and other stakeholders and that ultimately a failure to effectively respond could negatively impact our share value.” Gilead Sciences

“We believe global climate change will likely have significant long-term financial implications, although impact will vary both across and within economic sectors and geographic regions. Companies that anticipate these developments with stronger environmental business practices will have greater returns of shareholder capital over the long term as compared to peers that are not prepared for climate change actions. State Street and SSgA have joined with their clients and industry peers to raise awareness over the investment implications of global climate change.” State Street These investor recognition issues were recently borne out by the 2010-11 Institutional Shareholder Services Policy Survey.9 83% of investors said that environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors could have a significant impact on long-term shareholder value and 97% said board oversight of exposure to ESG risks was important to consider in proxy voting decisions. Companies that understand the advantages are making strides to improve the quality of their sustainability data and also to subject the data to independent, third-party verification and assurance. This approach ultimately serves the longterm interests of investors who want to invest in companies concerned about sustainability and that are building strategic advantage through development of next-generation processes and products.

9. www.issgovernance.com/files/ISS2010-2011_ PolicySurveyResults.pdf

2011 Themes and Highlights

Commentary Douglas J. Kangos, Partner, PwC blank certain fields, such as emissions data. Upon further examination it appeared that these companies simply didn’t have the information to respond effectively. The S&P 500 2011 CDP leaders, however, had plenty of high-quality data available because, fundamentally, they saw the issue differently. They use sustainability to differentiate themselves in the same way they approach brand quality, product quality, service quality, market share, and so on.

Sustainability as competitive advantage The CDP information request is designed to give S&P 500 companies an opportunity to explain their sustainability performance to investor signatories and the public across a broad range of areas, such as in strategy, governance, and GHG emissions management. The S&P 500 companies that scored the best in the 2011 CDP questionnaire provided responses that revealed possession of superior GHG emissions information and strong understanding of the impact of climate change on their companies. But in many cases we found the silences just as revealing as the actual responses provided. The companies that scored poorly tended to leave

Leaders viewed climate change as a business imperative and responded accordingly. They put in place programs, processes, procedures and controls to generate higher, boardlevel intelligence necessary to base resource allocation decisions. And they put the right people in charge, incentivized them monetarily, and insisted on actionable business plans that could be integrated into their overall strategies. The lesson we gleaned from all the data was a simple one. Whether it’s cutting costs and waste, producing new revenues, meeting current and future regulatory requirements in an efficient manner, or responding to investor questions, senior executives must have high-quality data in order to plan and execute accordingly. The responses of the S&P 500’s 2011 CDP leaders showed some striking differences from the rest of the pack. Leaders exhibited a

thorough integration of managing GHG emissions and increasing shareholder value. Their responses cited specific examples in which they used their superior data and greenproduct experience to widen the gap with competitors. Some leaders indicated they were moving beyond mere differences in operational spend, market share and first-mover advantage to establish substantive barriers to entry. Stepping back and assessing the S&P 500 results of the 2011 CDP information request provided an interesting perspective. While each company’s approach to the effects of climate change on their business was unique, it was in the actions of the leaders where we found the greatest similarities. The leaders possessed higher quality GHG emissions data that they freely shared with investors and other stakeholders. They also had firmly embedded the lens of climate change within the operations of their organizations. But, perhaps most importantly, senior executives drove the efforts by establishing and holding their organizations to both absolute and emissions intensity goals. The S&P 500’s 2011 CDP leaders are now distancing themselves from the rest. The expanding GHG regulations across the globe are seen as an opportunity — rather than as a threat — to further secure their leadership positions and build market share.

2011 Leaders

Carbon Disclosure and Performance The Carbon Disclosure Project requires companies to measure and report: 1. Carbon emissions 2. Integration of climate change into their business strategy, and 3. Perception of climate change risks and opportunities.

Disclosure scores • 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

Performance bands • Where a company’s disclosure score is 50 or more, its performance in contributing to climate change mitigation, adaptation and transparency is assessed and ranked in a performance band

Disclosure and performance are assessed solely on the company’s CDP response. Companies’ disclosure scores have been reviewed and analyzed for the above elements for a number of years. This is the second year that performance has been assessed.

• Scores are plotted over a 100-point normalized scale

• For 2011 there are six performance bands (there were four bands in 2010)

• Companies are assessed based on their level of disclosure of carbon emissions measurement techniques and subsequent public disclosure

• Companies with the highest performance bands that meet additional CPLI criteria are listed in the CPLI

More information on the CDLI and CPLI can be found in the information request, supporting methodology and guidance documents at www.cdproject.net

• Companies with the highest disclosure scores are listed in the CDLI

Figure 11: Carbon disclosure score elements Generally, companies scoring within a particular range suggest levels of commitment to, and experience of, carbon disclosure. The indicative description of each level is provided at right for guidance only; investors should read individual company responses to understand the context for each business.

Low (<50)

Midrange (50-70)

High (>70)

Limited or restricted ability to measure and disclose climate related risks, opportunities and overall carbon emissions

Increased understanding and measurement of company-specific risks and opportunities related to climate change

Senior management understands the business issues related to climate change and building climate related risks and opportunities into core business

Disclosure score (Max. 100)

Finding strategic advantage through climate change action

The 2011 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) The CDLI includes the companies with the highest carbon disclosure scores and provides a valuable perspective on the range and quality of responses to CDP’s questionnaire. This year’s Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (see Figure 12) includes the top-scoring 10% of S&P 500 companies: 55 in total.10 To qualify for this leadership index, a company must respond to CDP using the Online Response System prior to the deadline and make its response available for public use. The average CDLI score in 2011 is 88, up from 86 in 2010 and 82 in 2009. This indicates that the quality and depth of

responses continues to improve despite the bar being raised every year through the CDP questionnaire. The distribution of CDLI companies is spread across a variety of sectors, confirming the view that high quality disclosure is possible regardless of sector. Numerous companies have consistently achieved leadership over the years including 20 companies who have been carbon disclosure leaders for at least three consecutive years. The best-represented sectors in the CDLI are Financials (11 companies) and Consumer Staples (nine companies), which is consistent with the 2010 CDLI (nine for Consumer Staples and eight for Financials).

Figure 12: 2011 S&P 500 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index 11 Sector

Company name

Consumer Discretionary

News Corporation* Carnival* Tiffany & Co. Johnson Controls Wyndham Worldwide PepsiCo Dean Foods* Clorox Kraft Foods Molson Coors Brewing Kellogg Company Wal-Mart Stores* Brown-Forman Philip Morris International Spectra Energy* Hess* Chevron* Bank of America Simon Property Group Allstate NYSE Euronext Marsh & McLennan

Consumer Staples

Energy

Financials

2011 Carbon disclosure score 93 88 85 83 83 90 89 87 86 86 85 85 84 83 96 91 87 97 96 89 89 88

2010 Carbon disclosure score 94 80 72 87 71 91 73 91 83 67 86 83 87 94 90 80 85 78 75 80 50

10. This is based on total S&P 500 companies. The top-scoring 10% includes tied scores. 11. An asterisk indicates companies that have been carbon disclosure leaders for at least three consecutive years.

“ The company has set a quantitative goal to mitigate our impact on climate change by reducing, offsetting, or displacing regional GHG emissions by 4.4 million metric tons. Since 2005, Con Edison and its subsidiaries have reduced Scope 1 direct emissions by 2.1 million metric tons (35% of total baseline 2005 emissions). Building on these early successes, Con Edison of New York and Orange and Rockland Utilities will also be working to reduce customer emissions through energy efficiency, distributed generation, and clean energy alternatives.” Consolidated Edison

Continued overleaf.

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

“ Dow has committed to invest US$100 million to reduce energy usage and GHG emissions. ... As defined in Dow’s Energy and Climate vision, the current long term target is that Scope 1 and Scope 2 Kyoto GHG emissions will not exceed 1990 levels through 2025. The strategy is to grow the company while not increasing GHG emissions.”

Sector

Company name

Financials

Comerica* Morgan Stanley State Street Goldman Sachs ProLogis Hartford Financial Services* Gilead Sciences Allergan* UPS Boeing* Lockheed Martin Eaton CSX Ryder System Cisco Systems* Google EMC* Salesforce.com Hewlett-Packard IBM* Dow Chemical Praxair* Air Products & Chemicals* Ecolab Alcoa Newmont Mining Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Consolidated Edison* Xcel Energy* PG&E * Sempra Energy Entergy Pepco Holdings*

Health Care Industrials

Information Technology

Dow Chemical Materials

Utilities

2011 Carbon disclosure score 87 87 84 83 83 83 95 83 99 92 90 87 85 83 98 89 88 85 84 83 95 93 92 91 88 88 87

2010 Carbon disclosure score 92 85 81 62 80 82 83 80 78 86 76 78 91 68 92 44 82 66 85 80 93 81 84 77 87 60

96 89 87 87 85 84

96 89 90 62 76 87

The 2011 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI)

The S&P 500 respondents showed a strong overall improvement in the area of carbon disclosure. In 2011, almost 23% (77) of total respondents scored 80 or greater compared to 16% (53) in 2010. This trend shows more clearly than ever before that S&P 500 companies are analyzing and understanding the impact of climate change on their businesses. As the overall quality of emissions disclosure has improved in 2011, the leaders (CDLI) have demonstrated a much more mature understanding of the impact of climate change. This appears to be driven by taking a strategic

approach with executive governance to identify meaningful risks and opportunities related to climate change. In 2011, disclosure leaders scored an average of 82 on the opportunity section of the questionnaire and 85 on the risk section compared to 46 and 55 scored by the overall S&P 500 respondents, respectively (see Figure 13). The CDLI companies also consistently outperformed the overall S&P respondents in areas such as managing and reporting emissions data and effectively communicating this information to stakeholders.

Figure 13: Carbon disclosure average score breakdown for the S&P 500 overall versus S&P 500 CDLI

â&#x20AC;&#x153; Morgan Stanleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initial goal was to reduce emissions from our largest office buildings by 10% between 2006 and 2012. The firm achieved this goal early and established a new goal. Our new goal is to reduce emissions by 15% in all office buildings by 2013. This is calculated on a per square foot basis.â&#x20AC;? Morgan Stanley

100 90

Average disclosure score

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Emissions management

Emissions reporting

Governance & strategy

Opportunities

Risks

Stakeholder engagement

J Overall S&P 500 J S&P 500 CDLI

The 2011 Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI ) In 2011, there are 11 leaders from a range of sectors which represent six of the 10 sectors. The average performance score for CPLI companies was 80, while the average performance score for the S&P companies that qualified to receive a score was 39. Both of these scores are down from 2010, when CPLI companies had an average performance score of 85 and S&P companies qualifying to receive a performance score had an average score of 47. In recent years, there has been a consistent trend that S&P 500 senior executives are increasingly engaged and want to have accurate and relevant information to make informed decisions about their companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response to

climate change. In response, CDP has raised the bar by enhancing the questionnaire and scoring methodology for both disclosure and performance questions to make the scoring results more relevant to investors. This yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s data showed clear improvements to prior year disclosure scores for S&P companies. As companies continue to improve disclosure scores, performance improvements are also recognized, but at a lesser rate. When performance was introduced in 2009 as a pilot, the focus was to measure the extent to which a company had a framework in place to address climate change impacts. This year, performance focused on measuring the quality and status of a companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

short- and long-term actions to mitigate climate change. As a result of this higher and more relevant standard, fewer companies earned a place on the CPLI in 2011 as compared to 2010. Performance improvements tend to take longer to achieve. They generally follow improvements in information gathering and analysis that first lead to an increase in disclosure scores. As companies measure, they can manage and then begin to perform and optimize results. Given the natural progression of performance lagging behind disclosure, the expectation is that companies will continue to improve over the coming years.

Figure 14: 2011 S&P 500 Carbon Performance Leadership Index12 Sector

Company names

Consumer Staples Clorox Molson Coors Brewing Financials Bank of America* Morgan Stanley Industrials CSX* Lockheed Martin Information Cisco Systems* Technology Materials Air Products & Chemicals Alcoa Ecolab Utilities Consolidated Edison*

2011 Performance Band A A

2010 Performance Band C C

A A A A A

A B A B A

A A A

B B A

12. Carbon performance scores were first introduced by CDP in 2010 (with a pilot in 2009). An asterisk indicates companies that have been carbon performance leaders for at least two consecutive years.

The 2011 Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI)

This year, for the second time, 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 can be assumed that companies which do not disclose are inactive on climate change. Performance is grouped into six bands: A, A-, B, C, D and E (see Figure 15).

Notes: • Band A- (A minus) companies are not in the CPLI. They are strong performers, with a performance score high enough to warrant inclusion in the CPLI but they do not meet all other CPLI requirements • CDP reserves the right to exclude a company from the CPLI if there is anything in its response that calls into question its suitability for inclusion

• 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 action It is possible to review individual company disclosures in addition to performance rankings in order to gain the most comprehensive understanding of company performance. A listing of companies and their bands is included in Appendix 2. Companies that did not qualify for a performance band appear in Appendix 2 with a dash (-) in the performance band column.

• Attain a disclosure score of 50 or above

• A measure of how low carbon a company is

• Attain a performance score greater than 70

Figure 15: Carbon performance elements

• Score maximum performance points on question 13.1a (absolute emissions performance); at least a 2.65%13 reduction in carbon emissions must have been achieved as a result of emissions reduction activities over the last year • Disclose gross global Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures • Score maximum performance points for verification of Scope 1 and Scope 2

Performance band (A is highest)

Eligibility for the CPLI (Band A)

Performance 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:

The Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) includes the companies in the highest performance band (A) and provides a valuable perspective on the range and quality of activities being performed by the S&P 500 in response to climate change.

More information can be found in the information request, supporting methodology and guidance documents, as well as within individual company responses at www.cdproject.net

Band A/A- (>70) Fully integrated climate change strategy driving significant maturity in climate change initiatives Band B (>50) Integration of climate change recognized as priority for strategy, not all initiatives fully established Band C (>30) Some activity on climate change with varied levels of integration of those initiatives into strategy Band D (>15) Limited evidence of mitigation or adaptation initiatives and no/limited strategy on climate change Band E (≤15) Little evidence of initiatives on carbon management potentially due to companies just beginning to take action on climate change No performance score allocated below a disclosure of 50%

13. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has set a target of 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, based on 1990 levels. This equates to a 2.65% annual reduction.

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

CPLI leaders tended to exhibit a comprehensive approach to climate change action in four key areas.

• Strategy: Companies scoring highly in this area were most likely to demonstrate integration of their climate-related priorities into their overall business strategy. They frequently disclose targets aligned with those ambitions and emission reduction initiatives. • Governance: Companies scoring highly in this area were most likely to demonstrate the most structured and most defined climate change management mechanisms by frequently reporting formalized accountability, incentives and oversight from the board or executive level.

• Stakeholder communications: Companies scoring highly in this area were most likely to recognize the importance of providing transparent and quality disclosures for their stakeholders by taking steps to verify data and report climate-related information in their external communications. • Achievements: In support of their commitment to reduce emissions, these companies disclose the highest number of actions taken to reduce their emissions, and most report success in achieving emissions reduction.

Figure 16: Key indicators of performance leaders vs. all S&P 500 respondents Performance scorecard Sample Size Strategy

S&P 500 CPLI 11

S&P 500

Integration of climate change risks or opportunities into overall business strategy Implementation of absolute or intensity emissions reduction targets

100%

65%

100%

64%

Board or executive-level oversight Monetary incentives Stakeholder Communications Assurance or verification of emissions Disclosure of climate change information in mainstream filings or other regulatory filings Achievements Progress towards meeting targets Absolute or intensity emissions reduction in the past year from climate change initiatives

100%

87%

100%

54%

100%

20%

91%

19%

91%

57%

100%

32%

337

Governance

Appendix 1: Selected data from the 2011 CDP questionnaire results Figure 17: Year-over-year disclosure for S&P 500 respondents14 Responded

339 (68%) 350 (70%) 332 (66%) Disclose GHG emissions

306 (61%) 294 (59%) 262 (52%) Board or executive-level oversight

292 (58%) 226 (45%) 222 (44%) Disclose absolute and/or intensity emissions reduction targets

214 (43%) 170 (34%) 169 (34%) Rewarding climate change progress

214 (43%) 167 (33%) 115 (23%)

14. The percentages in the figure are based on the percentage of S&P 500 companies. The counts and percentages for “Responded” are based on the data disclosed at the time of printing. Data for other indicators are based on responses received by July 1, 2011.

Assurance and/or verification of emissions

69 (14%) 116 (23%) 132 (26%) 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

The counts and percentages for “Assurance and/or verification of emissions” are based on companies that have met CDP’s criteria for assurance/verification. For the 2011 questionnaire, CDP has applied a stricter scoring methodology for assurance/verification compared to the prior years shown in the figure.

Percentage of S&P 500

 2011  2010  2009

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

Figure 18: Absolute and intensity emissions reductions targets disclosed by S&P 500 respondents Information Technology

Consumer Staples

Industrials

Consumer Discretionary

Financials

Health Care

Utilities

Materials

Energy

Telecommunications Services

1 1 0

Number of Companies

 Intensity  Absolute  Absolute and Intensity

Figure 19: Largest non-respondents by market capitalization in 201115

15. Based on market capitalization data available from Thomson Reuters as of May 31, 2011

Company Apple Inc. Amazon.com Berkshire Hathaway Comcast Honeywell International DIRECTV Group Express Scripts National Oilwell Varco EOG Resources General Dynamics

Sector Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Financials Consumer Discretionary Industrials Consumer Discretionary Health Care Energy Energy Industrials

Appendix 1: Selected data from the 2011 CDP questionnaire results

Figure 20: Scope 1 and Scope 2 total reported emissions by S&P 500 respondents16 Scope 1: 1.63 billion t CO2-e

Scope 2: 0.29 billion t CO2-e

16%

10%

4% 6% 3%

11%

21% 60%

25% 7%

J Telecommunication Services J Financials J Health Care

17% Telecommunication Services Financials Information Technology Health Care Consumer Discreationary Consumer Staples Industrials Materials Energy Utilities

J Information Technology

J Consumer Discretionary

J Consumer Staples

J Industrials J Materials J Energy J Utilities N.B.: Excludes sectors below 3%

Figure 21: Progress toward absolute or intensity targets reported by S&P 500 respondents17

% Emissions reduction target acheived

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

16. Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions are terms used under the GHG Protocol. For a full description, see GHG Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, available at: www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf.

17. The sizes of the bubbles are based on number of targets identified by S&P respondents. The % reductions achieved by respondents was rounded to the nearest 20%.

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Average % time elapsed for targets

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

Target(s) Implemented

C C

Verification/Assurance3

Carbon performance band

76 72

Scope 3 source type

Carbon disclosure score

AQ AQ

6,250,000 1,609,000

4,300,000 838,000

1,950,000 771,000

1,338,000

Abercrombie & Fitch Consumer Discretionary Ace Ltd Financials Adobe Systems Information Technology Advanced Micro Information Devices Technology AES Corporation Utilities Aetna Health Care Aflac Financials Agilent Technologies Information Technology Air Products & Materials Chemicals Airgas Materials AK Steel Holding Materials Akamai Information Technologies Technology Alcoa Materials

129,667

7,487

122,180

6,275

TI Wa Tr EC Ld Tr

AQ AQ

78 73

B C

56,406 30,710

14,741 3,642

41,665 27,068

10,213 43,864

Tr Tr Lu

† ¢

Int Int

167,011

26,594

140,417

286,884

Tr EC TSP SE

†

Abs Int

AQ AQ AQ AQ

AQ AQ AQ AQ(L)

33 60 66 68

E E C

61,801 27,721 125,472

7,317 4,352 10,700

54,484 23,369 114,772

16,596

Tr ^

† † †

Abs

23,691,275

14,366,791

9,324,484

97,169

Tr TSP

✓

Int

NR NR AQ

73,057

199

72,858

66,034

TI Tr Lu

†

Int

44,527,155

1,942,918

PGS

✓ Abs Int

Allegheny Energy Allegheny Technologies Allergan

Utilities Materials

NR IN

AQ AQ

Health Care

Financials Information Technology Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Utilities

AQ AQ

89 44

C -

AQ NR

AQ DP

C -

Utilities

Financials

Telecommunication Services

Allstate Altera Altria Group Amazon.com Ameren American Electric Power American Express American International Group American Tower

Non-Public

Scope 3

2010 Response status

AQ AQ

Scope 2

2011 Response status1

Industrials Health Care

Scope 1

Sector

3M Abbott Laboratories

Total Emissions2

Company

Please refer to the key at the end of Appendix 2 for further explanation of the abbreviations used.

† Int ✓ Abs †

29,517,734 15,009,421

NP 95,299

42,674

52,625

15,296

TI Tr

218,978

35,504

183,474

33,543

Tr Oth

✓ Abs Int †

524,631

273,437

251,194

41,799

PGS Tr

†

67,068,709

138,294,800 138,294,800

1,634,883

221,851

32,504

189,347

38,143

PGS Fu TI Tr Tr

144,379

5,820

138,560

8,954

Tr EC

Abs

✓ Abs † Abs ✓ Abs † †

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Scope 3 source type

Verification/Assurance3

Target(s) Implemented

293,997

36,340

†

Abs

8,770,874

7,872,285

898,589

13,536 10,900,000

3,144 9,860,000

10,392 1,040,000

22,279

¢ Abs †

179,000

30,000

149,000

36,863

†

8,903,473

1,105,251

7,798,222

63,209

Tr ^

†

6,253

990

5,263

39,970

PGS Tr EC Lu Oth

†

173,000

18,000

155,000

C D D

558,256 178,281 600,000

173,779 75,047 300,000

384,477 103,234 300,000

7,678 116,600

Tr Tr

68 97

E A

1,306,014 1,872,213

356,071 119,760

949,943 1,752,453

1,052,130

211,570

9,474

202,096

26,827

TI Wa Tr EC Tr

NR DP AQ NR

AQ AQ

70 49

C -

AQ AQ NR

43 65

D -

AQ AQ

AQ(L) AQ

33 72

Automatic Data Processing AutoNation

Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Financials

Industrials Consumer Staples Energy

AQ AQ AQ

79 63 67

Ball Bank of America

Materials Financials

AQ AQ

Bank of New York Mellon

Financials

Sector

NR NR AQ NR

Company

Financials Health Care Health Care Information Technology Anadarko Petroleum Energy Analog Devices Information Technology Aon Financials Apache Energy Apartment Financials Investment and Management Apollo Group Consumer Discretionary Apple Inc. Information Technology Applied Materials Information Technology Archer Daniels Consumer Staples Midland Assurant Financials AT&T Telecommunication Services Autodesk Information Technology

Ameriprise Financial AmerisourceBergen Amgen Amphenol

AutoZone AvalonBay Communities Avery Dennison Avon Products Baker Hughes

Non-Public

136,986

2010 Response status

430,983

2011 Response status1

Total Emissions2

Carbon performance band

Carbon disclosure score

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

E -

†

Abs

Int

†

† †

Int Abs ✓ Int † Int ✓ Abs †

Abs

Carbon disclosure score

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

801,000

339,720

461,280

2,144,000

BB&T Becton, Dickinson and Co. Bed Bath & Beyond

Financials Health Care

AQ AQ

58 43

E -

172,066 530,124

1,643 61,975

170,423 468,149

Consumer Discretionary Materials Financials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Health Care Information Technology Industrials

AQ NR AQ

AQ NR AQ(L)

868,501

223,719

644,782

† †

D B

940,696

236,170

704,526

✓ Abs

AQ NR

AQ IN

C -

102,515

46,069

56,446

11,758

†

1,717,000

595,000

1,122,000

255,000

✓ Abs Int

Financials Health Care Health Care

NR AQ AQ

42 76

144,000 524,189

27,000 253,398

117,000 270,791

73,480

Tr ^

† †

Information Technology Consumer Staples

38,692

2,746

35,946

559

Wa Oth

†

200,934

125,267

75,667

4,828

●

Industrials

Health Care Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Energy Energy

NR AQ

77,222

12,776

64,447

32,566

Wa Tr

†

NR NR

Consumer Staples Financials

AQ AQ

78 51

B D

850,376 219,615

468,292 14,896

382,084 204,719

2,305,882

PGS

† †

Health Care Health Care Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary

AQ NR NR

AQ AQ X

D -

352,666

140,989

211,676

15,069

†

10,748,637

10,700,267

48,370

46,246

Bemis Company Berkshire Hathaway Best Buy Big Lots Biogen Idec BMC Software Boeing Boston Properties Boston Scientific Bristol-Myers Squibb Broadcom Brown-Forman C.H. Robinson Worldwide C.R. Bard CA Technologies Cablevision Systems Cabot Oil & Gas Cameron International Campbell Soup Capital One Financial Cardinal Health Carefusion Corp CarMax Carnival

Target(s) Implemented

2010 Response status

Verification/Assurance3

2011 Response status1

Health Care

Scope 3 source type

Sector

Baxter International

Non-Public

Company

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

Tr EC ✓ Abs TSP USP Int DSP SE † † Abs Int

† Abs

Abs

Int

PGS Wa ✓ Tr

Int Abs

Int

Sector

2011 Response status1

2010 Response status

Carbon disclosure score

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Scope 3 source type

Verification/Assurance3

Target(s) Implemented

Caterpillar

Industrials

2,651,000

831,000

1,820,000

19,443

Tr Lu ^

†

CB Richard Ellis Group CBS

Financials

48,950

19,107

29,843

1,133

PGS Wa Tr

†

Abs Int Abs

Consumer Discretionary Health Care Utilities Telecommunication Services Health Care Health Care Materials

AQ AQ AQ

AQ AQ NR

62 18 55

E E

DP NR DP

DP X NR

Financials Energy Energy

AQ NR AQ

Chubb CIGNA Cincinnati Financial Cintas Cisco Systems

Financials Health Care Financials Industrials Information Technology

AQ AQ AQ NR AQ

42 38 53

Citigroup Citrix Systems

Financials Information Technology Materials

AQ NR

Consumer Staples

Financials Utilities Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples

AQ AQ NR

7 67

C -

Consumer Staples

Information Technology

Celgene CenterPoint Energy CenturyLink Cephalon Cerner CF Industries Holdings Charles Schwab Chesapeake Energy Chevron

Cliffs Natural Resources Clorox CME Group CMS Energy Coach Coca-Cola Company Coca-Cola Enterprises Cognizant Technology Solutions

Non-Public

Company

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

† 15,547

5,903

9,644

1,370,911

167,193

1,203,718

66,619,864

62,136,044

34,678

Wa Tr

† † †

0 86

B E A

14,216

4,483,820 404,000,000

USP

14,216

✓ † †

NP 40,813

17,914

22,899

650,620

53,363

597,257

6,837,461

1,184,849

43,116

1,141,732

100,243

PGS Eq Fu TI Tr EC TSP USP DSP Tr

354,818

68,084

286,734

172,943

20,120,547

20,078,077

42,470

3,359,909

2,113,413

211,598

175,935

B -

✓ Abs

†

Abs

TI Tr

✓

Int

12,273,305

†

Abs

1,246,496

6,342,126

†

Abs

113,411

98,187

583,584

Tr TSP Fr Oth Fu TI Tr

†

Abs

28,647

147,288

46,270

†

Int

Comcast

Consumer Discretionary Financials Information Technology Information Technology Consumer Staples Energy Energy Utilities

AQ AQ

AQ AQ(L)

87 75

B C

Conagra Foods ConocoPhillips CONSOL Energy Consolidated Edison Constellation Consumer Staples Brands Constellation Energy Utilities Group Corning Information Technology Costco Wholesale Consumer Staples Coventry Health Health Care Care CSX Industrials

AQ AQ NR AQ

67 41

Cummins

Industrials

CVS Caremark D.R. Horton

Comerica CSC Compuware

Danaher Darden Restaurants DaVita Dean Foods Deere Dell Denbury Resources DENTSPLY International Devon Energy Devry

267,077

425,207

105,969

PGS TI Wa Tr Lu ^

†

Abs Int

63,921

7,508

56,413

17,828

Tr Lu

†

Abs

25,677

2,515

23,162

3,399

†

Abs

2,093,714 68,005,000

1,010,130 1,083,584 586,512 57,981,000 10,024,000 512,000,000

TI Tr USP

† †

Int

C A

5,214,097

3,838,598

1,375,499

25,745,818

Tr TSP

116,465

76,849

39,616

242,261

TI Wa Tr

17,474,460

16,690,866

783,594

56,120

Wa Tr EC

1,175,452

266,635

908,817

AQ NR

AQ(L) AQ

5,475,420

5,214,546

260,874

20,899

✓

Int

664,497

229,654

434,843

25,431

Int

Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Industrials Consumer Discretionary Health Care Consumer Staples

AQ NR

D -

1,766,839

220,888

1,545,951

10,933

✓ †

AQ AQ

10 79

1,078,250

347,655

730,595

6,092

†

Int

NR AQ

1,570,038

829,790

740,248

127,393

†

Industrials Information Technology Energy Health Care

AQ AQ

63 72

C C

1,336,644 438,906

455,171 34,115

881,473 404,791

37,656 112,679

Wa Tr TSP Tr Tr

Abs Int Int Abs Int

DP DP

NR AQ

Energy Consumer Discretionary

AQ NR

4,170,000

3,680,000

490,000

16,063

†

Scope 3 source type

692,284

Non-Public

Target(s) Implemented

Carbon performance band

Verification/Assurance3

Carbon disclosure score

Scope 3

2010 Response status

Scope 2

2011 Response status1

Consumer Staples

Scope 1

Sector

Colgate-Palmolive

Total Emissions2

Company

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

● Abs † ✓ Abs Int †

† †

D -

Scope 3 source type

Verification/Assurance3 †

Int

Fu Tr USP

†

Abs Int Abs Int

Consumer Discretionary Financials

Consumer Discretionary Utilities Industrials Materials

AQ AQ AQ

AQ NR AQ

69 64 95

D E A-

59,353,956 386,524 38,084,000

59,004,018 129,793 29,043,000

349,938 256,731 9,041,000

3,025,000

Dr Pepper Snapple Group DTE Energy

Consumer Staples

405,936

228,019

177,917

228,281

Utilities

40,190,300

39,890,000

300,300

16,704,400

Duke Energy

Utilities

90,612,245

Dun & Bradstreet E*TRADE FINANCIAL E.I du Pont de Nemours Eastman Chemical Eaton eBay

Industrials Financials

DP NR

NR NR

Materials

15,432,000

10,749,000

4,683,000

146,253

Materials Industrials Information Technology Materials

AQ AQ AQ

28 87 63

B C

705,000 207,746

95,000 11,462

610,000 196,284

68,100 21,600

Tr ^ Tr

273,564

186,012

87,552

12,596

AQ NR NR

AQ AQ NR

56,700,000

✓ †

Int

Utilities Energy Information Technology Health Care

1,621,619

454,521

1,167,098

204,478

†

Int

346,066

28,031

318,035

105,029

Emerson Electric Entergy

Information Technology Industrials Utilities

TI Wa Tr EC Oth Tr

AQ AQ

24 85

34,786,668

33,967,962

818,706

14,632,716

EOG Resources EQT Corporation Equifax Equity Residential Estée Lauder Exelon

Energy Energy Industrials Financials Consumer Staples Utilities

DP NR NR NR AQ AQ

AQ NR DP NR AQ AQ

77 79

C C

92,030 9,522,374

33,290 9,245,696

58,740 276,678

38,100 5,033

Tr USP Tr

Discover Financial Services Discovery Communications Dominion Resources Dover Dow Chemical

Ecolab Edison International El Paso Electronic Arts Eli Lilly EMC

Target(s) Implemented

Scope 3

Diamond Offshore Drilling DIRECTV Group

Non-Public

Energy

Company

Scope 2

Int

Scope 1

✓

Total Emissions2

Carbon performance band

TI Tr TSP TI Tr

2010 Response status

2011 Response status1

Oth

Sector

Carbon disclosure score

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

†

Abs

† ¢

Int Int Abs

†

✓ Abs Int † ✓ Abs

† †

Int Abs

AQ(L)

Health Care Energy

NR AQ

AQ DP AQ DP

DP NR AQ DP

AQ DP

AQ NR

NR AQ

AQ AQ

NR IN NR DP AQ

NR IN NR NR AQ

AQ DP

AQ IN

AQ AQ

63 87

D C

Information Technology Family Dollar Stores Consumer Discretionary Fastenal Industrials Federated Investors Financials FedEx Corporation Industrials Fidelity National Information Information Services Technology Fifth Third Bancorp Financials First Horizon Financials National First Solar Information Technology FirstEnergy Utilities Fiserv Information Technology FLIR Systems Information Technology Flowserve Industrials Fluor Industrials FMC Corp Materials FMC Technologies Energy Ford Motor Consumer Discretionary Forest Laboratories Health Care Fortune Brands Consumer Discretionary Franklin Resources Financials Freeport-McMoRan Materials Copper & Gold Frontier Telecommunication Communications Services GameStop Consumer Discretionary Gannett Consumer Discretionary

41,344

5,724

35,620

Target(s) Implemented

Verification/Assurance3

Scope 3 source type

Scope 3

Scope 2

Non-Public

Scope 1

Carbon performance band

Consumer Discretionary Industrials

Total Emissions2

Carbon disclosure score

F5 Networks

2010 Response status

Expeditors International of Washington Express Scripts Exxon Mobil

2011 Response status1

Expedia

Sector

Company

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

†

147,000,000 132,000,000 15,000,000

1,600,000

USP

✓ Abs Int

14,149,767

13,152,895

996,872

1,008,493

PGS

†

D -

133,612

15,316

118,296

2,607

†

273,887

1,845

272,042

6,793

Tr Oth

†

5,268,477

1,602,246

3,666,231

39,949 9,985,750

10,362 5,622,379

29,587 4,363,371

D -

NP Int

✓

7,966 337,500

Tr TI Tr PSP

† ✓

Int

Carbon disclosure score

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Scope 3 source type

Verification/Assurance3

Target(s) Implemented

520,461

25,383

495,078

53,074

TI Tr

†

Abs

IN AQ AQ NR

73 64

C C -

5,650,000 1,002,526

2,500,000 279,484

3,150,000 723,042

452,295

TI Tr

† †

Abs Int

15,215

176

15,039

34,822

Tr EC USP

†

Genzyme Gilead Sciences

Health Care Health Care

AQ AQ

85 95

B B

67,094

29,725

37,369

18,795

Tr EC

✓

Goldman Sachs

Financials

351,487

14,645

336,842

168,250

Goodrich Goodyear Tire & Rubber Google

Industrials Consumer Discretionary Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples Energy Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary

NR AQ

3,340,000

1,410,000

A-

1,237,476

11,126

1,226,350

207,065

AQ AQ IN

80 54

B E -

893,483 4,020,000

532,661 4,020,000

360,822

129,412 44

Tr TSP Tr

Information Technology Financials

107,626

30,889

76,737

75,511

Tr EC

†

Abs

30,456

6,817

23,639

†

Abs

NR NR NR AQ

NR NR X AQ

9,034,065

8,452,627

581,438

40,308,994

General Dynamics General Electric General Mills Genuine Parts

H&R Block H.J. Heinz Halliburton Harley-Davidson Harman International Industries Harris Hartford Financial Services Hasbro HCP Health Care Reit Helmerich & Payne Hess Hewlett-Packard Home Depot Honeywell International Hormel Foods

Consumer Discretionary Financials Financials Energy Energy

Non-Public

2010 Response status AQ

Gap

Sector

Genworth Financial

Consumer Discretionary Industrials Industrials Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary Financials

Company

2011 Response status1

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

1,930,000 113,437,000

Int

✓ Abs

TSP † Int USP SE Tr EC Ld ✓ Abs SE ^ † Int

†

Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Industrials

1,865,170

136,660

1,728,510

5,850,300

3,073,094

268,091

2,805,003

3,390,000

Consumer Staples

TI Tr ✓ Abs TSP USP Int PGS Tr † Abs TSP ^ TI † Abs Int

Sector

2011 Response status1

2010 Response status

Carbon disclosure score

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Scope 3 source type

Verification/Assurance3

Target(s) Implemented

Hospira

Health Care

AQ(L)

424,230

74,930

349,300

6,260

†

Abs Int

Host Hotels & Resorts Hudson City Bancorp Humana Huntington Bancshares IBM

Financials

627,783

124,783

503,000

1,426

Lu ^

†

Financials

Health Care Financials

AQ AQ

81 17

D -

124,850 91,679

9,723 10,452

115,127 81,227

6,758

Information Technology Industrials Industrials Utilities

2,704,276

578,290

2,125,986

3,134,613

AQ AQ AQ

75 55 30

C D -

885,052 11,761,196

471,388 11,761,196

413,664

10,676

† †

Int

Information Technology Financials

2,878,008

1,165,284

1,712,724

43,595,000

PGS TI Tr USP

†

Abs Int

Materials

Consumer Discretionary Materials Consumer Discretionary Information Technology

AQ AQ

66 22

C -

13,633,900

9,559,400

4,074,500

21,000

†

Abs

43,036

6,335

36,701

52,674

PGS Wa Tr EC TSP PSP DSP SE ^

†

Abs

7,065

580

6,485

7,159

318,107 407,538

80,711 178,251

237,396 229,287

23,650 10,070

Tr Tr Lu

✓

Int Int Int

Illinois Tool Works Ingersoll-Rand Integrys Energy Group Intel IntercontinentalExchange International Flavors & Fragrances International Game Technology International Paper Interpublic Group of Companies Intuit

Non-Public

Company

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

† Tr

† †

Tr EC Lu ● Abs USP ^

Intuitive Surgical Invesco

Health Care Financials

NR AQ

Iron Mountain ITT J.M. Smucker

Industrials Industrials Consumer Staples

NR AQ AQ

72 81

C B

Jabil Circuit

Information Technology Industrials

530,225

23,564

506,661

98,502

EC Lu ^

✓

13,050

6,382

6,668

10,357

Wa Tr Oth

†

AQ AQ

AQ(L) AQ

35 65

169 1,181,643

169 109,201

1,072,442

163,321

TI Tr

† †

Int

48,389

8,629

39,760

5,956

†

Abs

Jacobs Engineering Group Janus Capital Group Financials JCPenney Consumer Discretionary JDS Uniphase Information Technology

● Abs †

2010 Response status

Carbon disclosure score

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Scope 3 source type

1,279,804

345,723

934,081

296,286

Johnson Controls

1,911,629

562,223

1,349,406

79,785

AQ AQ

81 59

B E

1,322,232 79,580

96,034 3,942

1,226,197 75,638

137,804 35,679

Tr Tr EC

Kellogg Company

Consumer Discretionary Financials Information Technology Consumer Staples

1,343,409

580,482

762,927

260,000

KeyCorp Kimberly-Clark

Financials Consumer Staples

NR AQ

IN AQ

5,728,814

2,611,787

3,117,027

648,040

Kimco Realty KLA-Tencor

Financials Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples

AQ NR

NR NR

✓ Abs †

859,581

27,062

832,519

226,902

TI Tr

✓ Abs

3,319,396

1,468,901

1,850,495

37,225,790

Consumer Staples Industrials

AQ NR

AQ AQ

6,550,146

2,062,714

4,487,432

Health Care

Financials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Financials Information Technology Health Care Consumer Discretionary Financials Information Technology Industrials

AQ AQ

12,821

604

12,217

2,506

NR AQ

158,316

17,531

140,785

9,783

†

Abs

AQ AQ

73 75

C C

91,274 337,518

39,250 33,554

52,024 303,964

20,500 581,428

Tr TI Tr

† †

Int Abs

IN NR

NR NR

1,374,988

313,866

1,061,122

212,431

Financials Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary

NR NR AQ

JPMorgan Chase Juniper Networks

Kohl’s Kraft Foods

Kroger L-3 Communications Holdings Laboratory Corporation of America Legg Mason Leggett & Platt Lennar Leucadia National Lexmark International Life Technologies Limited Brands Lincoln National Linear Technology Lockheed Martin Loews Lorillard Lowe’s

Target(s) Implemented

2011 Response status1

Health Care

Verification/Assurance3

Sector

Johnson & Johnson

Non-Public

Company

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

● Abs Int † Abs Int † Abs † Abs Int ✓ Int

PGS Fu † TI Tr EC TSP USP DSP ^ † †

Int

53 24

E -

✓ Abs

Marathon Oil

C -

Target(s) Implemented

69 24

Verification/Assurance3

AQ AQ

Scope 3 source type

AQ AQ

Scope 3

Scope 2

Scope 1

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Carbon disclosure score

Non-Public

2010 Response status

M&T Bank Macy’s

Information Technology Financials Consumer Discretionary Energy

2011 Response status1

LSI

Sector

Company

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

84,158

5,689

78,469

305,849

TI Tr SE

†

Abs

NP †

18,809,000

13,885,000

4,924,000

Consumer Discretionary Financials Financials Industrials Energy Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Information Technology Consumer Staples

2,207,415

395,391

1,812,024

54,723

AQ DP AQ NR AQ

AQ AQ AQ NR AQ

114,469

114,468

41,465

531,914

200,533

331,381

5,609

†

C C -

✓ Int † Abs Int †

190,068

13,242

176,826

6,936

†

74,710

14,393

60,317

Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Health Care Consumer Staples

210,604

62,084

148,520

DP AQ

AQ AQ

Materials

3,115,200

2,339,967

775,233

Medco Health Solutions Medtronic MEMC Electronic Materials Merck & Co.

Health Care

87,211

5,914

81,297

†

Health Care Information Technology Health Care

AQ NR

236,697

25,040

211,657

†

2,075,661

1,046,881

1,028,780

Meredith

Consumer Discretionary Financials Telecommunication Services Information Technology Information Technology

37,131

6,725

30,406

AQ NR

241,107

97,349

143,758

†

1,713,277

780,776

932,501

†

Marriott International Marsh & McLennan Marshall & Ilsley Masco Massey Energy MasterCard Mattel McAfee McCormick & Company McDonald’s McGraw-Hill McKesson Mead Johnson Nutrition MeadWestvaco

MetLife Metro PCS Communications Microchip Technology Micron Technology

Int

†

Int

†

Abs

NP 216,442

TI Tr ^

† 565,000

300,299

TI Tr USP

†

Wa ^

Int

✓ Abs †

927

Abs Int

Abs

†

Abs

Carbon disclosure score

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Scope 3 source type

Verification/Assurance3

Target(s) Implemented

1,191,654

47,383

1,144,271

389,017

TI Tr SE

✓

Int

258,339

12,197

246,142

4,145

†

948,128

413,790

534,338

38,948

PGS TI Wa Tr ^

Materials Information Technology Financials Financials

AQ AQ

38 17

1,815,700

1,153,800

661,900

AQ AQ

6 87

359,073

14,322

344,751

63,103

Fu Tr

Information Technology Energy Health Care Energy Financials

279,234

15,794

263,440

125,438

✓ †

NR NR NR AQ(L)

NR NR NR AQ

Information Technology Information Technology Netflix Consumer Discretionary Newell Rubbermaid Consumer Discretionary Newfield Exploration Energy Newmont Mining Materials News Corporation Consumer Discretionary NextEra Energy Utilities Nicor Utilities NIKE Consumer Discretionary NiSource Utilities Noble Energy Energy Nordstrom Consumer Discretionary Norfolk Southern Industrials Northeast Utilities Utilities Northern Trust Financials

293,513

147,887

145,626

1,741

†

96,320

8,082

88,238

IN AQ AQ

X AQ AQ

84 93

C A-

4,694,161 538,264

3,048,246 81,791

1,645,915 456,473

538,893 40,067

Fu Tr

DP NR AQ

AQ NR AQ(L)

71,900

6,900

65,000

1,405,800

AQ AQ AQ

61 65 73

D D D

22,641,378 2,454,780

22,368,211 2,303,500

273,167 151,280

1,206,705

TI Tr SE ^ Fu ^

AQ AQ AQ

76 45 69

B D

5,238,171 3,974,306 62,248

4,958,921 3,543,177 4,221

279,250 431,129 58,027

1,805 11,809

Tr Tr EC

Northrop Grumman

1,261,650

323,050

938,600

1,220,152

Tr EC TSP

Molex Molson Coors Brewing Monsanto Monster Worldwide Moody’s Morgan Stanley Motorola Solutions4 Murphy Oil Mylan Nabors Industries NASDAQ OMX Group National Oilwell Varco National Semiconductor NetApp

Energy

Industrials

Non-Public

2010 Response status

Microsoft

Sector Information Technology Information Technology Consumer Staples

Company

2011 Response status1

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

✓ Abs Int † Abs

NP † Int Int

Abs Int

†

† ✓ Abs

† † †

Abs Int Int Int

† †

Int Abs

✓ †

Int

AQ DP AQ(L)

69 54

C D

Target(s) Implemented

AQ NR AQ

Verification/Assurance3

Scope 3 source type

Scope 3

Scope 2

Non-Public

Carbon performance band

Carbon disclosure score

Scope 1

NYSE Euronext

Total Emissions2

NRG Energy Nucor NVIDIA

2010 Response status

Novellus Systems

Information Technology Information Technology Utilities Materials Information Technology Financials

2011 Response status1

Novell

Sector

Company

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

57,182,000

57,000,000

182,000

3,812

Tr EC

†

Abs

25,674

1,698

23,976

4,005

†

Int

8,070

✓ †

142,988

†

Abs

†

Int

83,235

3,326

79,909

Energy

17,800,000

11,200,000

6,600,000

Consumer Discretionary Utilities Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Materials Industrials Industrials Industrials Health Care

118,171

34,749

83,422

NR AQ

X AQ

448,731

15,208

433,523

AQ DP AQ AQ NR

AQ NR AQ AQ NR

3,751,000

150,395 683,483

37,730 87,172

112,665 596,311

Information Technology Energy Financials

IN NR

Utilities Consumer Staples

AQ AQ

84 90

B A-

2,148,393 6,048,225

677,815 4,006,160

1,470,578 2,042,065

18,392 112,000

PerkinElmer Pfizer

Health Care Health Care

AQ AQ

53 81

D B

40,575 2,707,928

18,663 1,459,943

21,912 1,247,985

10,227 9,781,207

PG&E

Utilities

4,216,239

3,218,256

997,983

Philip Morris International Pinnacle West Capital Pioneer Natural Resources Pitney Bowes

Consumer Staples

768,773

355,789

412,984

Utilities

15,267,665

15,245,383

22,282

Energy

AQ(L)

120,263

46,210

74,053

Occidental Petroleum Omnicom Group Oneok Oracle O’Reilly Automotive Owens-Illinois PACCAR Pall Parker-Hannifin Patterson Companies Paychex Peabody Energy People’s United Financial Pepco Holdings PepsiCo

Industrials

24 56 65

D D -

† † †

Tr EC Fr Oth

Int Int

† ✓ Int † Abs ✓ Abs

Tr PGS Eq Fu TI Wa Tr EC Lu SE 48,753,850 Fu Wa † Abs Tr USP 627,767 TI Tr ^ ✓ Int †

Int

Carbon disclosure score

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

134,975

32,160

102,815

292,061

PNC Financial Services Polo Ralph Lauren

Financials

369,651

44,700

324,951

107,453

PPG Industries

Consumer Discretionary Materials

6,090,000

4,300,000

1,790,000

22,000

PPL Praxair

Utilities Materials

NR AQ

A-

15,050,000

4,350,000

10,700,000

582,025

Eq TI Wa Tr

Precision Castparts Priceline.com

Industrials Consumer Discretionary Financials

NR AQ

NR NR

70,766

Consumer Staples Utilities Financials Financials

AQ DP NR AQ

AQ AQ AQ AQ

5,904,000

2,795,000

7,887

2,045

5,843

2,365

Prudential Financial Public Service Enterprise Group

Financials Utilities

AQ AQ

41 79

84,370 24,123,436

5,836 22,873,019

78,534 1,250,417

12,422 66,428,619

Tr PGS Fu TI Tr EC Lu USP

Public Storage Pulte Homes

Financials Consumer Discretionary Energy Information Technology Information Technology Industrials Health Care

NR NR

NR AQ

DP AQ

X AQ

7,425

97,537

NR AQ

Principal Financial Group Procter & Gamble Progress Energy Progressive ProLogis

QEP Resources QLogic Qualcomm Quanta Services Quest Diagnostics Qwest Communications International (see CenturyLink)5 RadioShack Range Resources Raytheon Red Hat

PGS Tr TSP PGS Fu Tr EC

Target(s) Implemented

2010 Response status

Verification/Assurance3

2011 Response status1

Financials

Scope 3 source type

Sector

Plum Creek Timber

Non-Public

Company

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

†

Abs

†

Abs

†

Abs Int

✓ Abs Int †

70,766

†

Abs

3,109,000

†

Int

● Int † Abs † Abs

Telecommunication AQ(SA) Services

Consumer Discretionary Energy Industrials Information Technology

AQ AQ NR

AQ AQ IN

25 71

C -

7,425

†

57,713

39,824

✓

261,791

83,093

178,698

602,876

98,909

503,967

39,800

PGS TI Wa Tr

†

Abs

†

Abs

Industrials Industrials Consumer Discretionary Energy Industrials

AQ NR NR

AQ DP

Industrials Consumer Staples Information Technology Information Technology Information Technology Consumer Staples

Target(s) Implemented

Verification/Assurance3

Scope 3 source type

Industrials

192,231

102,960

22,880

80,080

183,000

TI Tr

†

Int

C -

169,582

26,761

142,821

20,796

†

Abs

AQ DP

AQ AQ NR

AQ AQ IN

83 44

B -

548,248 2,301,449

461,828 399,000

86,420 1,902,449

13,510

13,299

1,764

11,535

20,442

PGS Tr EC ^

✓

1,091,717

473,876

617,841

3,552,179

PGS TI Tr USP SE

✓

SCANA Corporation Utilities Schlumberger Energy

NR AQ

DP AQ

1,940,000

1,610,000

330,000

1,563,500

PGS TI Tr Oth ^

†

Scripps Networks Interactive Sealed Air Sears Holdings

Consumer Discretionary Materials Consumer Discretionary Utilities

AQ AQ

55 60

D D

698,217 3,274,557

199,678 883,809

498,539 2,390,748

A-

10,382,046

10,053,417

328,629

4,755,062

Fu ^

Materials Materials Financials

AQ AQ AQ

71 72 96

D D A-

515,288 211,309 606,269

225,383 63,229 23,432

289,905 148,080 582,837

9,443 84,773 11,522

Tr TI Tr Tr EC

Financials Industrials Industrials Energy

NR AQ AQ NR

45 35

13,974,732

13,930,772

43,960

Energy

A-

10,115,070

9,066,460

1,048,610

Rowan Companies RR Donnelley & Sons Ryder System Safeway SAIC Salesforce.com SanDisk Sara Lee

Sempra Energy Sherwin-Williams Sigma-Aldrich Simon Property Group SLM Snap-on Southwest Airlines Southwestern Energy Spectra Energy

D -

Scope 3

117,383

Regions Financial Republic Services Reynolds American Robert Half International Rockwell Automation Rockwell Collins Roper Industries Ross Stores

Non-Public

309,614

Company

Scope 2

DP NR AQ IN

Scope 1

2010 Response status

NR NR AQ NR

Total Emissions2

2011 Response status1

Financials Industrials Consumer Staples Industrials

Carbon performance band

Sector

Carbon disclosure score

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

†

† †

Abs

NP Int

† † †

Int

● Abs † Abs † Int ✓ Abs

NP †

8,263,416

Tr EC USP

Int

✓ Abs Int

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Scope 3 source type

2,080,549

74,106

2,006,443

2,100,702

Tr SE

✓ Abs

NR AQ

381,505

100,374

281,131

241,878

TI Tr TSP

†

Int

AQ(L)

546,257

137,831

408,426

†

Abs

1,014,105

209,828

804,277

✓

Int

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide State Street

Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Financials

2,969,843

593,549

2,376,294

1,416,319

Tr Fr

†

Int

146,754

5,683

141,071

20,855

✓

Int

Stericycle Stryker Sunoco SunTrust Banks SUPERVALU

Industrials Health Care Energy Financials Consumer Staples

NR DP DP AQ AQ

NR AQ(L) AQ AQ AQ

37 69

2,887,130

962,821

1,924,309

273,810

† †

Abs

Information Technology Sysco Consumer Staples T. Rowe Price Group Financials Target Consumer Discretionary TECO Energy Utilities Tellabs Information Technology Tenet Healthcare Health Care Teradata Information Technology Teradyne Information Technology Tesoro Energy Texas Instruments Information Technology Textron Industrials The Hershey Consumer Staples Company The Southern Utilities Company Thermo Fisher Health Care Scientific Tiffany & Co. Consumer Discretionary

160,120

7,770

152,350

47,916

PGS Wa Tr Tr

†

Int

NR AQ AQ

70 77

D C

2,589,941

414,968

2,174,973

22,986

†

Int

DP AQ

AQ AQ

29,832

2,424

27,408

9,431

†

NR AQ

26,130

2,343

23,787

3,297

†

NR AQ

DP AQ

1,956,912

831,460

1,125,452

AQ AQ

43 67

644,096 403,786

129,790 129,274

514,306 274,512

St. Jude Medical Stanley Black & Decker Staples Starbucks

Symantec

Target(s) Implemented

Carbon performance band

Verification/Assurance3

Carbon disclosure score

Non-Public

2010 Response status

Sprint Nextel

Sector Telecommunication Services Health Care Industrials

Company

2011 Response status1

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

132,000,000 132,000,000

Abs

†

159,886

Tr TSP

† †

Int Int

† †

44,126

3,593

40,533

✓

Int

Vornado Realty Trust Vulcan Materials W.W. Grainger Walgreens

DP AQ

NR AQ

Industrials Consumer Staples Financials Industrials Materials

AQ DP AQ AQ AQ

AQ NR AQ AQ AQ

66 70 57 51

C C D D

Industrials

Health Care Financials Industrials

AQ AQ AQ

74 73 99

D D A-

Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Energy Health Care

NR AQ

DP NR

DP DP

DP AQ

IN AQ AQ

AQ AQ AQ

Financials Information Technology Telecommunication Services Consumer Discretionary Information Technology Financials Materials Industrials Consumer Staples

24,767

235,851

50,525

Tr ^

†

762,410

64,250

698,160

14,300

●

Int

88,472

37,084

51,388

†

Abs

411,379 11,560,004 46,935,476

40,445 11,207,344 41,698,658

370,934 352,660 5,236,818

24,256

1,914,377

946,075

968,302

66,336

42,948 12,630,498

9,677 11,712,803

33,271 917,695

4,244 9,864,729

285,657

93,585

192,072

18,334

†

62,907

42,807

20,100

13,208

†

6,062,598

567,297

5,495,301

†

Int

2,252,701

280,991

1,971,710

†

Int

Target(s) Implemented

260,618

Non-Public

Verification/Assurance3

Visa

Scope 3 source type

Verizon Communications Viacom

Scope 3

Valero Energy Varian Medical Systems Ventas Verisign

Scope 2

V.F. Corporation

AQ(L)

Scope 1

Urban Outfitters

Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Materials Consumer Discretionary Financials Information Technology Financials

Total Emissions2

United Technologies Corporation UnitedHealth Group Unum Group UPS

Carbon performance band

Torchmark Total System Services Travelers Companies Tyco Tyson Foods U.S. Bancorp Union Pacific United States Steel

Carbon disclosure score

Titanium Metals TJX Companies

2010 Response status

Time Warner Cable

2011 Response status1

Time Warner

Sector

Company

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

NP Tr

† † † †

Abs Int Abs

NP Tr † Fu Tr EC ✓ TSP Fr

Int

66 66

E C

2010 Response status

Carbon disclosure score

Carbon performance band

Total Emissions2

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Scope 3 source type

21,404,099

5,922,051

15,482,048

42,841

TI Tr

Walt Disney Company Washington Post

Consumer Discretionary Consumer Discretionary Industrials

1,465,646

550,782

914,864

● Abs Int † Abs

24,732,846

24,531,046

201,800

†

Health Care Health Care

AQ AQ

47 67

34,922

14,605

20,317

†

Health Care Financials

AQ AQ

66 81

D A-

159,871 1,602,788

7,151 116,858

152,720 1,485,930

84,493 124,316

Tr EC Tr

† Abs ✓ Abs

Information Technology Information Technology Financials Consumer Discretionary Consumer Staples

519,144

10,717

508,427

31,517

Tr EC

†

AQ AQ

56 52

C D

2,938,907 825,761

1,712,178 233,300

Whole Foods Market Williams Companies Energy Windstream Telecommunication Services Wisconsin Energy Utilities Wyndham Consumer Worldwide Discretionary Wynn Resorts Consumer Discretionary Xcel Energy Utilities

711,979

324,141

387,838

AQ AQ

31 8

16,916,133

16,090,704

825,429

† †

AQ AQ

AQ NR

51 83

D B

20,926,674 398,385

20,926,674 100,814

297,571

✓

58,008,343

56,075,310

1,933,033

17,707,804

Xerox

335,869

156,664

179,205

6,149

25,594

2,056

23,538

AQ AQ

38 36

AQ DP

E -

Waste Management Waters Watson Pharmaceuticals WellPoint Wells Fargo & Company Western Digital Western Union Weyerhaeuser Whirlpool

Xilinx XL Capital Yahoo! Yum! Brands Zimmer Holdings Zions Bancorporation

Information Technology Information Technology Financials Information Technology Consumer Discretionary Health Care Financials

Target(s) Implemented

2011 Response status1

Consumer Staples

Verification/Assurance3

Sector

Wal-Mart Stores

Non-Public

Company

Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company

Abs Int Abs

1,226,729 592,461 130,472,837 179,995

USP DSP Wa Tr

† †

Abs Abs

†

Int

†

Fu TI EC ^ TI PSP SE ^

†

Abs

†

Abs

† 5,097 49,342

Tr Tr EC

† †

Int

NP 102,461

6,743

95,718

† †

CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action

1. Those companies marked AQ(L) in 2011 submitted responses after the analysis cut off date of July 1, 2011. These companies’ responses are not included in the analysis of this report. 2. Total of Scope 1 and Scope 2 reported emissions. 3. The verification/assurance key provided for each company is based on the CDP’s criteria. If a company had more than one level of completion of verification/assurance across the different scopes, the highest level was used for purposes of the key. Moving from highest to lowest levels of verification/ assurance: - complete; - prior year(s) complete; - first year started; and - no verification/assurance. 4. Motorola Solutions was part of Motorola in 2010. 5. During the reporting period, Qwest Communications International merged with CenturyLink to become CenturyLink.

Key:

Scope 3 Source Key:

AQ Answered questionnaire AQ(L) Answered questionnaire late so company not scored SA Company is either a subsidiary or has merged during the reporting process. See company in brackets for further information on company’s status. IN Provided information DP Declined to participate NR No response X Company did not fall into one of the CDP samples in that year - Company did not meet disclosure score threshold of 50 or did not answer questionnaire NP Answered questionnaire but response not made publicly available ^ Company provided an “Other” Scope 3 source type which was adjusted to be included in one of the main scope 3 source types ✓ Verification/assurance complete for reporting year ● Verification/assurance ongoing for reporting year - prior year(s) completed ¢ Verification/assurance ongoing for reporting year - first year started † No verification/assurance for reporting year Abs Absolute emissions reduction target Int Intensity emissions reduction target

PGS Purchased goods & services Eq Capital goods Fu Fuel- and energy-related activities (not included in Scopes 1 or 2) TI Transportation & distribution Wa Waste generated in operations Tr Business travel EC Employee commuting and teleworking Lu Leased assets (upstream, not included in Scope 1 or 2) In Investments (not included in Scope 1 or 2) TSP Transportation and distribution of sold products PSP Processing of sold products USP Use of sold products DSP End of life treatment of sold products Ld Leased assets (downstream, not included in Scope 1 or 2) Fr Franchises (not included in Scope 1 or 2) SE Supplier emissions Oth Other

Global Advisor and Report Writer

Carbon Disclosure Project 2011 This report and all of the public responses from corporations are available to download from www.cdproject.net

In addition, CDP has been generously supported by:

Our sincere thanks are extended to the following: Advisors: Jane Ambachtscheer, Marc Fox, Joyce Haboucha, Jon Johnson, Bill Thomas, Martin Whitaker, Martin Wise

CDP Silver US Consultancy Partners 2011

Organizations: Skadden Arps, UN PRI, US EPA

Design and production Lavish is a leading Creative Services agency based in London. We specialise in the creation and management of brand assets and communication materials for clients in the corporate and not-for-profit sectors. For more information on Lavish visit www.lavishconnect.co.uk

CDP Contacts Chris Riso Report Contact chris.riso@cdproject.net

Robert Carraro Director of Development robert.carraro@cdproject.net

Zoe Tcholak-Antitch Director CDP North America

James Marshall CDP Reporter Services james.marshall@cdproject.net

Paula DiPerna Special Advisor CDP North America

Chrystina Gastelum CDP Supply Chain chrystina.gastelum@cdproject.net

Carbon Disclosure Project 40 Bowling Green Lane London, EC1R 0NE United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7970 5660 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7691 7316 www.cdproject.net info@cdproject.net

Doug Kangos Sustainable Business Solutions

Kathy Nieland Sustainable Business Solutions

Pamela Lilak Sustainable Business Solutions

John O’Hara Sustainable Business Solutions

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 300 Madison Avenue 24th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: +1 (646) 471 4000 Fax: +1 (813) 286 6000 Email: sustainability@us.pwc.com

Sue Howells Head of Global Operations

Carbon Disclosure Project c/o RPA, 6 W 48th Street 10th Floor United States of America New York, NY 10036 Tel: + 1 (212) 378 2086 Fax: + 1 (212) 812 4335

Report Writer Contacts

Steve Lopresti US Thought Leadership Institute

Contact details can be found at the following web address: http://pwc.com/sustainability

Important Notice

The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP and presented in this report. If you intend to do this, you need to obtain express permission from CDP before doing so. PwC and CDP prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2011 information request. PwC and CDP do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this information. PwC and CDP make no representation or warranty, express or implied, and accept no liability concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and opinions contained herein or for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. All information and views expressed herein by CDP and/or PwC 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. PwC 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. ‘PricewaterhouseCoopers’ and ‘PwC’ refer to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a limited liability partnership in the United Kingdom) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate legal entity. ‘Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330, and CDP North America, registered in the United States as a 501(c)(3) Corporation. © 2011 Carbon Disclosure Project. All rights reserved.