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,
1
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
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
2
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
3
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)
CDP Signatories
Toronto Atmospheric Fund
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
70
500
60
400
50
40
300
30
200
20
100
Assets (US$ trillions)
Number of Signatories
SEIU Master Trust
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.
10
0
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Signatories
2008
2009
2010
2011
Assets
4
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
05
2011 Themes and Highlights
08
07
Risk management
Operational effectiveness
Business opportunity
Strategic advantage
Commentary: Jack Ehnes, Chief
Executive Officer, CalSTRS 16
Commentary: Douglas J. Kangos,
Partner, PwC
20
2011 Leaders
21
The 2011 Carbon Disclosure
Leadership Index (CDLI)
22
The 2011 Carbon Performance
Leadership Index (CPLI)
25
Appendix 1: Selected data
from the 2011 CDP
questionnaire results
28
Appendix 2: Table of emissions,
scores and sector information
by company
31
6
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.
7
•
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
ng
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
8
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
50
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
50
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
50
100
150
200
Number of companies
 2009  2010  2011
9
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
50
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’
10
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
11
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‘clean-energy-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%
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
12
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%
13
5%
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)
14
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
15
“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. 16
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%)
50
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
17
“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%
58%
Financials
62%
48%
52%
Information Technology
61%
34%
51%
Consumer Staples
54%
54%
51%
Consumer Discretionary
51%
32%
43%
Telecommunication Services
50%
33%
17%
Health Care
30%
24%
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
18
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
19
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.
20
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)
21
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
Hartford Financial Services*
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
86
97
96
89
89
88
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
82
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.
22
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.”
Dow Chemical
Sector
Company name
Financials
Comerica*
Morgan Stanley
State Street
Goldman Sachs
ProLogis
Gilead Sciences
Allergan*
UPS
Boeing*
Lockheed Martin
Eaton
CSX
Ryder System
Cisco Systems*
salesforce.com
Google
EMC*
Hewlett-Packard
IBM*
Dow Chemical
Praxair*
Air Products & Chemicals*
Ecolab
Alcoa
Newmont Mining
Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold
Consolidated Edison*
PG&E *
Xcel Energy*
Sempra Energy
Entergy
Pepco Holdings*
Health Care
Industrials
Information
Technology
Materials
Utilities
23
2011 Carbon
disclosure
score
87
87
84
83
83
95
83
99
92
90
87
85
83
98
91
89
88
84
83
95
93
92
91
88
88
87
2010 Carbon
disclosure
score
92
85
81
62
80
83
80
78
86
76
78
91
68
92
44
82
66
85
80
93
81
84
77
87
60
96
92
89
87
85
84
96
90
89
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
“Morgan Stanley’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.”
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
24
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 company’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 year’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 company’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*
25
2011
Performance
Band
A
A
2010
Performance
Band
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
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.
26
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
27
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
28
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
18
14
6
Consumer Staples
20
7
4
Industrials
19
7
3
Consumer Discretionary
10
14
4
Financials
4
21
Health Care
6
10
5
Utilities
2
12
3
Materials
8
4
5
Energy
3
3
Telecommunications Services
1 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
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
29
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
40
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
6%
16%
10%
4%
6%
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.
0%
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%.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Average % time elapsed for targets
30
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and
sector information by company
4,300,000
838,000
1,950,000
771,000
1,338,000
Abercrombie & Fitch Consumer
Discretionary
Ace Ltd
Financials
AQ
AQ
80
D
129,667
7,487
122,180
6,275
AQ
AQ
82
B
56,406
14,741
41,665
10,213
Tr
Adobe Systems
AQ
AQ
73
C
30,710
3,642
27,068
43,864
Tr Lu
AQ
AQ
66
D
167,011
26,594
140,417
286,884
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
AQ
AQ
92
A
23,691,275
14,366,791
9,324,484
97,169
Materials
Materials
Information
Technology
Materials
NR
NR
AQ
NR
NR
AQ
75
C
73,057
199
72,858
AQ
AQ
88
A
44,527,155
Utilities
Materials
NR
IN
AQ
AQ
Health Care
AQ
AQ
83
B
Financials
Information
Technology
Consumer Staples
Consumer
Discretionary
Utilities
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
89
44
C
-
AQ
NR
AQ
DP
67
C
-
AQ
AQ
75
Utilities
AQ
AQ
75
Advanced Micro
Devices
AES Corporation
Aetna
Aflac
Agilent
Technologies
Air Products &
Chemicals
Airgas
AK Steel Holding
Akamai
Technologies
Alcoa
Allegheny Energy
Allegheny
Technologies
Allergan
Allstate
Altera
Altria Group
Amazon.com
Ameren
American Electric
Power
American Express
American
International Group
American Tower
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Utilities
Health Care
Financials
Information
Technology
Materials
† Int
TI Wa Tr 3 Abs
EC Ld
Tr
†
3
¢
Int
Tr EC
TSP SE
†
Abs
Int
Tr ^
†
†
†
Abs
Tr TSP
3
Int
66,034
TI Tr Lu
†
Int
1,942,918
PGS
3 Abs
Int
Int
NP
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
3 Abs
Int
†
524,631
273,437
251,194
41,799
PGS Tr
†
B
67,068,709
67,068,709
C
138,294,800 138,294,800
1,634,883
Financials
AQ
AQ
80
C
Financials
AQ
AQ
26
-
AQ
AQ
63
C
NR
NR
NR
DP
Telecommunication
Services
Ameriprise Financial Financials
AmerisourceBergen Health Care
31
-
Non-Public
6,250,000
1,609,000
Target(s) Implemented
C
C
Verification/Assurance3
Carbon performance band
76
72
Scope 3 source type
Carbon disclosure score
AQ
AQ
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.
-
NP
221,851
32,504
189,347
38,143
PGS Fu
TI Tr
Tr
144,379
5,820
138,560
8,954
Tr EC
Abs
3 Abs
† Abs
3 Abs
†
†
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
Scope 3 source type
Verification/Assurance3
Target(s) Implemented
293,997
36,340
Tr
†
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
Tr
¢ Abs
†
179,000
30,000
149,000
36,863
Tr
†
8,903,473
1,105,251
7,798,222
63,209
Tr ^
†
B
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
68
97
E
A
1,306,014
1,872,213
356,071
119,760
949,943
1,752,453
1,052,130
AQ
81
B
211,570
9,474
202,096
26,827
AQ
AQ
74
C
801,000
339,720
461,280
2,144,000
AQ
AQ
58
E
172,066
1,643
170,423
AQ
NR
66
E
-
AQ
AQ
75
B
Analog Devices
AQ
AQ
49
-
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
43
65
D
-
Consumer
Discretionary
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Consumer Staples
NR
NR
-
DP
AQ
-
AQ
AQ
NR
NR
Financials
Telecommunication
Services
Information
Technology
AQ
AQ
AQ(L)
AQ
33
72
C
AQ
AQ
82
Information
Technology
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
AQ
AQ
25
DP
NR
-
NR
NR
-
DP
NR
-
Industrials
Consumer Staples
Energy
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
79
63
67
Ball
Bank of America
Materials
Financials
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
Bank of New York
Mellon
Baxter International
Financials
AQ
Health Care
BB&T
Financials
Sector
AQ
NR
Company
Health Care
Information
Technology
Anadarko Petroleum Energy
Amgen
Amphenol
Aon
Apache
Apartment
Investment and
Management
Apollo Group
Apple Inc.
Applied Materials
Archer Daniels
Midland
Assurant
AT&T
Autodesk
Automatic Data
Processing
AutoNation
AutoZone
AvalonBay
Communities
Avery Dennison
Avon Products
Baker Hughes
Information
Technology
Financials
Energy
Financials
58
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
3
NP
D
Abs
NP
Int
†
Int
Abs
3 Int
† Int
TI Wa Tr 3 Abs
EC
Tr
† Abs
Tr
Tr
†
†
Tr EC
3 Abs
TSP USP
Int
DSP SE
†
32
DP
IN
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ(L)
68
70
D
B
AQ
IN
15
-
AQ
NR
AQ
IN
69
C
-
102,515
46,069
56,446
11,758
Tr
†
AQ
AQ
92
B
1,717,000
595,000
1,122,000
255,000
Tr
✓ Abs
Int
Financials
Health Care
Health Care
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
42
76
D
144,000
524,189
27,000
253,398
117,000
270,791
73,480
Tr ^
†
†
Information
Technology
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
76
C
38,692
2,746
35,946
559
Wa Oth
†
AQ
AQ
84
B
200,934
125,267
75,667
4,828
Tr
3
Industrials
AQ
AQ
45
-
Health Care
Information
Technology
Consumer
Discretionary
Energy
Energy
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
68
D
77,222
12,776
64,447
32,566
Wa Tr
†
NR
X
-
NR
NR
NR
NR
-
Consumer Staples
Financials
AQ
AQ
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
Industrials
AQ
NR
NR
AQ
AQ
X
72
D
-
352,666
140,989
211,676
15,069
Tr
†
AQ
AQ
88
B
10,748,637
10,700,267
48,370
46,246
AQ
AQ
58
D
2,651,000
831,000
1,820,000
19,443
Financials
AQ
AQ
66
D
48,950
19,107
29,843
1,133
Consumer
Discretionary
AQ
NR
31
-
Consumer
Discretionary
Bemis Company
Materials
Berkshire Hathaway Financials
Best Buy
Consumer
Discretionary
Big Lots
Consumer
Discretionary
Biogen Idec
Health Care
BMC Software
Information
Technology
Boeing
Industrials
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
Caterpillar
CB Richard Ellis
Group
CBS
33
61,975
468,149
†
Abs
Int
868,501
223,719
644,782
†
†
940,696
236,170
704,526
3 Abs
Scope 3 source type
530,124
Scope 3
Target(s) Implemented
-
Verification/Assurance3
43
Scope 2
Carbon performance band
AQ
Scope 1
Carbon disclosure score
AQ
Total Emissions2
2010 Response status
Health Care
Non-Public
2011 Response status1
Becton, Dickinson
and Co.
Bed Bath & Beyond
Sector
Company
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
-
†
Abs
Abs
Int
NP
Int
Abs
PGS Wa 3 Int
Tr
Tr Lu ^ † Abs
Int
PGS Wa † Abs
Tr
†
Chubb
CIGNA
Cincinnati Financial
Cintas
Cisco Systems
Financials
Health Care
Financials
Industrials
Information
Technology
AQ
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
42
38
53
Citigroup
Citrix Systems
Financials
Information
Technology
Materials
AQ
NR
AQ
NR
70
NR
AQ
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
87
A
Financials
Utilities
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
7
67
C
-
AQ
AQ
78
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
Information
Technology
AQ
Consumer Staples
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Cliffs Natural
Resources
Clorox
CME Group
CMS Energy
Coach
Coca-Cola
Company
Coca-Cola
Enterprises
Cognizant
Technology
Solutions
Colgate-Palmolive
Comcast
Comerica
CSC
Compuware
1,370,911
167,193
1,203,718
66,619,864
62,136,044
34,678
Wa Tr
†
†
†
Target(s) Implemented
AQ
NR
AQ
9,644
Verification/Assurance3
AQ
NR
AQ
5,903
Scope 3 source type
DP
X
NR
15,547
Scope 3
DP
NR
DP
Scope 2
Cephalon
Cerner
CF Industries
Holdings
Charles Schwab
Financials
Chesapeake Energy Energy
Chevron
Energy
Scope 1
Carbon performance band
E
E
Total Emissions2
Carbon disclosure score
62
18
55
Health Care
Utilities
Telecommunication
Services
Health Care
Health Care
Materials
Non-Public
2010 Response status
AQ
AQ
NR
Celgene
CenterPoint Energy
CenturyLink
Sector
AQ
AQ
AQ
Company
2011 Response status1
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company
0
86
B
E
A
NP
14,216
4,483,820 404,000,000
USP
14,216
3
†
†
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
C
3,359,909
2,113,413
77
C
211,598
AQ
68
C
AQ
AQ
80
B
DP
IN
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ(L)
87
75
B
C
AQ
AQ
74
C
98
B
-
3 Abs
†
Abs
TI Tr
3
Int
12,273,305
Fu
†
Abs
1,246,496
6,342,126
†
Abs
113,411
98,187
583,584
Tr TSP
Fr Oth
Fu TI Tr
†
Abs
175,935
28,647
147,288
46,270
Tr
†
Int
692,284
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
Tr
†
Abs
-
NP
-
NP
34
Costco Wholesale
Coventry Health
Care
CSX
Verification/Assurance3
Target(s) Implemented
Utilities
Scope 3 source type
AQ
Scope 3
Consumer Staples
Scope 2
67
41
Scope 1
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
Total Emissions2
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
Non-Public
Consumer Staples
Energy
Energy
Utilities
Carbon performance band
2010 Response status
Carbon disclosure score
2011 Response status1
Conagra Foods
ConocoPhillips
CONSOL Energy
Consolidated
Edison
Constellation
Brands
Constellation Energy
Group
Corning
Sector
Company
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
TI Tr
USP
†
†
Int
2,093,714
68,005,000
1,010,130
1,083,584
586,512
57,981,000 10,024,000 512,000,000
96
C
A
5,214,097
3,838,598
1,375,499
25,745,818
Tr TSP
AQ
76
C
116,465
76,849
39,616
242,261
TI Wa Tr
AQ
AQ
81
C
17,474,460
16,690,866
783,594
56,120
Wa Tr
EC
Information
Technology
Consumer Staples
Health Care
AQ
AQ
34
-
1,175,452
266,635
908,817
AQ
NR
AQ(L)
AQ
49
-
3 Abs
†
3 Abs
Int
†
NP
Industrials
AQ
AQ
85
A
5,475,420
5,214,546
260,874
20,899
Tr
3
Int
Cummins
Industrials
AQ
AQ
81
C
664,497
229,654
434,843
25,431
Tr
Int
CVS Caremark
D.R. Horton
Consumer Staples
Consumer
Discretionary
Industrials
Consumer
Discretionary
Health Care
Consumer Staples
AQ
NR
AQ
NR
67
D
-
1,766,839
220,888
1,545,951
10,933
Tr
3
†
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
10
79
C
1,078,250
347,655
730,595
6,092
Tr
†
Int
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
89
B
1,570,038
829,790
740,248
127,393
†
Industrials
Information
Technology
Energy
Health Care
AQ
AQ
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
Energy
AQ
NR
AQ
NR
4,170,000
3,680,000
490,000
16,063
Fu
†
NR
NR
-
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
NR
NR
-
NR
IN
-
Consumer
Discretionary
Utilities
NR
X
-
AQ
AQ
69
D
59,353,956
59,004,018
349,938
Oth
¢
Industrials
AQ
NR
64
E
386,524
129,793
256,731
Danaher
Darden Restaurants
DaVita
Dean Foods
Deere
Dell
Denbury Resources
DENTSPLY
International
Devon Energy
Devry
Diamond Offshore
Drilling
DIRECTV Group
Discover Financial
Services
Discovery
Communications
Dominion
Resources
Dover
35
NP
†
†
59
D
-
†
2010 Response status
Carbon disclosure score
Carbon performance band
Total Emissions2
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
AQ
AQ
95
A-
38,084,000
29,043,000
9,041,000
3,025,000
Dr Pepper Snapple
Group
DTE Energy
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
60
E
405,936
228,019
177,917
228,281
Utilities
AQ
AQ
72
D
40,190,300
39,890,000
300,300
16,704,400
Duke Energy
Utilities
AQ
AQ
62
C
90,612,245
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
AQ
AQ
80
B
15,432,000
10,749,000
4,683,000
146,253
Tr
Materials
Industrials
Information
Technology
Materials
AQ
AQ
AQ
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
AQ
AQ
91
A
273,564
186,012
87,552
12,596
Tr
Utilities
Energy
Information
Technology
Health Care
AQ
NR
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
29
-
56,700,000
56,700,000
AQ
AQ
61
C
1,621,619
454,521
1,167,098
204,478
Information
Technology
Industrials
Utilities
AQ
AQ
88
B
346,066
28,031
318,035
105,029
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
24
85
B
34,786,668
33,967,962
818,706
14,632,716
Energy
Energy
Industrials
Financials
Consumer Staples
Utilities
Consumer
Discretionary
Industrials
DP
NR
NR
NR
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
NR
DP
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
77
79
63
C
C
E
92,030
9,522,374
33,290
9,245,696
58,740
276,678
38,100
5,033
AQ
AQ(L)
56
D
41,344
5,724
35,620
Health Care
Energy
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
70
B
DP
X
-
IN
IN
-
Ecolab
Edison International
El Paso
Electronic Arts
Eli Lilly
EMC
Emerson Electric
Entergy
EOG Resources
EQT Corporation
Equifax
Equity Residential
Estée Lauder
Exelon
Expedia
Expeditors
International of
Washington
Express Scripts
Exxon Mobil
F5 Networks
Information
Technology
Family Dollar Stores Consumer
Discretionary
TI Tr
TSP
TI Tr
3
Int
†
Int
Fu Tr
USP
†
Abs
Int
Abs
Int
Scope 3 source type
Target(s) Implemented
2011 Response status1
Materials
Verification/Assurance3
Sector
Dow Chemical
Non-Public
Company
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company
†
†
Abs
† Int
¢ Int
† Abs
3
†
Int
TI Wa Tr † Int
EC Oth
Tr
3 Abs
Int
†
SE
3 Abs
Tr USP
Tr
†
†
Int
Abs
NP
147,000,000 132,000,000 15,000,000
†
1,600,000
USP
3 Abs
Int
36
Verification/Assurance3
Target(s) Implemented
996,872
1,008,493
PGS
†
Int
D
-
133,612
15,316
118,296
2,607
Tr
†
82
C
273,887
1,845
272,042
6,793
Tr Oth
†
14
-
5,268,477
1,602,246
3,666,231
39,949
9,985,750
10,362
5,622,379
29,587
4,363,371
7,966
337,500
Tr
TI Tr
PSP
3
B
520,461
25,383
495,078
53,074
TI Tr
†
Abs
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
AQ
66
E
15,215
176
15,039
34,822
Tr EC
USP
†
67,094
29,725
37,369
18,795
Tr EC
3
351,487
14,645
336,842
168,250
Tr
Industrials
Financials
Industrials
Information
Technology
Financials
Financials
AQ
DP
AQ
DP
DP
NR
AQ
DP
13
AQ
DP
AQ
NR
75
Information
Technology
Utilities
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Industrials
Industrials
Materials
Energy
Consumer
Discretionary
Health Care
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Materials
AQ
NR
NR
AQ
AQ
AQ
DP
NR
-
NR
IN
NR
DP
AQ
NR
IN
NR
NR
AQ
-
AQ
DP
AQ
IN
41
-
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
63
87
D
C
DP
DP
-
NR
NR
-
NR
DP
-
AQ
AQ
75
IN
AQ
AQ
NR
IN
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
50
46
D
-
Genworth Financial
Telecommunication
Services
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Industrials
Industrials
Consumer Staples
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Genzyme
Gilead Sciences
Health Care
Health Care
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
85
95
B
B
Goldman Sachs
Financials
AQ
AQ
83
B
Gannett
Gap
General Dynamics
General Electric
General Mills
Genuine Parts
37
Non-Public
Scope 3 source type
Carbon performance band
Carbon disclosure score
Scope 3
Franklin Resources
Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold
Frontier
Communications
GameStop
Scope 2
Forest Laboratories
Fortune Brands
Scope 1
Flowserve
Fluor
FMC Corp
FMC Technologies
Ford Motor
Total Emissions2
FLIR Systems
13,152,895
2010 Response status
FirstEnergy
Fiserv
14,149,767
2011 Response status1
Fastenal
Federated Investors
FedEx Corporation
Fidelity National
Information Services
Fifth Third Bancorp
First Horizon
National
First Solar
Sector
Company
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
NP
NP
3
Int
NP
†
NP
Int
3 Abs
Hewlett-Packard
Home Depot
Honeywell
International
Hormel Foods
Hospira
Host Hotels &
Resorts
Hudson City
Bancorp
Humana
Huntington
Bancshares
IBM
Illinois Tool Works
Ingersoll-Rand
3,340,000
1,410,000
AQ
AQ
89
A-
1,237,476
11,126
AQ
AQ
17
-
AQ
AQ
IN
AQ
AQ
IN
80
54
B
E
-
NR
NR
Information
Technology
Financials
AQ
NR
47
-
AQ
AQ
88
AQ
NR
NR
NR
NR
AQ
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Financials
Energy
Energy
1,930,000 113,437,000
1,226,350
207,065
TSP
USP SE
Tr EC
Ld SE ^
Target(s) Implemented
C
Verification/Assurance3
69
Scope 3 source type
NR
AQ
Scope 3
NR
AQ
Scope 2
Industrials
Consumer
Discretionary
Information
Technology
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer Staples
Energy
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Non-Public
Scope 1
HCP
Health Care Reit
Helmerich & Payne
Hess
Total Emissions2
Hartford Financial
Services
Hasbro
Carbon performance band
Harman
International
Industries
Harris
Carbon disclosure score
H.J. Heinz
Halliburton
Harley-Davidson
2010 Response status
H&R Block
2011 Response status1
Goodrich
Goodyear Tire &
Rubber
Google
Sector
Company
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company
†
Int
3 Abs
†
893,483
4,020,000
532,661
4,020,000
360,822
129,412
44
Tr TSP
Tr
¢
†
Int
B
107,626
30,889
76,737
75,511
Tr EC
3 Abs
51
D
30,456
6,817
23,639
NR
NR
X
AQ
91
B
9,034,065
8,452,627
581,438
40,308,994
-
NP
†
TI Tr
3 Abs
TSP USP
Int
PGS Tr † Abs
TSP ^
TI
† Abs
Int
Information
Technology
Consumer
Discretionary
Industrials
AQ
AQ
84
B
1,865,170
136,660
1,728,510
5,850,300
AQ
AQ
82
B
3,073,094
268,091
2,805,003
3,390,000
IN
IN
Consumer Staples
Health Care
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ(L)
47
50
E
1,430,830
424,230
809,430
74,930
621,400
349,300
6,260
Tr
†
†
Financials
AQ
NR
68
D
627,783
124,783
503,000
1,426
Lu ^
†
Financials
DP
IN
Health Care
Financials
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
81
17
D
-
124,850
91,679
9,723
10,452
115,127
81,227
6,758
Information
Technology
Industrials
Industrials
AQ
AQ
83
B
2,704,276
578,290
2,125,986
3,134,613
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
75
55
C
D
885,052
471,388
413,664
10,676
-
Abs
NP
-
Abs
Int
†
Tr
†
†
Tr EC Lu 3 Abs
USP ^
NP
Tr
†
Int
38
11,761,196
11,761,196
Information
Technology
Financials
AQ
AQ
66
C
2,878,008
1,165,284
1,712,724
43,595,000
PGS TI
Tr USP
†
Abs
Int
DP
AQ
Materials
AQ
AQ
Consumer
Discretionary
Materials
Consumer
Discretionary
Information
Technology
NR
IN
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
66
22
C
-
13,633,900
9,559,400
4,074,500
21,000
Tr
†
Abs
AQ
AQ
58
D
43,036
6,335
36,701
52,674
PGS Wa
Tr EC
TSP PSP
DSP
SE ^
†
Abs
79
D
7,065
580
6,485
7,159
Tr
318,107
407,538
80,711
178,251
237,396
229,287
23,650
10,070
Tr
Tr Lu
3
Int
Int
Int
Target(s) Implemented
-
Verification/Assurance3
Scope 1
30
Scope 3 source type
Total Emissions2
AQ
Scope 3
Carbon performance band
AQ
Scope 2
Carbon disclosure score
Utilities
Non-Public
2010 Response status
IntercontinentalExchange
International Flavors
& Fragrances
International Game
Technology
International Paper
Interpublic Group of
Companies
Intuit
2011 Response status1
Integrys Energy
Group
Intel
Sector
Company
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
†
63
D
NP
-
NP
Intuitive Surgical
Invesco
Health Care
Financials
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
Iron Mountain
ITT
J.M. Smucker
Industrials
Industrials
Consumer Staples
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
72
81
C
B
Jabil Circuit
Information
Technology
Industrials
AQ
AQ
69
C
530,225
23,564
506,661
98,502
EC Lu ^
3
AQ
AQ
53
E
13,050
6,382
6,668
10,357
Wa Tr
Oth
†
AQ
AQ
AQ(L)
AQ
35
65
D
169
1,181,643
169
109,201
1,072,442
163,321
TI Tr
†
†
Int
AQ
AQ
66
D
48,389
8,629
39,760
5,956
Tr
†
Abs
AQ
AQ
78
C
1,279,804
345,723
934,081
296,286
Tr
AQ
AQ
83
B
1,911,629
562,223
1,349,406
79,785
Tr
AQ
AQ
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
AQ
AQ
85
B
1,343,409
580,482
762,927
260,000
TI
3 Abs
Int
† Abs
Int
† Abs
† Abs
Int
3 Int
KeyCorp
Kimberly-Clark
Financials
Consumer Staples
NR
AQ
IN
AQ
70
C
5,728,814
2,611,787
3,117,027
648,040
TI
Kimco Realty
KLA-Tencor
Financials
Information
Technology
Consumer
Discretionary
AQ
NR
NR
NR
37
-
3 Abs
†
AQ
AQ
78
C
859,581
27,062
832,519
226,902
TI Tr
3 Abs
Jacobs Engineering
Group
Janus Capital Group Financials
JCPenney
Consumer
Discretionary
JDS Uniphase
Information
Technology
Johnson & Johnson Health Care
Johnson Controls
JPMorgan Chase
Juniper Networks
Kohl’s
39
3 Abs
†
2010 Response status
Carbon disclosure score
Carbon performance band
Total Emissions2
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
AQ
AQ
86
C
3,319,396
1,468,901
1,850,495
37,225,790
Kroger
L-3
Communications
Holdings
Laboratory
Corporation of
America
Legg Mason
Leggett & Platt
Consumer Staples
Industrials
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
49
-
6,550,146
2,062,714
4,487,432
Health Care
NR
NR
Financials
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Information
Technology
Health Care
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Information
Technology
Industrials
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
12,821
604
12,217
2,506
Tr
DP
DP
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
65
C
158,316
17,531
140,785
9,783
Tr
†
Abs
AQ
AQ
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
AQ
AQ
90
A
1,374,988
313,866
1,061,122
212,431
Tr
Financials
Consumer Staples
Consumer
Discretionary
Information
Technology
Financials
Consumer
Discretionary
Energy
NR
NR
AQ
NR
NR
AQ
36
-
AQ
AQ
79
C
84,158
5,689
78,469
305,849
TI Tr SE
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
69
24
C
-
AQ
AQ
47
-
18,809,000
13,885,000
4,924,000
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Financials
Industrials
Energy
Information
Technology
Consumer
Discretionary
AQ
AQ
70
B
2,207,415
395,391
1,812,024
54,723
Tr
AQ
DP
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
88
114,469
2
114,468
41,465
Tr
531,914
200,533
331,381
5,609
Tr
†
29
C
C
-
3 Int
† Abs
Int
†
AQ
AQ
38
-
190,068
13,242
176,826
6,936
Tr
†
Lennar
Leucadia National
Lexmark
International
Life Technologies
Limited Brands
Lincoln National
Linear Technology
Lockheed Martin
Loews
Lorillard
Lowe’s
LSI
M&T Bank
Macy’s
Marathon Oil
Marriott
International
Marsh & McLennan
Marshall & Ilsley
Masco
Massey Energy
MasterCard
Mattel
PGS Fu †
TI Tr EC
TSP USP
DSP ^
†
†
Int
Scope 3 source type
Target(s) Implemented
2011 Response status1
Consumer Staples
Verification/Assurance3
Sector
Kraft Foods
Non-Public
Company
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company
-
53
24
E
-
NP
-
-
73
3 Abs
NP
†
Abs
NP
†
Int
NP
40
Verification/Assurance3
Target(s) Implemented
Carbon performance band
Int
†
Abs
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Health Care
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
32
-
AQ
AQ
65
D
DP
AQ
AQ
AQ
14
-
Materials
AQ
AQ
77
B
3,115,200
2,339,967
775,233
Medco Health
Solutions
Medtronic
MEMC Electronic
Materials
Merck & Co.
Health Care
AQ
AQ
55
E
87,211
5,914
81,297
3 Abs
Int
†
Health Care
Information
Technology
Health Care
AQ
NR
AQ
NR
43
-
236,697
25,040
211,657
†
AQ
AQ
79
B
2,075,661
1,046,881
1,028,780
Meredith
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Telecommunication
Services
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
34
-
37,131
6,725
30,406
AQ
NR
AQ
NR
33
-
AQ
AQ
71
C
241,107
97,349
143,758
†
AQ
AQ
25
-
1,713,277
780,776
932,501
†
AQ
AQ
81
B
1,191,654
47,383
1,144,271
389,017
TI Tr SE
3
AQ
AQ
50
E
258,339
12,197
246,142
4,145
Tr
†
AQ
AQ
86
A
948,128
413,790
534,338
38,948
PGS TI
Wa Tr ^
Materials
Information
Technology
Financials
Financials
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
38
17
-
1,815,700
1,153,800
661,900
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
6
87
A
359,073
14,322
344,751
63,103
Fu Tr
Information
Technology
Energy
Health Care
Energy
Financials
AQ
X
60
E
279,234
15,794
263,440
125,438
Tr
NR
NR
NR
AQ(L)
NR
NR
NR
AQ
McGraw-Hill
McKesson
Mead Johnson
Nutrition
MeadWestvaco
MetLife
Metro PCS
Communications
Microchip
Technology
Micron Technology
Microsoft
Molex
Molson Coors
Brewing
Monsanto
Monster Worldwide
Moody’s
Morgan Stanley
Motorola Solutions4
Murphy Oil
Mylan
Nabors Industries
NASDAQ OMX
Group
41
74,710
14,393
60,317
210,604
62,084
148,520
Scope 3 source type
C
Scope 3
57
Scope 2
AQ
Scope 1
AQ
McCormick &
Company
McDonald’s
Total Emissions2
NR
Non-Public
NR
McAfee
Sector
Information
Technology
Consumer Staples
Company
2010 Response status
†
2011 Response status1
Carbon disclosure score
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
-
-
NP
216,442
TI Tr ^
†
565,000
300,299
TI
TI Tr
USP
3 Abs
†
927
Wa ^
Int
Abs
†
Abs
Int
3 Abs
Int
† Abs
NP
†
NP
3
†
Int
Int
Total Emissions2
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
Scope 3 source type
Verification/Assurance3
Target(s) Implemented
NR
NR
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
AQ
AQ
57
E
293,513
147,887
145,626
1,741
Tr
†
Abs
Int
AQ
AQ
59
E
96,320
8,082
88,238
NR
X
AQ
AQ
44
-
IN
AQ
AQ
X
AQ
AQ
88
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)
40
-
71,900
6,900
65,000
1,405,800
AQ
AQ
AQ
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
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
Industrials
AQ
AQ
80
C
1,261,650
323,050
938,600
1,220,152
Tr EC
TSP
Novell
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Utilities
Materials
Information
Technology
Financials
NR
NR
AQ
AQ
51
D
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
DP
AQ(L)
69
C
D
57,182,000
57,000,000
182,000
3,812
25,674
1,698
23,976
National Oilwell
Varco
National
Semiconductor
NetApp
Novellus Systems
NRG Energy
Nucor
NVIDIA
NYSE Euronext
Occidental
Petroleum
Omnicom Group
Oneok
Oracle
O’Reilly Automotive
Owens-Illinois
Non-Public
2010 Response status
Carbon performance band
2011 Response status1
Energy
Company
Sector
Carbon disclosure score
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company
-
†
NP
†
3 Abs
†
†
†
Abs
Int
Int
Int
†
†
Int
Abs
3
†
Int
Tr EC
†
Abs
4,005
Tr
†
Int
8,070
Tr
3
NP
-
54
NP
AQ
AQ
89
C
83,235
3,326
79,909
Energy
AQ
AQ
57
C
17,800,000
11,200,000
6,600,000
Consumer
Discretionary
Utilities
Information
Technology
Consumer
Discretionary
Materials
AQ
AQ
51
E
118,171
34,749
83,422
NR
AQ
X
AQ
54
E
448,731
15,208
433,523
NR
AQ
AQ
AQ
3,751,000
3,751,000
3
142,988
Tr
†
Abs
†
Int
24
-
†
42
NR
-
IN
NR
IN
NR
-
Utilities
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
84
90
PerkinElmer
Pfizer
Health Care
Health Care
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
PG&E
Utilities
AQ
Philip Morris
International
Pinnacle West
Capital
Pioneer Natural
Resources
Pitney Bowes
Plum Creek Timber
Consumer Staples
PNC Financial
Services
Polo Ralph Lauren
2,148,393
6,048,225
677,815
4,006,160
1,470,578
2,042,065
18,392
112,000
53
81
D
B
40,575
2,707,928
18,663
1,459,943
21,912
1,247,985
10,227
9,781,207
AQ
92
B
4,216,239
3,218,256
997,983
AQ
AQ
83
B
768,773
355,789
412,984
Utilities
AQ
AQ
40
-
15,267,665
15,245,383
22,282
Energy
NR
NR
Industrials
Financials
AQ(L)
AQ
AQ
AQ
66
D
120,263
134,975
46,210
32,160
74,053
102,815
292,061
Financials
AQ
AQ
75
B
369,651
44,700
324,951
107,453
DP
DP
PPG Industries
Consumer
Discretionary
Materials
AQ
AQ
56
D
6,090,000
4,300,000
1,790,000
22,000
Tr
PPL
Praxair
Utilities
Materials
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
93
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
12
-
AQ
IN
56
C
70,766
Consumer Staples
Utilities
Financials
Financials
AQ
DP
NR
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
49
B
5,904,000
7,887
Principal Financial
Group
Procter & Gamble
Progress Energy
Progressive
ProLogis
43
Scope 3
B
A-
Peabody Energy
People’s United
Financial
Pepco Holdings
PepsiCo
Non-Public
112,665
596,311
Company
37,730
87,172
Tr EC
Fr Oth
Target(s) Implemented
NR
150,395
683,483
PACCAR
Pall
Parker-Hannifin
Patterson
Companies
Paychex
Verification/Assurance3
Information
Technology
Energy
Financials
Scope 2
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
Scope 1
DP
AQ
AQ
NR
Total Emissions2
Industrials
Industrials
Industrials
Health Care
Scope 3 source type
Carbon performance band
2010 Response status
D
D
-
2011 Response status1
56
65
Sector
Carbon disclosure score
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
†
†
Int
Int
†
3 Int
† Abs
3 Abs
Tr
PGS Eq
Fu TI Wa
Tr EC Lu
SE
48,753,850
Fu Wa 3 Abs
Tr USP
627,767
TI Tr ^ 3 Int
†
Int
†
Abs
†
Abs
†
Abs
Int
-
PGS Tr
TSP
PGS Fu
Tr EC
-
83
3 Abs
Int
†
70,766
†
Abs
2,795,000
3,109,000
†
Int
2,045
5,843
3
Int
2,365
Tr
NR
NR
NR
AQ
DP
AQ
X
AQ
35
-
7,425
AQ
AQ
62
C
97,537
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
46
-
QEP Resources
QLogic
Qualcomm
Quanta Services
Quest Diagnostics
Qwest
Communications
International
(see CenturyLink)5
RadioShack
Range Resources
Raytheon
Red Hat
Regions Financial
Republic Services
Reynolds American
Robert Half
International
Rockwell
Automation
Rockwell Collins
Roper Industries
Ross Stores
Rowan Companies
RR Donnelley &
Sons
Ryder System
Safeway
SAIC
salesforce.com
SanDisk
78,534
1,250,417
12,422
66,428,619
Tr
PGS Fu
TI Tr EC
Lu USP
Target(s) Implemented
Financials
Consumer
Discretionary
Energy
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Industrials
Health Care
5,836
22,873,019
Verification/Assurance3
Public Storage
Pulte Homes
84,370
24,123,436
Scope 3 source type
C
Scope 3
41
79
Scope 2
Carbon performance band
AQ
AQ
Scope 1
Carbon disclosure score
AQ
AQ
Total Emissions2
2010 Response status
Financials
Utilities
Non-Public
2011 Response status1
Prudential Financial
Public Service
Enterprise Group
Company
Sector
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company
†
†
Abs
Abs
-
7,425
†
57,713
39,824
3
261,791
83,093
178,698
602,876
98,909
309,614
39,800
PGS TI
Wa Tr
†
Abs
503,967
†
Abs
117,383
192,231
†
Telecommunication AQ(SA)
Services
AQ
-
Consumer
Discretionary
Energy
Industrials
Information
Technology
Financials
Industrials
Consumer Staples
Industrials
NR
NR
-
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
IN
NR
NR
AQ
NR
DP
NR
AQ
IN
Industrials
AQ
AQ
70
C
102,960
22,880
80,080
183,000
TI Tr
†
Int
Industrials
Industrials
Consumer
Discretionary
Energy
Industrials
AQ
NR
NR
AQ
NR
NR
67
C
-
169,582
26,761
142,821
20,796
Tr
†
Abs
AQ
DP
AQ
DP
13
-
Industrials
Consumer Staples
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
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
AQ
IN
91
B
13,299
1,764
11,535
20,442
AQ
DP
59
D
25
71
56
C
-
NP
NP
D
-
†
Tr
PGS Tr
EC ^
†
†
Abs
3
NP
44
B
473,876
617,841
3,552,179
PGS TI
Tr USP
SE
3
Int
SCANA Corporation Utilities
Schlumberger
Energy
NR
AQ
DP
AQ
80
B
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
16
-
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
55
60
D
D
698,217
3,274,557
199,678
883,809
498,539
2,390,748
AQ
AQ
87
A-
10,382,046
10,053,417
328,629
4,755,062
Fu ^
Sherwin-Williams
Sigma-Aldrich
Simon Property
Group
SLM
Snap-on
Southwest Airlines
Southwestern
Energy
Spectra Energy
Materials
Materials
Financials
AQ
AQ
AQ
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
NR
AQ
AQ
NR
45
35
-
13,974,732
13,930,772
43,960
Energy
AQ
AQ
96
A-
10,115,070
9,066,460
1,048,610
8,263,416
Sprint Nextel
Telecommunication
Services
Health Care
Industrials
AQ
AQ
81
B
2,080,549
74,106
2,006,443
2,100,702
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
70
D
381,505
100,374
281,131
241,878
AQ
AQ(L)
58
D
546,257
137,831
AQ
AQ
65
C
1,014,105
Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide
State Street
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
AQ
AQ
81
C
AQ
AQ
84
Stericycle
Stryker
Sunoco
SunTrust Banks
SUPERVALU
Industrials
Health Care
Energy
Financials
Consumer Staples
NR
DP
DP
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ(L)
AQ
AQ
AQ
Symantec
Information
Technology
Consumer Staples
Financials
AQ
NR
AQ
Sempra Energy
St. Jude Medical
Stanley Black &
Decker
Staples
Starbucks
Sysco
T. Rowe Price
Group
45
Scope 3 source type
1,091,717
Non-Public
Target(s) Implemented
Carbon performance band
78
Verification/Assurance3
Carbon disclosure score
AQ
Scope 3
2010 Response status
AQ
Scope 2
2011 Response status1
Consumer Staples
Scope 1
Sector
Sara Lee
Total Emissions2
Company
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
†
†
†
Int
3 Abs
† Abs
† Int
3 Abs
NP
†
Int
Tr EC
USP
Tr SE
3 Abs
Int
3 Abs
TI Tr
TSP
†
Int
408,426
†
Abs
209,828
804,277
3
Int
2,969,843
593,549
2,376,294
1,416,319
Tr Fr
†
Int
B
146,754
5,683
141,071
20,855
Tr
3
Int
37
69
C
2,887,130
962,821
1,924,309
273,810
†
†
Abs
AQ
77
C
160,120
7,770
152,350
47,916
PGS Wa
Tr
Tr
†
Int
NR
AQ
70
D
NP
Consumer
Discretionary
Utilities
Information
Technology
Health Care
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Energy
Information
Technology
Industrials
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
77
C
3,129,941
414,968
2,714,973
22,986
Tr
†
Int
DP
AQ
AQ
AQ
55
E
29,832
2,424
27,408
9,431
Tr
†
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
40
-
AQ
AQ
55
D
26,130
2,343
23,787
3,297
Tr
†
NR
AQ
DP
AQ
52
E
1,956,912
831,460
1,125,452
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
43
67
C
644,096
403,786
129,790
129,274
514,306
274,512
Utilities
AQ
IN
52
D
Health Care
AQ
AQ
35
-
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Materials
Consumer
Discretionary
Financials
Information
Technology
Financials
AQ
AQ
85
C
44,126
3,593
40,533
AQ
AQ(L)
45
-
260,618
24,767
235,851
50,525
Tr ^
†
NR
DP
DP
AQ
NR
AQ
82
C
762,410
64,250
698,160
14,300
Tr
3
Int
NR
AQ
NR
AQ
36
-
AQ
AQ
60
D
88,472
37,084
51,388
†
Abs
Industrials
Consumer Staples
Financials
Industrials
Materials
AQ
DP
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
NR
AQ
AQ
AQ
66
70
57
51
C
C
D
D
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
Industrials
AQ
AQ
58
D
1,914,377
946,075
968,302
66,336
Tr
†
Health Care
Financials
Industrials
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
74
73
99
D
D
A-
42,948
12,630,498
9,677
11,712,803
33,271
917,695
4,244
9,864,729
Tr
Fu Tr
EC TSP
Fr
3
Non-Public
Target(s) Implemented
United Technologies
Corporation
UnitedHealth Group
Unum Group
UPS
Verification/Assurance3
Torchmark
Total System
Services
Travelers
Companies
Tyco
Tyson Foods
U.S. Bancorp
Union Pacific
United States Steel
Scope 3 source type
Titanium Metals
TJX Companies
Scope 3
Time Warner Cable
Scope 2
Time Warner
Scope 1
Textron
The Hershey
Company
The Southern
Company
Thermo Fisher
Scientific
Tiffany & Co.
Total Emissions2
Tesoro
Texas Instruments
Carbon performance band
Teradyne
Carbon disclosure score
Tenet Healthcare
Teradata
2010 Response status
TECO Energy
Tellabs
2011 Response status1
Target
Sector
Company
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company
NP
Abs
†
159,886
Tr TSP
132,000,000 132,000,000
†
†
Int
Int
†
†
3
Int
-
NP
NP
Tr
†
†
†
Abs
Int
Abs
NP
†
Int
46
Scope 2
Scope 3
Scope 3 source type
Verification/Assurance3
AQ
74
D
285,657
93,585
192,072
18,334
Tr
†
NR
AQ
DP
NR
75
E
62,907
42,807
20,100
13,208
Tr
†
DP
DP
DP
AQ
AQ
AQ
61
C
6,062,598
567,297
5,495,301
AQ
AQ
17
-
NP
AQ
DP
40
-
NP
NR
NR
IN
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
66
66
85
E
C
B
2,252,701
21,404,099
280,991
5,922,051
1,971,710
15,482,048
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Waste Management Industrials
AQ
AQ
51
C
1,465,646
550,782
914,864
† Int
● Abs
Int
† Abs
NR
NR
AQ
AQ
61
C
24,732,846
24,531,046
201,800
†
Waters
Watson
Pharmaceuticals
WellPoint
Wells Fargo &
Company
Western Digital
Health Care
Health Care
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
47
67
D
34,922
14,605
20,317
†
Health Care
Financials
AQ
AQ
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
3 Abs
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Financials
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer Staples
AQ
AQ
52
E
519,144
10,717
508,427
31,517
Tr EC
†
NR
NR
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
56
52
C
D
2,938,907
825,761
1,712,178
233,300
AQ
AQ
61
D
711,979
324,141
387,838
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
31
8
-
16,916,133
16,090,704
825,429
Valero Energy
Varian Medical
Systems
Ventas
Verisign
Verizon
Communications
Viacom
Visa
Vornado Realty
Trust
Vulcan Materials
W.W. Grainger
Walgreens
Wal-Mart Stores
Financials
Information
Technology
Telecommunication
Services
Consumer
Discretionary
Information
Technology
Financials
Materials
Industrials
Consumer Staples
Consumer Staples
Walt Disney
Company
Washington Post
Western Union
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
Whole Foods
Market
Williams Companies Energy
Windstream
Telecommunication
Services
47
Target(s) Implemented
Scope 1
AQ
V.F. Corporation
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Energy
Health Care
Non-Public
Total Emissions2
Carbon performance band
2010 Response status
X
Urban Outfitters
Sector
NR
Company
2011 Response status1
Carbon disclosure score
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
-
†
Int
-
NP
42,841
TI Tr
Abs
Int
Abs
NP
1,226,729
592,461 130,472,837
179,995
USP
DSP
Wa Tr
†
†
Abs
Abs
†
Int
†
†
NR
NR
AQ
AQ
89
Information
Technology
Information
Technology
Financials
Information
Technology
Consumer
Discretionary
Health Care
Financials
AQ
AQ
AQ
297,571
B
58,008,343
56,075,310
1,933,033
17,707,804
54
C
335,869
156,664
179,205
6,149
AQ
42
-
25,594
2,056
23,538
AQ
AQ
AQ
AQ
38
36
-
AQ
AQ
61
D
AQ
DP
AQ
DP
53
E
-
Scope 3
20,926,674
100,814
Non-Public
20,926,674
398,385
Target(s) Implemented
D
B
Verification/Assurance3
51
83
Scope 3 source type
AQ
NR
Scope 2
Zimmer Holdings
Zions
Bancorporation
AQ
AQ
Scope 1
Yum! Brands
Utilities
Consumer
Discretionary
Consumer
Discretionary
Utilities
Total Emissions2
XL Capital
Yahoo!
Carbon performance band
Xilinx
Carbon disclosure score
Xerox
2010 Response status
Xcel Energy
2011 Response status1
Wisconsin Energy
Wyndham
Worldwide
Wynn Resorts
Sector
Company
Appendix 2: Table of emissions, scores and sector information by company
†
3
Fu TI
EC ^
TI PSP
SE ^
†
Abs
†
Abs
†
5,097
49,342
Tr
Tr EC
†
†
Int
NP
102,461
6,743
95,718
†
†
48
CDP S&P 500 Report 2011 – Strategic Advantage Through Climate Change Action
Key:
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.
49
AQ
Answered questionnaire
AQ(L)Answered questionnaire late so
company not scored
SACompany 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
XCompany 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
NPAnswered 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 or assurance,
or verification undertaken did
not meet CDP’s verification
requirements. For more details,
please see www.cdproject.net/
verification
AbsAbsolute emissions reduction
target
IntIntensity emissions reduction
target
Scope 3 Source Key:
PGS Purchased goods & services
Eq
Capital goods
FuFuel- and energy-related
activities (not included in Scopes
1 or 2)
TI
Transportation & distribution
Wa
Waste generated in operations
Tr
Business travel
ECEmployee commuting and
teleworking
LuLeased assets (upstream, not
included in Scope 1 or 2)
InInvestments (not included in
Scope 1 or 2)
TSPTransportation and distribution of
sold products
PSP Processing of sold products
USP Use of sold products
DSPEnd of life treatment of sold
products
LdLeased assets (downstream, not
included in Scope 1 or 2)
FrFranchises (not included in
Scope 1 or 2)
SE
Supplier emissions
OthOther
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.