CDP 2015 Climate Change 2015 Information Request
CDP
Rexam
Module: Introduction
Page: Introduction
CC0.1
Introduction
Please give a general description and introduction to your organization.
Rexam is a leading beverage can making company. We are no.1 in Europe and South America and no.2 in USA. We are business partners to some of the world’s
most famous and successful consumer brands. Our vision is to be the best beverage can maker in the world.
Rexam's sales from ongoing operations in 2014 were in the region of £3.83 billion. We have 55 plants in our 25 different countries and employ around 8,000 people.
Rexam is a member of the FTSE 250 and its ordinary shares are listed with the UK Listing Authority and trade on the London Stock Exchange under the symbol
REX. Rexam is also a member of FTSE4Good and participates in the annual RobecoSAM sustainabilty assessment - DJSI. In 2014 we were included in the DJSI
Europe index and got the Bronze medal award. Rexam is rated at Gold' by Ecovadis.
CC0.2
Reporting Year
Please state the start and end date of the year for which you are reporting data.
The current reporting year is the latest/most recent 12-month period for which data is reported. Enter the dates of this year first.
We request data for more than one reporting period for some emission accounting questions. Please provide data for the three years prior to the current reporting
year if you have not provided this information before, or if this is the first time you have answered a CDP information request. (This does not apply if you have been
offered and selected the option of answering the shorter questionnaire). If you are going to provide additional years of data, please give the dates of those reporting
periods here. Work backwards from the most recent reporting year.
Please enter dates in following format: day(DD)/month(MM)/year(YYYY) (i.e. 31/01/2001).
Enter Periods that will be disclosed
Wed 01 Jan 2014 - Wed 31 Dec 2014
CC0.3
Country list configuration
Please select the countries for which you will be supplying data. If you are responding to the Electric Utilities module, this selection will be carried forward to assist
you in completing your response.
Select country
Argentina
Austria
Brazil
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
India
Ireland
Italy
Mexico
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America
Select country
Egypt
Finland
CC0.4
Currency selection
Please select the currency in which you would like to submit your response. All financial information contained in the response should be in this currency.
GBP(£)
CC0.6
Modules
As part of the request for information on behalf of investors, electric utilities, companies with electric utility activities or assets, companies in the automobile or auto
component manufacture sub-industries, companies in the oil and gas sub-industries, companies in the information technology and telecommunications sectors and
companies in the food, beverage and tobacco industry group should complete supplementary questions in addition to the main questionnaire.
If you are in these sector groupings (according to the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS)), the corresponding sector modules will not appear below but
will automatically appear in the navigation bar when you save this page. If you want to query your classification, please email respond@cdp.net.
If you have not been presented with a sector module that you consider would be appropriate for your company to answer, please select the module below. If you
wish to view the questions first, please see https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Programmes/Pages/More-questionnaires.aspx.
Further Information
Module: Management
Page: CC1. Governance
CC1.1
Where is the highest level of direct responsibility for climate change within your organization?
Board or individual/sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board
CC1.1a
Please identify the position of the individual or name of the committee with this responsibility
The highest level of responsibility for Climate Change resides with our Executive Leadership team (ELT), which comprises 10 members of our most senior
operational and functional executives and who meet quarterly. The ELT reports directly to the CEO, Graham Chipchase who oversees the group's performance in
environmental matters including climate change, reporting on performance and progress to the Board.
Our Group Sustainability Director directly reports into the Group Commercial Director, who comprises the ELT and whom meet monthly to review all sustainability
issues including Climate change and whether to arise anything during ELT meetings.
A specific committee 'Ensure Our Future team' is responsible for embedding longer term thinking when identifying opportunities and implementing leading practices
in sustainability, innovation and risk management, led also by the Group Commercial Director a member of the ELT. For example this year, water is being the
biggest focus in terms of sustainability for the Risk Leadership Team.
The Audit and Risk Committee, reporting directly to the Board, assesses long term risks (+10 years) including climate change.
Beneath all the high hierarchy we have a dedicated sustainability team at group level which ensures that all of our sustainability matters are understood and
managed on a day to day basis. Our Group Sustainability Director, John Revess, provides leadership to our business units (Sectors), engaging them to achieve
strong environmental results which support Rexam's vision to be the best beverage can maker in the world as well as a sustainable business. We track our
performance with sectors every quarter to ensure we're on aligned with our targets; Our Balanced Scorecard shows traffic lights that enable us see how each
indicator progresses and how we achieve our commitments and minimise resource use.
CC1.2
Do you provide incentives for the management of climate change issues, including the attainment of targets?
Yes
CC1.2a
Please provide further details on the incentives provided for the management of climate change issues
Who is entitled
to benefit from
these
incentives?
The type of
incentives
All employees
Monetary
reward
Facility managers
Monetary
reward
All employees
Recognition
(non-monetary)
Incentivized
performance
indicator
Efficiency project
Other: Cost
Saving Target
Behaviour change
related indicator
Comment
Each business sector has an incentive programme partially based on improvements achieved through
energy efficiency projects, which as a result reduce carbon emissions. This incentive is delivered via
an annual bonus.
We have a company wide performance appraisal/review process for all employees. For all Plant
Managers cost improvement is part of their job performance, measured through personal objectives
and the Sector profitability target. If a plant isn't meeting its cost saving targets (which include
electricity/gas, water and utilities) it would/could impact the Plant Manager's grading and future
remuneration.
We have an award called "Blue Chip" which is given to an employee when they tangibly demonstrate
Rexam's values or clearly acts following Leadership practises reaching a determined result. It
incentivises behaviours which encourage One Rexam Way.
Further Information
Please check the document attached to see the filling in form for the Blue Chips in Rexam.
Attachments
https://www.cdp.net/sites/2015/68/15768/Climate Change 2015/Shared Documents/Attachments/ClimateChange2015/CC1.Governance/Blue Chip form.pdf
Page: CC2. Strategy
CC2.1
Please select the option that best describes your risk management procedures with regard to climate change risks and opportunities
Integrated into multi-disciplinary company wide risk management processes
CC2.1a
Please provide further details on your risk management procedures with regard to climate change risks and opportunities
Frequency
of
monitoring
Six-monthly
or more
frequently
To whom are
results reported?
Board or
individual/sub-set of
the Board or
committee
appointed by the
Board
Geographical areas considered
The bi-annual risk review covers all sectors within
Rexam (Europe, North America, South America and
AMEA regions) which comprise of the individual
manufacturing sites in the countries of operations (as
noted in Section CC0.3). It also includes a review
across corporate functions in PLC headquarters
(Group Procurement, HR, Pensions, IM, Operational
Risks, Legal & Communications, Finance, Tax,
Treasury, Marketing and Sustainability).
How far into
the future
are risks
considered?
1 to 3 years
Comment
Rexam is dedicated to establishing and
maintaining sustainable practices across all
aspects of our business. We continually seek to
improve our awareness and understanding of risks
and opportuities that will impact our business,
including those relating to climate change and use
of energy. The scope of Rexam's multidisciplinary company-wide ERM approach covers
climate change, energy and other potential risks of
our business operations including financial,
operational and reputational risks. Climate
change issues, for example the potential
operational and financial impact on our operations
from drought, changes in legislation and regulation
related to policy and climate etc. are addressed
within our ERM framework. Rexam understands
that our results are influenced by the weather as
cold/poor weather conditions may adversely
impact the demand of our products and our
manufacturing processes. We see this as a risk
but also as an opportunity for the business.
CC2.1b
Please describe how your risk and opportunity identification processes are applied at both company and asset level
Rexam's risk management process is embedded in our significant business processes. We continue to further embed risk management process into our day-to-day
operations across all levels of the organisation.
Risks/opportunities are identified through the following input sources:
a) suppliers', competitors' and customers' behaviours/activities
b) Functions and business units review and monitoring
c) macroeconomics & other external risk analysis
d) strategic planning, forecasting and budgeting processes
e) audit assessments, external input & benchmarking
Rexam's risk identification process includes the following approaches:
1) The top-down approach includes risk review at Group level (including CEO & CFO) with respective Sectors and Functions, comparison of risks across the Sectors
through the Risk Leadership team (RLT), Group Councils and Functional leadership teams.
2) The bottom-up approach where issues are articulated and reviewed at Sector Executive team meetings (with input from respective plant managers if required)
and reported to Group for the risk review.
3) The outside-in approach where Rexam's risks are benchmarked against external sources like risk consultants/experts, publications, audits etc.
The Materiality Refresh 2014 with stakeholders was performed to identify issues (risks & opportunities) of significance to Rexam from the sustainability aspect. A
workshop to review these issues was carried out with the RLT and discussed the EOF theme team. It was concluded that long term risks should be aligned to
Rexam's materiality priorities identified.
For instance, we identified the risk of potential increase in cost due to introduction of energy taxes in certain countries through the input sources above. This could
also be an opportunity to Rexam where mitigations can be shared with businesses in other countries to ensure that we are prepared in advance of the change.
Our risk management process is reported on page 32 of our Annual Report.
CC2.1c
How do you prioritize the risks and opportunities identified?
Rexam has standardised risk assessment guidelines to determine the risk category, the impact on the business, the likelihood of occurence and mitigating actions
for risks identified, including those related to climate change. Using the risk assessment guideline, gross (before mitigations) and net (after mitigations) risk ratings
are assigned to identified risks. The gross and net risk ratings enable us to identify and prioritise our key material risks for the Group, Sectors and Functions,
consider the effect of current mitigations on managing the risks. Additionally in 2015 risk velocity and appropriate risk rating were incorporated into Rexam risk
register to enrich our risk review and discussions.
The risk rating not only allows Rexam to prioritise risks, it also enables us to focus our resources in managing and mitigating key risks items. The identified risks
prioritised as key risks to the Group are reported to the Audit & Risk Committee (ARC).
The risk heat map is a tool used to demonstrate risk prioritisation, and gross and net risk movements for key risks, following the risk assessment guidelines.
Please see page 10 below (CEO's review) in the Annual report 2014 for the heat map matrix.
Through the risk identification and prioritisation process, we understand that changes in climate affect our business. Although we do not have a climate change risk
explicitly stated in our risk register, we have recorded risk relating to or as a consequence of climate change. For instance, drought in a region where we operate
with heavy reliance on hydro power, caused an increase in energy costs due to lack of supply and potential business interruptions to us and our customers where
water is of significance to their production activities. This allows Rexam to manage the risks by implementing mitigations such as close alignment with our customers
, managing inventory levels, exploring alternatives sources of energy etc.
CC2.1d
Please explain why you do not have a process in place for assessing and managing risks and opportunities from climate change, and whether you plan
to introduce such a process in future
Main reason for not having a process
Do you plan to introduce a process?
Comment
CC2.2
Is climate change integrated into your business strategy?
Yes
CC2.2a
Please describe the process of how climate change is integrated into your business strategy and any outcomes of this process
Our Processes
1. Sustainability Framework and Balanced Scorecard
In 2014 Rexam refreshed it's sustainability framework, according to the materiality study and which indicators were relevant to stakeholders, as a result we have 15
KPIs which are reported and managed through our balanced scorecard process. Of the 15 KPI's, five are climate change driven (recycling rate, energy efficiency,
carbon efficiency (Scope 1 & 2), carbon footprint (Scope 1,2 & 3) and lightweighting) and each has a clear target that is embedded into the business unit strategies.
The ELT formally reviews performance every 6 months and action plans are mandated by the ELT in the case of underperformance. Rexam reports performance
against the 15 targets at a Group level annually, which you can either see in our website link: http://www.rexam.com/index.asp?pageid=900 and some indicators as
part of our business performance indicators, which include 6 financial and 6 non-financial, see Annual Report (page 31).
Recycling - recycling rates is a key part of reducing our environmental footprint, because every can recycled saves up to 95% of the energy used to make a can with
primary material; The metal maintains its good quality and it proves the capability of the material to be best in class. Some good examples of high recycling rates
include Brazil where Recycling rates maintain a 98% rate and Europe whose recycling rate is 72.9% in 2012 (latest data available); Targets set by industry in our
operating countries for 2015 are ambitious but yet achievable.
Lightweighting, through innovation and improvements in the manufacturing processes, the weight of a standard can has been lightweighted about c.22% over the
last 20 years. A can (and end) record in 2014 now only weigh 12.25g (check the document "Did you know?") yet it is capable of protecting the contents from light,
pollution, breakage and delivering them to the end consumer in perfect condition. Our lightweighting indicator shows how we still continue, with the use of
technology in our processes, to make our product use less metal, therefore our carbon performance improves every time we reduce weight in our cans.
Our energy intensity (total MWh of energy consumption/normalised cans produced) has improved in 2.2% compared with the 2013 despite a 2% increase in
production as well as a decrease of 0.27% increase in the MWh. We are on line to meet our 7% target by 2020. Carbon intensity in 2014 (Scope 1 &2/normalised
cans produced) has improved 1.87% from 2013, we are also on track to meet our carbon intensity target of 7% by 2020.
Water - Despite not having a water strategy, Rexam has significantly increased awareness and knowledge around this topic which is linked to climate change. From
understanding our own consumption and water usage, to how can innovation help in water stressed countries are some of the improvements we've made in the last
2 years. We will submit our CDP Water questionnaire with more in depth of our improvements.
2. Strategic planning process
The main material sustainability issues and their key risks and mitigations, including any climate change related issues/risks, that are relevant to the execution of our
business strategies, are integrated into the strategic planning process. For example, the carbon reduction element is part of our customer value proposition.
The planning process involves input from group councils, functional leadership teams and internal/external business intelligence - this is followed by a series of
strategy workshops involving the Executive Leadership Team and the sector' executive teams, prior to the finalisation and approval of our strategic plan and its
implementation.
3. Lean6signma
We use universally recognised and well established continuous improvement tools such as six sigma to drive a culture of efficiency and economy in all that we do.
This and our lean enterprise methodologies are well suited to support our sustainability objectives. They enable us to reduce our raw materials usage and our
consumption of energy and water, thus reducing our carbon and environmental footprint. We have a long established internal process measuring lean enterprise
progress, with an award system of Bronze, Silver, Gold and Beyond Gold. In 2015, our Joint Venture plant Guatemala was recognised as world class in
assessments by the Shingo Institute for Operational Excellence. In addition one other Rexam plant in Brazil received then Silver medallion from the Shingo Institute
recognition in 2014, Jacarei. We currently have a number of plants undergoing pre-assessment, including Recklinghausen Ends in Germany, and Naro Forminsk
Ends and Cans in Russia.
CC2.2b
Please explain why climate change is not integrated into your business strategy
CC2.2c
Does your company use an internal price of carbon?
No, and we currently don't anticipate doing so in the next 2 years
CC2.2d
Please provide details and examples of how your company uses an internal price of carbon
CC2.3
Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly influence public policy on climate change through any of the following? (tick all that
apply)
Direct engagement with policy makers
Trade associations
CC2.3a
On what issues have you been engaging directly with policy makers?
Focus of
legislation
Other:
Resource
Efficiency
Other: Food
waste
Corporate
Position
Details of engagement
Proposed legislative solution
Support
Direct representation to policymakers regarding packaging
waste
Higher recycling rate targets and elimination of waste to landfill
for valuable recyclable materials
Support
Indirect representation to policymakers on the value of
packaging in reducing food waste and creating resource
efficient value chains. (http://www.incpen.org/)
Free and fair market access for all packaging solutions.
Manufacturers and retailers working together to promote
responsible packaging for resource-efficient sustainable supply
chains
CC2.3b
Are you on the Board of any trade associations or provide funding beyond membership?
Yes
CC2.3c
Please enter the details of those trade associations that are likely to take a position on climate change legislation
Trade association
Metal Packaging
Europe, CMI,
BCME, Abralatas
Aluminium
Stewardship
Initiative (ASI)
Is your
position on
climate
change
consistent
with theirs?
Please explain the trade association's position
How have you, or are
you attempting to,
influence the position?
Consistent
Statutory higher recycling rate targets and elimination of waste to landfill for valuable
recyclable materials.
Actively contributing to
stakeholder consultations
Consistent
Working with a broad range of stakeholders to foster sustainability and transparency in the
aluminium value chain. The Standard, publised in 2014 requires Existing smelters to
demonstrate that they have put in place the necessary management system, evaluation
procedures, and operating controls to limit the direct GHG emissions. By 2030, existing
smelters shall demonstrate that the level of direct and indirect GHG emissions (scope 1 and
scope 2) from the production of aluminium is at a level below 8 tonnes CO2-eq per metric
tonne aluminium. It also requires that Smelters starting production after 2020 shall
Actively involved and
contributing towards the
creating of a ASI
standard
Trade association
Is your
position on
climate
change
consistent
with theirs?
Please explain the trade association's position
demonstrate that the direct and indirect GHG emissions (scope 1 and scope 2) from the
production of aluminium is at a level below 8 tonnes CO2-eq per metric tonne aluminium.
CC2.3d
Do you publicly disclose a list of all the research organizations that you fund?
CC2.3e
Do you fund any research organizations to produce or disseminate public work on climate change?
CC2.3f
Please describe the work and how it aligns with your own strategy on climate change
CC2.3g
Please provide details of the other engagement activities that you undertake
CC2.3h
How have you, or are
you attempting to,
influence the position?
What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct and indirect activities that influence policy are consistent with your overall climate
change strategy?
Active participation in the running of Metal Packaging Europe. Rexam chairs the Communications Committee and sits on the Recycling committee as well as the
Executive Committee.
CC2.3i
Please explain why you do not engage with policy makers
CC2.4
Would your organization's board of directors support an international agreement between governments on climate change, which seeks to limit global
temperature rise to under two degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels in line with IPCC scenarios such as RCP2.6?
Yes
CC2.4a
Please describe your board's position on what an effective agreement would mean for your organization and activities that you are undertaking to help
deliver this agreement at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP 21)
ASI (Aluminium Stewardship Initiative) has agreed to explore what a 2ºC compliant (in line with the Copenhagen Accord at UNFCCC’s 15th Conference of Parties)
GHG emissions trajectory would look like for the entire aluminium sector, in collaboration with climate change experts, interested companies and potentially
interested aluminium industry associations. Once this trajectory is better understood, ASI will consider if the criteria can be updated accordingly in a subsequent
standard review. ASI already committed that their standard will have to demonstrate that the level of direct and indirect GHG emissions (scope 1 and scope 2) from
the production of aluminium is at a level below 8 tonnes CO2-eq per metric tonne aluminium.
Further Information
Check the sustainability highlights document or 'Did you know' document to see some of our achievements in 2014
Attachments
https://www.cdp.net/sites/2015/68/15768/Climate Change 2015/Shared
Documents/Attachments/ClimateChange2015/CC2.Strategy/2014_Sustainability_highlights.pdf
Page: CC3. Targets and Initiatives
CC3.1
Did you have an emissions reduction target that was active (ongoing or reached completion) in the reporting year?
Intensity target
CC3.1a
Please provide details of your absolute target
ID
Scope
% of
emissions in
scope
% reduction from
base year
Base year
emissions
(metric tonnes
CO2e)
Base year
Target year
CC3.1b
Please provide details of your intensity target
ID
Scope
% of
emissions
in scope
%
reduction
from base
year
Metric
Base
year
Normalized
base year
emissions
Target
year
Comment
Comment
ID
Scope
Int1
Scope
1+2
Int2
Scope
1+2+3
% of
emissions
in scope
100%
100%
%
reduction
from base
year
Metric
Base
year
Normalized
base year
emissions
Target
year
7%
Other: Metric
tonnes CO2e per
normalised unit
of production
2013
10.08
2020
Our intensity target's denominator is calculated using
normalisation production units
25%
Other: metric
tonnes CO2e per
normalised unit
of production
2020
We have also an intensity target comprising the whole carbon
footprint of our products. Although we only measure carbon
scope 3 for our European sector, we aim to report our company
baseline before year end and have this baseline 3rd party
assured. We will update this on our Rexam.com website. Please
check document below to see how we understand implication on
Scope 3 reporting.
2010
Comment
CC3.1c
Please also indicate what change in absolute emissions this intensity target reflects
ID
Int1
Direction of
change
anticipated in
absolute Scope
1+2 emissions at
target
completion?
Increase
% change
anticipated
in absolute
Scope 1+2
emissions
Direction of
change
anticipated in
absolute Scope
3 emissions at
target
completion?
Decrease
% change
anticipated
in absolute
Scope 3
emissions
Comment
Over the past years pack mix changes have led to market growth in cans larger
than any offset from carbon intensity reductions. However increasing post
consumer recycling rates will ensure that overall absolute emissions decrease.
We can't estimate what would be the % change anticipated for either Scope 1&2
or Scope 1,2 & 3 emissions.
CC3.1d
For all of your targets, please provide details on the progress made in the reporting year
ID
Int1
% complete (time)
14.3%
% complete (emissions)
26.7%
Comment
We're on track to deliver our carbon intensity
target (Scope 1 &2).
CC3.1e
Please explain (i) why you do not have a target; and (ii) forecast how your emissions will change over the next five years
CC3.2
Does the use of your goods and/or services directly enable GHG emissions to be avoided by a third party?
Yes
CC3.2a
Please provide details of how the use of your goods and/or services directly enable GHG emissions to be avoided by a third party
Packaging
Packaging, in general,is a net contributor to a sustainable society because it helps prevent product wastage. Independent research estimates that food waste has at
least ten times the environmental impact of packaging waste. Beverage Cans (our main business) offer an absolute barrier for carbonated beverages so that the
drink remains carbonated for longer than is the case with some other packaging materials (1year vs 3 months).
Recycling Rates
The recycling rate for beverage cans is the highest of any drinks packaging and this recycling creates a carbon credit that reduces the carbon impact of the drink in
consumer hands. Up to 95% of the energy can be saved if the metal used in producing the product comes from recyclate rather than from primary material. We
support recycling rates through various programmes in different countries such as Every Can Counts - and Metal Matters and internally through our own recycling
contest called Community Can Challenge – In 2014 a new metal recycles forever mark has been created by Metal Packaging Europe, which encourages the
licensed use of a Metal Recycles Forever Mark on-pack and off-pack as part of a behaviour change campaign, informing consumers about the inherent recyclability
of metal packaging and encouraging them to recycle (http://metalpackagingeurope.org/recyclesmark/). We also work collaboratively with our customers and in 2014
Carlsberg asked Rexam to become part of their Circular Economy Community and one of our first activities was called "Cradle to Cradle" which looked at 5
sustainability aspects and certifies we have a balanced approach towards sustainability. More information can be found on pages 26 & 27 of our Annual report.
The estimate of emissions saved thanks to consumers recycling our cans at 'end of life' adds up to
6,365,778 tonnes of CO2/year.
Calculation:
Weight of aluminium cans placed on the market in 2014: 789,000 mT
Weight of steel cans placed on the market in 2014: 60,000 mT
Recycling rates for Aluminium: 0.69 (global average recycling rates - see regional rates on page 31 in our Annual Report)
Recycling rates for Steel 0.904 (Spanish recycling rate, source: www.latasdebebidas.org - the only country where we make/sell steel cans)
Factor for CO2 emissions saved for Aluminium (according to European Aluminium Association): 9.8 t
Factor for CO2 emissions saved for Steel (according to the International Iron and Steel Institute) 1.9 t
Innovation
Through the innovation of our manufacturing processes and lightweighting technology the carbon embedded in our operations and product significantly decreases
as less material is used to produce the same amount of product – for example the can is today 22% lighter than it was 20 years ago. The lower weight contributes to
lower distribution emissions while the cans stackable, space-saving frm makes it very efficient for distribution. All the scrap metal that comes out of the can-making
process is sent back to our suppliers to be resmelted and fed back into the conitnuous loop. In 2014 Rexam saved 3,300 tonnes of aluminium lightweighting
projects, which is the equivalent of 32,340 tonnes of CO2e
CC3.3
Did you have emissions reduction initiatives that were active within the reporting year (this can include those in the planning and/or implementation
phases)
Yes
CC3.3a
Please identify the total number of projects at each stage of development, and for those in the implementation stages, the estimated CO2e savings
Stage of development
Under investigation
To be implemented*
Implementation commenced*
Implemented*
Not to be implemented
Number of projects
909
909
146
763
0
Total estimated annual CO2e savings in metric tonnes
CO2e (only for rows marked *)
1475.28
CC3.3b
For those initiatives implemented in the reporting year, please provide details in the table below
Activity
type
Energy
efficiency:
Processes
Description of activity
Gas: Compressor heat
recovery, heat pump and
valves for offices,
recuperation heat from can
on washer oven,
Estimated
annual
CO2e
savings
(metric
tonnes
CO2e)
79.52
Scope
Scope
1
Voluntary/
Mandatory
Voluntary
Annual
monetary
savings
(unit
currency as
specified
in CC0.4)
46469
Investment
required
(unit
currency as
specified in
CC0.4)
14000
Payback
period
1-3
years
Estimated
lifetime of
the
initiative
21-30
years
Comment
The format in which our
sectors give us the
savings on energy
efficiency projects don't
allow us to separate the
Activity
type
Description of activity
Estimated
annual
CO2e
savings
(metric
tonnes
CO2e)
Scope
Voluntary/
Mandatory
Annual
monetary
savings
(unit
currency as
specified
in CC0.4)
Investment
required
(unit
currency as
specified in
CC0.4)
Payback
period
Estimated
lifetime of
the
initiative
interconnection boilers to
run two washers Scope 1 voluntary
CC3.3c
Energy
efficiency:
Processes
Electricity: e-power machine,
heat pump & valves,
process blowers PID control,
cabinets air conditioning,
1390.8
washer stops improvements,
can selection sensor
adjustment, Velocity from
Necker. Scope 2 - voluntary
Low carbon
energy
installation
LED lighting, VFD for fans
Scope 2 - voluntary
5.3
Scope
2
Voluntary
Scope
2
Voluntary
1689500
510100
1-3
years
16-20
years
114
44
<1 year
<1 year
Comment
763 projects and it's
emissions, therefore we
give an overall description
of activities and the
average for other
columns.
The format in which our
sectors give us the
savings on energy
efficiency projects don't
allow us to separate the
763 projects and it's
emissions, therefore we
give an overall description
of activities and the
average for other
columns.
The format in which our
sectors give us the
savings on energy
efficiency projects don't
allow us to separate the
763 projects and it's
emissions, therefore we
give an overall description
of activities and the
average for other
columns.
What methods do you use to drive investment in emissions reduction activities?
Method
Dedicated budget for energy
efficiency
Employee engagement
Dedicated budget for other
emissions reduction activities
Compliance with regulatory
requirements/standards
Dedicated budget for other
emissions reduction activities
Comment
Rexam prioritises all energy saving projects that meet our ROI hurdle that also link into our sustainability targets. An average
of 50% of all Manufacturing Cost Saving Capital is dedicated to Energy reduction activities. Much of this is spent on ‘rolling
out’ the shared improvement projects but also, by using our central Energy Expert within our Technical support function, in
conjunction with the local Energy teams at each manufacturing site, we run ‘Excellence In Performance’ (EIP) events that
identify further opportunities and squeeze out more of that CO2 producing waste that we are all so focused on.
Rexam runs the 'Community Can Challenge' in 11 plants across Europe to encourage recycling of drink cans in local
communities around our plants.
With typical levels of “Waste Reduction” experts of ~ 2% Six Sigma Blackbelts, 8% Six Sigma Greenbelts and 15% Lean
Technicians, Rexam are well placed to identify and eliminate the wasteful areas of the process that create excess Carbon
emissions. Tools these experts use range from Process Mapping of Energy hotspots, Hypothesis testing to identify and
verify key process input variables, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) to improve efficiencies that in turn reduce wasted
energy, and autonomous Kaizen events that provide numerous incremental improvements.
In some countries Rexam contributes to Extended Producer Responsibility' legislation to ensure minium recycling rate targets
are achieved
Rexam contributes to consumer behaviour change activities run by industry. For example Every Can Counts and
MetalMatters in the UK
CC3.3d
If you do not have any emissions reduction initiatives, please explain why not
Further Information
Please check BCE corporate carbon footprint document for question 3.1b
Attachments
https://www.cdp.net/sites/2015/68/15768/Climate Change 2015/Shared Documents/Attachments/ClimateChange2015/CC3.TargetsandInitiatives/BCE corporate
carbon footprint april 2014-20150507-162754.ppt
Page: CC4. Communication
CC4.1
Have you published information about your organization’s response to climate change and GHG emissions performance for this reporting year in places
other than in your CDP response? If so, please attach the publication(s)
Publication
Status
Page/Section
reference
Attach the document
In mainstream financial reports
in accordance with the CDSB
Framework
Complete
85
https://www.cdp.net/sites/2015/68/15768/Climate Change 2015/Shared
Documents/Attachments/CC4.1/Rexam_Annual_Report_2014.pdf
In voluntary communications
Underway this is our first
year
page 20, 21
https://www.cdp.net/sites/2015/68/15768/Climate Change 2015/Shared
Documents/Attachments/CC4.1/Rexam Final Content Plan by Material issue with
logo.docx
Further Information
Module: Risks and Opportunities
Page: CC5. Climate Change Risks
CC5.1
Have you identified any inherent climate change risks that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or
expenditure? Tick all that apply
Risks driven by changes in regulation
Risks driven by changes in physical climate parameters
Risks driven by changes in other climate-related developments
CC5.1a
Please describe your inherent risks that are driven by changes in regulation
Risk driver
Carbon
taxes
Description
Various carbon
taxes and
renewables
targets in different
countries or
confederation of
states could
adversely affect
our operational
cost, procurement
cost, compliance
cost which will
result in lower
profits or high cost
being passed
through to our
customers and
ultimately
consumers
Potential
impact
Increased
operational
cost
Timeframe
3 to 6
years
Direct/
Indirect
Direct
Likelihood
More likely
than not
Magnitude
of impact
Medium
Estimated
financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
The financial
implication varies
from one country
to another. Eg, in
the UK, the CRC
Energy Efficiency
Scheme is a
mandatory
scheme aimed at
improving energy
efficiency and
cutting emissions
in large public and
private sector
organisations.
These
organisations are
responsible for
around 10% of
UK’s emissions.
Rexam is part of
the UK CRC. The
fee payable in
relation to CRC is
We monitor
changes in
regulation, seek
advice from both
internal experts
and (if required)
external
consultants, and
take the necessary
actions to ensure
full compliance and
improve our energy
efficiencies and
consumptions.
Using the CRC
example, Rexam
has rolled out ISO
14001
Environmental
Management
Standard to all
Rexam-owned
locations in the UK
in order to improve
Risk
management
processes and
tools are already
in place,
therefore no
additional cost
would be
required. Also
using the same
CRC example,
we estimated two
additional days
for the ISO audit
which can
increase the
existing audit
cost by <10%,
and also internal
labour cost which
represents one
full time person
for a month.
Risk driver
Description
Potential
impact
Timeframe
Direct/
Indirect
Likelihood
Magnitude
of impact
Estimated
financial
implications
less than 1% of
turnover.
International
agreements
Kyoto Protocol to
the United
Nations
Framework
Convention on
Climate Change
(UNFCC) is an
international
treaty that sets
binding
obligations on
industrialized
countries to
reduce emissions
of greenhouse
gases. In March
2007 the EU
endorsed an
integrated
approach to
climate and
energy policy that
aims to combat
climate change
and increase the
EU’s energy
security. They
committed Europe
to transforming
itself into a highly
energy-efficient,
low carbon
economy. With
Increased
operational
cost
Up to 1
year
Direct
More likely
than not
Lowmedium
The financial
implications of the
risk vary
depending on the
regulations
implemented.
Management
method
Cost of
management
CRC scoring.
Rexam continually
monitors changes
or proposed
changes in laws or
regulations that
may adversely
affect our business
via our risk
management
policies and
procedures, and
legislation
monitoring tools.
Potential new
regulations are
monitored through
established and
effective
membership of
relevant trade
associations, by
direct collaboration
with governmental
and nongovernmental
organisations and
through our own
efforts internally.
This ensures the
best possible
chance of shaping
a constructive
outcome which is
Risk
management
processes and
tools are already
in place,
therefore no
additional cost
would be
required.
Risk driver
Description
Potential
impact
Timeframe
Direct/
Indirect
Likelihood
Magnitude
of impact
Estimated
financial
implications
Rexam’s
operations in the
Europe and other
countries subject
to this treaty,
Rexam is
committed to
meet the
requirements set.
Uncertainty
surrounding
new
regulation
Packaging is
expected to
continue to be a
focus for
government
legislators
working within the
sustainability
agenda. Changes
in packaging
legislation and
regulation could
affect producer
responsibility for
recycling, carbon
footprint and
landfill taxation.
Rexam, our
customers and
suppliers are also
subject to various
country, federal,
state and
provincial laws
and regulations.
Management
method
Cost of
management
favourable both to
Rexam and our
stakeholders.
Increased
operational
cost
Unknown
Direct
About as
likely as
not
Medium
The financial
implications may
vary depending to
the regulations
implemented.
Rexam continually
monitors changes
or proposed
changes in laws or
regulations that
may adversely
affect our business
via our risk
management
policies and
procedures, and
legislation
monitoring tools.
Potential new
regulations are
monitored through
established and
effective
membership of
relevant trade
associations, by
direct collaboration
with governmental
and nongovernmental
organisations and
Risk
management
processes and
tools are already
in place,
therefore no
additional cost
would be
required.
Risk driver
Cap and
trade
schemes
Product
labelling
regulations
and
standards
Description
Rexam may be
subject to the
respective
national cap and
trade schemes,
depending on the
development of
such schemes in
the countries
where Rexam
operates.
New regulations
and requirements
set on product
labels could
increase the
operations and
compliance costs
of Rexam. The
lack of agreed
standards of
measuring
environmental
impact could
result in
Potential
impact
Increased
operational
cost
Increased
operational
cost
Timeframe
Unknown
Up to 1
year
Direct/
Indirect
Direct
Indirect
(Client)
Likelihood
Unlikely
About as
likely as
not
Magnitude
of impact
Estimated
financial
implications
Medium
The potential
financial
implication may
vary depending
on requirement
set.
Medium
Depending on the
amount of
information
required on the
new labelling
regulation. For
example, Grenelle
II in France is the
first expression of
specific
environmental
labelling relevant
to climate change.
Management
method
through our own
efforts internally.
This ensures the
best possible
chance of shaping
a constructive
outcome which is
favourable both to
Rexam and our
stakeholders.
We monitor
changes in
regulation, seek
advice from both
internal experts
and (if required)
external
consultants, and
take the necessary
actions to ensure
full compliance.
We are monitoring
and working
continually to have
an early warning
approach to
material changes
in legislation.
Cost of
management
The costs
involved would
be primarily
labour and/or
consultancy
costs, and
membership of
trade association
where
applicable.
The costs
involved would
be primarily
labour and/or
consultancy
costs, and
membership of
trade association
where
applicable.
Risk driver
Description
Potential
impact
Timeframe
Direct/
Indirect
Likelihood
Magnitude
of impact
Estimated
financial
implications
Management
method
Depending where
this regulations
become obligatory
could affect
different parts of
our business.
We are already
looking at
alternative
materials for our
products and are
doing this although
national and
international
administrations
and regulatory
authorities confirm
that there is no risk
with the current
materials in
widespread use.
Cost of
management
administrative
burden to Rexam
due to the
individual national
schemes
requirements and
also ineffective
comparison of
products, which
could confuse or
mislead
consumers.
Other
regulatory
drivers
Strict regulation
around certain
materials used
inside our product
could increase the
capital costs and
innovation costs
to establish the
validity and
suitability of
alternative
materials.
Increased
capital cost
Unknown
Direct
More likely
than not
Medium
CC5.1b
Please describe your inherent risks that are driven by change in physical climate parameters
The cost of
management is
mainly due to
investment in
innovative
materials.
Risk driver
Descriptio
n
Change in
precipitatio
n pattern
In Brazil
more than
90% of its
power
generation
is hydro
electric and
the majority
is
generated
in the
southeast
region. The
prolonged
drought in
Brazil has
heightened
the risk of
increasing
input cost
and
business
interruption.
Tropical
cyclones
(hurricanes
and
typhoons)
Adverse
weather
conditions
can
damage our
plants and
disrupt our
business
operations.
Potential impact
Reduction/disruptio
n in production
capacity
Reduction/disruptio
n in production
capacity
Timefram
e
Up to 1
year
Unknown
Direct/
Indirec
t
Direct
Direct
Likelihoo
d
Virtually
certain
About as
likely as
not
Magnitud
e of
impact
Estimated financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
High
Significant increase
in energy prices and
potential impact from
business interruption.
Entered into a
long term
agreement with
energy suppliers
and continue to
work on business
continuity plan.
The impact of
high energy
prices and the
new contract
cost.
Medium
The financial
implications can vary
depending on the
severity of the risk.
We could also be
negatively affected if
the adverse
weather/natural
disaster hits our
consumers/customer
s and suppliers. For
example, even
We have
business
continuity plans
that are regularly
updated and
property
damage/busines
s interruption
insurance in
place.
The Business
continuity
workshop
represents 5% of
operational risk
project budget
and that property
damage/busines
s interruption
insurance
premium
represents >
Risk driver
Descriptio
n
Potential impact
Timefram
e
Direct/
Indirec
t
Likelihoo
d
Magnitud
e of
impact
Estimated financial
implications
Management
method
though the chances
are low and we have
not experienced such
incidents in the past,
a plant (for example
Guatemala) could be
potentially hit by
hurricane which
would affect 1% of
Rexam’s volumes.
Change in
precipitatio
n extremes
and
droughts
Change in
precipitation
extremes
and
droughts
may
adversely
affect the
yield of
crops of
fruits and
vegetables
and lack of
water
supply. This
may result
in lack of
demand for
Rexam’s
packaging
products.
Reduced demand
for goods/services
Unknown
Indirect
(Client)
About as
likely as
not
Medium
The change in
precipitation
extremes and
droughts can
potentially bring
negative impact to
our results. The
financial implications
can vary depending
on the severity of the
risk. One example
would be our
California plants.
Cost of
management
50% of total
annual premium
We continue to
monitor our
energy
consumption and
efficiency, and
emissions from
our operations
with related
targets the
business has to
achieve.
Environmental
impacts of our
products and
climate change
are considered in
Business. We're
already looking
to how
innovation,
technology,
targets and
awareness can
help us prevent
future possible
No additional
cost will be
incurred as these
processes are in
place
Risk driver
Descriptio
n
Change in
temperatur
e extremes
Change in
temperature
extremes
may not
only
adversely
affect the
yield of
crops of
fruits and
vegetables;
it will also
affect
consumers’
lifestyle and
preference.
This may
result in
lack of
demand for
Rexam’s
packaging
products.
Potential impact
Timefram
e
Direct/
Indirec
t
Likelihoo
d
Magnitud
e of
impact
Estimated financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
situations.
Reduced demand
for goods/services
3 to 6
years
Direct
Likely
Medium
The change in
precipitation
extremes and
droughts can
potentially bring
negative impact to
our results. The
financial implications
can vary depending
on the severity of the
risk.
CC5.1c
Please describe your inherent risks that are driven by changes in other climate-related developments
We continue to
monitor our
energy
consumption and
efficiency, and
emissions from
our operations.
Environmental
impacts of our
products and
climate change
are considered in
Business.
No additional
cost will be
incurred as these
processed are in
place
Risk
driver
Changing
consumer
behaviour
Description
Potential
impact
The risk of
changing
consumer
trends
resulting in a
shift away from
demand for the
beverage cans
Rexam
manufactures.
Drivers of this
risk could
include
lifestyle and
Reduced
taste change,
demand for
nutrition and
goods/services
health
considerations,
environmental
concerns or
legislation.
Increase focus
of our
customers in
driving
emissions
reduction
through their
supply chains
Timeframe
3 to 6
years
Direct/
Magnitude
Indirect Likelihood
of impact
Direct
Very
unlikely
High
Estimated financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
This risk may adversely
affect Rexam should
consumers/customers/local
legislation decide on
alternative packaging due
to the various reasons
noted. The increased focus
on emissions reductions by
our customers has resulted
in Rexam participating in
CDP. These customers
represent around 30% of
Rexam’s revenue.
We monitor
market and
consumer
trends as well
as political
developments
through our
own and
external
business
intelligence
services and
through our
involvement in
national and
international
packaging
associations in
the countries
and regions
where we
operate. We
have a
“Legislative risk
register” to
manage and
monitor this
risk. We
monitor the risk
internally
through Supply
Chain
functions,
external energy
consultants, as
well as through
trade
Costs
associated
are mainly
existing
labour,
marketing
costs and
trade
association
membership
fees. The
annual
budgeted
costs on
these
activities are
<1% of
turnover.
Disclosing to
CDP takes up
to 6 weeks by
up to 4
employees.
Risk
driver
Description
The
reputational
risk related to
corporate
Reputation responsibility
on the
environment
and our
products.
Potential
impact
Reduced
demand for
goods/services
Timeframe
Up to 1
year
Direct/
Magnitude
Indirect Likelihood
of impact
Direct
Unlikely
Medium
Estimated financial
implications
This risk may result in the
lack of demand in Rexam’s
product and adversely
impacting bottom line
depending on the
magnitude of reputational
loss.
Management
method
associations
such as the
Aluminium
Federation. We
also perform
annual
completion of
the CDP and
also produce a
Sustainability
Report. Energy
consumption
and related
GHG emission
are monitored
on a monthly
basis.
Additionally
Rexam is also
working on
New Beverage
Categories
initiative.
In addition to
our
sustainability
communication,
recycling
initiatives and
continuous
improvement
and innovations
of our products,
we also work
with industrial
partners to
Cost of
management
Costs
associated
are mainly
existing
labour,
marketing
costs and
trade
association
membership
fees.
Risk
driver
Description
Potential
impact
Timeframe
Direct/
Magnitude
Indirect Likelihood
of impact
Estimated financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
create and
improve
consumers’
awareness on
the
sustainability
credentials of
our beverage
cans.
CC5.1d
Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent risks driven by changes in regulation that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure
CC5.1e
Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent risks driven by physical climate parameters that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure
CC5.1f
Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent risks driven by changes in other climate-related developments that
have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure
Further Information
Page: CC6. Climate Change Opportunities
CC6.1
Have you identified any inherent climate change opportunities that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations,
revenue or expenditure? Tick all that apply
Opportunities driven by changes in regulation
Opportunities driven by changes in physical climate parameters
Opportunities driven by changes in other climate-related developments
CC6.1a
Please describe your inherent opportunities that are driven by changes in regulation
Opportunity
driver
Description
General
environmental
regulations,
including
planning
For example,
the UK has a
statutory
producer
responsibility
regime for
packaging. This
Potential impact
Increased
demand for
existing
products/services
Timeframe Direct/Indirect
3 to 6
years
Direct
Likelihood
Unlikely
Magnitude
of impact
Medium
Estimated
financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
Rexam
responds to
an increase
in demand
for cans in
line with
customer
Understanding
sales
performance
The cost of
management
is minimal
Opportunity
driver
Description
places a legal
obligation on
businesses
which make or
use packaging
(like raw
material
manufacturers,
converters,
packer/fillers
and sellers) to
ensure that a
proportion of the
packaging they
place on the
market is
recovered and
recycled. UK
packaging waste
recovery and
recycling targets
for 2013 to 2017
were announced
as part of the
Budget 2013.
The targets
apply to
businesses
under the
Producer
Responsibility
Regulations.
They will ensure
that the UK
continues to
meet EU
Directive targets
Potential impact
Timeframe Direct/Indirect
Likelihood
Magnitude
of impact
Estimated
financial
implications
requirements
Management
method
Cost of
management
Opportunity
driver
Description
Potential impact
Timeframe Direct/Indirect
Likelihood
Magnitude
of impact
Estimated
financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
over the next 5
years. The
target for
aluminium is to
gradually
increase
recycling rate
from existing
40% to 55% in
2017. Aluminium
recycling rate is
already close to
2017 target of
55%.Given the
high recycling
rate, there are
potential
opportunity for
aluminium
packaging to
gain more
market share of
packaging mix.
CC6.1b
Please describe the inherent opportunities that are driven by changes in physical climate parameters
Opportunity
driver
Description
Potential impact
Timeframe
Direct/
Indirect
Likelihood
Magnitude
of impact
Estimated
financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
Opportunity
driver
Change in
mean
(average)
temperature
Description
Consumption of
packaged soft
drinks and beer
increases in
stable good
weather, and as
a result, our
sales of cans
too.
Potential impact
Increased
demand for
existing
products/services
Timeframe
3 to 6
years
Direct/
Indirect
Direct
Likelihood
More likely
than not
Magnitude
of impact
Medium
Estimated
financial
implications
Management
method
Cost of
management
Extended warm
and sunny
weather would
make our
volumes
increase as a
result of more
demand for our
packaging.
Enabling our
plants to
increase
production
during an
extended warm
and sunny
periods.
No additional
costs because
we already have
processes in
place to help
meet increased
demand
CC6.1c
Please describe the inherent opportunities that are driven by changes in other climate-related developments
Opportunit
y driver
Reputation
Description
Strong focus on
sustainability,
corporate
responsibility and
environmental focus
allows Rexam to be
in a good position as
a reputable supplier
to our
customers/consumer
s.
Potential
impact
Increased
demand for
existing
products/service
s
Timefram
e
Unknown
Direct/
Indirec
t
Direct
Likelihoo
d
Likely
Magnitud
e of
impact
Lowmedium
Estimated
financial
implication
s
Management method
Cost of
management
Being the
sustainable
supplier of
choice to
Rexam
customers
will
positively
influence
our
economic
growth.
Rexam listens
continuously to all its
stakeholders to
understand their
demands and focusing on valuable
choices which enable
our business to
improve efficiencies,
reduce carbon
emissions and provide
the best product.
Costs are
related to
actions taken
around:
innovation in
processes and
equipment,
communication
with
stakeholders
and ensuring
that we have
the right tools
Opportunit
y driver
Description
Potential
impact
Timefram
e
Direct/
Indirec
t
Likelihoo
d
Magnitud
e of
impact
Estimated
financial
implication
s
Management method
Cost of
management
to measure
performance.
Changing
consumer
behaviour
Change in consumer
trends resulting in an
increased demand for
environmentally
friendly packaging
products that Rexam
manufactures.
Drivers of this can
include lifestyle,
scrap recycling value,
packaging material
and its high
recyclability
abundance of
material, safety of the
product that it
protects and the
premium
consideration of the
metal.
Increased
demand for
existing
products/service
s
3 to 6
years
Direct
Likely
Medium
Being the
sustainable
supplier of
choice to
Rexam
customers
will
positively
influence
our
economic
growth
Through different
channels Rexam
communicates the
can's strong
environmental
message; for example
the company website.
The support of
different
mechanisms/campaign
s to ensure the
recyclability of the can
is well understood, as
well as lightweighting
and innovation
processes.
Cost are
related to
marketing and
communication
, labour and
innovation in
processes and
manufacturing
equipment.
CC6.1d
Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent opportunities driven by changes in regulation that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure
CC6.1e
Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent opportunities driven by physical climate parameters that have the
potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure
CC6.1f
Please explain why you do not consider your company to be exposed to inherent opportunities driven by changes in other climate-related developments
that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure
Further Information
Module: GHG Emissions Accounting, Energy and Fuel Use, and Trading
Page: CC7. Emissions Methodology
CC7.1
Please provide your base year and base year emissions (Scopes 1 and 2)
Base year
Base year emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
Scope
Scope 1
Tue 01 Jan 2013 - Tue 31
Dec 2013
218820
Base year
Base year emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
Scope
Scope 2
Tue 01 Jan 2013 - Tue 31
Dec 2013
473007
CC7.2
Please give the name of the standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect activity data and calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
Please select the published methodologies that you use
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition)
CC7.2a
If you have selected "Other" in CC7.2 please provide details of the standard, protocol or methodology you have used to collect activity data and
calculate Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
CC7.3
Please give the source for the global warming potentials you have used
Gas
CO2
Reference
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 - 100 year)
CC7.4
Please give the emissions factors you have applied and their origin; alternatively, please attach an Excel spreadsheet with this data at the bottom of this
page
Fuel/Material/Energy
Emission Factor
Electricity
0.32915
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
0.215
Natural gas
0.185
Unit
metric tonnes CO2e per
MWh
metric tonnes CO2e per
MWh
metric tonnes CO2e per
MWh
Reference
Please check DEFRA emission factors
attached below
Please check DEFRA emission factors
attached below
Please check DEFRA emission factors
attached below
Further Information
For question 7.4 we have given the emissions factors average for each energy source, whereas in the attached document there's a emission factor related to each
facility.
Attachments
https://www.cdp.net/sites/2015/68/15768/Climate Change 2015/Shared
Documents/Attachments/ClimateChange2015/CC7.EmissionsMethodology/DCFCarbonFactors_16_1_2015_11341.xls
Page: CC8. Emissions Data - (1 Jan 2014 - 31 Dec 2014)
CC8.1
Please select the boundary you are using for your Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas inventory
Operational control
CC8.2
Please provide your gross global Scope 1 emissions figures in metric tonnes CO2e
215067
CC8.3
Please provide your gross global Scope 2 emissions figures in metric tonnes CO2e
477355
CC8.4
Are there are any sources (e.g. facilities, specific GHGs, activities, geographies, etc.) of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions that are within your selected
reporting boundary which are not included in your disclosure?
Yes
CC8.4a
Please provide details of the sources of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions that are within your selected reporting boundary which are not included in your
disclosure
Source
Relevance of Scope 1
emissions from this
source
Relevance of Scope 2
emissions excluded
from this source
Explain why the source is excluded
Joint ventures are excluded of the
calculation where we do not have
operational control
Emissions are not
evaluated
Emissions are not
evaluated
Our Joint ventures are excluded from our carbon calculations due to
difficulty in separating our operations and our partner venture.
Sector & head offices are excluded of
the calculation
Emissions are relevant
but not yet calculated
Emissions are relevant
but not yet calculated
Our sector & head offices are located within buildings which don't
have separate meter readings therefore calculations and fair share
of emissions are difficult to calculate.
Minor sources (propane and diesel for
our forklift trucks) are excluded of the
calculation
Emissions are relevant
but not yet calculated
Emissions are relevant
but not yet calculated
Rexam does not centrally collect this information and is less than
0.5% of emissions
CC8.5
Please estimate the level of uncertainty of the total gross global Scope 1 and 2 emissions figures that you have supplied and specify the sources of
uncertainty in your data gathering, handling and calculations
Uncertainty range
Main sources of uncertainty
Please expand on the uncertainty in your data
Scope
Scope 1
Scope 2
CC8.6
Less than or equal to
2%
Less than or equal to
2%
No Sources of Uncertainty
No Sources of Uncertainty
We have our Scope 1 assured by a third party in 2014 and therefore uncertainty
has been eliminated due to certification process.
We have our Scope 2 assured by a third party in 2014 and therefore uncertainty
has been eliminated due to certification process
Please indicate the verification/assurance status that applies to your reported Scope 1 emissions
Third party verification or assurance complete
CC8.6a
Please provide further details of the verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope 1 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
Type of
verification or
assurance
High assurance
Page/section
reference
Attach the statement
https://www.cdp.net/sites/2015/68/15768/Climate Change 2015/Shared
Documents/Attachments/CC8.6a/CC ISAE3000 statement - Rexam 2015.pdf
all
Relevant
standard
ISAE3000
Proportion of
reported Scope
1 emissions
verified (%)
100
CC8.6b
Please provide further details of the regulatory regime to which you are complying that specifies the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
(CEMS)
Regulation
% of emissions covered by the system
Compliance period
CC8.7
Please indicate the verification/assurance status that applies to your reported Scope 2 emissions
Evidence of submission
Third party verification or assurance complete
CC8.7a
Please provide further details of the verification/assurance undertaken for your Scope 2 emissions, and attach the relevant statements
Type of
verification or
assurance
High assurance
Attach the statement
https://www.cdp.net/sites/2015/68/15768/Climate Change 2015/Shared
Documents/Attachments/CC8.7a/CC ISAE3000 statement - Rexam 2015.pdf
Page/Section
reference
all
Relevant
standard
ISAE3000
Proportion of
reported Scope
2 emissions
verified (%)
100
CC8.8
Please identify if any data points have been verified as part of the third party verification work undertaken, other than the verification of emissions
figures reported in CC8.6, CC8.7 and CC14.2
Additional data points verified
Comment
No additional data verified
CC8.9
Are carbon dioxide emissions from biologically sequestered carbon relevant to your organization?
No
CC8.9a
Please provide the emissions from biologically sequestered carbon relevant to your organization in metric tonnes CO2
Further Information
We will seek assurance of 2013 baseline in 2015
Page: CC9. Scope 1 Emissions Breakdown - (1 Jan 2014 - 31 Dec 2014)
CC9.1
Do you have Scope 1 emissions sources in more than one country?
Yes
CC9.1a
Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by country/region
Country/Region
Argentina
Austria
Brazil
Chile
Czech Republic
Scope 1 metric tonnes CO2e
2575
9521
30215
3163
2387
Country/Region
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
India
Italy
Mexico
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America
Ireland
Scope 1 metric tonnes CO2e
3513
4255
3255
0
15459
1946
5494
4700
12323
14633
5613
3670
11480
80865
0
CC9.2
Please indicate which other Scope 1 emissions breakdowns you are able to provide (tick all that apply)
By business division
By facility
CC9.2a
Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by business division
Business division
Beverage Can Europe
Beverage Can North America
Beverage Can South America
Beverage Can Africa, Middle East and Asia
Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
83678
85565
35953
9871
CC9.2b
Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by facility
Facility
Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
Latitude
Wakefield
Milton keynes
Valdemorillo
La Selva
Fosie
Fredericia
Ejpovice
Enzesfeld
Ludesch
Nogara
San Martino
Gelsenkirschen
Berlin
Recklinghausen
Mantsala
Mont
Waterford
5904
5576
7465
7167
5613
3513
2387
4538
4983
3876
1618
4389
5642
5429
3255
0
0
Longitude
Facility
Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
Latitude
Argayash
Naro Forminsk
Vsevolozhsk
Mumbai
Manisa
Cairo
Queretaro
Birminhgam
Bishopville
Chatsworth
Chicago
Fairfield
Fremont
Kent
Longview
Olive Branch
Phoenix
St Paul
Valparaiso
Whitehouse
Winston-Salem
Aguas Claras
Brasilia
Cuiaba
Extrema
Jacarei
Manaus
Recife Cans
Santa Cruz
Pouso Alegre
Belem
Santiago
2056
7434
2834
1946
3670
4255
4700
13
4668
6210
7839
3850
7472
5285
5035
5523
5600
7443
250
9614
12065
2879
3160
1562
4810
5224
0
4455
3154
3423
1547
3163
Longitude
Facility
Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
Latitude
Buenos Aires
2575
CC9.2c
Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by GHG type
GHG type
Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
CC9.2d
Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by activity
Activity
Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
CC9.2e
Please break down your total gross global Scope 1 emissions by legal structure
Legal structure
Scope 1 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
Longitude
Further Information
Page: CC10. Scope 2 Emissions Breakdown - (1 Jan 2014 - 31 Dec 2014)
CC10.1
Do you have Scope 2 emissions sources in more than one country?
Yes
CC10.1a
Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions and energy consumption by country/region
Country/Region
Argentina
Austria
Brazil
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
India
Ireland
Italy
Mexico
Scope 2 metric tonnes CO2e
2411
14261
16367
3685
6449
6725
14832
2824
889
40292
10532
5899
10256
15471
Purchased and consumed
electricity, heat, steam or cooling
(MWh)
13103
66328
240695
20028
10912
21350
32454
14784
14567
84470
12303
13814
25513
34381
Purchased and consumed low carbon electricity,
heat, steam or cooling accounted for in CC8.3
(MWh)
Country/Region
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America
Scope 2 metric tonnes CO2e
Purchased and consumed
electricity, heat, steam or cooling
(MWh)
37232
22370
746
8424
29732
227959
Purchased and consumed low carbon electricity,
heat, steam or cooling accounted for in CC8.3
(MWh)
85199
76874
43894
17848
60154
453199
CC10.2
Please indicate which other Scope 2 emissions breakdowns you are able to provide (tick all that apply)
By business division
By facility
CC10.2a
Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by business division
Business division
Beverage Can Europe
Beverage Can North America
Beverage Can South America
Beverage Can Africa, Middle East and Asia
Scope 2 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
177674
243430
22463
33788
CC10.2b
Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by facility
Facility
Wakefield
Milton keynes
valdemorillo
La Selva
Fosie
Fredericia
Ejpovice
Enzesfeld
Ludesch
Nogara
San Martino
Gelsenkirschen
berlin
Recklinghausen
Mantsala
Mont
Waterford
Argayash
Naro Forminsk
Vsevolozksk
Mumbai
Manisa
cairo
Queretaro
Birmingham
Bishopville
Scope 2 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
14858
14874
9103
13267
746
6725
6449
6383
7877
6945
3311
8046
14673
17574
2824
889
5899
5356
22724
9152
10532
8424
14832
15471
8813
15362
Facility
Chatsworth
Chicago
fairfield
Fremont
Kent
Longview
Olive branch
Phoenix
St. Paul
Valparaiso
Whitehouse
Aguas Claras
Brasilia
Cuiaba
Extrema
Jacarei
Manaus
Recife
santa Cruz
Pouso Alegre
Belem
santiago
Buenos Aires
Scope 2 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
19339
15288
10860
15674
11556
16366
19329
12092
14287
10490
21387
1324
1316
816
2450
2836
911
2639
1840
1402
834
3685
2411
CC10.2c
Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by activity
Activity
Scope 2 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
CC10.2d
Please break down your total gross global Scope 2 emissions by legal structure
Legal structure
Scope 2 emissions (metric tonnes CO2e)
Further Information
Page: CC11. Energy
CC11.1
What percentage of your total operational spend in the reporting year was on energy?
More than 5% but less than or equal to 10%
CC11.2
Please state how much fuel, electricity, heat, steam, and cooling in MWh your organization has purchased and consumed during the reporting year
Energy type
Fuel
Electricity
Heat
MWh
1151887
1341870
0
Energy type
MWh
Steam
Cooling
0
0
CC11.3
Please complete the table by breaking down the total "Fuel" figure entered above by fuel type
Fuels
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
Natural gas
MWh
14517
1137370
CC11.4
Please provide details of the electricity, heat, steam or cooling amounts that were accounted at a low carbon emission factor in the Scope 2 figure
reported in CC8.3
Basis for applying a low carbon emission factor
No purchases or generation of low carbon electricity, heat, steam or cooling accounted with
a low carbon emissions factor
Further Information
Page: CC12. Emissions Performance
MWh associated with low carbon
electricity, heat, steam or cooling
0
Comment
CC12.1
How do your gross global emissions (Scope 1 and 2 combined) for the reporting year compare to the previous year?
No change
CC12.1a
Please identify the reasons for any change in your gross global emissions (Scope 1 and 2 combined) and for each of them specify how your emissions
compare to the previous year
Reason
Emissions reduction
activities
Divestment
Acquisitions
Mergers
Change in output
Change in methodology
Change in boundary
Change in physical
operating conditions
Unidentified
Other
Emissions value
(percentage)
1.87
Direction of
change
Decrease
Comment
Our reported intensity results from both emission reduction activities and
running the plants more efficently thanks to higher volume output
No change
No change
No change
1.99
Increase
Our production in normalised units grew and this helped the plants to run more
efficiently
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
CC12.2
Please describe your gross global combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions for the reporting year in metric tonnes CO2e per unit currency total revenue
Intensity
figure
0.0001806
Metric
numerator
metric tonnes
CO2e
Metric
denominator
unit total
revenue
% change from
previous year
Direction of change
from previous year
2.99
Increase
Reason for change
Despite our gross carbon emissions grew just a 0.1%, our
revenues decreased 3% due to currency fluctuations and lower
aluminium.
CC12.3
Please describe your gross global combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions for the reporting year in metric tonnes CO2e per full time equivalent (FTE)
employee
Intensity
figure
86.55
Metric
numerator
metric tonnes
CO2e
Metric
denominator
FTE employee
% change from
previous year
0.1
Direction of
change from
previous year
Increase
Reason for change
Our FTE didn't change from 2013 to 2014, what did
change were our gross total CO2 emissions
CC12.4
Please provide an additional intensity (normalized) metric that is appropriate to your business operations
Intensity
figure
Metric
numerator
Metric denominator
% change
from
previous
year
Direction of
change from
previous year
Reason for change
Intensity
figure
9.89
Metric
numerator
metric
tonnes CO2e
Metric denominator
Other:
Standardised/normalised unit
of production
% change
from
previous
year
1.87
Direction of
change from
previous year
Decrease
Reason for change
With our business intensity indicator we can see a decrease in our
Carbon emissions due to an increase of 2% in normalisation units.
We're producing more units of our products whilst reducing our
carbon emissions.
Further Information
In question 12.1a the overall increase we had was a 0.1% of our total carbon emissions.
Page: CC13. Emissions Trading
CC13.1
Do you participate in any emissions trading schemes?
No, and we do not currently anticipate doing so in the next 2 years
CC13.1a
Please complete the following table for each of the emission trading schemes in which you participate
Scheme name
CC13.1b
Period for which
data is supplied
Allowances allocated
Allowances purchased
Verified emissions in
metric tonnes CO2e
Details of ownership
What is your strategy for complying with the schemes in which you participate or anticipate participating?
CC13.2
Has your organization originated any project-based carbon credits or purchased any within the reporting period?
No
CC13.2a
Please provide details on the project-based carbon credits originated or purchased by your organization in the reporting period
Credit
origination
or credit
purchase
Project
type
Project
identification
Verified to which
standard
Number of
credits (metric
tonnes of
CO2e)
Number of credits
(metric tonnes
CO2e): Risk adjusted
volume
Further Information
Page: CC14. Scope 3 Emissions
CC14.1
Please account for your organization’s Scope 3 emissions, disclosing and explaining any exclusions
Credits
cancelled
Purpose, e.g.
compliance
Sources of
Scope 3
emissions
Evaluation
status
Purchased goods
and services
Relevant, not
yet
calculated
Capital goods
Not relevant,
explanation
provided
Fuel-and-energyrelated activities
(not included in
Scope 1 or 2)
Upstream
transportation and
distribution
Waste generated
metric
tonnes
CO2e
Emissions calculation methodology
In 2011 Rexam BCE (Beverage Cans
Europe) started to use a system to measure
the carbon footprint of its plants. The system
is based on PE International’s SoFi software
and was established within the guidelines of
the Green House Gas (GHG) Protocol. We
aim to set up a baseline for our scope 3 and
third party verify it by the end of 2015.
Percentage
of
emissions
calculated
using data
obtained
from
suppliers or
value chain
partners
Explanation
The majority of our Scope 3 emissions derive from
metal production. During 2012 & 2013, we
concluded the pilot project to measure our
corporate scope 3 emissions for our Beverage Can
Europe sector. This work has helped us develop
meaningful internal reporting and carbon reduction
plans over time. We are currently assessing this
work against the GHG Protocol ‘Technical
Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 emissions’, to
understand the implications of Scope 3 reporting.
Importantly, the project also highlighted boundary/
measurement issues within the Greenhouse Gas
Protocol, in particular the end of life ‘credit’ for the
post-consumer recycling of cans which could not
previously be formally included. Until resolved, we
do not plan to submit scope 3 emissions to CDP. As
recycling metals saves up to 95% of the energy
needed to produce virgin metal, this leads to a very
substantial reduction in net scope 3 emissions.
The lifespan of our capital equipment is at least 25
years and machinery is regularly refurbished and
reused
Not
evaluated
Not
evaluated
Relevant,
In 2011 Rexam BCE (Beverage Cans
About 20% of incoming materials are in closed
Sources of
Scope 3
emissions
in operations
Evaluation
status
calculated
Business travel
Not relevant,
calculated
Employee
commuting
Not relevant,
calculated
Upstream leased
assets
Not relevant,
calculated
metric
tonnes
CO2e
Emissions calculation methodology
Europe) started to use a system to measure
the carbon footprint of the sector (business
unit). The system is based on PE
international’s SoFi software and was
established within the guidelines of the
Green House Gas (GHG) Protocol. We aim
to set up a baseline for our scope 3 and third
party verify it by the end of 2015.
In 2011 Rexam BCE (Beverage Cans
Europe) started to use a system to measure
the carbon footprint of the sector (business
unit). The system is based on PE
international’s SoFi software and was
established within the guidelines of the
Green House Gas (GHG) Protocol. We aim
to set up a baseline for our scope 3 and third
party verify it by the end of 2015.
In 2011 Rexam BCE (Beverage Cans
Europe) started to use a system to measure
the carbon footprint of the sector (business
unit). The system is based on PE
international’s SoFi software and was
established within the guidelines of the
Green House Gas (GHG) Protocol. We aim
to set up a baseline for our scope 3 and third
party verify it by the end of 2015.
In 2011 Rexam BCE (Beverage Cans
Europe) started to use a system to measure
the carbon footprint of the sector (business
unit). The system is based on PE
Percentage
of
emissions
calculated
using data
obtained
from
suppliers or
value chain
partners
Explanation
material loop and returned to our supplier for
reprocessing.
The model identified that our business travel
accounts for <0.1% of our overall carbon footprint.
We have continued to increase the use of video and
web conferencing to reduce travel costs and related
GHG emissions.
The model identified that employee commuting
accounts for <0.1% of our overall carbon footprint
Rexam has no upstream leased assets
Sources of
Scope 3
emissions
Evaluation
status
metric
tonnes
CO2e
Emissions calculation methodology
Percentage
of
emissions
calculated
using data
obtained
from
suppliers or
value chain
partners
Explanation
international’s SoFi software and was
established within the guidelines of the
Green House Gas (GHG) Protocol. We aim
to set up a baseline for our scope 3 and third
party verify it by the end of 2015.
Downstream
transportation and
distribution
Relevant,
calculated
Processing of
sold products
Not relevant,
explanation
provided
Use of sold
products
Not relevant,
explanation
provided
In 2011 Rexam BCE (Beverage Cans
Europe) started to use a system to measure
the carbon footprint of the sector (business
unit). The system is based on PE
international’s SoFi software and was
established within the guidelines of the
Green House Gas (GHG) Protocol. We aim
to set up a baseline for our scope 3 and third
party verify it by the end of 2015.
Rexam uses only third party carriers to transport our
products. These account for approx. 1% of our total
carbon emisssions. Distribution is also a substantial
cost to our business and minimisation of transport
and associated CO2 is fully integrated into our
business operating model. Rexam builds plants as
close as possible to customer filling locations and
we are building our 4th wall-to-wall plant adjacent to
one of our customers. This will remove 7.54 tonnes
of CO2e of truck journeys. We also continually seek
to find better, smarter transport systems.
Beverage cans are filled with drinks at customer
filling plants. These plants are modern and process
at high speeds (approx. 2000cans/minute).
According to our largest customer, Coca-Cola, their
manufacturing accounts for 8% of the emissions of
their drinks. Reducing emissions from
manufacturing is a key focus of their activities and
Coca-Cola have published a target to halve the
carbon emissions involved in making a litre of
product between 2007 and 2020. Other customers
have similar commitments.
Drinks are consumed in the use phase with almost
no carbon emissions.
Sources of
Scope 3
emissions
End of life
treatment of sold
products
Downstream
leased assets
Franchises
Investments
Other (upstream)
Evaluation
status
Relevant,
calculated
Relevant, not
yet
calculated
Not relevant,
explanation
provided
Not
evaluated
Not
metric
tonnes
CO2e
Emissions calculation methodology
In 2011 Rexam BCE (Beverage Cans
Europe) started to use a system to measure
the carbon footprint of the sector (business
unit). The system is based on PE
international’s SoFi software and was
established within the guidelines of the
Green House Gas (GHG) Protocol. We aim
to set up a baseline for our scope 3 and third
party verify it by the end of 2015.
Percentage
of
emissions
calculated
using data
obtained
from
suppliers or
value chain
partners
Explanation
Recycling reduces the carbon footprint of beverage
cans significantly: every tonne of recycled material
offsets the need to use a tonne of virgin raw
material and results in an energy saving of up to
95%. As metal is infinitely recyclable with no loss of
quality, recycled beverage cans are turned back
into sheet for the beverage and food can industries
or used in other applications such as transport or
construction. Many countries in which we operate
have well established recycling infrastructures for
beverage cans and achieve recycling rates above
90%. The global average is around 76%, the
highest of any beverage packaging material. Those
markets with recycling rates below the average
require support to establish and enhance collection
mechanisms and build a recycling culture with
consumers, and Rexam is committed to providing
this support together with local policy makers and
partners. (To see more about what we do in Rexam
to promote recycling rates please go to pages
26&27 in our Annual Report)
We do not own franchises
Sources of
Scope 3
emissions
Other
(downstream)
Evaluation
status
metric
tonnes
CO2e
Emissions calculation methodology
Percentage
of
emissions
calculated
using data
obtained
from
suppliers or
value chain
partners
Explanation
evaluated
Not
evaluated
CC14.2
Please indicate the verification/assurance status that applies to your reported Scope 3 emissions
No third party verification or assurance
CC14.2a
Please provide further details of the verification/assurance undertaken, and attach the relevant statements
Type of verification
or assurance
CC14.3
Attach the statement
Relevant standard
Page/Section reference
Proportion of Scope 3
emissions verified (%)
Are you able to compare your Scope 3 emissions for the reporting year with those for the previous year for any sources?
Yes
CC14.3a
Please identify the reasons for any change in your Scope 3 emissions and for each of them specify how your emissions compare to the previous year
Sources of Scope
3 emissions
Reason for
change
Emissions
value
(percentage)
Direction
of change
Purchased goods
& services
Change in
output
85
Decrease
Upstream
transportation &
distribution
Change in
output
2
Increase
Business travel
Unidentified
0.01
No
change
Unidentified
0.01
No
change
Change in
output
2
Increase
Other:
Recycling
rates
53
Decrease
Employee
commuting
Downstream
transportation and
distribution
End-of-life
treatment of sold
products
Comment
Even though we're buying more metal for our production to meet increased demand, we are
at the same time using innovation to reduce the weight of our products
Thanks to our innovative processes, we are able to make more with less and we are
producing many more cans compared with 2012. Our upstream transport and distribution
have increased due to the fact that we're buying more metal to produce our cans. making
more cans and buying more material
Even though we are a global company, advance in communications techonolgy has
improved the way we communicate with our sites and offices. We haven't experienced any
change within last year.
Most of our employees live near to our locations, making their commuting carbon emissions
stable.
We build our sites close to our customers for efficiency purposes. Despite this we have
experienced an increase due the increase in volumes and the need to ship and distribute
them.
The 53% figure supposes a credit for our carbon emissions, as the increase of Recycling
Rates results in a decrease in CO2 emissions. If 5 million tonnes of CO2 are emitted by the
input of the material we use, recycling would count towards 1.4 million tonnes of CO2e
saved. Recycling rates for used beverage cans (UBC's) are steadily increasing due to
industry support, efficient collection of UBC's, consumer behaviour and material possibilities.
Rexam has committed to increasing recycling rates as the carbon reductions achieved are
significant and they contribute enormously to waste reduction too.
CC14.4
Do you engage with any of the elements of your value chain on GHG emissions and climate change strategies? (Tick all that apply)
Yes, our suppliers
Yes, our customers
Yes, other partners in the value chain
CC14.4a
Please give details of methods of engagement, your strategy for prioritizing engagements and measures of success
We engage with our stakeholders through the entire supply chain with activities related to GHG emissions and climate change, below are some examples of what
we do:
Suppliers: We engage with our suppliers strategically as part of our annual Supplier Excellence programme, where suppliers are awarded on their achievements
using KPIs within Cost, Quality, On time Delivery and Sustainability. Special note is also taken or Innovation solutions that deliver against the core set of KPIS.
Customers: Engagement with customers involves Rexam support in different activities. For example we are involved in the "cradle to cradle" programme with
Carlsberg where the upcycling cooperation is aimed at optimising recycling and reuse, at the same time improving the quality of the material. With Red Bull we are
involved in events which involve recycling, such as music festivals. CocaCola enterprises are working with Cranfield University in developing a manual about
sustainable manufacturing and Rexam is contributing towards that project. We're also doing working with CCE on aligning our CO2 emission reduction strategy (for
them 33% reduction from 2007-2020 and Rexam 33% from 2010-2020).
Other partners: Recycling lowers the carbon footprint of beverage cans significantly: every tonne of recycled material offsets the need to use a tonne of virgin raw
material and results in an energy saving of up to 95%. As metal is infinitely recyclable with no loss of quality, recycled beverage cans are turned back into sheet for
the beverage and food can industries or used in other applications such as transport or construction. Many countries in which we operate have well established
recycling infrastructures for beverage cans and achieve recycling rates above 90%. The global average is around 65%, the highest of any beverage packaging
material. Those markets with recycling rates below the average require support to establish and enhance collection mechanisms and build a recycling culture with
consumers, and Rexam is committed to providing this support together with local policy makers and partners. UK is a typical example of an important market for
Rexam with a recycling rate of 60% where Rexam is very engaged.
Rexam also engages in GHG reduction activities with different bodies. These include Every Can Counts, where we promote and support recycling through different
events (http://www.everycancounts.co.uk/) ; Incpen is a UK based packaging association which promotes packaging usefulness and conscious disposal
(http://www.incpen.org/); Metalmatters, which promotes the benefits of recycling in houselholds and the need for behavioural education (http://metalmatters.org.uk/).
CC14.4b
To give a sense of scale of this engagement, please give the number of suppliers with whom you are engaging and the proportion of your total spend
that they represent
Number of
suppliers
44
% of total
spend
70%
Comment
We engage with all of our suppliers directlty and indirectly. We engage specifically with those suppliers who account for 70% of
our spend working in unison to develop the strategic direction of their plans. This includes all our metal suppliers along with key
categories represented within Other Direct Materials (ODM's), logistics and capital equipment.
CC14.4c
If you have data on your suppliers’ GHG emissions and climate change strategies, please explain how you make use of that data
How you make use of
the data
Use in supplier
scorecards
Identifying GHG sources
to prioritize for reduction
actions
Stimulating innovation of
new products
Please give details
Our supply chain use the CDP submission to set targets for the following year as part of our supplier excellence programme. We also
use our Supplier Operational Risk Audit to evaluate the sustainability management and performance of our major suppliers. This
feeds into the Supplier scorecard and, depending on the deviation from the target, we will perform physical supplier audits and work
with the supplier to close any gap.
For key suppliers (particularly metal) we have formal meetings with senior management as part of our supplier relationship
engagement programme where cost/energy initiatives are always on the agenda; With the suppliers collaborating with us in the CDP
activity, we work closely to determine any problem areas or room for significant improvement in further reducing their GHG
emissions, which will allow us to reduce the carbon footprints of our products
Sustainable emission reduction is one of the key criteria in our innovation process and in producing innovative products. Our supply
chain team collaborates with all our strategic suppliers and works with the Rexam global innovation team to deliver these
commitments. This is recognised as part of the Rexam Supplier Excellence programme.
CC14.4d
Please explain why you do not engage with any elements of your value chain on GHG emissions and climate change strategies, and any plans you have
to develop an engagement strategy in the future
Further Information
Module: Sign Off
Page: CC15. Sign Off
CC15.1
Please provide the following information for the person that has signed off (approved) your CDP climate change response
Name
John Revess
Job title
Group Sustainability Director
Further Information
CDP 2015 Climate Change 2015 Information Request
Corresponding job category
Business unit manager