Integrating climate relevant aspects into corporate and investment strategies CDP DACH 350 Climate Change Report 2013

Transcription

1 Integrating climate relevant aspects into corporate and investment strategies CDP DACH 350 Climate Change Report 03 On behalf of 7 institutional investors with assets of US$ billion Report Writer: Scoring Partner Switzerland: Lead Scoring Partner Germany: sustainabl e Communication Partner:

2 The evolution of CDP With great pleasure, CDP announced an exciting change this year. Over ten years ago CDP pioneered the only global disclosure system for companies to report their environmental impacts and strategies to investors. In that time, and with your support, CDP has accelerated climate change and natural resource issues to the boardroom and has moved beyond the corporate world to engage with cities and governments. The CDP platform has evolved significantly, supporting multinational purchasers to build more sustainable supply chains. It enables cities around the world to exchange information, take best practice action and build climate resilience. We assess the climate performance of companies and drive improvements through shareholder engagement. Our offering to the global marketplace has expanded to cover a wider spectrum of the earth s natural capital, specifically water and forests, alongside carbon, energy and climate. For these reasons, we have outgrown our former name of the Carbon Disclosure Project and rebranded to CDP. Many of you already know and refer to us in this way. Our rebrand denotes our progress as we continue to catalyze action and respond to business, finance, investment and environmental needs globally. We now have a bolder, more dynamic look and logo that reflects the scale of the work we must undertake in the coming years to move the markets ahead of where they would otherwise be on these issues and realize truly sustainable economies. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Over 5,000 companies from all over the world have been asked to report on climate change through CDP this year; 8% of the world s 500 largest public companies listed on the Global 500 engage with CDP to enable effective measurement of their carbon footprint and climate change action; CDP is a not-for-profit organization. If you would like to support our vital work through donations or sponsorship opportunities, please paul.robins@cdp.net or telephone +44 (0) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 Contents 03 CEO foreword - CDP 04 Guest foreword - EU Commission 05 Foreword of the authors - DZ BANK AG 06 Foreword of the scoring partners - sustainable AG 07 Executive summary Climate Disclosure & Performance Scoring Relevance of climate change in the capital market The specific role of technology companies 8 The political environment - An overview 30 Non-listed companies catch up 3 Key statistics 33 Sector Analysis 48 Appendix I: Methodology 60 Appendix II: Non-responding companies 6 Appendix III: Responding companies, scores and emissions data 63 Appendix IV: Investor members and signatories 66

4 04 CEO foreword As countries around the world seek economic growth, strong employment and safe environments, corporations have a unique responsibility to deliver that growth in a way that uses natural resources wisely. The opportunity is enormous and it is the only growth worth having. New York State Hurricane Sandy Damage Assessment; Governor Andrew Cuomo; November, 0 governor.ny.gov/ press/60- damageassessment net/cdpresults/ 3 percent-solutionreport.pdf 3 Based on findings from the report Natural Capital at Risk: The Top 00 Externalities of Business, published by TEEB for Business Coalition in April CDPResults/3-percentsolution-report.pdf This year we passed a significant landmark of 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and are rapidly heading towards 450ppm, accepted by many governments as the upper limit to avoid dangerous climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th assessment report (AR5) strengthens the scientific case for action. Fears are increasing over future climate change impacts as we see more extreme weather events, Hurricane Sandy the most noted with damages totalling some $4 billion. The unprecedented melting of the Arctic ice is a clear climate alarm bell, while the first 0 years of this century have been the world s hottest since records began, according to the World Meteorological Organization. The result is a seismic shift in corporate awareness of the need to assess physical risk from climate change and to build resilience. For investors, the Carbon Bubble has been brought to the fore by the work of Carbon Tracker. They calculate around 80% of coal, oil and gas reserves are unburnable, if governments are to meet global commitments to keep the temperature rise below C. This has serious implications for institutional investors portfolios and valuations of companies with fossil fuel reserves. The economic case for action is strengthening. This year, we published the 3% Solution report showing that the US corporate sector could profitably reduce emissions by 3% per year, meeting its share of GHG emissions reductions in line with the degree target. 79% of US companies responding to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment. This has been noted by the US Administration and reflected in the launch of their Climate Action Plan. Other governments are taking action: China is developing air pollution measures and moving toward pilot cap and trade schemes; the UK government has mandated greenhouse gas emissions reporting for all large listed companies; the EU is looking at improving environmental and other reporting. The pressure on corporations, investors and governments to act continues. At CDP, we have broadened our work to add forests to climate and water so our programs now extend to an estimated 79% of natural capital, by value. To reflect this, we rebranded at the start of the year from the Carbon Disclosure Project to CDP and are increasing our focus on projects to accelerate action. One explores how corporations influence public policy on climate change both positively and negatively. Some corporations are still acting both directly and through trade associations to prevent the inevitable: nations need sensible climate regulation that protects the public interest over the long term. As countries around the world seek economic growth, strong employment and safe environments, corporations have a unique responsibility to deliver that growth in a way that uses natural resources wisely. The opportunity is enormous and it is the only growth worth having. Paul Simpson CEO CDP

5 Guest foreword 05 The insights that the CDP disclosure system provides by helping companies and cities to measure and monitor their environmental impact support us in making better policy decisions. We are seeing the first signs that Europe is exiting the crisis but there are still too many uncertainties to be complacent. The focus is now shifting from the short to the longer term: fiscal consolidation must be accompanied by the structural reforms that will lay more solid foundations for future growth. But the impact of the crisis is still being felt. Long term and youth unemployment, weak domestic demand, poor access to credit for many SMEs - this is still today s reality. Some of this could probably have been avoided had we made the necessary reforms earlier. Now we are paying for not having done enough. Having learned this lesson the hard way, we should not repeat the same mistake. Climate change is one of those long term issues that need to be addressed now. It has not stopped during the crisis. Europe has not become energy independent. And our energy infrastructure has not become younger. These challenges are still here, and if we don t address them they will have an even more serious impact on Europe s economy and on how business operates. This is why reporting through CDP is such an important tool. It can tell investors whether companies integrate climate change challenges into their corporate strategies. It can make companies discover new potential for reducing their own energy use and carbon emissions. It can make new investments more climate proof. The insights that the CDP disclosure system provides by helping companies and cities to measure and monitor their environmental impact supports us in making better policy decisions. the Nordic region is achieving emissions reductions, while in southern Europe companies are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their disclosure of key environmental information and in their management of emissions. Although the percentage of companies in central and Eastern Europe, which report their carbon emissions, remains well below the European average, there is a growing number of listed corporations in the region which are measuring and reporting their emissions, and that is encouraging. Resource efficiency and responsible stewardship of natural capital are at the centre of the EU s strategy for long-term development. As the European Commission prepares the framework for the EU s climate and energy policies up to 030, it is encouraging to see that so many European businesses have understood that our future economic growth potential also depends on how we handle our resources and the climate change challenge. Connie Hedegaard European Commissioner for Climate Action The various CDP Europe reports on Climate Change show that an increasing percentage of companies in

6 06 Foreword of the authors Investors are no longer interested in the question as to whether climate change will have an economic impact on companies. Rather they want to know which risks and opportunities arise from climate change for individual companies! For a long time, profitability and sustainability were thought to pull in opposite directions. Nevertheless, recent developments have shown that there is not only a link between economic success and sustainability but that they even depend on each other. Natural resources already became increasingly scarce and expensive. Accordingly, the cost intensity of climate change and pollution has risen. Sustainability has become a key competitive factor for global industrial players. The increasing economic relevance of climate change is also being reflected on capital markets. Investors are no longer interested in the question as to whether climate change will have an economic impact on companies. What they do want to know is which risks and opportunities arise from climate change for individual companies and how effectively these can be managed. Whether a company actively counters climate change thus builds an important criterion for an increasing number of investors and determines whether they invest in that company or not. Given the complexity of the information necessary for such an analysis, climate-orientated investors depend on transparent and stakeholder-appropriate communication. Effective, strategic climate protection has evolved into an important competitive factor on the capital market. And it is shown that climate-conscious investment does not automatically exclude positive returns. But not only that. In light of the rising costs of energy, the responsible use of resources has become competitive factor for all companies. Companies seeking to gain market share today must also be able to provide ideas for tomorrow. turn increases a company s legitimacy in society and ensures its credibility. The company s image improves and it builds reputation which, as a form of extrafinancial capital, increases enterprise value. On the one hand, the information that is annually compiled by the CDP and is based on the company s responsesprovides a good reference for climateconscious investors by supporting these in the selection of suitable securities for their investment universe. On the other hand, companies are motivated to improve their transparency in relation to climate protection and to enhance measures for countering climate change. They can use CDP data for comparing themselves to their peer group, for identifying savings potential as well as for defining strategies to manage and reduce emissions. Climate change is omnipresent and its existence can no longer be avoided. It affects all branches of industry. As a result, it is important to not only manage the risks which arise through climate change, but also to exploit the opportunities provided by climate change with the aim of raising enterprise value. Marcus Pratsch, Head of Sustainable Investment Research, DZ BANK AG Matthias Dürr, Senior Analyst Sustainable Investment Research, DZ BANK AG Companies whose product portfolio contains climatefriendly products and services do not only have excellent economic perspectives compared to others, but also bear their share of social responsibility. This in

7 Foreword of the scoring partners Age of transparency 07 A long approach Corporate transparency has progressed in waves. First in the mid-990s in the form of environmental management systems, later as corporate (social) responsibility and finally through investors and rating agencies. The CDP then opened a new chapter by startingto rate companies on behalf of investors in terms of their transparency and performance with respect to one single global challenge - climate protection. Transparency drives performance Anyone looking today at one of the comprehensive sustainability reports of any company qualifying for the CDLI will find it difficult to believe that those thin environment statements of the EMAS were made only twenty years ago. Leading companies have undergone a steep learning curve with respect to climate protection and have done much more than simply optimising the process of responding to the questionnaire. This is still a necessary but no longer sufficient requirement for a good score. A cornerstone of a proper and functional climate strategy is comprehensive and consistent data management for reliable comparable performance data. Such professional data management distinguishes leading companies, just like the integration of climate change programmes within higher management levels. From the outside, it is fascinating to see what efficiency and savings potentials are revealed throughquarterly reportings at board level, even in well managed companies. That the continuous improvement of the scores is sometimes associated with only moderate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is not necessarily a cause for concern over the short term. Even leading companies have established serious reduction programmes only a few years ago and it can take some years before they start paying out in environmental terms.. A greater concern should be put on the fact that there is still a large number of companies which have do yet face the challenge of overcoming climate change with due diligence, especially when it comes to the integration of climate-related opportunities and risks in the business process. Focus on materiality to increase the effect Through the principle of materiality of reported emissions, the CDP puts a stronger focus on the source of emissions along the value chain. This draws increasing attention to elements beyond company premises and puts greater emphasis on Scope 3 emissions. This year s CDP Global 500 Report shows that a large proportion of the reported emissions originates from the usage phase of products. In particular these companies must take a closer look at their core business. For the CDP, this means putting emphasis onassessing material as well as focussing on the real degree of impact of relevant emission sources along the value chain. Emissions performance in this area should be better rewarded in the scoring. This would increase transparency within those areas of the company s value chain in which the.largest steps towards more environmentally-friendly practices could be taken. Training for the superwave With the increasing visibility of global challenges in the public and an ever larger gap between stakeholder expectations and company performance, the wave of transparency requirements could reach a new peak. Requirements made by companies with regard to transparency and effective action are increasing, not only externally, but also from within. A very much underestimated but crucial role will be played by the company s own employees and their desire to be proud of their company. Companies which actively respond to transparency requirements and flex their corporate muscle with risk and opportunity management schemes are possibly better prepared for such a superwave. Riding the wave is definitely more fun than drowning. Jan-Marten Krebs Frank Sprenger Managing Directors, sustainable AG

8 08 Executive Summary Companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland continue to make progress in the systematic and strategic management of climate change. This is true both in terms of the completeness of climate change reporting as well as in view of the quality of reporting in connection with actual management performance. This year again, the companies whose CDP Climate Disclosure Score has improved form the majority. This shows that corporate transparency in climate change issues has continued to rise. Compared to the previous year 7 (67%) companies (0: 94 companies) improved their Disclosure Score (range: to 45 points; range 0: to 64 points). 50 of these even made double-digit improvements (0: 36). The greatest improvement was made by Helvetia Group based in Switzerland with 45 points. The Austrian firm Kapsch TrafficCom AG also made a massive step in the right direction (+39 points) as did the Austrian conwert Immobilien Invest (+35 points). In Germany, the best improvement was realised by Gerresheimer (+7 points). Taking a look at the CDP Climate Performance Bands reveals a similarly positive picture. 59 of the 7 companies (50%) which have been scored based on their performance in 0, managed to achieve a higher performance band. 46 companies (40%) held their performance band and twelve companies (0%) divertedto a lower performance band. This was partly due to an intensification of requirements imposed by CDP. The Swiss company SGS made the biggest leap up the bands, jumping from D to A and thereby making it into the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI). DACH 350 Sample This year, the CDP Report was compiled for the second time for the entire DACH region (Germany, Austria and Switzerland). The 350 companies assessed have been composed, as in the previous year, of the biggest stock-listed 0 German, 30 Austrian and 00 Swiss companies. In 03, the response rate in the DACH region amounts to 50% (75 of 350 companies). This is a slight decrease of.6% compared to the data of0, when 84 companies actively responded to the questionnaire. Including the seven references of organisations to theirparent companies responsestakes the response rate up to 5.0% (0: 54.9%). This corresponds to a decrease of.9% compared to the data of the previous year. In terms of market capitalisation the picture is much more positive. The participating companies already cover 88% of the market capitalisation of all companies invited to respond. The response behaviour within the individual regions varies: As in the previous year, the highest response rate of 65% came from Swiss companies. Response rates from individual sectors also differ significantly. Energy-intensive sectors where the issue of climate change has a much higher strategic significance (for instance utilities or transport companies) tend to reveal better response rates. Also, companies with high market capitalisation respond more often than those with lower market capitalisation. Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) All 36 companies which qualified for the CDLI this year achieved a disclosure score of at least 89 points (minimum score 0: 8 points). Therefore, they fulfil the requirements of the highest CDP quality level (7-00 points). Four companies (BASF, BMW and Daimler based in Germany and the Swiss company Nestlé) met all requirements and thus got the highest score of 00. All in all, the average disclosure quality in the CDLI has continued to improve throughout the last years. The average disclosure score of all companies qualifying for the CDLI is 94 points this year (0: 90 points). Ten of the companies of the DACH 350 Sample, which have qualified for the DACH CDLI, are included in this year s Global500 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI). Allianz, BASF, Bayer, BMW, Daimler, Deutsche Post, SAP and Volkswagen are included in the DAX index. The two Swiss companies Nestlé and Swisscom are listed in the Blue-Chip-Index SMI. Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) Compared to the previous year, a few stricter criteria have been applied in the classification of companies into the individual performance groups. As a result, it has become more difficult to be included into the CPLI. Taking that into consideration, it is encouraging that the number of companies meeting the criteria for inclusion into the DACH index has more than doubled. 5 companies (0: 7 companies) qualified for the CPLI: BMW, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Generali Deutschland Holding, Givaudan, HOCHTIEF, Munich Re, Nestlé, Österreichische Post, Raiffeisen Bank International, SAP, SGS, Swiss Re, Swisscom and Volkswagen. Nine companies are also represented in the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) of the Global500 Sample: BMW, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Munich Re, Nestlé, SAP, Swiss Re, Swisscom and Volkswagen. Investors and companies are becoming increasingly aware of the economic relevance of climate change The increasing economic relevance of climate change is also being reflected in financial markets. Despite

9 09 all measures taken to avoid and reduce dangerous emissions, further climate change can no longer be completely avoided. Therefore, investors are no longer interested in the question as to whether climate change will have an economic impact on companies. Rather they want to know which risks and opportunities arise from climate change for individual companiesand how effectively these can be managed. Thus, whether a company actively counters climate change is an important criterion for an increasing number of investors and determines whether they invest in that company or not. Climate change also has a crucial impact on a company s performance on the capital market. Companies which have developed a comprehensive awareness of the factors which result from climate change can react more quickly and effectively to these changes. They are better able to identify the opportunities which present themselves from climate change and ultimately use these as a competitive advantage in order to generate higher returns. This is also being reflected in the CDP analysis. 79 companies (45%) have identified risks with direct impact on their costs (e.g. higher operating costs), their income (e.g. falling demand for products and services provided by the company) and their value on the capital market (e.g. falling share prices). On the other hand, companies (64%) see a positive effect on their costs (lower cost of capital), their income (rising demand for products and services provided by the company) and their market capitalisation (e.g. higher demand for shares). Minimal reduction of emissions For the 0 reporting period, 35 (previous year 36) CDP participants (77%) indicated Scope emissions. The reported Scope emissions sum up to 64.8 (595.3) million metric tons of CO e and was thus 5.0% above the value from the previous year. An exact overlap analysis, referring to the comparison of the 3 companies which provided Scope data both in the current response and in the previous year, reveals a much more encouraging picture with a 0.7% decreasein emissions. The most common reason for higher emissions was an increase in production. Decoupling production and direct emissions has still not been achieved and further measures are needed if economic growth is to proceed without an increase in emissions. Scope emissions were specified by 36 (previous year 38) CDP participants (78%). Total reported Scope emissions were about 84.8 (85.7) million metric tons of CO e, which corresponds to a decrease of.0% compared to the previous year. This positive picture is, however, influenced by the fact that companies could account for renewable energy contracts for the first time. Scope 3 data were provided by (previous year 4) companies. The following five Scope 3 categories have most often been identified as relevant (figures in brackets show the number of companies ): Business Trips (8), Goods and Services Purchased (47), Fuel and Energy Related Activities (40), Waste Volume in Production (39), Transport and Logistics (Goods Sold; 33). Especially notable is that the Scope 3 sources often named are not those sources which are responsible for the biggest share of Scope 3 emissions (use of sold products). Rising strategic significance The rising tendency to integrate climate risks into corporate decision-making processes continued in companies (77%) indicated that they had made climate change a fixed part of their business strategy. That s four percentage points above the figure from last year (73%). 39 companies (%) have not integrated climate change in this way (previous year 5%). The positive trend shows that more and more companies have recognised the need to integrate all essential risks associated with their business - and this now includes climate change - into their management. Otherwise, concrete future planning is impossible. This also becomes clear through the level of responsibility for climate change. 3 companies (76%) have made climate change an issue of top management (previous year 68%). Responsibility is placed with one or several board members or with a committee set up directly by the executive board. The seven percentage point rise from the previous year is thus to be viewed as a further sign of the increasing strategic importance of climate change for companies. Technology companies lag behind in the CDP analysis Technology companies play a central role with their products and services in the context of climate protection. For instance, 9% of all companies participating in the CDP from the Information Technology sector revealed climate-friendly products and/or services. Nevertheless, systematic and strategic management of climate risks means more than the optimisation of the product and service portfolio. Here in particular, companies of the Information Technology sector need to improve compared to other sectors in terms of disclosure and performance. The Information Technology sector brings up the rear for this year s CDP analysis with a response rate of only 54%. The average disclosure score comes in at just 4 points. The sector is thus the only sector whose average score

10 0 is in the lower disclosure level (< 50 points). Only 3% of participating companies managed to achieve a performance score. With one exception, all companies achieved the second lowest performance level (D). Only SAP stands out positively with a disclosure score of 98 points and performance level A and is the clear leader within the sector. The company thus qualified for both the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) as well as for the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI). Looking at these results, the Information Technology sector is a prime example of the fact that strategic management of climate risks is a learning process which in itself takes a certain amount of time. It is undisputed that a range of companies from the Information Technology sector have made considerable progress in the management of climate risks, which is also reflected in the average rise of disclosure and performance scores. It is important to allow younger companies to take the time necessary for this learning process. The prerequisites in the Information Technology sector could hardly be any better: In relation to other sectors, IT companies are responsible for only a very small share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the same time, they contribute significantly to sustainable development by placing companies from other sectors in a position to reduce their - sometimes substantially higher - emissions. Therefore, they have a multiplier effect meaning they organise the business processes of other companies in a more energyefficient and thus more environmentally-friendly way. Conclusion The analysis of individual issues shows that the participating companies have improved in many areas compared to the previous year, both in terms of disclosure (depth and detail of response) as well as in performance. However, this is no reason to rest on one s laurels. Firstly, climate change is a dynamic process which requires continued attention. After all, it is not the definition of targets that matters but rather the degree to which these targets have been achieved. Secondly, the results of this year s information request, both in terms of completeness and transparency of climate data (disclosure) and in terms of the quality of reporting in connection with actual management of climate risks (performance), vary, sometimes considerably, between individual companies. Thirdly, those companies included in the sample which decided against responding to the questionnaire risk being viewed as a black box by investors and other stakeholders in which potential climate sinners could be found. Investors should raise their concern here and demand corresponding information.

11 For us, it s also a sign of good housekeeping when a company measures and discloses its CO emissions [...] - only that way a company can make its way into the universe of companies in which we preferably invest. Dr. Thomas Deser, CEFA Senior Portfoliomanager, Equities Global, Union Investment

12 03 climate disclosure & performance scoring In order to ensure that the qualitative and quantitative facts in connection with the responses provided by the companies are comparable, the descriptive analysis of CDP data is supplemented by a score. Two evaluations of important aspects are brought into focus here: Disclosure and Performance. Scoring for companies in the DACH region was provided by the CDP partners sustainable and FutureCamp/TÜV NORD (for Germany and Austria), Brugger and Partners/Fondation Guilé (for Switzerland) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (for companies in the Global500 Sample). Climate disclosure scoring The Climate Disclosure Scoring reflects the completeness of a company`s response and is thus an indicator of the usability of data. It also reflects the transparency of a company on issues of climate change. Statements on the actual performance of a company are not reflected. The results of the Climate Disclosure Scoring, which awards a maximum of 00 points, form the basis for the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI). Climate performance scoring The Climate Performance Scoring reflects the quality of a company`s response in connection with actual management performance. It is thus an expression of the credibility and, above all, efficacy of the measures initiated by companies in response to climate change and also reflects measures that have been taken in order to increase data validity. (minimum score 0: 8 points). Therefore, they fulfil the requirements for the highest CDP quality level (7-00 points). The scores are between 89 and 00 points. Four companies (BASF, BMW and Daimler based in Germany and the Swiss company Nestlé) achieved full marks. All in all, the average disclosure score in the CDLI continued to improve compared to the previous year(+4 points). This is also expressed in the fact that the disclosure scores of the four leading companies are six points above the average disclosure score of all companies qualifying for the CDLI which this year stands at 94 points (0: 90 points). Altogether, 8 companies in the CDLI managed to improve their disclosure scores (range to 9 points). Three companies held their scores at the same level as of 0. Five companies deteriorated compared to 0 (range - to -5 points). The results of the Climate Performance Scoring, which also awards a maximum of 00 points, are grouped in bands from A to E and form the basis of the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI). Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) DACH 03 Index composition & listing criteria A pre-requisite for entry into the DACH-CDLI is that the company grants public access to the responses. Of the 75 companies participating in this year s CDP, there are 4 potential candidates. The index size again corresponds to the best 0% of the DACH sample, that is, 35 companies. As in the previous year, 36 companies ultimately qualified for the CDLI as the last four candidates at the end of the index scored the same. All in all, the average disclosure score in the CDLI continued to improve compared to the previous year. DACH CDLI 03 facts & figures All 36 companies which qualified for the CDLI this year achieved a disclosure score of at least 89 points

13 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) DACH 03 3 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) DACH 03 Companies Country Sector Index Climate Disclosure Score BASF SE Germany Energy & Materials DAX Previous Year BMW AG Germany Automobiles & Components DAX Daimler AG Germany Automobiles & Components DAX Nestlé Switzerland Consumer Staples SMI Bayer AG Germany Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech DAX Volkswagen AG Germany Automobiles & Components DAX Deutsche Post AG Germany Transportation DAX SAP AG Germany Information Technology DAX Allianz SE Germany Financials (ex Real Estate) DAX METRO AG Germany Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) MDAX Swisscom Switzerland Telecommunication Services SMI Novartis Switzerland Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech SMI 96 9 Roche Holding AG Switzerland Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech SMI Siemens Germany Industrials (ex Transport) DAX Aktiengesellschaft SGS SA Switzerland Industrials (ex Transport) SMI ThyssenKrupp AG Germany Industrials (ex Transport) DAX VERBUND AG Austria Utilities ATX 94 9 Linde AG Germany Energy & Materials DAX RWE AG Germany Utilities DAX Merck KGaA Germany Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech DAX 9 80 Swiss Re Switzerland Financials (ex Real Estate) SMI 9 95 TUI AG Germany Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) MDAX 9 88 UBS Switzerland Financials (ex Real Estate) SMI 9 97 Deutsche Bank AG Germany Financials (ex Real Estate) DAX 9 90 Deutsche Börse AG Germany Financials (ex Real Estate) DAX 9 89 HOCHTIEF AG Germany Industrials (ex Transport) MDAX 9 83 LANXESS AG Germany Energy & Materials DAX 9 87 Munich Re Germany Financials (ex Real Estate) DAX 9 8 Saint-Gobain Schweiz Industrials (ex Transport) Sonstige 9 95 Syngenta Switzerland Energy & Materials SMI 9 84 International AG Commerzbank AG Germany Financials (ex Real Estate) DAX Deutsche Telekom AG Germany Telecommunication Services DAX 90 8 Actelion Ltd Switzerland Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech SMI Fraport AG Germany Transportation MDAX 89 8 MAN SE Germany Industrials (ex Transport) MDAX Vontobel Holding AG Switzerland Financials (ex Real Estate) Sonstige 89 84

14 4 Compared to last year, Actelion, Commerzbank, Merck, Roche, RWE, Saint Gobain, SGS and Volkswagen made it into the CDLI. In contrast, Adidas, Continental, Credit Suisse, Georg Fischer, Holcim, Österreichische Post, PSP Property and Symrise, which did qualify for the CDLI in 0, failed to qualify this year. Taking a closer look at the disclosure score by subject field reveals that the average scores in the CDLI have improved in five out of six categories. Only in Emission Reporting average scores fell by three points. The greatest progress has been made in the Verification / Stakeholder Engagement category. The average score here was 5 points higher than in the previous year. An essential difference between the CDLI and the sample as a whole is to be found in the completeness and greater transparency of climate reporting within the individual response. The 36 CDLI companies reveal much more homogenous reporting over all subject fields. The average score for the individual categories in the survey range from 86 points (Opportunities) to 99 points (Governance & Strategy). The qualitative difference is especially high for Verification / Stakeholder Engagement : Here the difference between the average score for the CDLI and that of the entire sample is 45 points. Ten companies in the DACH 350 Sample which qualified for the DACH CDLI are included in this year s Global500 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI). Allianz, BASF, Bayer, BMW, Daimler, Deutsche Post, SAP and Volkswagen are included in the DAX Index. The two Swiss companies Nestlé and Swisscom are listed in the Blue-Chip-Index SMI. Disclosure Scoring by category - Annual comparison CDLI average Category 03 0 YoY Emissions Management Emissions Reporting Governance & Strategy Opportunities Risks Verification / Stakeholder Engagement Country-specific analysis This year, 4 companies from Germany, one from Austria and eleven from Switzerland qualified for the CDLI. Sector-specific analysis This year s CDLI includes companies from different sectors, albeit to a differing extent. This makes clear that climate change affects all branches of industry. Only the real estate sector failed to make it into the index. Average scores range from 9 points (financials excl. real estate) and 00 points (consumer staples). Disclosure Scoring by category - CDLI vs. All participants Category CDLI All participants Emissions Management Emissions Reporting Governance & Strategy Opportunities Risks Verification / Stakeholder Engagement Index-specific analysis This year, companies from the blue chip indices DAX, ATX and SMI dominate the CDLI (9 of 36 companies; 0: 7 of 36 companies). The biggest group within the CDLI is formed by the DAX companies (9 companies; 0: 7 companies), which reveal an average disclosure score of 95 points (0: 9 points). Lufthansa only failed to qualify due to not publishing its response. The CDLI also includes one company from the ATX (disclosure score: 94 points), nine companies from the SMI (average disclosure score: 94 points; 0: 9 points), five companies from the MDAX (average disclosure score: 9 points; 0: 85 points) as well as two companies which were not listed in any of the above mentioned indices. An essential difference between the CDLI and the sample as a whole is to be found in the higher completeness and transparency of climate reporting. The scores of the German companies in the CDLI ranged from 89 to 00 points (average 94 points), those of the Swiss companies had the same range (average: 93 points). The Austrian company scored 94.

15 5 No companies listed in the SMIM, TecDAX or SDAX indices were represented in this year s CDLI. DACH disclosure 03 facts & figures This year too, companies whose scores have improved are in the majority. This shows that corporate transparency in climate change issues has continued to rise. Compared to the previous year, 7 (67%) companies (0: 94 companies) improved their disclosure score (range to 45 points; range 0: to 64 points). 50 of these even realised double-digit improvements (0: 36). The greatest improvement was made by the Swiss Helvetia Group with 45 points. The Austrian firm Kapsch TrafficCom also made a massive step into the right direction (+39 points) as did the Austrian conwert Immobilien Invest (+35 points). In Germany, the best year-over-year improvement came from Gerresheimer (+7 points). Twelve (7%) companies (0: 0 companies) achieved the same score in 03 as in 0. 4 (3%) companies (0: 65 companies) deteriorated (range - to -6; 0: - to -8). Five (3%) companies which did not participate last year got a score for the first time. The average disclosure score of all companies participating in the CDP came in at 63 points this year (0: 57 points). The four companies with the highest result (BASF, BMW and Daimler in Germany and Nestlé in Switzerland) were 37 points above average. Comparing the average disclosure score from all participants with the average CDLI score (94 points) shows a difference of 3 points. The distribution of the companies across the three disclosure levels defined by the CDP (low: <50 points, medium: points, high: >70 points) reflects an encouraging trend. 50% of this year s participants achieved the highest quality level (0: 38%). 3% achieved the medium level (0: 3%) and 6% of participating companies were in the lowest level (0: 3%). The proportion of companies in the highest disclosure level increased considerably compared to the previous year which ultimately shows that many companies have taken an improvement of their reporting of climate change issues to heart. Across the various subject fields, average disclosure scores from all 75 participating companies ranged from 5 points in Verification & Stakeholder Engagement and 83 points in Governance & Strategy. In four out of five categories, the score improved compared to the previous year. The one exception was Emissions Reporting, where the average score fell by three points on 0. The greatest improvement (+ points) has been realised within Verification & Stakeholder Engagement. Three quarters of participating companies already report their emissions and the focus for these companies now appears to be on the assessment of these data. Country-specific analysis The country-specific analysis shows an improvement in average disclosure scores in each of Germany, Austria and Switzerland (DACH region). This year, companies whose scores have improved are in the majority. This shows that corporate transparency in climate change issues has continued to rise. The average disclosure score of all companies participating in the CDP from Switzerland (69 points; 0: 60 points) was six points above the average for the entire DACH region (63 points). The German participants reveal an average disclosure score of 60 points (0: 56 points), as did the Austrian participants (0: 5 points). Leaders by country in Germany are BASF, BMW and Daimler, each of which achieved the maximum score of 00 and thus were 40 points above the average disclosure score of all German participants. The Swiss company Nestlé also achieved the maximum score (00 points), as in the previous year. Nestlé thus came in 3 points higher than the average score of all Swiss companies participating in the CDP. In Austria, the country leader was VERBUND with 94 points. It scored 35 points higher than the average disclosure score for all participating Austrian companies. Interesting is the distribution of the individual companies by country across the disclosure levels as set down by the CDP. In all three countries of the DACH region, the highest disclosure level (7-00 points) was the biggest of the three groups this year. 60% of all Swiss participants, 45% of all German participants and 38% of all Austrian participants achieved 7 points or more.

16 6 Sector-specific analysis Average disclosure scores by sector run from 4 points in the Information Technology sector and 8 points in the Automobiles & Components sector. The latter achieves the highest disclosure level. This is also true for the Energy & Materials sector. Nine sectors achieve an average score placing them in the medium quality level. Only one sector (Information Technology) stays in the lowest disclosure level. Disclosure Scoring by category - All participants 03 vs. 0 Category 03 0 Emissions Management Emissions Reporting Governance & Strategy Opportunities Risks Verification / Stakeholder Engagement 5 40 Disclosure Scoring - Company distribution by country Switzerland Germany Austria The sharp rise of economic relevance of climate change for some sectors can be seen while looking simultaneously at the advances of sector leaders compared to the average disclosure scores of the corresponding sector and the sector-specific distribution of companies over the three disclosure levels defined by the CDP. For instance, companies in the Automotive & Components sector have the highest average disclosure score of all sectors (8 points) and the sector leaders have the smallest lead on this average value at only 8 points. 7% of all participating companies from the Automotive & Components sector have achieved the highest disclosure level. The remaining 9% are clustered around the middle of the medium level. Index-specific analysis A look at average disclosure scores by market capitalisation shows, as in the previous year, that companies from the blue chip indices DAX, ATX and SMI have a clear lead in climate reporting (cumulative: blue chips: 83 points (0: 78 points); mid-caps: 56 points (0: 49 points); small-caps: 47 points (0: 44 points)). Looking at the indices individually, we have a range from 9 points in the TecDAX (0: 3 points; 0: 9 points) and 87 points in the DAX (0: 8 points; 0: 77 points). Whilst average values from DAX, SMI and SMIM companies come in at the highest disclosure level, average values from ATX and MDAX companies achieve the medium level. TecDAX and SDAX companies make only the lowest disclosure level. Overall, it can be seen that the average level for six of the seven named indices has improved compared to the previous year. SMIM (+9 points) and MDAX (+8 points) reveal the biggest gains. On the contrary, for the TecDAX, the average disclosure score slipped by three points. CDP DACH 03 Country Leader Country Company Sector Index Climate Disclosure Score Previous Year Country average Gap to country average Germany BASF Energy & Materials DAX BMW Automobiles & Components DAX Daimler Automobiles & Components DAX Austria VERBUND Utilities ATX Switzerland Nestle Consumer Staples SMI

17 7 CDP DACH 03 Sector Leader Sector Company Country Index Climate Disclosure Score Previous Year Sector average Gap to sector average Automobiles & Components BMW Germany DAX Daimler Germany DAX Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Metro Germany MDAX Consumer Staples Nestle Switzerland SMI Financials (ex Real Estate) Allianz Germany DAX Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech Bayer Germany DAX Energy & Materials BASF Germany DAX Industrials (ex Transport) Siemens Germany DAX Transportation Deutsche Post Germany DAX Information Technology SAP Germany DAX Telecommunication Services Swisscom Switzerland SMI Utilities Verbund AG Austria ATX Real Estate PSP Swiss Switzerland SMIM Property Disclosure Scoring - Company distribution by sector Real Estate Utilities 4 3 Telecommunication Services 3 Information Technology 9 Transportation 6 Industrials (ex Transport) 3 9 Energy & Materials Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech 9 5 Financials (ex Real Estate) Consumer Staples 3 3 Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) 8 6 Automobiles & Components

18 8 The list of index leaders is as follows: BASF, BMW and Daimler in the DAX (00 points; lead on index average: 3 points) ), VERBUND in the ATX (94 points; lead on index average: 7 points)), Nestlé in the SMI (00 points; lead on index average: 4 points)), Metro AG in the MDAX (97 points; lead on index average: 36 points)), Kontron in the TecDAX (7 points; lead on index average: 4 points)), Georg Fischer in the SMIM (88 points; lead on index average: 6 points)) and Takkt AG in the SDAX (8 points; lead on index average: 34 points). Disclosure Scoring - Company distribution by index Other TDXP SMIM SMI SDYP MDAX DAX Companies from the blue chip indices DAX, ATX and SMI have a clear lead in climate reporting. Overall, it can be seen that the average level for six of the seven named indices has improved compared to the previous year. ATX CDP DACH 03 Index Leader Index Company Country Sector Climate Disclosure Score Previous Year Index average Gap to index average ATX VERBUND Austria Utilities DAX BASF Germany Energy & Materials BMW Germany Automobiles & Components Daimler Germany Automobiles & Components MDAX Metro Germany Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) SDYP Takkt Germany Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) SMI Nestlé Schweiz Consumer Staples SMIM Georg Fischer Switzerland Industrials (ex Transport) TDXP Kontron Germany Information Technology

19 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) DACH 03 9 Index composition & listing criteria A necessary selection criteria for the CPLI sample is a minimum disclosure score of 50 and the company s consent to the publication of its CDP report (public status). A performance score was calculated for 9 (74%) of the 75 companies from the DACH region participating in the CDP (0: 6 for 84 actively participating companies). Based on these scores, companies are categorised into a total of six performance groups with ratings from A/A- (>85 points) to E ( 0 points). The highest level (A) assumes a completely integrated climate change strategy of significant maturity. The step from A- to A requires the fulfilment of certain special additional criteria set down by CDP. A company must have indicated Scope and data which have been provably verified by an external party. The company must also have decreased at least 4% from total Scope and emissions through emission reduction activities. Only companies which achieve this highest rating A then qualify for the CPLI. DACH CPLI 03 facts & figures With respect to additional criteria, stricter measures compared to the previous year were applied for inclusion in the index. As a result, the threshold for inclusion in the CPLI has increased. As a result, it is all the more encouraging that the number of companies meeting the criteria for inclusion into the DACH CPLI index has more than doubled. 5 companies (0: 7 companies) qualified for the CPLI: BMW, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Generali Deutschland Holding, Givaudan, HOCHTIEF, Munich Re, Nestlé, Österreichische Post, Raiffeisen Bank International, SAP, SGS, Swiss Re, Swisscom and Volkswagen. Of the seven companies which formed the CPLI last year, only three made the grade this year: BMW, Deutsche Bank and Nestle. Allianz, BASF, Bayer and UBS did not qualify this year. Nine companies which made the DACH selection this year are also represented in the Global500 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI): BMW, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Munich Re, Nestlé, SAP, Swiss Re, Swisscom and Volkswagen. DACH performance 03 facts & figures 59 (50%) of the 7 companies which were scored on their performance in 0 already managed to achieve a higher performance band. 46 companies (40%) held their performance band, companies (0%) got a lower band. The Swiss company SGS made the biggest leap up the bands, jumping from D to A and also making it into the CPLI. Three companies have not been able to overcome the 50 points threshold with their disclosure score. Therefore, they no longer qualify for performance scoring. Twelve companies which did not reach the 50 point threshold last year in their disclosure score managed to achieve it this year and were given a performance score for the first time. Country-specific analysis The 9 companies which have been assessed and scored this year according to their performance distribute across the countries as follows: 65 companies are based in Germany (67% of all German participants), nine in Austria (64% of all Austrian participants ) and 55 in Switzerland (86% of all Swiss companies). Eight German companies managed to get into the CPLI (0: 5 companies), as did five Swiss companies (0: companies) and two Austrian companies (0: none). Sector-specific analysis The sector-specific analysis reveals the share of companies in each sector which were able to qualify for performance scoring. The Automobiles & Components sector successfully defended its lead with 00% of companies qualifying (seven out of seven companies). The Utilities (88%), Energy & Materials (86%) and Financials (ex Real Estate) (83%) sectors also revealed good ratios. Much further behind was the Information Technology sector (3%) Company distribution by performance bands (by country) A A- B C D E N/A Switzerland Germany Austria

20 0 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) DACH 03 Company Country Sector Index Climate Performance Band Previous Year Daimler AG Deutschland Automobiles & Components DAX A A- Nestlé Schweiz Consumer Staples SMI A A BMW AG Deutschland Automobiles & Components DAX A A Deutsche Bank AG Deutschland Financials (ex Real Estate) DAX A A SAP AG Deutschland Information Technology DAX A B Volkswagen AG Deutschland Automobiles & Components DAX A B Generali Deutschland Holding AG Deutschland Financials (ex Real Estate) Sonstige A C Österreichische Post AG Österreich Transportation ATX A B SGS SA Schweiz Industrials (ex Transport) SMI A D Swisscom Schweiz Telecommunication Services SMI A B HOCHTIEF AG Deutschland Industrials (ex Transport) MDAX A C Munich Re Deutschland Financials (ex Real Estate) DAX A C Raiffeisen Bank International AG Österreich Financials (ex Real Estate) ATX A C Givaudan SA Schweiz Energy & Materials SMI A C Swiss Re Schweiz Financials (ex Real Estate) SMI A B Performance Bands: company distribution by sector Real Estate Utilities 4 Telecommunication Services InformationTechnology 3 9 Transportation 4 A Industrials (extransport) Energy & Materials A- B C Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech D E Financials (ex Real Estate) N/A Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) 6 6 Automobiles & Components

21 The fifteen companies which achieved the highest rating (A) this year came from eight different sectors. With two companies in the Industry Group Banks and three companies in the Industry Group Insurance, the sector Financials (ex Real Estate) dominates. The Automobiles & Components sector is also well represented with three companies. Index-specific analysis The index-specific share of companies participating for which a performance scoring was given ranged from 4% in the TecDAX and 00% in the SMI and SMIM. Overall, the blue chip companies from the DAX, ATX and SMI clearly dominated (95%), as in the previous year. The breakdown of companies across the six performance groups by index shows that the two highest ratings A and A- have primarily been given to blue chip companies (9 of companies). Six companies from the DAX index made it into the CPLI (0: 5 companies), as did five companies from the SMI (0: companies), two companies from the ATX (0: no companies), one company from the MDAX (0: no companies) and one company which was not represented in any of the above mentioned indices (0: none). On a negative note, the best rated TecDAX company only managed to get a D rating. 86% of all TecDAX companies actively participating in the CDP failed to meet the criteria for a performance score (disclosure score <50). Again this year, the scoring results show that the disclosure of data does not only create transparency, but also contributes to awareness and thus triggers and influences actions. Within the framework of the CDP questionnaire, this connection is evident from the correlation between disclosure and performance scores. For companies that received a performance scoring (requirement: disclosure score of at least 50), climate protection measures as reflected in the CDP performance band actually increased with greater transparency, as measured by the disclosure score. Performance Bands: company distribution by index Other TDXP A A- SMIM SMI B C SDYP MDAX D E DAX N/A ATX Correlation Disclosure Score and Performance Band Performance Score Disclosure Score Performance Score Linear (Performance Score)

22 Relevance of climate change in the capital market DIW weekly report (Wochenbericht), /007 Investment opportunities from climate change For a long time, the subject of climate change was approached purely from an environmental perspective. Economic aspects were largely ignored. Economic relevance of climate change That it is essential to stop narrowing down the subject that way has become increasingly apparent with the rising number and intensity of extreme environmental disasters over the last 0 to 5 years. In 005, hurricane Katrina caused an economic damage of around USD 50 billion. Within the decades to come, a further increase in weather extremes such as precipitation, flooding and storms is to be expected. But not only environmental damage has a cost. If climate change is to be avoided or limited, considerable financial resources are necessary, yet international studies show that the level of such investment will be far below the costs incurred in the case of inaction. The German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) estimates the cost of the impact of climate change in Germany until 050 to be around EUR 800 billion in the absence of stronger initiatives. Overall, this could result in a loss of 0.5 percentage points from GDP. According to DIW estimates, the global impact of climate change, all things remaining equal, will grow to around USD 3.8 trillion until 050. Climate change affects all branches of industry One thing is clear! Climate change is omnipresent and will leave no branch of industry untouched. A few examples: The extreme weather events associated with increasing climate change are of particular significance for insurance companies as damage caused by flooding, storms and hail has often been insured beforehand by the persons concerned. Accordingly, climate change One thing is clear! Climate change is omnipresent and will leave no branch of industry untouched. must be integrated into the calculation of risk, future claim scenarios need to be modelled and tariffs and premiums have to be based on these. The construction and real estate sector also faces huge challenges as buildings are not planned and constructed only for the near term but for decades. The increasing dynamic of climate change means that climate factors can change significantly throughout a building s lifecycle. These potential changes as well as their impact for construction materials used both above and below ground andfor buildings technologies must be taken into account in construction planning. In the Transport and Logistics sector, environmental disasters caused by climate change not only result in interruptions to local operations, but also unleash a chain reaction in global supply chains as the world becomes increasingly interconnected. It is therefore important to differentiate between three risk/opportunity categories, all of which have an impact on a company s financial standing. Companies from all sectors must therefore learn to live with climate change and to systematically and strategically manage the risks and opportunities. Regulatory risks and opportunities European and national legislators seek to reduce the costs of climate change with regulations and edicts. This has a direct impact on companies. For instance, the targets set down in the Kyoto Protocol are to be achieved through the establishment of a market for emissions certificates in the EU. By internalising external costs, price, cost and investment decisions are influenced. This does not only pose in risks, but also provides opportunities for an existing company. Physical risks and opportunities The physical risks and opportunities of climate change arise from variations in temperature and precipitation as well as from increased weather extremes. This affects sectors which make extensive use of natural resources such as agriculture and forestry but also healthcare, real estate and tourism. Insurance companies and consumer goods industry supply chains will also be influenced by extreme weather events and the resulting extent and frequency of damage.

23 3 Other risks and opportunities These include reputational and competitive risks and opportunities. If companies fail to act or act with inadequate means to reduce climate risks, they may suffer a competitive disadvantage. Vice versa, they may also gain a competitive advantage if they adapt quickly. The perception of risk and opportunity is much more pronounced this year in all three categories than in previous years. 3 companies (70%) have identified at least one risk category by which they are affected. (0: 68%). 73 companies (4%) feel threatened by regulatory, physical and other risks (0: 36%). Regulatory risks dominate and are perceived by 6% of all companies participating in the CDP (0: 58%, 0: 56%). 4 companies (8%) have identified at least one opportunity category by which they are affected (0: 79%). 79 companies (45%) see regulatory, physical as well as other opportunities (0: 35%). Regulatory opportunities dominate and are perceived by 73% of all companies participating in the CDP (0: 67%, 0: 67%). A detailed analysis shows 79 companies (45%) have identified risks which have a direct impact on their costs (e.g. higher operating costs), their income (e.g. falling demand for products and services provided by the company) and their value on the capital market (e.g. falling share prices). On the other hand, companies (64%) have identified a possible positive effect on their costs (lower cost of capital), their income (rising demand for products and services provided by the company) and their market capitalisation (e.g. higher demand for shares). Paradigm shift on the capital market Since a few years now, capital markets take climate change quite serious as well. The increasing economic relevance of climate change is no longer denied on the trading floor. Despite all measures to avoid and reduce dangerous emissions, further climate change can no longer be avoided. Investors are therefore no longer interested in the question as to whether climate change will have an economic impact on companies. Rather, they are interested in knowing which particular risks and opportunities arise from climate change for individual companies and how effectively these can be managed. Perception of risks Risks driven by changes in other climate-related developments 48% 54% Risks driven by changes in physical climate parameters 5% 5% 0 03 Risks driven by changes in regulation 58% 6% Perception of opportunities Opportunities driven by changes in other climaterelated developments 63% 67% Opportunities driven by changes in physical climate parameters 47% 53% 0 03 Opportunities driven by changes in regulation 67% 73%

24 4 Companies which have developed a comprehensive awareness of the issues caused by climate change can adapt more quickly and effectively to these changes. They are better able to identify the opportunities which climate change can present and ultimately use these as a competitive advantage in order to generate higher returns. Climate protection as competition factor on the capital market Effective climate protection has therefore become a competition factor on the capital market which can also be expected to motivate sinners to launch a climate protection strategy or to improve existing mechanisms. Whether a company actively counters climate change therefore represents an important criterion for an increasing number of investors and determines whether they invest in that company or not. It is to be noted here that sustainable investors are not only motivated by material profit. They are also concerned with the achievement of an ecological, social and governancerelated return. Therefore, climate protection has to be strategic and transparent. Also, it must be communicated to stakeholders in an appropriate way. The information required by climate-oriented investors differs from the requirements of classic investors through its greater complexity. To them, returns as well as extra-financial value drivers play an important role. In the long-term, these account for a considerable share of enterprise value and have an impact on the performance on the capital market. For this reason, mainstream investors are also increasingly looking to extra-financial aspects. Effective climate protection has long since become a competition factor on the capital market. Investors reward effective climate protection by directing funds to companies which are leading within their sectors, for debt as well as for equity. The funds provided allow companies to invest in climate protection in order to achieve their emission reduction targets or to set even more challenging targets. Corresponding construction of the portfolio (best-in-class) allows the investor to spread risks across various industry groups. Some investors looking only for sustainable investors even work with an exclusion procedure for entire sectors. Further, institutional investors can actively influence companies in their portfolio with their voting rights (engagement). This is especially true for smalland mid-cap companies in which individual investors or investor groups own large shares. Investors seek a critical dialogue with companies in order to push them towards a more climate-friendly and generally more sustainable business policy with the objective of raising the return for investors as well. Investors reward effective climate protection by directing funds to companies which are leading within their sectors. Separating the wheat from the chaff The way in which companies manage climate change and how they master the associated challenges has a crucial impact on their performance on the capital market. Climate-orientated investors prefer companies that are preparing for climate change by integrating it systematically into their business strategy and risk management; companies which set active climate protection targets and initiate measures to achieve these targets as well as providing regular and transparent reports on climate relevant issues. The focus of the product and service portfolio also plays an important role in stock-picking. Companies which fail to do this or whose response is inadequate become unattractive to certain investor groups. This has medium to long-term impacts on profitability. This in turn also makes the company less attractive to other investors as the value of their capital investment is correlated to company earnings. 53 companies (30%) which actively responded to this year s CDP survey and which selected public status have integrated climate change into their business strategy and risk management and have declared it a top management issue. At the same time, they have set active climate protection targets and launched corresponding measures to achieve these targets. Their products and services contribute directly to the prevention of GHG emissions-. Reporting on climaterelevant issues is already available. Based on the completeness and transparency of reporting, 3 of these companies managed to qualify for the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI), which is an indicator for the usability of data. Based on the high quality of reporting in conjunction with actual management performance, twelve of these companies made it into the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI).

25 5 The question on financial performance Nothing has been more discussed in recent years than the question as to whether and what influence sustainability has on share performance. Critics of sustainable investments assert that taking account of nonfinancial criteria in picking the stocks limits the investment universe and as such the risk-return profile of the portfolio deteriorates. Proponents of sustainable investment counter that an analysis of sustainability criteria contributes to the avoidance of risk and this enables a higher return to be generated in the long term. Which companies are a step ahead? The following analysis contrasts the performance of the five SMI companies contained in this year s DACH-CPLI (Givaudan, Nestle, SGS, Swisscom, Swiss Re) - the portfolio - with the performance of the index itself over a 3-year period. The comparison shows that the portfolio outperformed the SMI from mid-0 - though the intensity of the outperformance varied. A glance at the disclosure and performance scores of the companies reveals that the average scores have improved over the past two years. In the next step, we construct a portfolio including the companies listed in the SMI that have been asked to despond but did not actively participate in the CDP this year (status: NR or DP). The analysis shows that this portfolio has underperformed the index since mid-0. the Climate Performance Leaders (Gobal500 CPLI) show an outperformance of a quarter in two years. Invest with clear conscience without surrendering returns The opposite is rather the case: Climate-oriented investors generate at least a fair market return over the short term and, over the long term, a better return with slightly lower risk due to the portfolio selection made. For companies, an active approach to climate change implies the possibility of stabilising or raising the share price over the medium to long-term and outperforming the market as a whole. Finally, we construct a portfolio weighted by market capitalisation for the ten companies from the DACH sample which made the greatest progress in their disclosure scores between 0 and 03. These ten companies are Valiant Holding (+63 points), Österreichische Post (+6 points), Mobimo (+6 points), Telekom Austria (+54 points), Helvetia Group (+45 points), Takkt (+40 points), EVN (+40 points), SGS (+37 points), Banque Cantonale Vaudoise (+37 points) and Georg Fischer (+36 points). We compare this portfolio to the STOXX All Europe Total Market Index (TMI), which covers around 95% of the free float market capitalisation of 8 Western European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Greece, Great Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain) and includes large caps, mid caps as well as small caps. Here too, we find the portfolio has outperformed the index in the past years. In addition, a look at the longterm analysis on a global level shows simila results: The stocks contained in the global Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (Global500 CDLI), that is, the most transparent 0% of the world s largest 500 companies, outperformed the Global500 index by more than two thirds in the period from March 005 and March 03; NR Not Responded DP Declined to Participate

26 CDP CDP Climate Climate Performance Leaders Switzerland vs. vs. SMI SMI CPLI Switzerland SMI PERFORMANCE - PRICE INDEX Oct 00 Dec 00 Feb 0 Apr 0 Jun 0 Aug 0 Oct 0 Dec 0 Feb 0 Apr 0 Jun 0 Aug 0 Oct 0 Dec 0 Feb 03 Apr 03 Jun 03 Aug 03 Oct Oct 00 Dec Feb 0 Apr 0 CDP non-participation CDP costs 5.4% return return per per year year CDP Non-participants Switzerland (SMI) Jun 0 CDLI Europe - Best Improvers 0-03 Aug 0 Oct 0 Dec 0 Feb 0 Apr 0 SMI PERFORMANCE - PRICE INDEX Feb 0 Apr 0 Jun 0 Aug 0 Oct 0 Dec 0 Feb 0 Apr 0 Jun 0 Aug 0 Oct 0 Dec 0 Feb 03 Apr 03 Jun 03 Profit on Return after Best Disclosure Improvers Score 0-03 improvement - Europe Jun 0 Aug 0 Oct 0 STOXX ALL EUROPE TM Dec 0 Feb 03 Apr 03 Jun 03 Aug 03 Oct 03 Aug 03 Oct 03

27 7

28 8 The specific role of technology companies The global market for sustainable technologies has grown steadily over the last years. In particular as energy efficiency is becoming more important, we believe this growth will also continue in the future. But what exactly does sustainable technologies mean? Growing market for sustainable technologies A clear and unambiguous definition of sustainable technologies is almost impossible as this type of technology touches many different areas of industry. As a result, terms such as green technology, green high-tech or environmental technology are often used as synonyms. All these terms refer to technological expertise mobilised for the purposes of sustainable development, in particular in the field of energy and resource efficiency. Sustainable technologies can help to avoid environmental burdens from the outset, reduce their impact and resolve damage already occurred. Sustainable technologies can help to avoid environmental burdens from the outset, reduce their impact and resolve damage already occurred. Technology companies lag behind in the CDP analysis Technology companies therefore play a central role with their products and services in the context of climate protection. For instance, 9% of all companies participating in the CDP from the Information Technology sector revealed climate-friendly products and/or services. An index-specific analysis also supports this statement: 79% of the participating TecDAX companies indicate that their portfolio includes products and/or services which contribute to the prevention of GHG emissions (0: 66%). This trend is very encouraging, even if this data is not sufficient for determining the product s share in the company s portfolio. However, the systematic and strategic management of climate risks means more than the optimisation of the product and service portfolio. WBCSD: Vision 050 The new agenda for business Roland Berger Strategy Consultants im Auftrag des Bundesumweltministeriums: Green Tech-Atlas.0 Companies seeking to gain market share today must be able to provide ideas for tomorrow. This is particularly true in mature markets. This is also the conclusion of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in its strategy paper Vision 050. According to the WBCSD, by 050 the most successful companies will be those whose core business contributes to the solution of the world s greatest challenges. This includes climate and resource protection as well as the elimination of social injustice. According to statistics from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, German companies lead in the field of sustainable technologies and account for 5% of global trade. The ministry expects the contribution from green environmental technologies to grow from around 8% of GDP in 007 to more than 4% in 00. Here in particular, companies of the Information Technology sector need to improve significantly in order to be able to compare themselves to other sectors in terms of disclosure and performance. The Information Technology sector brings up the rear for this year s CDP analysis with a response rate of only 54%. The average disclosure score comes in at just 4 points. The sector is thus the only one whose average score places itself in the lowest disclosure level (< 50 points). Only 3% of participating companies managed to achieve a performance score. With one exception, all companies achieved the second lowest performance level (D). Only SAP stands out positively with a disclosure score of 98 points and performance level A and is the clear leader within the sector. The company thus qualified for both the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) as well as for the Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI).

29 9 Implications for climate-oriented investors Should climate-oriented investors turn their back on the information technology sector? For us, that is a clear no! Investors should rather observe the sector closely, analyse and encourage progress by individual companies and take investment opportunities. The pre-requisites in the information technology sector could hardly be any better. It is undisputed that a range of companies from the information technology sector have made considerable progress in the management of climate risks, which is also reflected in the average rise in disclosure and performance scores. A large number of technology-oriented companies, in particular those with low market capitalisation, differ from other sectors of industry primarily in their approach as to how climate risks are being managed. Climate-relevant issues are often approached more intuitively than strategically, which is reflected in the scoring. This may also be due to the fact that compared to companies from other sectors, technology companies are often younger and more innovative companies. This often goes hand in hand with lower market capitalisation. does not save the smaller companies from having to do the same efforts. After all, they often have the advantage of a less complex and thus easily manageable business model so that data here can be generated at a lower cost. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that the strategic management of climate risks is primarily a learning process which takes a certain amount of time. It is important to allow younger companies the time that is necessary for this learning process. The pre-requisites in the information technology sector could hardly be any better: In relation to other sectors, IT companies are responsible for only a very small share of GHG emissions. At the same time, they contribute significantly to sustainable development by placing companies from other sectors in a position to reduce their - sometimes substantially higher - emissions. Therefore, they have a multiplier effect by making the business processes of other companies more energy-efficient and thus more environmentally-friendly. After having implemented the necessary changes, these companies will stick out with regard to targetoriented and strategic implementation of climate change management as well as its communication to external stakeholders and as a consequence increasingly call investor s attention. Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that the strategic management of climate risks is primarily a learning process which takes a certain amount of time. Of course, the lower scores can also be explained by the fact that larger companies simply have more resources available for collecting the necessary data. However, that

30 30 Global Emissions Reporting A summary of current regional, national and multi-national legislation Governments are increasingly transitioning from voluntary to mandatory reporting of GHG emissions and environmental risks. July 03 saw the UK government legislate for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions by all quoted companies on the London Stock Exchange. CDP played a central role in ensuring these regulations passed, providing technical advice on the content of the regulations and seconding staff to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write the guidance that accompanied the regulations. Whilst other countries have similar reporting requirements in place, the UK regulations are unique in requiring companies to report on their GHG emissions globally, and to include details in their annual report. Discussions are currently on going at EU-level for mandatory reporting of Environmental, Social and Governance information (including GHG emissions) to be included in companies end of year reports. This legislation would affect all large EU companies with more than 500 employees, totalling some 8,000 companies across the EU. This underlines the growing acceptance by policymakers that reporting of corporate sustainability impacts will lead to more effective management of these impacts, and CDP will continue to engage with European policymakers to support the introduction of non-financial reporting requirements. The inclusion of Article 47 on sustainability reporting in the outcome document of the Rio+0 UN Conference on Sustainable Development also demonstrates increased recognition of corporate sustainability at the international level. CDP is working hard to transform this into long lasting policy change.

31 3

32 3 Non-listed companies catch up Members CTT Portuguese Post Delipaper Evonik Flughafen München Gesobau Hermes HSE Infraserv Jean Müller REMA000 Robert Bosch Sofidel Group Tetra Pak Werra Papier Wiedemann Wachswaren Traditionally, CDP asks listed companies to report their climate data on behalf of institutional investors. But how does CDP proceed with non-listed and family-run companies? In Germany, Austria and Switzerland in particular, these play an important role for the economy. Since 0, the CDP Mittelstand Initiative has offered these companies an opportunity to report their GHG emissions and associated management through CDP thus enabling them to compare themselves with competitors. The initiative is, however, not only directed at the traditional Mittelstand. Non-listed companies of all sizes (from 80 to 300,000 employees) currently participate. How does the initiative work? The CDP Mittelstand Initiative is a pilot program that allows non-listed and family-run companies to develop an internal climate protection and emissions management plan based on the internationally leading reporting standard of CDP. Members receive support from CDP experts as well as personal guidance from one of the accredited program partners. The company responses are being assessed by using the CDP scoring methodology. After that the company receives a disclosure score and, in case the data is sufficient, it also gets categorised within a performance band. In a second step, the company s results will be subject to a detailed evaluation, highlighting areas of potential improvement and comparative analyses with relevant competitors and/or customers. Responding to CDP demonstrates to stakeholders leadership, consistency and resilience in the company s handling of climate change issues.cdp % 9% 7% Responsibility: management board Responsibility: Senior Manager Facts and figures: Participating companies reported aggregated GHG emissions of metric tons CO e in 03. Non-listed companies can certainly keep up with listed companies. In fact, their average values are considerably better this year. The average disclosure score in 03 is 85 points, points above the average score for the DACH region (63). The average value this year is 5 points higher than in 0. This is because of new companies joining the initiative since 03 as well as the success of the detailed feedback and benchmarking analysis provided by the initiative Disclosure Scores in comparison 0 03 Average of "Mittelstand" members Average DACH 350 sample Mittelstand participants obviously take climate protection very seriously. The majority (7%) have integrated responsibility for climate issues within the top management of the company. The development of the initiative shows that non-listed companies are increasingly looking for ways to compare themselves to their competitors in the field of climate protection. In spite the fact that their reporting structures are much less detailed than those of listed companies, it is obvious: non-listed companies which have decided to integrate climate protection into their strategy are doing this comprehensively and consciously. For further information, please contact Jens Hoffmann: jens.hoffmann@ cdp.net +49 (0)

33 Key statistics 33 Response In 03, the CDP Report was compiled for the second time for the entire DACH region (Germany, Austria and Switzerland). The sample is composed of 350 companies: 0 from Germany, 30 from Austria and 00 from Switzerland. This year, the response rate within the DACH region, referring to the percentage of companies which - after being actively approached by CDP - responded to the information request, came in at 50% (75 of 350 companies). This is a decrease of.6% on 0, when 84 companies actively responded to the questionnaire. Including the seven references to parent companies takes the response rate to 5.0% (0: 54.9%), showing a decrease of.9% compared to the previous year. In terms of market capitalisation, the picture is much more positive: Participating companies cover 88% of the market capitalisation of all companies invited to respond. The notions of response rate and company response behaviour within the framework of the report refer, unless stated otherwise, exclusively to the 75 companies which gave direct responses. The companies that referred to their parent company are not taken into account. 00% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 0% 0% 0% F DACH-Region 03 vs. 0 45,% 48,0%,3%,0% 5,6% 50,0% 0 03 Questionnaire not answered Reference to holding company Questionnaire answered Response behaviour in the individual regions varies significantly again: As in the previous year, by far the highest response rate came from Swiss companies with 65% (0: 59%). In the sample of German companies, the response rate continued to fall and now stands at 44% after 48% in the previous year and 5% in 0. This is primarily attributable to the fact that some companies which responded for some years stopped doing so due to the lack of internal comprehensive information. The response rate within the Austrian sample remained unchanged at 43%, the same as it was in 0 and 0. 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% Response rate 0-03 (by country) Germany Austria Switzerland Response rates from individual sectors also differ significantly. The response rate ranges from 30% (Real Estate) and 77% (Transportation). For two thirds of the sectors, the response rate was above 50%. Companies in energy-intensive sectors where the issue of climate change has a much higher strategic significance (for instance utilities or transport companies) are more likely to respond. At the index level, response rates ranged from 4% (SDAX) to 97% (DAX). Companies with high market capitalisation tend to have a better response rate than those with lower market cap. As in the previous

34 34 Response rate 0-03 (by sector) Real Estate Utilities Telecommunication Services Information Technology Transportation Industrials (ex Transport) Energy & Materials Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech Financials (ex Real Estate) Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Automobiles & Components % 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% year, blue chip companies (DAX, SMI, ATX) revealed the highest response rate at 80%. In particular, 9 of 30 DAX companies submitted reports. This shows a clear connection between the size of the company (measured in terms of market capitalisation) and the necessity to actively deal with broader social issues, as well as experience in responding to climate-relevant questions and the available resources. Since years now, international blue chip companies and mid caps have had to align with interests of various stakeholder groups regarding sustainability issues. Over the years, they established specialised teams for sustainability communication for the capital market. Smaller, often local companies are unable to put up the same resources for targeting sustainability communication. Therefore, climate change reporting has potential for improvement, both in terms of quantity as well as quality. Response rate 0-03 (by index) ATX SMIM SMI SDAX TecDax MDAX DAX % 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% 0%

35 35 Integration into business strategy The tendency to integrate climate change risks into all corporate decision-making processes continued in 03. This year, 35 companies (77%) indicated that they integrated climate change issues into their business strategy. That s an increase of four percentage points compared to the previous year (0: 73%; 0: 7%). 39 companies (%) have not integrated climate change this way (0: 5%). Only one company based in Germany that responded to the questionnaire refused to answer this question. Integration of climate change into business strategy Integration of climate change into business strategy (by country) % % Switzerland % Yes No Not answered Germany 76 0 Austria 0 3 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% Yes No Not answered This positive trend shows that more and more companies have recognised the need to integrate risks associated with their business - and this now includes climate change - into company management, in order to cover all aspects with regard to future business planning. Across the regions, the picture is very homogenous with regard to the integration of climate change into the core business: Germany (78%), Austria (77%) and Switzerland (75%). At the sector level, the Automobiles & Components and the Utilities sectors stand out, each with 00%, as in the previous year. The sectors Energy & Materials (95%), Real Estate (83%) and Transportation (80%) also reveal high integration of climate change issues into their strategies. That is because the majority of these sectors have identified high risks in relation to climate change, be these regulatory, physical or other risks. Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) and Consumer Staples are found at the end with 57% and 63% respectively. This is surprising, particularly in light of the fact that one of the most commonly cited risks of climate change was reputation and changes in consumer behaviour - for consumer goods companies highly relevant factors. Analysed by index, the percentage of companies which have integrated climate change into their business strategy ranges from 57% (TecDAX) to 00% (DAX). Integration of climate change into business strategy (by sector) Real Estate Utilities Telecommunication munication Services Information Technology Transportation Industrials (ex (ex Transport) Energy & & Materials Healthcare, Pharma Pharma & Biotech & Biotech Financials ials (ex (ex Real Real Estate) Estate) Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary er (ex (ex Auto) Automobiles & Components & Components % 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Yes No Not answered

36 36 The overall picture is the same as in the previous year: Blue chip companies included in the DAX, ATX and SMI are the most advanced as far as integration is concerned. For 93% (0: 89%), the issue of climate change is already an integral component of their business strategy. For mid-cap companies (MDAX, TecDAX, SMIM) and small caps at 73% (0: 69%) and 67% (0: 67%) respectively, there is still need for action to catch up with the large caps. Integration of climate change into business strategy (by index) Other SMIM SMI ATX SDAX MDAX TECDAX DAX % 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Yes No Not answered 3 Integration into risk management This year, 34 companies (77%) indicated that they have integrated climate change into their risk management (0: 77%). That is, these companies aim to forecast potential risks to their business model from climate relevant issues long before business decisions are to be taken. 3 companies (75%) have embedded climate change into company risk management (0: 73%). Three companies (%) have established an independent risk management process for climate change (0: 4%). 38 companies (%) have no documented process for the evaluation and management of climate risks. Three companies (%) which completed the questionnaire preferred not to answer this question. Compared to the previous year, it is notable that the number of companies which have established an independent risk management process for climate change has decreased again by 50%. A look at the data from the previous year reveals that the majority of these companies have incorporated climate change into their general risk management. One possible reason for this could be greater expertise in climate- Integration of climate change into risk management - total DACH Region There are no documented processes for assessing and managing risks and opportunities from climate change, % Not answered, % A specific climate change risk management process, % Integrated into multidisciplinary company wide risk management processes, 75%

37 37 Integration of climate change into risk management (by sector) Real Estate Utilities Telecommunication Services Information Technology Transportation Industrials (ex Transport) Energy & Materials Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech Financials (ex Real Estate) Consumer Staples Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Automobiles & Components % 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Integrated into multi-disciplinary company wide risk management processes A specific climate change risk management process There are no documented processes for assessing and managing risks and opportunities from climate change Not answered relevant issues. This would make an independent process needless without placing existing steering mechanisms at risk. The result also shows that risks resulting from climate change are meanwhile viewed as normal business risks (and less as peculiarity). A special risk management process for climate change is therefore unnecessary. A look at the sectors reveals that, as in the previous year, energy-intensive sectors such as Automobiles & Components (00%), Energy & Materials (00%), Transportation (90%), Industrials (ex Transportation) (88%) and Utilities (88%) are most advanced in the documentation of processes for the evaluation and management of climate risks. Analysed by index, the percentage of companies which have integrated climate change into their risk management ranges from 43% (TecDAX) to 00% (DAX). Overall, the picture here is a familiar one: Blue chip companies included in the DAX, ATX and SMI are most advanced as far as integration is concerned. For 97% (0: 9%; 0: 9%), climate change has already been integrated into risk management. Mid-cap companies (MDAX, TecDAX, SMIM) still reveal catch-up potential with 65% (0: 67%; 0: 70%) compared to the large-caps. The number of small cap responders integrating climate change into their risk management increased again this year up to 7% (0: 67%; 0: 6%), showing that climate change continuously gains relevance for smaller companies as well. Integration of climate change into risk management (by index) Other 30 5 SMIM 0 5 SMI 6 ATX 8 SDAX 3 4 MDAX 9 5 TECDAX 6 7 DAX 8 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Integrated into multi-disciplinary company wide risk management processes A specific climate change risk management process There are no documented processes for assessing and managing risks and opportunities from climate change Not answered

38 38 4 Transparency in reporting Investors, looking for sustainability, require consistent reporting from companies on climate change issues and on its impact on business activities The transparency of reporting on climate-relevant issues can be seen, on the one hand, in the companies choice to publish their CDP responses. On the other hand, we look at whether companies publish other reports on climate-relevant issues (targets, performance etc.) beyond CDP. Of 75 companies which actively responded to this year s CDP questionnaire, 5 (7%) have selected the public status meaning that the full response is publicly available. This is five percentage points higher than last year (0: 66%; 0: 63%). Public availability of CDP responses - total DACH Region % 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% 6 69 it increased in Germany (03: 70%; 0: 65%) and Switzerland (03: 74%; 0: 68%). 78 German companies (80%), 3 Austrian companies (00%) and 59 Swiss companies (9%) indicated - irrespective of their permission status - that they report on climate-relevant issues beyond CDP. The dominant communication medium is the annual report which is used by 68 German, 48 Swiss and Austrian companies for their climate change reporting. Four companies from Germany, two from Austria and seven from Switzerland use other legal documents. 64 companies based in Germany, nine based in Austria and 38 Swiss companies reported on climate change within the framework of other voluntary publications. In the sector analysis, investors are especially interested in what industry groups are particularly transparent in terms of climate-relevant reporting. Positively, as in the previous year, all actively participating companies from the Automobiles & Components and Transportation sectors also reported on climate-relevant issues beyond CDP in different ways (targets, performance etc.). The same is true this year of the Utilities sector. Public Not-Public In total, 50 companies (86%) indicated - irrespective of their permission status - that they report on climaterelevant issues beyond CDP with multiple responses possible (0: 85%). 7 companies named their annual report and 3 companies other legal documents. companies reported on climate change as part of voluntary publications. Whilst in Austria the number of companies agreeing to publish their CDP data remained the same as last year, Looking at the companies by index, it is obvious that the blue chips are most transparent in their reporting on climate-relevant issues. 50 of 56 participating companies (89%) included in the DAX, ATX and SMI indices selected the public status this year (0: 79%). All of these companies also reported on climate-relevant issues - irrespective of their permission status - beyond CDP. Of the participating mid-caps, 73% chose to publish their response this year (0: 64%). On a negative note, 43% of the TecDAX companies participating in CDP did not report on climate issues in any form at all beyond CDP. Publication of climate relevant information elsewhere - total DACH Region In mainstream financial reports In voluntary communications In other regulatory filings Half of the participating small-caps in the SDAX chose to publish their response (0: 44%). From our perspective, this does not automatically mean that these companies are not working on climate change issues. It is rather an expression of the challenges which many smaller companies face including limited resources and the lack of personnel and funds for the compilation, analysis, processing and communication of climate-relevant data

39 39 5 Responsibilities Responsibility is one of the fundamental principles of governance. In terms of good strategic company management, the main responsibility for climate-relevant issues should therefore stay with the executive board. 3 of the 75 companies (76%) which actively participated in this year s CDP have integrated climate change at the top management level (0: 68%). Responsibility here is placed with one or several board members or with a committee set up directly by the executive board. Compared to the previous year, this means a rise of seven percentage points, which is a further sign of the increasing strategic importance of climate change to companies. participating from this sector indicated the responsibility for climate change was integrated at the highest management level. In contrast, there was no clear allocation of responsibility in the Information Technology, Telecommunication Services and Consumer Staples sectors. Direct responsibility for climate change issues within company (by country) 8 companies (0%, have integrated responsibility for climate change at senior management level (0: 5%), and six companies (3%) at another management level (0: 4%). Switzerland Austria Germany companies (0%) have not clearly allocated a responsibility for climate change (0: %; 0: 4%). No individuals, organisational units or other groups in the company were named which have explicit responsibility for climate change issues. The country-specific analysis shows that responsibility for climate change differs across the DACH region. Whilst 75% of the participating German (0: 69%) and 80% of participating Swiss companies (0: 7%) place responsibility for climate change directly with one or several board members or with a committee directly appointed by the executive board, only 54% of participating Austrian companies did so (0: 54%). Here, the responsibility is often (3%) settled just one management level below board level (i.e. senior management/senior officer). Direct responsibility for climate change issues within company - total DACH Region Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other 3% 0% % committee appointed by the Board 0% Senior Manager/Officer Other Manager/Officer No individual or committee with overall responsibility for climate change Not answered 76% As in the previous year, Switzerland is most consistent in allocating responsibility for climate change. Only 6% of the Swiss companies responding to the CDP questionnaire failed to allocate responsibility for climate-relevant issues (0: 8%). In Germany, this is still % (0: 3%) of companies and in Austria 5% (0: 5%). At the sector level, Automobiles & Components stands out positively. As in the previous year, all companies 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board Senior Manager/Officer Other Manager/ Officer No individual or committee with overall responsibility for climate change Not answered As expected due to their better financial and personnel resources, the blue chips performed best in the analysis of organisational responsibility. 9% of participating companies (0: 86%) have integrated responsibility for climate change at board level. Responsibility at board level proves to be standard for SMI (00%) and DAX (90%) companies. On the contrary, the corresponding share of Austrian blue chip companies (ATX index) is much lower with 60%. Here the responsibility for climaterelevant issues is often only one management level below board level (senior manager/senior officer), as 30% of participating Austrian companies indicated. As in the previous year, all blue chip companies clearly allocated the level of responsibility for climate change (specific individual, organisational unit or other group). With respect to the mid-caps, 69% of participating companies have declared climate protection a top management issue. Particularly encouraging here is that many TecDAX companies have made a step in the right direction. Whilst in the previous year only 44% of participating companies integrated climate change at the highest management level, this number has increased to 57% this year. However, we also see that four participating companies in the TecDAX index (9%) have assigned responsibility to a specific person, organisational unit or another group. For small-caps (SDAX), 56% of the responding companies have integrated responsibility for climate change at board level. One company (6%) failed to allocate responsibility to any specific person, organisational unit or any other group.

40 40 Direct responsibility for climate change issues within company (by index) Other SMIM SMI ATX SDAX MDAX TECDAX DAX % 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Individual/Sub-set of the Board or other committee appointed by the Board Senior Manager/Officer Other Manager/ Other Manager/ Officer No individual or committee with overall responsibility for climate change Not answered 6 Incentivisation Climate-protection related incentivisation systems shape behaviour, motivation and risk transfer. Management and employees are to be sensitised to climate change as well as to the management of associated issues and rewarded for the achievement of related targets. Responses from companies this year reveal a trend towards more incentivisation. 84 companies (48%) indicated having introduced incentives for the management of climate change issues as well as for the attainment of climate protection targets (0: 44%; 0: 38%). Such incentivisation measures are not uncontroversial. Since individuals mainly act in an opportunistic manner, there are reasons to believe that management and employees can only be motivated towards these targets by incentives and sanctions. However, cimate protection in companies should therefore ideally be voluntary and originate from intrinsic motivation of management and staff. Despite the controversial nature of the subject, for the first time the number of companies that do not provide incentives is with 46% (80 companies) lower than the number of companies with incentive schemes (0: 5%). Eleven companies (6%) did not answer this question (0: 4%). (0: 94%). 40 companies exclusively provide monetary incentives and 35 supplemented these with non-monetary components. Only nine companies exclusively set non-monetary incentives. Looking at the different levels of management it becomes obvious that at the top management level, monetary incentives are increasingly common. All in all, this is the case for 4 of 44 companies (93%) (0: 8%), 0 DAX companies (0: 5 DAX companies). Whilst in Germany 45% (0: 44%; 0: 35%) and in Switzerland 49% (0: 43%; 0: 4%) of all participating companies indicated incentives with regard to the management of climate change issues as well as for the attainment of climate protection targets, Incentivisation system for management of climate change issue (incl. the achievement of targets) - total DACH Region 6% Looking at the details of incentive schemes, a distinction is made between monetary and non-monetary rewards (recognition and other non-monetary incentives). Multiple responses were possible. Despite a slight trend towards non-monetary incentives, the analysis reveals a clear dominance of monetary rewards at all management levels. 46% 48% 75 of 84 companies (89%) that provided incentives this year indicated the provision of monetary incentives Yes No Not answered

41 4 in Austria this figure is much higher with 6% (0: 54%; 0: 4%). In our view, this is attributable to the dominance of the blue chips in the Austrian sample. Companies with large market capitalisation tend, as we will later see, towards providing incentives regarding matters of climate change. However, it can be seen that the trend towards incentivisation was strongest in Austria this year. The sector-specific analysis shows that incentive systems are most often seen in energy-intensive sectors such as Utilities (88%), Automobiles & Components (7%), Energy & Materials (67%) as well as Transportation (60%). In all these industrial groups, monetary forms of incentives are the most common. This can be explained with reference to the urgency of taking action within these sectors. Type of incentivisation - total DACH Region (multiple answers possible) Looking at the indices, the percentage of companies providing incentives to tackle climate-related issues as well as for the achievement of climate protection targets fluctuates from 83% (DAX) to 7% (TecDAX). The analysis shows that blue chips (79%) in particular provide incentives for the management of climate risks whilst mid-caps (3%) and small-caps (7%) are less proactive. This considerably high gap can be explained by the differences in available resources (both financial and personnel). In addition, the intrinsic motivation with regard to climate protection is likely to be higher for smaller, often locally active companies than for large and rather anonymous international corporations. Last but not least, for both large-caps as well as mid- and small-caps in the SDAX, monetary incentives dominate - although to different degrees. Type of incentivisation by beneficiary groups - total DACH Region (multiple answers possible) Monetary reward Recognition (non-monetary) Other non-monetary reward Executive / Board level Sustainability Related Managers Other managers / officers All employees Other Incentivisation system for management of climate change issues (incl. the achievement of targets) (by country) Switzerland 3 3 Germany Austria 8 4 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Yes No Not answered

42 4 Incentivisation system for management of climate change issues (incl. the achievement of targets) (by sector) Real Estate 4 Utilities 7 Telecommunication Services Information Technology Transportation 6 3 Industrials (ex Transport) 3 8 Energy & Materials 4 6 Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech 5 Financials (ex Real Estate) 9 4 Consumer Staples 3 3 Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) 3 6 Automobiles & Components 5 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Yes No Not answered Incentivisation system for management of climate change issue (incl. the achievement of targets) (by index) Other SMIM 6 0 SMI 3 4 ATX 7 3 SDAX 3 3 MDAX 0 4 TECDAX DAX 5 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Yes No Not answered

43 43 7 Emissions reporting Carbon Accounting is defined as the systematic measurement of CO emissions and other greenhouse gases in order to compile a greenhouse gas balance. The six greenhouse gases named in the Kyoto Protocol are CO, CH4, HFCs, PFCs, NO, SF6, which are then converted into their CO equivalent (= CO e). This calculation serves the purpose of disclosure and transparency in the form of external reporting as well as the strategic management of emissions in connection with reduction targets. Emission sources are differentiated into Scope, Scope and Scope 3 emissions. The measurement of the latter poses the biggest challenge to companies. Whilst Scope emissions include all directly produced emissions (e.g. from the combustion of fossil fuels), Scope emissions include all emissions associated with energy purchases, for instance electricity or district heating. Scope 3 emissions include indirect GHG emissions which arise along the value chain of a product, from the extraction of raw materials, upstream products and the use of a product up to its disposal. Scope and Scope emissions data The number of companies which have indicated values for Scope or Scope emissions has fallen to 38 this year compared to m 43 in the previous year. Nevertheless, the majority of companies participating in CDP still provide quantitative data. 79% did so after 78% in the previous year (0: 75; 0: 84). It is to be noted that the number of companies which disclose Scope or Scope emissions also includes those who stated their emissions were zero. Looking at results by sector, it becomes obvious that all participating companies in the Automobiles & Components sector report Scope or Scope data; followed by Energy & Materials (90%) and Consumer Staples and Utilities (each 88%). This is presumably due to the fact that these sectors are often at the centre of the public debate on greenhouse gas emissions and are subject to strict regulation. Therefore, they must measure their performance. Companies reporting Scope and Scope emissions 0% 00% 80% 60% 40% 0% 0% Automobiles & Components Percentage of companies reporting Scope or Scope emissions for 0 (by sector) Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Consumer Staples Energy & Materials Total Scope emissions For the 0 reporting period, 35 (0: 36) CDP participants (77%) indicated Scope emissions. The reported Scope emissions sum up to 64.8 (595.3) million metric tons of CO e and were thus 5.0% above the value from the previous year. The analysis of average Scope emissions per company reveals an increase of 5.7% compared to previous year. An exact overlap analysis comparing the 3 companies which provided Scope data both in the current and in the previous questionnaire, reveals a more encouraging picture. The overlap companies reveal a decrease of 0.7% in Scope emissions! Financials (ex Real Estate) Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech Total amount of reported Scope emissions in mio. metric tons Industrials (ex Transport) Information Technology Real Estate Telecommunication Services Transportation Utilities This could e.g. be relevant for a service provider without an own production and without a car fleet (Scope ), but who buys energy (Scope ) and rents facilities (Scope 3) etc ,0 590,0 600,0 60,0 60,0 630,0

44 44 Reasons for the increase in emissions Despite the fact that the overlap sample revealed a marginal decrease in Scope emissions, we will take a closer look at the main reasons for companies reporting an increase in emissions. The most commonly mentioned reason is an increase in production (increased output). Next to other (non-specific) reasons, acquisitions and changes in the metholodogy are the main reasons for the increase in emissions. A decoupling of production and direct emissions is still not to be expected in the short term. Additional measures are therefore needed (cf. Sector snapshots Most common methods for initiating investment in emissions-reducing activities ) in order to realise future economic growth without resulting in an automatic emissions increase. Number of entries per reason for increase in emissions Total Scope emissions Scope emissions were specified by 36 (0: 38) CDP participants (78%) this year. The reported Scope emissions sum up to 84.8 (85.7) million metric tons of CO e, which corresponds to a decrease of.0% compared to the previous year. 0 0 Total amount of reported Scope emissions in mio. metric tons A specific overlap sample of the 6 companies with Scope data in both years reveales a decrease of 6.8% Change in output Other Acquisitions Change in boundary Change in methodology Change in physical operating conditions Mergers Divestment Emissions reduction activities Industry-specific analysis In the industry-specific analysis, we focus on the four industrial groups which together account for 96% of all reported Scope emissions. As it can be expected, the biggest share of reported emissions originates from the energy-intensive sector Utilities (54%) followed by Energy & Materials (3%), Transportation and Industrials (each at 5%). It should be noted that scope figures for 03 are not directly comparable with 0 as companies can now incorporate the specific emissions factors associated with renewable energy purchases where supported by an appropriate tracking instruments. This means that emissions can be lower than under the previous methodology (use of national average emissions factor to calculate greenhouse gas emissions per energy unit). In the direct comparison with data from the previous year, it is therefore likely that the real decrease in Scope emissions is lower. Industry-specific analysis Average Scope emissions per company have remained almost the same as last year (+0.4%). 76% of indicated Scope emissions originate from the energy-intensive sectors Energy & Materials (4%), Industrials (ex Transport) (3%), Automobiles & Components (%) and Utilities (0%). Cumulated total amount of reported Scope emissions by sector (CO e) Cumulated total amount of reported Scope emissions by sector (CO e) Utilities Energy & Materials Transportation Industrials (ex Transport) Remaining 8 Sectors 0 00,000, ,000, ,000, ,000,000 0,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000,000,000 Energy & Materials Industrials (ex Transport) Automobiles & Components Utilities Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech Consumer Staples Telecommunication Services Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Remaining 4 Sectors

45 45 Scope 3 emissions categories that have been calculated and are considered relevant by the responding companies With regard to the disclosure of Scope 3 data, CDP aligns with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3 Standard and the 5 categories of Scope 3 emissions sources identified there. The following will include such sources where Scope 3 sources have been calculated and are considered relevant by the responding companies. This year, (4) of 75 participating companies submitted Scope 3 data. The percentage of participating companies indicating Scope 3 data therefore increased marginally to 63% (6%). 36 (3%) companies indicated that only one of the 5 Scope 3 categories was relevant for their business. 3 (9%) companies identified five or more relevant Scope 3 categories. Number of Scope 3 categories that companies identify as relevant and that contain emissions data The participating companies most often identified the following five Scope 3 categories as relevant and provided emissions data for these (figures in brackets show the number of companies): Business travel (8), Purchased goods and services (47), Fuel and energy related activities (40), Waste generated in operations (39), Downstream transportation and distribution (33). Since data measurement for Scope 3 sources is still in its development, the meaning of the actual emissions data is limited. Number of companies reporting Scope 3 emissions data in most commonly reported categories Verification In response to the increased demand for higher data quality, CDP supports the trend towards verification of emissions data. The term reported and approved refers to the fact that the number of companies with verification is based on the scoring of the verification certificate that is attached to CDP responses. If companies report verification for more than one Scope, they are nonetheless included only once in the statistics below. Overall, 9 companies had their emissions data verified by a third party. The continued increase of companies with a verification points out that externally audited data quality becomes increasingly important, both for internal management as well as for external reporting purposes. Number of companies with verification statement from a third party The following shows the percentage of companies per sector whose reported emissions data were verified/ audited by a third party. All companies in the Utilities and Telecommunication Service sectors have their data verified. These are followed by the Energy & Materials (7%) and Transportation (70%) sectors. These four sectors are also responsible for 9% of all Scope emissions. Scope data are therefore of very high quality. 00% 80% companies with a third party verification or assurance complete companies with third party verification or assurance underway but not yet completed - first year it has taken place Percentage of companies with data verified by a third party (by sector) Business travel Purchased goods and services Fuel- and energy-related activities Waste generaed in the operations Downstream transportation and distribution 60% 40% 0% 0% Automobiles & Components Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Consumer Staples Financials (ex Real Estate) Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech Energy & Materials Industrials (ex Transport) Transportation Information Technology Telecommunication Services Utilities Real Estate

46 46 Emissions reduction targets In the light of the increasing economic relevance of climate change, it is essential that companies calculate, disclose and manage their emissions through carbon accounting and thereby reduce business risks related to the impact of climate change. This is the only possible way to guarantee sustainable and stable profits in future. The number of companies that only set intensitybased targets or absolute and intensity-based targets decrease in 0 to 7 of 77 companies. Number of companies with intensity targets or absolute and intensity targets Emission reduction targets can be defined as absolute as well as intensity targets. Companies can report several emissions reduction targets (Scope, and 3). In all these cases, the companies are included only once in the statistics, with the exception of data referring to absolute and intensity targets; companies which have both types of target will be counted for each of the two Overall, 00 (previous year: 05) companies have defined either absolute or intensity-based targets or both. The number of companies which have reported only absolute targets or absolute and intensity-based targets remained constant in the reporting year at 58. Number of companies with absolute targets or absolute and intensity targets Analysing the participating companies by sector, the Automobiles & Components sector reports absolute targets or absolute and intensity-based targets most often with 7% of responding companies. As the figure on the right shows, around half of all participating companies in the Telecommunication Services (50%), Energy & Materials (48%) and Financials (ex Real Estate) (46%) sectors set absolute targets or absolute and intensity-based targets. The sectors in which intensity-based targets or absolute and intensity-based targets were most commonly reported are: Automobiles & Components (86%), Energy & Materials (76%), Consumer Staples (63%) and Utilities (63%). In conclusion, for both Scope and Scope in sectors that are stricter regulated or under higher public pressure due to their high emissions intensity, more companies do have reductions targets in place. Along with the question as to whether companies are pursuing emissions reduction targets goes the question of whether they attain these targets. This means whether the targets set have already been achieved or whether the attainment of targets is progressing better over time than a linear progression would indicate. Overall, 6 companies indicating reduction targets stated that these targets were achieved as planned in the reporting period 0 or that the attainment of targets is progressing faster than linear over time. A quality assessment is difficult here though as the attainment of targets is not necessarily a linear process and an evaluation of how ambitious the targets are proves to be quite difficult. The following sectors reveal the best target attainment: Automobiles & Components (57%), Energy & Materials (5%), Consumer Staples (50%) and Transportation (50%).

47 47 Percentage of companies with absolute targets or absolute and intensity targets (by sector) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 0% 0% 0% Automobiles & Components Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Consumer Staples Energy & Materials Financials (ex Real Estate) Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech! Industrials (ex Transport) Information Technology Real Estate Telecommunication Services Transportation Utilities Percentage of companies with intensity targets or absolute and intensity targets (by sector) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 0% 0% 0% Automobiles & Components Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Consumer Staples Energy & Materials Financials (ex Real Estate) Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech Industrials (ex Transport) Information Technology Real Estate Telecommunication Services Transportation Utilities Degree of target achievement (by sector) 60% 50% 40% 30% 0% 0% 0% Automobiles & Components Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) Consumer Staples Energy & Materials Financials (ex Real Estate) Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech Industrials (ex Transport) Information Technology Real Estate Telecommunication Services Transportation Utilities

48 48 Automobiles & Components response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR BMW AG Daimler AG 50%(7 out of 4) key industries within the sector Automobile & Components Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,7% % DACH emissions,3% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 8/B Volkswagen AG Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Automobiles & Components 4% 4% LEONI AG Continental AG % % % % Partnering with governments on technology development Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Employee engagement Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Dedicated budget for low carbon product R&D Internal incentives/recognition programs Product efficiency regulations and standards Air pollution limits Product labeling regulations and standards Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Cap and trade schemes General environmental regulations, including planning Other regulatory drivers 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Air pollution limits Other regulatory drivers Product efficiency regulations and standards Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Cap and trade schemes Carbon taxes Product labeling regulations and standards 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

49 Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) 49 response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR Compagnie Financière Richemont SA PUMA SE TAKKT AG 35%(4 out of 40) Axel Springer AG CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG METRO AG key industries within the sector Consumer Durables & Apparel Consumer Services Consumer Services Media Retailing Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,8% % DACH emissions,6% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 57/C Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Consumer Discretionary (ex Auto) 4% 0% 9% 0% TUI AG % 4% Internal incentives/recognition programs Other Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Employee engagement Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Dedicated budget for other emissions reduction activities Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product labeling regulations and standards Carbon taxes Cap and trade schemes Emission reporting obligations General environmental regulations, including planning Product efficiency regulations and standards 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Cap and trade schemes Product labeling regulations and standards Carbon taxes Emission reporting obligations 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

50 50 Consumer Staples response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR Galenica SA Beiersdorf AG 53%(8 out of 5) Henkel AG & Co. KGaA Barry Callebaut AG key industries within the sector Food & Staples Retailing Food, Beverage & Tobacco Household & Personal Products Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,0% % DACH emissions,% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 58/C Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Consumer Staples 4% 0% 9% Nestlé 0% % 4% Internal incentives/recognition programs Other Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Employee engagement Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Dedicated budget for other emissions reduction activities Carbon taxes Product labeling regulations and standards Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Uncertainty surrounding new regulation Cap and trade schemes Emission reporting obligations General environmental regulations, including planning Other regulatory drivers 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Cap and trade schemes Product labeling regulations and standards Carbon taxes General environmental regulations, including planning Renewable energy regulation Voluntary agreements 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 30% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

51 Financials 5 response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR 63%(35 out of 56) key industries within the sector Banks Diversified Financials Insurance Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,6% % DACH emissions 0,% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 67/C Commerzbank AG Credit Suisse UBS Deutsche Postbank AG Banque Cantonale Vaudoise Deutsche Bank AG Erste Group Bank AG Deutsche Börse AG Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Financials % 6% 0% 0% % 0% Internal incentives/recognition programs Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Employee engagement Other Dedicated budget for other emissions reduction activities Uncertainty surrounding new regulation Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Cap and trade schemes International agreements Carbon taxes General environmental regulations, including planning Air pollution limits Renewable energy regulation Other regulatory drivers 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% General environmental regulations, including planning Other regulatory drivers Carbon taxes Product efficiency regulations and standards Cap and trade schemes Renewable energy regulation International agreements Product labeling regulations and standards Fuel/energy taxes and regulations 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

52 5 Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR 57%(6 out of 8) key industries within the sector Health Care Equipment & Services Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,% % DACH emissions,9% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 59/D Actelion Ltd Straumann Holding AG Roche Holding AG Novartis Merck KGaA Bayer AG Lonza Group AG Gerresheimer AG Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Healthcare, Pharma & Biotech 4% % 7% 8% 9% 3% Employee engagement Internal incentives/recognition programs Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Other Partnering with governments on technology development Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Cap and trade schemes International agreements Product efficiency regulations and standards Carbon taxes General environmental regulations, including planning Emission reporting obligations Product labeling regulations and standards 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Cap and trade schemes Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Renewable energy regulation International agreements 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

53 Energy & Materials 53 response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR 5%( out of 4) key industries within the sector Energy Materials Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,9% % DACH emissions 3,3% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 7/C BASF SE H&R AG K + S AG Wacker Chemie AG LANXESS AG Linde AG HeidelbergCement AG Holcim Ltd Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Energy & Materials 5% 5% 4% % 0% 9% Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Financial optimization calculations Partnering with governments on technology development Dedicated budget for low carbon product R&D Employee engagement Internal incentives/recognition programs Cap and trade schemes Carbon taxes Fuel/energy taxes and regulations International agreements Emission reporting obligations Air pollution limits General environmental regulations, including planning Product efficiency regulations and standards Renewable energy regulation 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Product efficiency regulations and standards General environmental regulations, including planning Cap and trade schemes Fuel/energy taxes and regulations International agreements Internationale Vereinbarungen Carbon taxes Other regulatory drivers 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

54 54 Industrials (ex Transport) response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR 46%(33 out of 7) key industries within the sector Capital Goods Commercial & Professional Services Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,% % DACH emissions 6,% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 6/D Daetwyler Holding AG INDUS Holding AG ABB JENOPTIK AG Georg Fischer Saint-Gobain AT&S Austria Technologie & Systemtechnik AG ThyssenKrupp AG Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Industrials (ex Transport) 3% 4% 3% 6% 3% 0% Internal incentives/recognition programs Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Employee engagement Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Dedicated budget for low carbon product R&D Financial optimization calculations Cap and trade schemes Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Carbon taxes Other regulatory drivers General environmental regulations, including planning Uncertainty surrounding new regulation 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Product efficiency regulations and standards Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Other regulatory drivers Carbon taxes Air pollution limits 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

55 Transportation 55 response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR Panalpina Kuehne + Nagel International AG 77%(0 out of 3) Österreichische Post AG Deutsche Post AG Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG Fraport AG key industries within the sector Transportation Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,% % DACH emissions 4,9% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 67/C Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Transportation 0% 0% 5% 0% 5% % Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Employee engagement Financial optimization calculations Dedicated budget for low carbon product R&D Partnering with governments on technology development Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Air pollution limits International agreements Uncertainty surrounding new regulation Voluntary agreements 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Fuel/energy taxes and regulations International agreements General environmental regulations, including planning Cap and trade schemes 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 30% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

56 56 Information Technology response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR SAP AG ADVA AG Optical Networking 43%(3 out of 30) Kontron AG ams AG key industries within the sector Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) 77.4 n.a. % DACH emissions 0,04% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 4/D Change to previous year Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Information Technology 5% 8% 3% 8% % 3% Internal incentives/recognition programs Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Employee engagement Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Lower return on investment (ROI) specification Dedicated budget for low carbon product R&D Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Carbon taxes Uncertainty surrounding new regulation International agreements Emission reporting obligations 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 30% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Product efficiency regulations and standards Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Other regulatory drivers Carbon taxes General environmental regulations, including planning 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 30% 35% 40% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

57 Telecommunication Services 57 response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR Swisscom 57%(4 out of 7) Telekom Austria AG Deutsche Telekom AG key industries within the sector Telecommunication Services Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,5% % DACH emissions 0,6% Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Telecommunication Services Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 67/C 5% 75% Financial optimization calculations Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Carbon taxes Emission reporting obligations Air pollution limits General environmental regulations, including planning Product labeling regulations and standards International agreements Emission reporting obligations Uncertainty surrounding new regulation Lack of regulation 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% 0% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Product efficiency regulations and standards Emission reporting obligations Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Voluntary agreements Renewable energy regulation International agreements Product labeling regulations and standards Carbon taxes 0% 0% 40% 60% 80% 00% 0% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

58 58 Utilities response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR SolarWorld AG EVN AG E.ON SE 57%(8 out of 4) EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG VERBUND AG RWE AG key industries within the sector Utilities Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,4% % DACH emissions 48,9% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 69/C Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Utilities 4% 4% % 8% % 8% Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Dedicated budget for low carbon product R&D Partnering with governments on technology development Dedicated budget for other emissions reduction activities Financial optimization calculations Emission reporting obligations Uncertainty surrounding new regulation International agreements Carbon taxes General environmental regulations, including planning Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Renewable energy regulation 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) International agreements Emission reporting obligations Other regulatory drivers Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Product labeling regulations and standards General environmental regulations, including planning 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

59 Real Estate 59 response rate Reported cumulative Scope and Scope emissions (metric tons CO e) in relation to total annual revenues (in EUR m) for companies selecting public status. Metric tons CO e per million EUR Mobimo 30%(6 out of 0) PSP Swiss Property AG alstria office REIT-AG key industries within the sector Real Estate Overall emissions Scope + (metric tons CO e ) Change to previous year ,3% % DACH emissions 0,03% Average Disclosure Score / Performance Band 59/D Most common methods for initiating investments in emission reduction activities Real Estate 5% 0% 5% % 5% 40% Internal incentives/recognition programs Compliance with regulatory requirements/standards Employee engagement Financial optimization calculations Dedicated budget for energy efficiency Dedicated budget for other emissions reduction activities General environmental regulations, including planning Fuel/energy taxes and regulations Product efficiency regulations and standards Carbon taxes Product labeling regulations and standards Emission reporting obligations 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Risks resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies) Product efficiency regulations and standards Air pollution limits General environmental regulations, including planning Carbon taxes 0% 0% 0% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Opportunities resulting from climate change that are most commonly reported in the sector (% of participating companies)

60 60 Appendix I: Methodology Selection of companies The company selection within the DACH region was based on size by market capitalisation and free float based on Bloomberg data. In Germany, the selection has been taken from the CDAX, in Austria from the ATX (plus Watchlist) and in Switzerland from the SPI Large & Mid Cap (SOCI). The selection date was the 3 December 0. Based on changes in market capitalisation and free float, the composition of the sample has changed a little compared to the previous year, regarding the smaller companies. 93% of the companies that have been invited to participate last year have been asked again this year. 68 of the 350 selected companies within the DACH region are also represented in the Euro300 sample, accordingly, these have a strong impact on European results. 36 DACH companies are also included in the Global500 sample. Questionnaire CDP s objective is to minimise the workload associated with responding to the questionnaire. Therefore, the 03 questionnaire remained largely unchanged compared to the previous year. Section.3 of the questionnaire on political engagement was expanded in order to distinguish between direct engagement and indirect engagement, for instance through trade associations or other organisation. Sections 8. and 8.3 were amended in order to reflect the harmonisation of the GHG Protocol with the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB). This affects companies which compile their emissions in accordance with financial reporting standards using the Climate Change Reporting Framework (CCRF). Section 8.6: As external verification of emissions data, companies can now indicate that they are subject to a Continuous Monitoring System (CEMS) within the context of regulatory requirement. Sections 9 and 0: For specific country data on Scope and, multinational regions can now be indicated. Also geographical coordinates can be provided for Scope. In line with international developments, the biggest strategic adjustment made this year was in the calculation of emissions resulting from the use of electricity, heat, steam and cooling (Scope ). Companies can now incorporate the specific emissions factors associated with renewable energy purchases where supported by an appropriate tracking instruments. Question from the 0 questionnaire on renewable electricity tariffs was removed; Question 0.a was expanded in order to report the % of energy use coming from renewable sources. Question.4 was added and relates to the specific emissions factors for individual energy sources. Section 4 (previous year 5) on the various sources of indirect emissions (Scope 3) was adjusted in line with the GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard. The broad classification of the questionnaire into three categories, Management, Risks & Opportunities and Emissions remained the same as in previous years. In Chapter, Management, the questionnaire focuses on the integration of climate change into corporate and management structures. The questions differentiate between issues of Governance, Strategy, Targets & Initiatives and Communication. The questions in Chapter focus on Risks & Opportunities companies associate with climate change. The questionnaire distinguished between regulatory, physical and other risks and opportunities from climate change. Chapter 3 of the questionnaire which is the largest section - focuses on the company s actual emissions data. Scope, Scope and Scope 3 data are requested, data on the calculation methodology and the reasons for changes in emissions values. 3 Sector classification For the sector-specific analysis, we use the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) consistent with other CDP reports. The categories used in the GICS are commonly used in the financial sector. The structure of the GICS consists of four levels: 0 sectors, 4 industrial groups, 68 industries and 54 sub-industries. This report evaluates climate data based on the first GICS level (sectors). By aggregating the sectors Energy & Minerals and extracting the industry groups Automobiles & Components, Real Estate and Transportation as independent sectors, we ultimately have twelve sectors on which to base the analysis. Company allocation remained unchanged. Drawing further nuances for the results may have made companies more comparable within a specific sector, but due to the low number of companies within each subsample it would have created a qualitative bias. 4 Index-specific analysis We use the rules of the Deutsche Börse Group, the Wiener Börse AG and SIX Swiss Exchange for the classification of companies as large-cap, mid-cap or small-cap. Subjects of our analysis are, as in the previous year, the four DAX indices (DAX, MDAX, TecDAX, SDAX), the Austrian blue chip index, ATX, the Swiss blue chip index and the Swiss mid cap index SMIM. Deadline for the index composition was the 3 May 03.

61 Appendix II: Non-responding companies 6 Company Country (head quarter) Response status Company Country (head quarter) Response status Consumer Discretionary Arbonia-Forster-Holding AG Switzerland NR Bertrandt AG Germany NR Bijou Brigitte modische Accessoires AG Germany NR CONSTANTIN MEDIEN AG Germany NR CTS Eventim AG Germany NR Delticom AG Germany NR DOUGLAS HOLDING AG Germany DP Dufry Switzerland NR Firstextile AG Germany NR Gentherm Germany NR GERRY WEBER International AG Germany NR Grammer AG Germany DP Hawesko Holding AG Germany NR HUGO BOSS AG Germany NR Hymer AG Germany NR Joyou AG Germany DP Kabel Deutschland Holding AG Germany NR KAP Beteiligung AG Germany NR Metall Zug AG Switzerland NR Mobotix AG Germany NR ProSiebenSat. Media AG Germany NR Schaltbau Holding AG Germany NR Sky Deutschland AG Germany NR Surteco SE Germany NR Swatch Group Switzerland DP Tamedia AG Switzerland NR Tipp4 AG Germany NR Villeroy & Boch AG Germany NR WMF Württembergische Metallwarenfabrik Germany NR AG Zooplus AG Germany NR Consumer Staples AGRANA Beteiligungs-AG Austria NR Aryzta AG Switzerland NR DO&CO RESTAURANTS AND CATER- ING AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Austria DP KWS SAAT AG Germany DP Sanacorp Pharmaholding AG Germany NR Südzucker AG Germany DP Energy CropEnergies AG Germany SA (NR) Envitec Biogas AG Germany NR Schoeller-Bleckmann Oilfield Equipment AG Austria NR Transocean Ltd. Switzerland NR Financials Unternehmen Land (Hauptsitz) Score Allreal Holding AG Switzerland NR Bâloise Group Switzerland DP CA Immobilien Anlagen AG Austria NR Capital Stage AG Germany NR Custodia Holding AG Germany NR Deutsche Wohnen AG Germany NR DVB Bank AG Germany NR EFG International Switzerland NR GAM Holding AG Switzerland NR Gigaset AG Germany DP Graubündner Kantonalbank Switzerland DP GRENKELEASING AG Germany DP GSW Immobilien AG Germany NR HAMBORNER REIT AG Germany NR IMMOFINANZ AG Austria NR Intershop Holdings Switzerland NR JK Wohnbau AG Germany NR Julius Bär Group LTD Switzerland DP Luzerner Kantonalbank Switzerland NR Mannheimer AG Holding Germany NR MLP AG Germany DP NÜRNBERGER Beteiligungs-AG Germany NR Pargesa Holding SA Switzerland NR PATRIZIA Immobilien AG Germany NR Prime Office Reit-AG Germany NR S IMMO AG Austria NR Schweizerische National-Versicherungs- Switzerland NR Gesellschaft AG Swiss Prime Site AG Switzerland NR Swissquote Group Holding Ltd Switzerland NR Tag Immobilien AG Germany NR Talanx AG Germany NR UNIQA Versicherungen AG Austria DP Vienna Insurance Group AG Austria DP Zuger Kantonalbank AG Switzerland DP Health Care Agennix AG Germany NR Andreae-Noris Zahn AG Germany NR Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd Switzerland DP Biotest AG Germany NR Carl Zeiss Meditec AG Germany DP Eckert & Ziegler Strahlen- und Medizintechnik Germany NR AG Mediclin AG Germany NR Nobel Biocare Holding AG Switzerland NR RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG Germany DP Sartorius AG Germany DP STADA Arzneimittel AG Germany DP STRATEC Biomedical Systems AG Germany NR Industrials Amadeus FiRe AG Germany NR ANDRITZ AG Austria NR BayWa AG Munich Germany DP Bilfinger SE Germany DP Brenntag AG Germany DP Bucher Industries AG Switzerland DP CREATON AG Germany NR Demag Cranes AG Germany NR DEUTZ AG Germany DP DKSH Holding AG Switzerland NR Forbo International SA Switzerland DP

62 6 Company Country (head quarter) Response status Company Country (head quarter) Response status Industrials (Continued) Gategroup Holding AG Switzerland DP GILDEMEISTER AG Germany DP Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG Germany NR Homag Group AG Germany NR Jungheinrich AG Germany DP KHD Humboldt Wedag Internati Germany NR Maschinenfabrik Berthold Hermle AG Germany NR Meyer Burger AG Switzerland DP Norma Group Germany NR OC Oerlikon Switzerland NR OHB AG Germany DP Palfinger AG Austria DP Pilkington Deutschland AG Germany NR R Stahl AG Germany NR RATIONAL AG Germany NR Rheinmetall AG Germany NR Schindler Holding AG Switzerland DP Schuler Germany NR Schweiter Technologies AG Switzerland NR Sixt AG Germany DP SMA Solar Technology AG Germany NR Sto AG Germany NR Strabag AG Germany NR Strabag SE Austria DP Tognum AG Germany DP VTG AG Germany NR Wacker Neuson SE Germany NR WashTec AG Germany DP Wienerberger AG Austria DP Zumtobel AG Austria NR Information Technologies Aleo Solar AG Germany NR Balda Aktiengesellschaft Germany NR centrotherm photovoltaics AG Germany NR CompuGROUP Holding AG Germany NR elexis AG Germany NR ELMOS Semiconductor AG Germany DP Infineon Germany DP init innovation in traffic systems AG Germany NR Itelligence AG Germany NR Mühlbauer Holding AG & Co. KGaA Germany NR Nemetschek AG Germany NR P&I Personal & Informatik AG Germany NR Rib Software AG Germany NR Temenos Headquarters SA Switzerland NR Tomorrow Focus AG Germany NR Wirecard AG Germany DP XING AG Germany NR Materials Aurubis AG Germany DP FUCHS PETROLUB AG Germany DP Hansa Group AG Germany NR Lenzing AG Austria DP Pearl Gold AG Germany NR RHI AG Austria DP Salzgitter AG Germany DP Semperit Aktiengesellschaft Holding Austria NR SGL CARBON SE Germany DP SIMONA AG Germany NR VBH Holding AG Germany NR Verbio AG Germany NR Vetropack Holding AG Switzerland DP Voestalpine AG Austria NR Telecommunication Services freenet AG Germany NR QSC AG Germany NR Telefonica Deutschland Holding AG Germany NR Utilities BKW AG Switzerland NR Gelsenwasser AG Germany NR Inficon AG Switzerland NR Lechwerke AG Germany NR Mainova AG Germany DP Romande Energie Switzerland DP Notes: DP Declined to Participate NR Not Responded

63 Appendix III: Responding companies, scores and emissions data (DACH 350 and others) 63 Company Country Score Scope Scope Scope 3 (head quarter) sources* Consumer Discretionary adidas AG Germany 86 B Audi AG Germany AQ(SA) Autoneum AG Switzerland 63 D np np np Axel Springer AG Germany BMW AG Germany 00 A CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG Germany 80 B Compagnie Financière Richemont SA Switzerland 79 B Continental AG Germany 8 C Daimler AG Germany 00 A Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG Germany AQ(SA) ElringKlinger AG Germany 78 C np np np Fielmann AG Germany 5 np np np HORNBACH HOLDING AG Germany 47 np np np HORNBACH-Baumarkt-AG Germany AQ(SA) Kuoni Travel Holding Ltd. Switzerland 78 D np np np LEONI AG Germany 55 D MEDION AG Germany 5 np np np METRO AG Germany 97 A PUMA SE Germany 83 B Ströer Media AG Germany 6 np np np TAKKT AG Germany 8 B TOM TAILOR Holding AG Germany 6 np np np TUI AG Germany 9 B Volkswagen AG Germany 99 A Consumer Staples Barry Callebaut AG Belgium 54 C Beiersdorf AG Germany 5 C Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Switzerland 5 E np np np Sprüngli AG Emmi AG Switzerland Galenica SA Switzerland 73 D Henkel AG & Co. KGaA Germany 85 B Nestlé Switzerland 00 A SCA Hygiene Products SE Germany AQ(SA) Valora Holding AG Switzerland 6 np np np Energy OMV Aktiengesellschaft Austria 8 B Weatherford Switzerland 79 C International Ltd. Financials Aareal Bank AG Germany 8 B np np np Allianz SE Germany 97 A alstria office REIT-AG Germany 6 D Bank Coop AG Switzerland 77 B Bank Sarasin & Cie AG Switzerland 58 D np np np Banque Cantonale Vaudoise Switzerland 8 D Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank Switzerland 75 B 6 4 Basler Kantonalbank Switzerland 8 C BEKB / BCBE Switzerland 86 B comdirect bank AG Germany AQ(SA) - siehe Commerzbank AG Commerzbank AG Germany 90 A conwert Immobilien Austria Invest SE Credit Suisse Switzerland 88 B DAB bank AG Germany 8 Company Country Score Scope Scope Scope 3 (head quarter) sources* Financials Deutsche Bank AG Germany 9 A Deutsche Beteiligungs AG Germany 5 E np np np Deutsche Börse AG Germany 9 B Deutsche EuroShop AG Germany 4 np np np Deutsche Postbank AG Germany 67 C DIC Asset AG Germany 55 D np np np Erste Group Bank AG Austria 58 D Generali Deutschland Holding AG Germany 83 A GESCO AG Germany 4 np np np Hannover Rückver- Germany 69 C 0 7 sicherung AG Helvetia Group Switzerland 8 D IVG Immobilien AG Germany 59 D np np np Liechtensteinische Landesbank AG Liechtenstein 4 np np np Mobimo Switzerland 67 C Munich Re Germany 9 A OVB Holding AG Germany 9 np np np Partners Group Switzerland 50 E 34 PSP Swiss Property AG Switzerland 87 B Raiffeisen Bank International AG Austria 87 A St. Galler Kantonalbank Switzerland 60 D np np np Swiss Life Holding Switzerland 86 C Swiss Re Switzerland 9 A UBS Switzerland 9 A Valiant Holding AG Switzerland 80 E Vontobel Holding AG Switzerland 89 B VP Bank Gruppe Liechtenstein Wüstenrot & Württembergische Germany 6 np np np AG Zurich Insurance Group Switzerland 65 C np np np Health Care Actelion Ltd Switzerland 89 D Bayer AG Germany 99 A Celesio AG Germany 5 np np np Drägerwerk AG Germany 5 D np np np Evotec AG Germany 3 np np np Fresenius Medical Care AG Germany 7 D np np np & Co. KGaA Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA Germany np np np Gerresheimer AG Germany 8 C Lonza Group AG Switzerland 74 D Merck KGaA Germany 9 B MorphoSys AG Germany 7 Novartis Switzerland 96 B Roche Holding AG Switzerland 96 B Sonova Holding AG Switzerland 74 E Straumann Holding AG Switzerland 64 E Tecan Group Ltd Switzerland 4 Industrials ABB Switzerland 8 B Adecco SA Switzerland 76 D AT&S Austria Technologie & Austria 54 D Systemtechnik AG BAUER AG Germany 7 C

64 64 Company Country Score Scope Scope Scope 3 (head quarter) sources* Industrials Belimo Holding AG Switzerland 63 E np np np Bobst Group Switzerland 63 D np np np Burckhardt Compression AG Switzerland 6 np np np CENTROTEC Sustainable AG Germany 59 D Daetwyler Holding AG Switzerland 6 E Deutsche Lufthansa AG Germany 9 B np np np Deutsche Post AG Germany 98 B Dürr Aktiengesellschaft Germany Flughafen Wien Aktiengesellschaft Austria 0 np np np Flughafen Zürich AG Switzerland 54 C np np np Fraport AG Germany 89 B GEA Group AG Germany 66 D np np np Geberit International AG Switzerland 69 C Georg Fischer Switzerland 88 B GfK SE Germany 9 Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG Germany 57 D HOCHTIEF AG Germany 9 A Huber + Suhner AG Switzerland 80 C INDUS Holding AG Germany 70 D JENOPTIK AG Germany Kaba Holding AG Switzerland AQ(L) Koenig & Bauer AG Germany 3 np np np Komax AG Switzerland np np np Krones AG Germany 6 C KSB AG Germany 57 E Kuehne + Nagel International AG Switzerland 87 B KUKA AG Germany 9 np np np MAN SE Germany 89 B MTU Aero Engines Holding AG Germany 4 Österreichische Post AG Austria 88 A Panalpina Switzerland 75 D Pfeiffer Vacuum Germany Technology AG Rieter Holding AG Switzerland 6 D np np np Saint-Gobain France 9 B SGS SA Switzerland 94 A Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Germany 96 A Sika Services AG Switzerland 8 D Sulzer AG Switzerland 79 C ThyssenKrupp AG Germany 94 C Vossloh AG Germany 3 Information Technologies ADVA AG Optical Germany Networking AIXTRON SE Germany ams AG Austria Ascom Holding AG Switzerland 0 np np np Bechtle AG Germany 8 Kapsch TrafficCom AG Austria 48 np np np Kontron AG Germany 7 D Logitech International SA Switzerland 50 D PSI Aktiengesellschaft für Produkte und Systeme der Informationstechnologie Germany 40 np np np SAP AG Germany 98 A Company Country Score Scope Scope Scope 3 (head quarter) sources* Software AG Germany 4 np np np United Internet AG Germany 0 np np np Wincor Nixdorf AG Germany 6 D np np np Materials Alba SE Germany 8 AMAG AUSTRIA METALL AG Austria 53 E np np np Asian Bamboo AG Germany 6 E BASF SE Germany 00 A Clariant International Ltd Switzerland 77 B Dyckerhoff AG Germany AQ(SA) Eisen- und Hüttenwerke AG Germany AQ(SA) Ems-Chemie Holding AG Switzerland 80 C np np np Givaudan SA Switzerland 79 A H&R AG Germany 58 D HeidelbergCement AG Germany 70 C Holcim Ltd Switzerland 8 C K + S AG Germany 83 D Klöckner & Co SE Germany 73 E np np np LANXESS AG Germany 9 B Linde AG Germany 93 A Mayr-Melnhof Karton Aktiengesellschaft Austria 6 np np np Schmolz+Bickenbach AG Switzerland 40 np np np Symrise AG Germany 8 B Syngenta International AG Switzerland 9 B Wacker Chemie AG Germany 86 B Telecommunication Services Deutsche Telekom AG Germany 90 B Drillisch AG Germany 8 Swisscom Switzerland 97 A Telekom Austria AG Austria 74 C Utilities E.ON SE Germany 83 B EnBW Energie Baden- Germany 67 C Württemberg AG EVN AG Austria 6 D MVV Energie AG Germany 5 D np np np Nordex SE Germany 5 RWE AG Germany 93 B SolarWorld AG Germany 77 B VERBUND AG Austria 94 B Other responding corporations Centralschweizerische Kraftwerke AG Switzerland 66 C np np np Coop Genossenschaft Switzerland 53 D Dialog Semiconductor plc Germany Polytec Car Styling Bromyard Limited Austria Q-Cells SE Germany 64 C ROFIN-SINAR Technologies, Inc. Germany 57 C np np np Participants CDP Mittelstand Initiative Evonik Industries AG Germany 9 B np np np Flughafen München GmbH Germany 94 B Gesobau AG Germany 77 B HSE AG Germany 87 B Infraserv GmbH & Co. Höchst KG Germany 83 B AQ Answered Questionnaire AQ(L) Answered Questionnaire Late AQ(SA) See Another - Reference to holding company np Non Public responding but information not public * Number of reported Scope 3 categories per company that have been identified as relevant and for which data have been calculated

65 65

66 66 CDP Investor Members 03 CDP works with investors globally to advance the investment opportunities and reduce the risks posed by climate change by asking over 5,000 of the world s largest companies to report their climate strategies, GHG emissions and energy use through CDP s standardized format. To learn more about CDP s member offering and becoming a member, please contact us or visit the investor pages at Pages/investors.aspx ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar ATP Group Aviva Investors Bank of America Bendigo and Adelaide Bank BlackRock Boston Common Asset Management, LLC California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) Calvert Group, Ltd. Capricorn Investment Group Catholic Super CCLA Investment Management Ltd Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Generation Investment Management Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Henderson Global Investors HSBC Holdings plc Legg Mason, Inc. London Pensions Fund Authority Mobimo Holding AG Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A. Morgan Stanley National Australia Bank Neuberger Berman Newton Investment Management Limited Nordea Bank Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) Northwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEI Investments) PFA Pension Robeco RobecoSAM AG Rockefeller Asset Management Royal Bank of Scotland Group Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Schroders Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB) Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Standard Chartered TD Asset Management The Wellcome Trust 03 SIGNATORY INVESTOR BREAKDOWN - Region Africa (5) America - Latin & Caribbean (7) America - North (74) Asia (7) Australia and New Zealand (6) Europe - North & Western (94) Europe - Southern & Eastern (39) Number of Signatories CDP Investor Signatories & Assets (US$ Trillion) against time Investor CDP Signatory Assets Investor CDP Signatories Assets (US$ Trillions) 03 Signatory Investor Breakdown - Type 47 Mainstream Asset Manager 67 Pension funds 60 Banks 5 Insurance 39 SRI Asset Managers 34 Foundations 7 Other 7% 5% 4% 5% 7% % % 5% 3% 34% 34% 5%

67 CDP Signatory Investors financial institutions with assets of US$87 trillion were signatories to the CDP 03 climate change information request dated February st 03 3Sisters Sustainable Management LLC Aberdeen Asset Management Aberdeen Immobilien KAG mbh ABRAPP - Associação Brasileira das Entidades Fechadas de Previdência Complementar Achmea NV Active Earth Investment Management Acuity Investment Management Addenda Capital Inc. Advanced Investment Partners Advantage Asset Managers (Pty) Ltd Aegon N.V. AEGON-INDUSTRIAL Fund Management Co., Ltd AFP Integra AIG Asset Management AK PORTFÖY YÖNETİMİ A.Ş. AKBANK T.A.Ş. Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) Alberta Teachers Retirement Fund Alcyone Finance AllenbridgeEpic Investment Advisers Alliance Trust Allianz Elementar Versicherungs-AG Allianz Global Investors AG Allianz Group Altira Group Amalgamated Bank Amlin 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 AQEX LLC Aquila Capital Arisaig Partners Arkx Investment Management ARMA PORTFÖY YÖNETİMİ A.Ş. Armstrong Asset Management ASM Administradora de Recursos S.A. ASN Bank Assicurazioni Generali Spa ATI Asset Management Atlantic Asset Management ATP Group Auriel Capital Management Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Australian Ethical Investment AustralianSuper Avaron Asset Management AS Aviva Aviva Investors AXA Group Baillie Gifford & Co. BaltCap Banco Bradesco S/A Banco Comercial Português SA Banco de Credito del Peru BCP Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. Banco do Brasil Previdência Banco do Brasil S/A Banco Espírito Santo SA Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social (BNDES) Banco Popular Espanol Banco Sabadell Banco Santander Banesprev Fundo Banespa de Seguridade Social Banesto BANIF SA Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA Bank Leumi Le Israel Bank of America Merrill Lynch Bank of Montreal Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) Bank Sarasin & Cie AG Bank Vontobel Bankhaus Schelhammer & Schattera Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.h. Bankia Bankinter BankInvest bankmecu Banque Degroof Banque Libano-Francaise Barclays Basellandschaftliche Kantonalbank BASF Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Basler Kantonalbank Bâtirente Baumann and Partners S.A. Bayern LB BayernInvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh BBC Pension Trust Ltd BBVA Bedfordshire Pension Fund Beetle Capital Befimmo SA Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Bentall Kennedy Berenberg Bank Berti Investments BioFinance Administração de Recursos de Terceiros Ltda BlackRock Blom Bank SAL Blumenthal Foundation BNP Paribas Investment Partners BNY Mellon BNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft mbh Boston Common Asset Management, LLC Brasilprev Seguros e Previdência S/A. Breckinridge Capital Advisors British Airways Pensions British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcimc) Brown Advisory BT Financial Group BT Investment Management Busan Bank CAAT Pension Plan Cadiz Holdings Limited CAI Corporate Assets International AG Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec Caisse des Dépôts Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Nordeste do Brasil (CAPEF) Caixa Econômica Federal Caixa Geral de Depósitos CaixaBank California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) California State Treasurer Calvert Investment Management, Inc Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) Canadian Labour Congress Staff Pension Fund CAPESESP Capital Innovations, LLC Capricorn Investment Group CARE Super Carmignac Gestion Caser Pensiones E.G.F.P Cathay Financial Holding Catherine Donnelly Foundation Catholic Super CBF Church of England Funds CBRE Group, Inc. Cbus Superannuation Fund CCLA Investment Management Ltd Celeste Funds Management Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church Ceres CERES-Fundação de Seguridade Social Change Investment Management Chinatrust Financial Holding Co Limited Christian Brothers Investment Services Inc. Christian Super Christopher Reynolds Foundation Church Commissioners for England Church of England Pensions Board CI Mutual Funds' Signature Global Advisors City Developments Limited ClearBridge Investments Climate Change Capital Group Ltd CM-CIC Asset Management Colonial First State Global Asset Management Comerica Incorporated Comgest Commerzbank AG CommInsure Commonwealth Bank of Australia Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Compton Foundation, Inc. Concordia Versicherungs-Gesellschaft a.g. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds Conser Invest Co-operative Asset Management Co-operative Financial Services (CFS) Credit Suisse Daegu Bank Daesung Capital Management Daiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. Daiwa Securities Group Inc. Dalton Nicol Reid Danske Bank A/S de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Cie S.A. DekaBank Deutsche Girozentrale Delta Lloyd Asset Management Desjardins Financial Security Deutsche Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbh Deutsche Bank AG Deutsche Postbank AG Development Bank of Japan Inc. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Dexia Asset Management Dexus Property Group DLM INVISTA ASSET MANAGEMENT S/A DNB ASA Domini Social Investments LLC Dongbu Insurance Doughty Hanson & Co. DWS Investments DZ Bank Earth Capital Partners LLP East Sussex Pension Fund Ecclesiastical Investment Management Ecofi Investissements - Groupe Credit Cooperatif Edward W. Hazen Foundation EEA Group Ltd Eko Elan Capital Partners Element Investment Managers ELETRA - Fundação Celg de Seguros e Previdência Environment Agency Active Pension fund Epworth Investment Management Equilibrium Capital Group equinet Bank AG Erik Penser Fondkommission Erste Asset Management Erste Group Bank AG Essex Investment Management Company, LLC ESSSuper Ethos Foundation Etica SGR Eureka Funds Management Eurizon Capital SGR S.p.A. Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada Pension Plan for Clergy and Lay Workers Evangelical Lutheran Foundation of Eastern Canada Evli Bank Plc F&C Asset Management FACEB Fundação de Previdência dos Empregados da CEB FAELCE Fundacao Coelce de Seguridade Social

68 68 CDP Signatory Investors 03 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 FIM Services Financiere de l'echiquier 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 Commercial Bank First State Investments First State Superannuation Scheme First Swedish National Pension Fund (AP) Firstrand Limited Five Oceans Asset Management Florida State Board of Administration (SBA) Folketrygdfondet Folksam Fondaction CSN Fondation de Luxembourg Forma Futura Invest AG Fourth Swedish National Pension Fund, (AP4) FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Gesellschaft mbh Friends Fiduciary Corporation Fubon Financial Holdings 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 BRDE de Previdência Complementar - ISBRE Fundação Chesf de Assistência e Seguridade Social Fachesf Fundação Corsan - dos Funcionários da Companhia Riograndense de Saneamento Fundação de Assistência e Previdência Social do BNDES - FAPES FUNDAÇÃO ELETROBRÁS DE SEGURIDADE SOCIAL - ELETROS Fundação Forluminas de Seguridade Social - FORLUZ Fundação Itaipu BR - de Previdência e Assistência Social FUNDAÇÃO ITAUBANCO Fundação Itaúsa Industrial Fundação Promon de Previdência Social Fundação Rede Ferroviaria de Seguridade Social Refer FUNDAÇÃO SANEPAR DE PREVIDÊNCIA E ASSISTÊNCIA SOCIAL - FUSAN Fundação Sistel de Seguridade Social (Sistel) Fundação Vale do Rio Doce de Seguridade Social - VALIA FUNDIÁGUA - FUNDAÇÃO DE PREVIDENCIA COMPLEMENTAR DA CAESB Futuregrowth Asset Management GEAP Fundação de Seguridade Social General Equity Group AG Generali Deutschland Holding AG Generation Investment Management Genus Capital Management German Equity Trust AG Gjensidige Forsikring ASA Global Forestry Capital S.a.r.l. 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 GPT Group Greater Manchester Pension Fund Green Cay Asset Management Green Century Capital Management GROUPAMA EMEKLİLİK A.Ş. GROUPAMA SİGORTA A.Ş. Groupe Crédit Coopératif Groupe Investissement Responsable Inc. GROUPE OFI AM Grupo Financiero Banorte SAB de CV Grupo Santander Brasil Gruppo Bancario Credito Valtellinese Gruppo Monte Paschi Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Hang Seng Bank Hanwha Asset Management Company Harbour Asset Management Harrington Investments, Inc Hauck & Aufhäuser Asset Management GmbH Hazel Capital LLP HDFC Bank Ltd Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Henderson Global Investors Hermes Fund Managers HESTA Super HIP Investor Holden & Partners HSBC Global Asset Management (Deutschland) GmbH HSBC Holdings plc HSBC INKA Internationale Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Humanis Hyundai Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. IBK Securities IDBI Bank Ltd IDFC Ltd Illinois State Board of Investment Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company Impax Group plc Independent Planning Group Indusind Bank Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. Industrial Bank Industrial Bank of Korea Industrial Development Corporation Industry Funds Management Inflection Point Partners ING Group Insight Investment Management (Global) Ltd Instituto Infraero de Seguridade Social - INFRAPREV Instituto Sebrae De Seguridade Social - SEBRAEPREV Insurance Australia Group IntReal KAG Investec Asset Management Investing for Good Irish Life Investment Managers Itaú Asset Management Itaú Unibanco Holding S.A. Janus Capital Group Inc. Jarislowsky Fraser Limited Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation JOHNSON & JOHNSON SOCIEDADE PREVIDENCIARIA JPMorgan Chase & Co. Jubitz Family Foundation Jupiter Asset Management Kaiser Ritter Partner Privatbank AG (Schweiz) KB Kookmin Bank KBC Asset Management NV KBC Group KCPS and Company KDB Asset Management Co., Ltd. KDB Daewoo Securities Co. Ltd. KEPLER-FONDS Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m. b. H. KEVA KeyCorp KfW Bankengruppe Killik & Co LLP Kiwi Income Property Trust Kleinwort Benson Investors KlimaINVEST KLP Insurance Korea Investment Management Korea Technology Finance Corporation KPA Pension La Banque Postale Asset Management La Financiere Responsable Lampe Asset Management GmbH Landsorganisationen i Sverige LaSalle Investment Management 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. Lloyds Banking Group Local Authority Pension Fund Forum Local Government Super LOGOS PORTFÖY YÖNETIMI A.Ş. London Pensions Fund Authority Lothian Pension Fund LUCRF Super Macquarie Group MagNet Magyar Közösségi Bank Zrt. MainFirst Bank AG Malakoff Médéric MAMA Sustainable Incubation AG Man Group plc Mandarine Gestion MAPFRE Maple-Brown Abbott Marc J. Lane Investment Management, Inc. Maryland State Treasurer Matrix Asset Management Matrix Group McLean Budden MEAG MUNICH ERGO Asset Management GmbH Mediobanca Meeschaert Gestion Privée Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company Mendesprev Sociedade Previdenciária Merck Family Fund Mercy Investment Services, Inc. Mergence Investment Managers 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 Mirvac Group Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Mistra, Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co.,Ltd Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Mn Services Momentum Manager of Managers (Pty) Ltd Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Mongeral Aegon Seguros e Previdência S.A. Morgan Stanley Mountain Cleantech AG MTAA Superannuation Fund Mutual Insurance Company Pension-Fennia Nanuk Asset Management Natcan Investment Management Nathan Cummings Foundation, The National Australia Bank National Bank of Canada National Bank Of Greece 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) Nativus Sustainable Investments Natixis SA Natural Investments LLC Nedbank Limited Needmor Fund Nelson Capital Management, LLC Nest Sammelstiftung Neuberger Berman New Alternatives Fund Inc. New Amsterdam Partners LLC New Forests New Mexico State Treasurer New York City Employees Retirement System New York City Teachers Retirement System New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF) Newton Investment Management Limited NGS Super NH-CA Asset Management Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd. Nipponkoa Insurance Company, Ltd Nissay Asset Management Corporation NORD/LB Kapitalanlagegesellschaft AG Nordea Bank Norfolk Pension Fund

69 69 Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) North Carolina Retirement System Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) Northern Star Group Northern Trust Northward Capital Northwest and Ethical Investments L.P. (NEI Investments) Nykredit OceanRock Investments Inc. Oddo & Cie oeco capital Lebensversicherung AG ÖKOWORLD Old Mutual plc OMERS Administration Corporation Ontario Pension Board Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan OP Fund Management Company Ltd Oppenheim & Co Limited Oppenheim Fonds Trust GmbH Opplysningsvesenets fond (The Norwegian Church Endowment) OPSEU Pension Trust (OP Trust) Oregon State Treasurer Orion Energy Systems Osmosis Investment Management Panahpur Park Foundation Parnassus Investments Pax World Funds Pensioenfonds Vervoer Pension Denmark Pension Fund for Danish Lawyers and Economists Pension Protection Fund Pensionsmyndigheten Perpetual Investments PETROS - Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Social PFA Pension PGGM Phillips, Hager & North Investment Management Ltd. PhiTrust Active Investors Pictet Asset Management SA Pinstripe Management GmbH Pioneer Investments Piraeus Bank PKA Pluris Sustainable Investments SA PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Pohjola Asset Management Ltd Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation Portfolio Investments Porto Seguro S.A. POSTALIS - Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos Power Finance Corporation PREVHAB PREVIDÊNCIA COMPLEMENTAR PREVI Caixa de Previdência dos Funcionários do Banco do Brasil PREVIG Sociedade de Previdência Complementar Prologis Provinzial Rheinland Holding Prudential Investment Management Prudential PLC Psagot Investment House Ltd PSP Investments Q Capital Partners Co. Ltd QBE Insurance Group Rabobank Raiffeisen Fund Management Hungary Ltd. Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.h. Raiffeisen Schweiz Rathbone Greenbank Investments RCM (Allianz Global Investors) Real Grandeza Fundação de Previdência e Assistência Social REI Super Reliance Capital Ltd Representative Body of the Church in Wales Resolution Resona Bank, Limited Reynders McVeigh Capital Management River Twice Capital Advisors, LLC RLAM Robeco RobecoSAM AG Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation Rockefeller Asset Management Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment Rothschild Royal Bank of Canada Royal Bank of Scotland Group RPMI Railpen Investments RREEF Investment GmbH Russell Investments Sampension KP Livsforsikring A/S Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Samsung Life Insurance Samsung Securities Sanlam Santa Fé Portfolios Ltda Santam Ltd Sarasin & Partners SAS Trustee Corporation Sauren Finanzdienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG Schroders Scottish Widows Investment Partnership SEB Asset Management AG Second Swedish National Pension Fund (AP) Seligson & Co Fund Management Plc Sentinel Funds SERPROS - Fundo Multipatrocinado Service Employees International Union Benefit Funds Servite Friars Seventh Swedish National Pension Fund (AP7) Shiga Bank, Ltd. Shinhan Bank Shinhan BNP Paribas Investment Trust Management Co., Ltd Shinkin Asset Management Co., Ltd Siemens Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbh Signet Capital Management Ltd Skandia Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEB AB) Smith Pierce, LLC SNS Asset Management Social(k) Sociedade de Previdencia Complementar da Dataprev - Prevdata Socrates Fund Management Solaris Investment Management Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. Sonen Capital LLC Sopher Investment Management Soprise! LLP SouthPeak Investment Management SPF Beheer bv Spring Water Asset Management, LLC Sprucegrove Investment Management Ltd Standard Chartered Standard Chartered Korea Limited Standard Life Investments State Bank of India State Street Corporation StatewideSuper Stockland Storebrand ASA Strathclyde Pension Fund Stratus Group Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc. Sun Life Financial Inc. Superfund Asset Management GmbH SUSI Partners AG Sustainable Capital Sustainable Development Capital LLP Sustainable Insight Capital Management Svenska Kyrkan, Church of Sweden Svenska Kyrkans Pensionskassa Swedbank Swift Foundation Swiss Re Swisscanto Holding AG Sycomore Asset Management Syntrus Achmea Asset Management T. Rowe Price T.GARANTİ BANKASI A.Ş. T.SINAİ KALKINMA BANKASI A.Ş. Tata Capital Limited TD Asset Management Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund Telluride Association Tempis Capital Management Co., Ltd. Terra Forvaltning AS TerraVerde Capital Management LLC TfL Pension Fund The ASB Community Trust The Brainerd Foundation The Bullitt Foundation The Central Church Fund of Finland The Children's Investment Fund Foundation The Clean Yield Group The Collins Foundation The Co-operators Group Limited The Daly Foundation The Environmental Investment Partnership LLP The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust The Korea Teachers Pension The New School The Oppenheimer Group 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 Sandy River Charitable Foundation The Sisters of St. Ann The Standard Bank Group The Sustainability 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 Tobam Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Toronto Atmospheric Fund Trillium Asset Management, LLC Triodos Bank Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment Tryg Turner Investments UBS Unibail-Rodamco UniCredit Union Asset Management Holding AG Union di Banche Italiane S.c.p.a Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH Unionen Unipension UNISON staff pension scheme UniSuper Unitarian Universalist Association United Methodist Church General Board of Pension and Health Benefits United Nations Foundation Unity Trust Bank Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) Vancity Group of Companies VCH Vermögensverwaltung AG Ventas Inc Veris Wealth Partners Veritas Investment Trust GmbH Vermont State Treasurer Vexiom Capital, L.P. VicSuper Victorian Funds Management Corporation VIETNAM HOLDING ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. Vinva Investment Management Voigt & Collegen VOLKSBANK INVESTMENTS Waikato Community Trust Walden Asset Management, a division of Boston Trust & Investment Management Company WARBURG - HENDERSON Kapitalanlagegesellschaft für Immobilien mbh WARBURG INVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH Water Asset Management, LLC Wells Fargo & Company West Yorkshire Pension Fund WestLB Mellon Asset Management (WMAM) Westpac Banking Corporation WHEB Asset Management White Owl Capital AG Woori Bank Woori Investment & Securities YES BANK Limited York University Pension Fund Youville Provident Fund Inc. Zegora Investment Management Zevin Asset Management Zurich Cantonal Bank Zurich Cantonal Bank

70 70