Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013

The short-term risk: how economic recovery could affect
GHG emissions from Iberia 125 companies
Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013
28 November 2013

Report writer:

Scorer:

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.

Over 5,000 companies from all over the world have been asked to
report on climate change through CDP this year;
81% 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
email paul.robins@cdp.net or telephone +44 (0) 7703 184 312.

01

Contents

CEO Foreword

2

Letter from Spain

3

Letter from Portugal

4

Prologue from ECODES

5

PwC commentary

6

Executive summary: 2013 highlights

7

Corporate governance of climate change is improving, but it is not leading to
emissions reductions

8

Initiatives and investments to reduce emissions are increasingly short-term

11

Decline in external verification of GHG emissions

12

Challenges for corporate climate change strategies in Iberia 125

13

Respondent company interview: Obrascon Huarte Lain, S.A.

15

Iberia 125 2013 leaders
Interview: a company responding to CDP on its own initiative
Key statistics

16
18
19

Key disclosure statistics

19

Key emissions statistics

19

Key best practices statistics

22

Sector analysis

23

Introduction

23

Consumer Discretionary

24

Financials

26

Industrials

28

Materials

30

Utilities

32

Conveying ESG data to capital markets in Portugal

34

Appendix I: Non-responding companies

35

Appendix II: Responding companies, scores and emissions data

36

Appendix III: Investor members and signatories

37

To read 2013 company responses in full please go to
www.cdp.net/en-US/Results/Pages/responses.aspx

Important Notice
The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data
reported to CDP or the contributing authors and presented in this report. If you intend to repackage or resell any of the contents of this report, you need to obtain express permission from CDP
before doing so.
Ecodes and CDP have prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2013 climate change information request. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is
given by Ecodes or CDP as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and opinions contained in this report. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without
obtaining specific professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, Ecodes and CDP do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone
else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report or for any decision based on it. All information and views expressed herein by CDP and/or Ecodes, is based on
their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries where included in this report
reflect the views of their respective authors; their inclusion is not an endorsement of them.
Ecodes and CDP and their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, members, partners, principals, directors, officers and/or employees, may have a position in the
securities of the companies discussed herein. The securities of the companies mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor suitable for all types of
investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates.
Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refer to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330.
© 2013 Carbon Disclosure Project and Ecodes. All rights reserved.

02

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.

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. he 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 $42
billion1. The unprecedented melting of the Arctic ice is a
clear climate alarm bell, while the first 10 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.

1 New York State
Hurricane Sandy Damage
Assessment; Governor
Andrew Cuomo;
November 12, 2012
http://www.governor.ny.
gov/press/11262012damageassessment
2 https://www.cdproject.
net/CDPResults/3percent-solution-report.
pdf
3 Based on findings from
the report Natural Capital
at Risk: The Top 100
Externalities of Business,
published by TEEB for
Business Coalition in
April 2013

For investors, the risk of stranded assets 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 2°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% Solution2 with WWF showing
that the US corporate sector could reduce emissions by
3% each year between 2010 and 2020 and deliver $780
billion in savings above costs as a result. 79% of US
companies responding to CDP report higher ROI on
emission reductions investments than on the average

business investment. Meanwhile, governments are
taking new action: The US Administration has launched
its Climate Action Plan, with a new emphasis on
reducing emissions from utilities; 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 value3. 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

03

Letter from Spain

We are convinced of the opportunity
that environment protection
represents to stimulate growth and
create jobs, by promoting the most
dynamic and innovative companies

Progress towards a low-carbon economy, in addition to
being necessary, has huge opportunities for expansion,
competitiveness and savings. From the business point of
view, this development strengthens the most efficient
companies, letting them to reduce their costs by
reducing energy consumption, as well as investing in
innovation and, at the same time, improving its image by
showing their commitment to the environment.
Communicating this commitment to the citizens through
products and services, those companies are contributing
to raise the society awareness about environment
protection and, in particular, about climate change.
The data collected in CDP 2013 report, show that it is
possible to move towards more sustainable, low-carbon
models. And, from the Government, we maintain that
greater environmental protection is compatible with an
improvement of the competitiveness of our economy.
Moreover, we are convinced of the opportunity that it
represents to stimulate growth and create jobs, by
promoting the most dynamic and innovative companies.
Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Environment works to encourage emissions reductions
in our territory, setting the right incentives. It is all about
to value those actions that preserve our climate system
and to compensate those who promote them.

AIR 2 to promote new sustainable mobility systems.
Moreover, particularly linked to the efforts of companies
involved in this report, we are designing the legislative
document that will create the registration mechanism for
the National Carbon Footprint System and sequestration
projects for offsetting emissions.
Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013 shows that
more and more companies are disclosing their reduction
targets and report having initiatives to this end. However,
it is necessary to stress the importance of properly
framing these actions in the patterns of development of
our country, so that economic growth more effectively
decouples from emissions increase. This is especially
relevant, not only for companies, but also from the point
of view of international commitments acquired
by Spain to reduce greenhouse gases emissions.
At the international level, it should be noted, as well, that
climate change negotiations are going through a critical
time. We are facing the challenge of developing a new
international climate change agreement legally binding.
This agreement will shape the international climate regime
from 2020, setting a clear and ambitious framework,
which also constitutes a safe and appealing horizon for
investments in clean technologies, encouraging the
growth and use of green employment niches.

So, we have promoted initiatives like “Clima” Projects
which foster the development of actions to reduce
emissions in sectors not subject to the emissions trading
system, through the purchase of the generated verified
emission reductions. With two calls since its inception,
the response of Spanish companies has been fully
satisfactory.

I appreciate the initiative of CDP, ECODES and the
companies and institutions that support this report. And
I encourage all our businesses, and especially those who
have participated in this edition, to move forward
towards a low carbon economy, to lead the future in
their own benefit and in the benefit of the whole of
Spanish society.

Additionally, we have launched PIMA Sun project, which
promotes energy efficiency actions in hotels, and PIMA

Miguel Arias Cañete
Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Environment

04

Letter from Portugal

The challenge of reducing GHG
emissions should be seen as an
opportunity to identify pathways for
future competitiveness and to
address fundamental issues such as
those of sustainable development,
job creation, energy and food
security.

Climate change concerns are a great challenge that
needs further reflection and improvement of policies.
Latest reports from the IPCC strengthen the case for
action on mitigation while recognizing that adaptation
measures will also need to play a key role in building
more resilient low carbon economies and societies.

efficiency strategies and opportunities/risks associated
with climate change. This transparency helps engaging
other companies to face the challenge of reducing their
carbon footprints. It also contributes for the awareness
of the role of emission reduction as a driving force for
sustainability and economic development.

In recent years the international community has explicitly
recognized the scale of the climate change challenge of
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) through
its endorsement of the objective of limiting the increase
of the mean global temperature to not more than 2oC.
This political challenge is nothing short of a revolution in
many areas of our daily lives.

I hope in the future we will continue to see increasing
participation from Portuguese companies in CDP, as it
continues its important mission of accelerating solutions
to climate change by putting relevant information at the
heart of business, policy and investment decisions.

This challenge should be seen as an opportunity to
identify pathways for future competitiveness in critical
sectors, including the emerging green technologies, and
to address fundamental issues such as those of
sustainable development, job creation, energy and food
security.
The business sector needs to play a strong role in this
change and it is with enthusiasm that we see more and
more Portuguese companies ready to respond to CDP.
Building a greener low carbon future is a story of
competitiveness and jobs, an opportunity for enhance
efficiency and seek for better practices. It is a positivesum game whereby both the community and business
can benefit and prosper. CDP represents a showcase of
such practices and opportunities and a preview of what
a greener low carbon future could look like.
It is encouraging to see how companies in Portugal are
able and willing to disclose their emissions data, energy

Jorge Moreira da Silva
Minister of Environment, Regional Planning and Energy

05

Prologue from ECODES

I hope that this report will raise
awareness about the need for
companies to invest in long-term
actions to reduce their emissions.

Once again, I am pleased to present this report in which
we try to take the pulse of how Spanish and Portuguese
companies are managing an issue as important as
climate change.
Perhaps this year, more than ever before, the mix of
messages we get instills fear, but it also encourages us
to continue working for a low carbon future.
The IPPC has just started to publish its fifth assessment
report showing the scientific knowledge: climate change
is most likely due to human action, its consequences are
more severe than what was assumed so far, and we still
have a margin of action, although increasingly narrow, to
limit climate change to the security level of a 2°C
increase. But meanwhile the carbon concentration in the
atmosphere has reached its highest point since we have
records.

The reduction would have been greater, but the
favorable weather has been offset, among other
reasons, by changes in the energy mix which caused a
carbon intensity increase (the amount of GHG emissions
generated by each unit of GDP) in both countries.
It is not helpful for Spanish and Portuguese businesses
that at a time when they especially need to increase their
sources of funding, international investors see a risk in a
scenario in which, in an economic recovery, emissions of
greenhouse gases grow at levels greater than those prior
to the crisis. So I hope that this report will raise
awareness about the need for companies to invest in
long- term actions to reduce their emissions and will also
give visibility to the best practices that many Spanish
and Portuguese companies are implementing to improve
their climate change management performance.

In the European Union GHG emissions were reduced
during the last two years due to several factors,
including rising energy prices and favorable weather
that reduced energy consumption needs, in spite of
positive, albeit modest, economic growth.
In the Iberian region, reduced economic activity that
both Spain and Portugal have suffered since the
beginning of the crisis has resulted in a reduction of
domestic consumption, energy consumption and
transportation. This fact contributed to a reduction of
GHG emissions at a rate similar to the evolution of GDP.
Initial 2012 estimates indicate that GHG emissions were
down 1.6% in Spain and 4.0% in Portugal, while GDP
contracted by 1.4 % and 3.2 %,respectively in these
countries.

Víctor Viñuales
Director, ECODES

06

PwC commentary

Finding an adequate balance to
combine urgent growth necessities
for our country and develop a low
carbon economy results in a
fundamental challenge which must
allow decoupling economic
development from the increase in
GHG emissions, as well as to
improve impact and society’s life
conditions.

Are we getting out? Aren’t we? … this is the daisy
plucked by several people when speaking about crisis in
our country. In Spain, as in the rest of the world, we
urgently need to find growth strategies to reduce the
alarming unemployment rate and improve life conditions
for a share of the Spanish population. If this wasn’t
enough, in addition to this unprecedented crisis,
overwhelming scientific evidences of increasing climate
change have to be added. This is confirmed by the
outcomes of the last IPCC Report.
Within this context, finding an adequate balance to
combine urgent growth necessities for our country and
develop a low carbon economy results in a fundamental
challenge. This growth must allow decoupling economic
development from the increase in GHG emissions, as
well as to improve impact and society’s life conditions.
So far, no significant evidences have been found to
prove progress in this direction. However, there are
initiatives such as the CDP that promote high quality
information to foster investors, firms and governments to
take measures to avoid the climate change.
In this regard, the last results from the CDP report show
several approaches. At a global level, it states that firms
are progressing in terms of transparency, as well as on
their GHG monitoring and verification capabilities, and
their capacity to start addressing impacts on their value
chain. In Spain, progress in monitoring is similar,
although there is stagnation in the area of verification
against an increase of 14% showed by firms at global
level. It is not a coincidence that the ISAE 3410, which
has been developed exclusively for the finance world to
verify carbon inventories, will be put into effect this year.
In Spain, there are several companies rating high in the
global climate change indexes, way over to what would
be expected for our contribution as a country. For
instance, transparency showed from companies
participating in the Global 500 CDP has improved in 25
points since 2009, reaching an average score of 91
points (over 100) in 2013.

However, our country’s social context demands new
compromises with expectations, sometimes
contradictory, from the different stakeholders. Although
firms have already started to consider a wider
management approach in terms of impacts, they face a
lack of valid models to take decisions in order to
integrate the measurement of the different impacts.
In regards to this question, PwC has been working with
several clients and organizations to develop an
integrated approach for Total Impact Measurement and
Management (TIMM).
TIMM enables firms to have a better understanding, not
only of the environmental impacts of their activity, but of
the social, economic and fiscal impacts too, in addition to
their financial results. This exercise allows firms to show
their total contribution to the society in a wider sense, in a
moment in which their role is sometimes being either
questioned or threatened by new regulations. Furthermore,
it allows to compare strategies and take investment
decisions using quantitative monetized data, as well as to
evaluate the total impact for each decision and
communicate it to the different stakeholders. The model
enables to measure, understand and compare impacts
coming from different alternatives and thus, to take
decisions with a wider knowledge and disseminate better
the relevant role of the business activity for the society.
TIMM can support on taking decisions based on
delivering better information, setting up the required
transformations to address the growing exigencies from a
low emissions context and achieve an adequate balance
between growth and environmental and social aspects.

Mª Luz Castilla
Partner. PwC

07

Executive summary: 2013 highlights

The CDP Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013 is
the sixth in the series of CDP reports for Spain and the
third for the pooled sample Iberia 125 of the 85 largest
Spanish listed companies and the 40 largest Portuguese
listed companies.

Figure 1. Iberia 125 companies responding to the CDP questionnaire
(2008-2013)
Spain

Portugal

The aim of the report is to provide investors and other
stakeholders with first-hand insights on disclosure and
performance of Iberia 125 corporate climate change
action.

2013 answers

This year’s CDP Investor Request for information
regarding Iberia 125 corporate climate change strategies
was issued on behalf of 722 institutional investors that
represent US$ 87 trillion in assets under management.
55 companies met this request for information, 52 of
which submitted their response directly while three sent
the response via their parent company. This year the
sample response rate was 44%, the highest so far for
the Iberia 125 sample (see Figure 1)1.

2012 answers

40

15

2013 sample

44%

85
36

40

14

40%

2012 sample

85

40

2011 answers

35

14

39%

2011 sample

85

40

2010 answers

34

12

37%

2010 sample

EDP responds to CDP since 2009.
This activity has allowed us to
systematize and reflect upon
our CO2 emissions strategy,
targets and projects thus giving
us a deep insight about how we
can pursuit the path to a low
carbon economy.
EDP

The Iberia 125 response rate is similar to that of other
neighbouring countries (France or Italy) but is far lower
than sample response rates in the United Kingdom
(74%) or the Global 500 which includes the 500 largest
world companies (81%).

85

40

2009 answers

35

7

40%

2009 sample

85

20

2008 answers

25

71%

2008 sample

35
0

25

50

75

100

Table 1. The 10 biggest non respondent companies by capitalisation
in Iberia 125 (2013)
Company name

Country

Sector

ACS Actividades
de Construcción y Servicios

Spain

Industrials

Zardoya Otis

In 2012 and following the trend from 2011, the carbon
intensity in both Spain and Portugal increased due to
changes in the energy mix. As a consequence,
emissions from business activities in both countries are
growing decoupled from the economic slowdown.
However, the real risk for companies is that a future
recovery of the economy will be accompanied by
accelerating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
International investors might already factor that scenario
into their investment decisions, with obvious
disadvantages for Spanish and Portuguese companies.
Simultaneously, from the analysis of the companies’
responses to CDP questionnaire we find that, although

125

Spain

Industrials

Dia

Spain

Consumer staples

Prosegur

Spain

Industrials

Brisa2

Portugal

Industrials

Corporación Financiera Alba

Spain

Financials

Grupo Catalana Occidente

Spain

Financials

Cimpor

Portugal

Materials

Jazztel

Spain

Information Technologies

Almirall

Spain

Health Care

1 This response rate and the percentages in Figure 1 include indirect answers to provide a complete picture of the
responses received from companies by July 31, 2013. The remaining analysis in this report, except where
otherwise indicated, is based on direct responses of 52 companies, which excludes the three indirect answers
whose information was incorporated into their parent companies.
2 The company is no longer listed.

08

Executive summary: 2013 highlights continued

1. Corporate governance of climate
change is improving, but it is not
leading to emissions reductions

Figure 2. Key indicators of best practices in climate change
management (2012-2013)
2013

2012

While the economic context in which business activities
are carried out in Spain and Portugal are having an
influence on the companies’ climate strategies and
performance, businesses have a number of
management measures at hand to reduce both their
impact (emissions) and the climate change related risks
to which they are exposed.

Board or other senior management oversight

Rewarding climate change progress

Demostration of climate change being integrated into overal business
strategy

CDP’s Climate Change Program assesses the evolution
of the sample companies as to the best management
practices of climate change.

Disclose absolute targets
Despite the fact that this year’s analysis shows that
some new companies are still in the early stages of
climate change management, respondent companies
demonstrate an improvement of best practices in the
management of climate change (see Figure 2).

Disclose intensity targets

Ahead of or met targets

Evidence of disclosure of climate change information in mainstream
filings or other external communications

Emissions reductions due to implementation of activities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of companies

3 http://www.ipcc.ch/
news_and_events/docs/
ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.
pdf
4 For the purpose of this
report, “reported
emissions” are global
emissions reported by
Iberia 125 firms in the
CDP questionnaire and
are not limited to the
GHG taking place in
Spain and Portugal.
5 KS refers to “key
indicators”. This is an
analysis of statistics in
the third chapter of this
report intending to
collect in a graphical and
concise way the main
results of the analysis of
responses to climate
change CDP
questionnaire. Each
figure in this chapter is
named by adding the
number of the initial KI.

corporate governance of climate change is improving,
total emissions reported by Iberia 125 companies have
barely changed from the previous year. Moreover, most
of the reported emission reductions from responding
companies are due to circumstantial factors such as
disinvestments or reduced industrial activity. As a matter
of fact, the number of reported emission reduction
activities from Iberia 125 companies has significantly
decreased in the last year. In addition, emission
reduction investments in these companies are shifting to
a more short term approach.
It is important to put these developments into context.
In September, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) released its fifth climate assessment
report in which it confirmed with unprecedented
certainty that anthropogenic activity has been the
dominant cause for the rise in temperature since the
last mid century. If there is no substantial change in
the way we do business, continued GHG emission will
cause further warming3 and it will be more difficult
than ever to limit warming to the commonly accepted
2º C threshold which has been agreed by
governments and scientific bodies as limiting the
worst effects of climate change.

It should be noted that 92% (48) of responding
companies have assigned responsibility for climate
change management to the board of directors, a
committee thereof, or a senior manager of the company.
If we compare this result to companies in other
countries, Iberia 125 responding companies are, as in
previous years, slightly outperforming other samples.
Perhaps as a result of this high level of responsibility we
have also observed that 90% (47) of responding
companies report their climate change management in
mainstream reports, and that the rate of companies
offering monetary incentives to their employees for the
achievement of climate change objectives has increased
to 77% (40) from 71% (35) in 2012. In this respect, the
Iberia 125 sample is well above the global CDP average
of 65%. This fact is important because the existence of
incentives is one of the indicators, according to the
Global 500 Climate Change Report 2013, that has
emerged as one of the key drivers to improve corporate
performance in climate change.
However, the evolution of GHG emissions is not following
the improvement of climate change management
indicators. Although the reported Scope 1 emissions4 in
2013 were reduced by 2% compared to the previous year
(see KS4)5, a detailed analysis attributes this fact to
circumstantial factors rather than to proactive emissions
reduction activities. Thus, while in 2013 there are six new
responding companies, their reported emissions are
much lower than those of the two companies that
answered the questionnaire last year but have failed to
respond this year. ACS alone, which reported 1.74
MtCO2e in 2012, represents nine times the total
emissions reported by the six new companies together.
Secondly, the majority of Scope 1 emission reductions
could be allocated to only two companies, Repsol and
Arcelor Mittal, which have reduced their emissions by 9

09

and 3.8 MtCO2e respectively. Repsol’s reduction is
mainly due to the expropriation of YPF in April 2012 and
whose emissions are not included in their 2013
disclosure. If emissions declared by Repsol in 2012 did
not include those of YPF, the company’s reported
emissions in 2013 would have increased by around 12%
over the previous year. As for Arcelor Mittal, they explain
their emissions reductions as a result of reduced
economic activity, although the intensity of emissions per
revenue has increased 11% in the last year.
In addition, the total reported Scope 2 emissions grew
by 11%6 in the same period (see KS6). This increase of
1.59 MtCO2e in Scope 2 emissions is primarily due to
the emissions increase in two utilities: Iberdrola (+2
MtCO2e) and Endesa (+0.97 MtCO2e). Iberdrola’s
increase is explained primarily due to changes in the
scope of their emissions inventory. Endesa’s response,
on the other hand, has not provided a clear explanation
for their increase. Companies that have reduced their
Scope 2 emissions include Repsol (0.75 MtCO2e
reduction) and Arcelor Mittal (0.65 MtCO2e reduction).
The reasons for this reduction are, again, divestment
and the reduction in activity.
According to information provided by the respondents,
the figures indicate that proactive action to reduce net
emissions has lost weight compared to reductions in the
level of company activity and other reasons such as
changes in the inventory methodology. It is noteworthy
that the most frequently cited cause is still the
implementation of reduction activities. However, in 2013
this reason only accounts for 61% of total corporate
reductions, down from 70% in 2012 (see Figure 3).
Changes in the emission inventory methodology,
accounting for 10% in 2013 (2% in 2012), and reduced
business activity with 8% (2% in 2012) have gained
prominence, however.

Figure 3. Percentage of companies reporting reasons for a decrease
in emissions (2012-2013)7
Unidentified

Other

Emissions reduction activities

Divestment

Change in physical operating conditions

Change in output

Change in methodology

Change in boundary

2013
11%

2012

2%
2%
4%

2% 2%
2%

5%

12%

5%
9%
5%
4%

65%

72%

Figure 4. Reported reasons for an increase in emissions in percentage
(2012-2013)
Change in physical operating conditions

Other
Change in output

Change in methodology

Change in boundary

Acquisitions

2013
13%

2012
20%

23%

10%

23%

42%
12%

10%

When evaluating new business
opportunities, Abengoa vision acts as
a filter, dismissing businesses not
aligned with sustainability or in fight
against climate change. But
Abengoa also intends for its products
and services not only to be
conducive to sustainable
development, but also to be realized
in a sustainable way to reduce the
impact in climate change.
Abengoa

25%

15%

8%

Therefore, although it is clear that the improvement in
the management of climate change must have an
impact on emissions performance in the medium and
long term, the current GHG emissions’ evolution is being
modulated mostly according to circumstantial factors
rather than to a proactive corporate management.
Without a stronger commitment to increase efficiency
and reduce GHG emissions, companies might face an
abrupt increase in their emissions, in particular under a
scenario of economic recovery, with serious
6 Please note that due to a change in CDP’s approach to Scope 2 accounting, Scope 2 emissions figures reported
in 2013 are not comparable with Scope 2 figures published in previous years. Companies calculating Scope 2
emissions are now able to incorporate the specific emissions factors associated with renewable energy purchases
where supported by an appropriate tracking instrument.
7 Please note that each company can explain its behavior from the combination of more than one of the cases
here presented, and whose net sum explains the evolution of the company’s emissions. Therefore, the grand total
of reasons in the graph does not match the number of responding companies.

10


Figure 5. Direction of change of combined scope 1 and 2 emissions
by sector in percentage (2013)9
Decreased

No change

Increased

First year of estimation

Figure 8. Number of emission reduction initiatives by
activity (2011-2013)

No answer

2012

2013

2011

Energy efficiency: processes

CD
CS
Energy efficiency: building services

EGY
FIN
HC

Behavioral change

IND
IT
MAT

Product design

TCOM
UTIL
0

20

40

60

80

100

Low carbon energy installation

Figure 6. Reported GHG emission reduction targets by type of target
(2011-2013)
No target
Intensity target

Transportation: fleet

Absolute and intensity targets
Absolute target

2013
Process emissions reductions
2012
2011

Energy efficiency: building fabric
0

20

40
60
Percentage of companies

80

100

Transportation: use
Figure 7. Reported absolute GHG emission reduction targets time
frame (2012-2013)
1-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

More than 15 years

2013

Fugitive emissions reductions

2012
5%

4%
14%

Low carbon energy purchase

19%

14%

Other
68%

14%

62%

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

11

accompanying financial impacts because of regulatory,
physical and reputational risks.
As for the individual company performance in emissions,
42% of the responding companies (22) state that in
2013 the amount of combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions
has increased from the previous year (compared to 17
companies in 2012), while the percentage of companies
that has reduced their combined emissions remains at
52% (27).
If we look at emissions by sector (Scope 1 and 2
combined), figure 5 reflects how most companies in the
less energy intensive industries, have reduced their GHG
emissions (at least 60% of the companies in Consumer
Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Financials and Health
Care sectors). Opposite to this behaviour we can find
Energy & Oil companies and Utilities, all of which have
increased their GHG emissions in the same period.
While these companies report several reasons for their
increased emissions, all electricity producers point to the
legal requirements in Spain8 that have led to increased
consumption of coal compared to other primary energy
sources with lower carbon emissions. Gas Natural
Fenosa quantified a 69% increase in coal consumption
over the previous year, while Endesa and EDP also claim
to have increased their consumption without however
quantifying it.
The companies’ behaviour in all the other sectors is
consistent with this shift to a more carbon-intensive
energy mix in Spain and Portugal which results, in
addition to the growth of Scope 1 emissions of Utilities, in
increasing Scope 2 emissions from all other companies.

2. Initiatives and investments to
reduce emissions are increasingly
short-term
After analysing the current level of corporate GHG
emissions, we turn now to an examination of possible
future trends in emissions based on an analysis of the
companies’ reported emissions reduction targets, the
actions that companies are implementing to achieve
reductions, and the levels of progress towards achieving
these targets.
Figure 6 shows how the rate of companies that reported
emission reduction targets increases in 2013, whether
we speak of absolute targets (up from 45% to 54%) and
relative targets (up from 55% to 60%). 81% of
companies responding to the questionnaire reported at
least one GHG emission reduction target (absolute or
relative), a rate similar to that of the 500 largest
companies (83%) and well above the global average of
companies responding to CDP (68%). Since 2011 the
rate of responding companies that do not publish

Figure 9. Number of emission reduction initiatives by payback period
(2011-2013)
2013

2012

2011

< 1 year

1-3 years

> 3 years

Unknown

0

50

100

150

200

250

targets has declined from 35% to 19%, showing a great
progression in what used to be a weakness of
responding companies in previous years.
However, the time frame of these objectives might be
directing action by companies towards the short term.
Figure 7 shows in fact how the vast majority of reported
absolute targets (68%) have a maximum time frame of
five years, a window too narrow to support corporate
climate change strategies. In addition, the reduction in
the relative number of long-term goals is confirmed
again this year, suggesting that most of the new targets
reported by companies are inherently short term.
Therefore, although most of the responding companies
state they have achieved their goals or are on the way to
achieve them (71%), short-term approaches seem to
influence the emission reduction activities undertaken by
companies.
Indeed, another element that is worth noticing in this
context is the evolution of the Iberia 125 responding
companies’ approach to the implementation of
emissions reduction activities. In 2013, the formerly
favourable trend has reversed and this year, although the
number of emission reduction initiatives with economic
returns in the short and medium term (less than three
years) has increased by 24 %, this increase does not
offset the 27 % reduction in the number of activities
whose financial return is longer term (see Figure 8 and
9). This reduction of almost a third in the number of
long-term initiatives clearly overshadows the previous
upward trend.
Only three types of activities out of the eleven analyzed
categories have increased their number: low-carbon

8 The Real Decreto
134/2010 establishes a
quota of national coal
consumption of 15% of
total primary energy
consumption for
electricity production in
the Spanish market.
9 The abbreviations used
for GISC sector names
are as follows:
(CD), Consumer Staples
(CS), Energy (EGY),
Financials (FIN),
Healthcare (HC),
Industrials (IND),
Materials (MAT),
Telecommunication
Services (TCOM), Utilities
(UTIL).

12


Figure 10. Reported emission reduction initiatives summary (2013)
< 1 year

1-3 years

> 3 years

Unknown

Energy efficiency: processes
Energy efficiency: building services
Behavioral change

As a conclusion, we can see a change of focus for
companies regarding the destination of their emission
reduction investments, which are currently moving towards
activities that generate an immediate return on investment.
It follows that the main criterion for emission reduction
investments is to obtain quick returns, which, while
strengthening the business case for emission reductions,
may jeopardise the opportunity to reduce GHG emissions
and achieve higher cost savings. In short, companies are
delaying investments and reforms necessary to adapt to or
anticipate legislative changes and demands from their
stakeholders, risking to lose competitiveness against their
sector peers in other markets.

Product design
Low carbon energy installation
Transportation: fleet
Process emissions reductions
Energy efficiency: building fabric
Transportation: use
Fugitive emissions reductions

3. Decline in external verification
of GHG emissions

Low carbon energy purchase
Other

0

20

10 CDP considers as
valid an external
emissions verification
only after analysing some
requirements for the
verification reports that
companies attach to
their responses to the
CDP questionnaire. The
verification report should
clearly address GHG
emissions Scopes 1 or 2
and must be performed
according to a standard
accepted by CDP. For
more information see
https://www.cdproject.n
et/enUS/Respond/Pages/verifi
cation.aspx
11 More information on
the companies with valid
external verification
statements is included in
Appendix II.

40
60
Percentage of initiatives

related measures might have to do with the reduction
of the budget that companies devote to managing
emissions domestically. As a matter of fact, from the
reasons that companies report for investing in
emissions reductions, only compliance with regulations
and standards have increased compared to the
previous year (from 17% in 2012 to 19% in 2013). On
the contrary, the relative weight of reasons such as the
existence of a budget for energy efficiency or a budget
for product development and low-carbon services has
fallen (see Figure 11).

80

100

energy installation, energy efficiency improvements in
building fabric and low carbon energy purchase (see
Figure 10). Indeed, these activities usually have a short
or medium term payback period, except for the low
carbon energy installation (whose financial return is
longer than three years in more than 50% of the
initiatives reported to CDP).
The downtrend is especially remarkable in two of the
most important emissions reduction activities: improving
energy efficiency in industrial processes (20.5% total
reduction in 2013 in the number of initiatives over the
previous year), and energy efficiency in building services
(23.4% reduction).
A plausible explanation for the decrease in the number
of transport reduction initiatives is that at the beginning
of the economic crisis, companies quickly
implemented these initiatives (the low hanging fruit)
and today have fewer possibilities. On the other hand,
the decrease in the number of behaviour change

As already noted, most of the climate change key
performance indicators of the Iberia 125 companies
have improved in the last year. However, we have
noticed a decline in the number of companies that
perform a valid external verification of emissions10. The
percentage of companies that have reported an
external verification of its emissions has fallen in 2013
to 58% (30 companies), down from 63% in 2012 (31
companies) (see Figure KS12), meaning that the
number of companies with valid emissions verification
has not increased, even though six additional
companies have responded to the CDP questionnaire.
This is in contrast to most regional samples of CDP
and the world’s largest companies, which are
increasing the quality of the data by independent
external verification of emission inventories, confirming
the fact that emissions’ verification is already a good
practice standard in measuring the impact of
companies and a factor of transparency and credibility
of the provided information.
The reasons for the drop in verification of emissions in
Iberia 125 are not clearly stated in the companies’
responses to CDP. However, this reduction is a matter
of concern since external GHG emissions verification is
a priority for the process of disclosure as it contributes
to an improvement in the quality of corporate
management information on carbon emissions. The
growing demand from investors, customers, regulators,

13

Sonae Sierra leads the way regarding
voluntary carbon management in
Portugal and this is an advantage if it
becomes compulsory. As first movers
in its sector, the leadership and pro
active and demanding approach to
Climate Change creates a challenge
concerning the effort of compliance
of future regulations which can be
multiplied and replicated along the
value chain.

Figure 11. Methods to drive investment in emissions reduction
activities (2012-2013)
Compliance with regulatory
requirements/standards

Dedicated budget for
energy efficiency

Dedicated budget for low
carbon product R&D

Dedicated budget for other
emission reduction activities

Employee engagement

Financial optimization
calculations

Internal price of carbon

Internal incentives/recognition
programs

Internal finance
mechanisms

Lower return of investment
(ROI) specification

Marginal abatement cost
curve

Partnering with governments
on technology development

Other
Sonae

2013
5

2012

13
32

7
3

NGOs and other stakeholders is increasing the need for
testable data to ensure transparency and quality of
climate change related information. CDP’s scorings and
reports alike increasingly recognise the importance of
this aspect.11

5
2

7
2
13

36

The most remarkable fact is the jump of companies that
are currently considered best practices: from 2% in 2011
(one single company) up to 13% in 2013 (seven
companies). This advance is confirmed by the decrease
in the number of companies whose response is
considered basic from 15% in 2011 (seven companies)
to 8% in 2013 (four companies). In addition there was
also a clear transition from a set of companies with
“developing capacity” to a higher state.

12

25

10

35
20

22
11

4. Challenges for Iberian corporate
climate change strategies
The outcomes of CDP Climate Change Program since
its introduction in Spain and Portugal show progress in
climate change management of Iberia 125 companies,
particularly since the responses are evaluated in terms of
transparency (disclosure score) and performance
(performance band). To illustrate this fact we have
classified the companies that responded to the
questionnaire in the last three years in four groups
according to their performance scores. We have used
the four development states defined and used by CDP in
its guidance document “CDP Reporting Roadmap 2013:
Climate Change”12, and we have counted the number of
companies in each of these states: 1) basic response; 2)
developing capacity, 3) complete response and 4) best
practices. Figure 12 shows the percentage of
responding companies in each of the states for the
period 2011-2013.

5
5 1
3

16

12

16

Absolute numbers

Figure 12. Iberia 125 companies by their response development
degree (2013)
Best practices

Complete response

Developing capacity

Basic response

2013
2012
2011
0

20

40
60

Since the second and third states account
together for 79% of responding companies, we
will illustrate here some next key steps for these
companies.
Companies developing capacity13
This group of companies includes those that,
from the experience of using the CDP

80

100

12 See “CDP Reporting
Roadmap 2013: Climate
Change” at
https://www.cdproject.net/Docu
ments/Guidance/RoadmapClimate-Change-2013.pdf
13 In 2013, companies included
in this definition are: Acerinox,
Atresmedia, Banco Popular
Español, Banco Sabadell, Banif,
Bankia, BBVA, Ercros, Gamesa,
Indra, Mediaset España and Zon
Multimedia.

14


questionnaire to answer investors request, have already
identified the main necessary internal actions to manage
climate change and are developing and implementing
them. This allows companies to increasingly provide a
more complete response to the questionnaire and to
demonstrate its improved performance through the
management of climate change related risks and
opportunities and their gradual integration into the
company’s strategy. The main benefit these companies
get from responding to the CDP questionnaire is the
creation of awareness within the company regarding the
need to manage climate change. Moreover, it facilitates
the development of a long term plan for this
management.
The main recommendations for further progress in Iberia
125 companies in this group are:
A. To set explicit and clear GHG emission reduction
targets. A quality emission reduction target should
explain the base year to which it relates and the
emissions in the base year, the year to achieve the
target, the scope to which it applies and the percentage
of emissions covered. Besides, the objective should
express the magnitude of reductions aimed at either in
absolute terms or relative (referring to another variable
such as turnover, the number of employees or other), in
which case it is advisable to estimate the equivalent
absolute reductions.
B. To report the mechanisms the company uses to
invest in emission reduction initiatives. This
mechanism of transparency is an important step to
structure the emission reduction investment around
strategies that go beyond mere compliance and
achieving quick savings.
C. To publicly report on the company emissions
reduction initiatives and its products or services that
help reduce emissions, if any. A good practice would
include estimating the net annual emission reductions of
each activity, resulting economic savings, investments
and estimated return period. Consider only relevant
initiatives that generate significant emissions reductions
to achieve reduction targets.

14 In 2013 companies
that were included in this
definition are: Abertis,
Amadeus, Arcelor Mittal,
Banco Comercial
Portugués, Banco
Santander, Bankinter,
CaixaBank, CIE
Automotive, EDP,
Enagás, Endesa, FCC,
Galp, Grifols, Iberdrola,
Inditex, International
Consolidated Airlines,
Jerónimo Martins,
Mapfre, Melia Hotels
International, Miquel y
Costas, NH Hoteles,
OHL, REE, REN, Repsol,
Sonaecom, Técnicas
Reunidas and Telefónica.

D. To choose an external verification standard for
emissions inventory and to prepare for compliance.
The verification aims to ensure the quality of information
provided in the questionnaire, for which the standard
chosen must meet certain requirements concerning their
relevance, competence, independence, terminology and
accessibility. To view the standards that meet these
criteria according to CDP see “CDP’s approach to
verification” in https://www.cdproject.net/enus/respond/pages/verification.aspx
Companies with a complete response14
Companies within this group have several years
experience in responding to CDP Climate Change

questionnaire. They have developed policies and
systems and have already managed to respond to the
full questionnaire, providing detailed and quantified
information, particularized for the company in
question. Their challenge is not only to improve the
response to the questionnaire but to go forward in
reducing emissions and minimising the impact of the
activities on climate. They should provide very detailed
reporting to stakeholders. These companies often
claim to have developed new business lines from
previously identified opportunities associated with
climate change and have reduced costs through
measures to improve efficiency.
As noted, the challenge for these companies is to
become performance leaders in GHG emissions
management, and to achieve a real integration of climate
change into their business strategy for the long term.
The main recommendations to achieve this are:
A. Companies that want to be leaders in their climate
change action should set absolute GHG emission
reduction targets for the long-term. We recommend
a time frame of more than ten years, but at least it
should be more than five years. Besides, the goals must
be meaningful, by which we mean that they should
cover a good portion of their Scope 1 and 2 emissions,
and that the magnitude of the reduction should be really
a challenge for the company, going beyond business as
usual.
B. To link the budget for emission reduction with
the risks and opportunities identified and the
climate change strategy of the company.
Companies must invest in emission reduction actions
having long payback periods. Having a budget line
dedicated to emission reduction actions, energy
efficiency and development of new low-carbon products
can help. Other advanced mechanisms may be setting a
domestic price on carbon and establishing long-term
partnerships in technology development programs.

MAPFRE recognized Climate Change
as an issue of long term strategic
importance for the company. Such is
proven by the launch of multiple
climate change related insurance
products, in key fields such as
renewable energy, energy efficiency,
forestation and many others.
MAPFRE

15

C. These companies should pay special attention to
implement emissions reduction initiatives with long
payback periods (over 3 years). The initiatives may
extend efforts to reduce emissions of range 3, plus the
Scope 1 and 2. They must clearly contribute to a longterm low carbon strategy and go beyond legal
requirements compliance.

D. To annually conduct an emission inventories
external verification, which at least covers Scope 1
and 2 (Scope 3 also desirable) and according to
standards that meet the quality criteria of CDP (see
CDP’s approach to verification
https://www.cdproject.net/enus/respond/pages/verification.aspx )

Respondent company interview: Obrascon Huarte Lain, S.A.
1. Are you integrating climate change considerations in
your products and services? How?
“Climate change is presented as one of our main concerns. In
this regard, the climate change considerations are reflected
into the Group commitments, such as the “Commitment to
Fight against Climate Change” adopted in 2011, which serves
as a guideline for the OHL’s activities.

The benefits obtained are basically:
wider access to procurement processes for the
development of new projects or services;
improvement of the public image and
some cost savings that result, for example:

Some initiatives, among others, that have been carried out in
order to integrate climate change considerations are the
following:

– from a reduction in energy consumption,

to include an Environmental Management Plan for
emissions and energy in all tenders and contracts;

– from a greater regulatory control.”

to develop a Sustainable Mobility Plan, and
to start with the calculation of suppliers’ emissions.
OHL considers the CDP as an allied partner to progress
towards a low-carbon economy. As a direct consequence of
the explained before, is that OHL’s performance in Carbon
Footprint has improved, and this has been recognised by the
CDP scoring of 94B in 2012 and including OHL among a
select group in the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index.”
2. What motivates you to incorporate environmental
externalities into your decision-making and products?
Are you experiencing any benefits or competitive
advantage as a result?
“OHL is motivated to incorporate environmental externalities
by the requirements of their customers, according with the
Group commitment to provide them the maximum
satisfaction. Also, the regulations and standards, the
economic factors and the benefits for the surrounding
environment are included among the main reasons.

– from a sustainable use of other resources, and

3. According to report findings, companies are
increasingly switching to a short-term approach to
climate change. Given that the Iberian economy is
projected to recover, how can you determine if the
company has a long-term viable strategy to manage
climate change?
“OHL is ever more an international Group, with operations
across the five continents and with a 67% of international sales
at the end of 2012. In relation to the climate change strategy,
the OHL Group needs to be focused with a worldwide scope.
In this way, the Group pretends to stay ahead and to undertake
the last initiatives proposed all around the world.
At national level, the Spanish Government and the Spanish
Office for Climate Change (OECC) are working on a strategy,
increasing guidelines and proposals, including, for example, the
development of new regulations related with the calculation of
the carbon footprint and its reduction, based on the European
Decision No 406/2009/EC on the effort of Member States to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s
reduction commitments up to 2020. OHL is following these
efforts involved into the major working groups in the sector.”
Mr. Manuel Villén Naranjo
Chief Innovation and Sustainability Officer
Obrascon Huarte Lain, SA

16

Iberia 125 2013 leaders

Criteria for 2013 leaders
Each year, company responses are analysed and scored
against two parallel scoring schemes: disclosure and
performance.
The disclosure score assesses the completeness and
quality of a company’s response. Its purpose is to
provide a summary of the extent to which companies
have answered CDP’s questions in a structured format.
A high disclosure score signals that a company provided
comprehensive information about the measurement and
management of its carbon footprint, its climate change
strategy and risk management processes and outcomes.

15 For further
information on the CDLI
and the CPLI and how
scores are determined,
please visit
www.cdproject.net/
guidance

The performance score assesses the level of action, as
reported by the company, on climate change mitigation,
adaptation and transparency. Its intent is to highlight
positive climate action as demonstrated by a company’s
CDP response. A high performance score signals that a
company is measuring, verifying and managing its
carbon footprint, for example by setting and meeting
carbon reduction targets and implementing programs to
reduce emissions in both its direct operations and
supply chain.

The highest scoring companies for disclosure and/or
performance enter the Climate Disclosure Leadership
Index (CDLI) and/or the Climate Performance Leadership
Index (CPLI). Public scores are available in CDP reports,
through Bloomberg Terminals, Google Finance and
Deutsche Boerse’s website.

What are the CDLI and CPLI criteria?
To enter the Iberia 125 CDLI, a company must:
Make its response public and submit via CDP’s Online
Response System
Achieve a score within the top 10% of the Iberia 125
population (14 companies in 2013)
To enter the CPLI (Performance Band A), a company must:
Make its response public and submit via CDP’s Online
Response System
Attain a performance score greater than 85
Score maximum performance points on question
12.1a (absolute emissions performance) for GHG

CDP questionnaire goes beyond: companies responding on their own initiative
What about non-listed companies in CDP?
Traditionally, only stock market listed companies are requested
to respond to CDP. But what about non-listed companies and
family owned businesses that want to measure, manage and
disclose their climate change data and compare themselves to
their peers or customers?

support from CDP in-house experts as well as coaching from
our consultancy partners. In a second step, the companies’
results will be subject to a detailed evaluation, highlighting
areas of potential improvement and comparative analyses with
relevant competitors and/or customers. The focus of the
initiative is “support our members”.

For these companies - which anticipate opportunities from
responding to CDP - we created the CDP non-listed initiative:
This initiative allows non-listed companies of all sizes to
evaluate their emissions management and their understanding
of potential climate change impacts by using the leading
international CDP reporting standard. Members receive

Launched in Germany in 2011, CDP decided to expand the
initiative to the whole of Europe this year. We currently have
two Southern European companies participating: CTT –
Correios de Portugal who started off with a first-time score of
86 B and the Sofidel Group, an Italian paper manufacturer,
who achieved a score of 73 C.

Current members of the CDP
non-listed initiative
CTT – Portuguese Post
Delipaper
Evonik
Flughafen München
Gesobau
Hermes
HSE

Infraserv
Jean Müller
Robert Bosch
Sofidel Group
Tetra Pak
Werra Papier
Wiedemann Wachswaren

5 good reasons to report voluntarily:
Compare yourself with over 5,000 companies worldwide by
using the established CDP reporting standard
Evaluate your emissions management and discover new
opportunities in your internal reporting infrastructure
Anticipate climate change related risks (e.g. mandatory
GHG-reporting in your country)
Be named in the prestigious local annual report (CDP Iberia
Report/CDP Italy Report)
Become an active member of the CDP network and
participate in the local launch events and spring workshops
For further information, please contact the CDP Southern
Europe Team | cdpiberia@cdp.net or +39 02 3051 6041

17

reductions due to emission reduction actions over the
past year (4% or above in 2013)
Disclose gross global Scope 1 and Scope 2 figures
Score maximum performance points for verification of
Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions
Furthermore, CDP reserves the right to exclude any
company from the CPLI if there is anything in its
response or other publicly available information that calls
into question its suitability for inclusion.
Note: Companies that achieve a performance score high
enough to warrant inclusion in the CPLI, but do not meet
all of the other CPLI requirements are classed as
Performance Band A- but are not included in the CPLI.

How are the CDLI and CPLI used by
investors?
Good disclosure and performance scores are used by
investors as a proxy of good climate change management
or climate change performance of companies.
Investors identify and then engage with companies to
encourage them to improve their score. The ‘Aiming for
A’ initiative which was initiated by CCLA Investment
Management is driven by a coalition of UK asset owners
and mutual fund managers. They are asking ten major
UK-listed utilities and extractives companies to aim for
inclusion in the CPLI. This may involve filing supportive
shareholder resolutions for Annual General Meetings
occurring after September 2013.
Investors are also using CDP scores for creation of
financial products. For example, Nedbank in South
Africa developed the Nedbank Green Index. Disclosure
scores are used for selecting stocks and performance
scores for assigning weight.15

For the first time a company, Gas Natural Fenosa has
reached the maximum score of 100. Four more
companies find themselves at just one point below
(Banco Espírito Santo, Ferrovial, Galp Energia, Iberdrola),
all of them improving their 2012 scores.
This year CDP wants to recognise as well those
companies that respond to the CDP questionnaire on
their own initiative, i.e., without having received the
request from institutional investors CDP signatories,
and that have obtained a score within the CDLI range
that locates them in a leadership position. In table 3 we
find Caixa Geral de Depósitios, a non-listed company
that discloses through CDP on its own initiative and
which managed to increase its discloser score by
Table 2: Iberia 125 Climate Disclosure Leadership Index
Sector

Disclosure
score

Spain

Utilities

100

Portugal

Financials

99

Ferrovial

Spain

Industrials

99

Galp Energia

Portugal

Energy

99

Iberdrola

Spain

Utilities

99

Endesa

Spain

Utilities

98

Repsol

Spain

Energy

98

Sonae

Portugal

Consumer staples

98

Acciona

Spain

Industrials

97

CaixaBank

Spain

Financials

97

EDP – Energias de Portugal

Portugal

Utilities

97

Abengoa

Spain

Industrials

95

Sonaecom

Portugal

Telecommunication services

95

Telefónica

Spain


95

Company name

Country

Gas Natural Fenosa
Banco Espírito Santo

Table 3: Non-listed companies having reached a discloser score
in the CDLI range
Company name

Country

Sector

Caixa Geral de Depósitos

Portugal

Disclosure
score

Financials

99

Table 4: Iberia 125 Climate Performance Leadership Index

Climate Disclosure Leadership Index

Performance
band

Company name

Disclosure scores of Iberia 125 responding companies in
2013 have improved significantly from 2012, following
the trend of previous years and proving that reporting on
climate change is a learning and improvement process
for businesses. While the increase in the average score
does not seem relevant (78 in 2013 up from 76 in 2012),
the number of companies that have obtained a score of
95 or more has increased from 6 to 14 in the same
period. The so-called “high scores”, companies with a
score higher than 70 points have increased from 52%
(25) in 2011 to 73% (38) in 2013.
Table 2 shows the companies included in the Iberia 125
CDLI. This year the minimum score in the CDLI is 95.

Country

Sector

Ferrovial

Spain

Industrials

Sonae

Portugal

Consumer staples

A

Abengoa

Spain

Industrials

A

A

Gas Natural Fenosa

Spain

Utilities

A

Acciona

Spain

Industrials

A

Portugal Telecom

Portugal


A

Table 5: Non-listed companies having reached a performance score
in the CPLI band
Company name

Country

Sector


Portugal

Financials

Performance
band

18

Iberia 125 2013 leaders continued

12 percentage points to 99 in 2013. These results
demonstrate the high level of transparency of Iberian
responding companies.

review of the performance levels immediately below
shows a clear improvement. In fact, the number of
companies in the A- and B bands has grown from 15 in
2012 to 20 in 2013.

Climate Performance Leadership
Index

Table 4 shows the companies included in the CPLI.
Ferrovial, Abengoa, Gas Natural Fenosa and Acciona
have reconfirmed their climate performance leadership
position. This year two Portuguese companies,
Portugal Telecom and Sonae have entered the CPLI for
the first time. As a non-listed voluntary respondent,
Caixa Geral de Depósitos has reached once again a
CPLI level score.

Improved disclosure has been accompanied,
unsurprisingly, by improved levels of performance in
climate change management in Iberia 125 companies.
While the number of companies that have achieved the
highest score band A remains at six, akin to last year, a

Interview with a company responding CDP on its own initiative: Caixa Geral de Depósitos
1. Caixa Geral de Depósitos, who has repeatedly been
reporting to CDP on a voluntary basis, is one of the
financial groups with the highest CDP climate
performance score in Iberia. What motivates you to
report to CDP and excel in climate mitigation and
adaptation? Which benefits have you found in reporting
(voluntarily) to CDP?
CGD established in 2007 its Programa Caixa Carbono Zero Low Carbon Programme (LCP), an unique initiative in the
Portuguese financial sector, which aligned CGD with international
best practices for facing climate change as a priority issue.
The LCP is the result of strategic reflection on the risks and
opportunities that the issue poses to CGD’s activities and is
based on five lines of action: 1) CGD informs about its carbon
emissions; 2) CGD reduces energy spending and carbon
emissions; 3) CGD compensates inevitable carbon emissions; 4)
CGD develops low carbon business and 5) CGD communicates
on carbon literacy. These lines place CGD in a leading position in
responding to the new demands of an economy where
restrictions on carbon emissions are already a reality.

strategy of CGD, and also provide knowledge about how
employees can contribute to achieve CGD’s carbon related
goals, and which behaviours may help to minimize the carbon
footprint of CGD’s activity.
The Bank also shares information on climate change issues,
through its internal communication tools (CaixaNotícias’ and
‘NósCaixa’). As regards to external communication and
awareness, CGD through its website disseminates information on
climate change management, namely: The Carbon Calculator;
Practical Low Carbon Guides and Day by Day Zero Carbon.
Other initiatives which aim to increase people’s awareness and
knowledge are the New Generation of Polar Scientists
Programme, Carbon Literacy Programme, Caixa Forest and the
Design Competition for Furniture Made with Recycled Materials.
3. Analysis from the G500 companies shows that current
reporting of indirect scope 3 emissions is still insufficient
and does not reveal the full impact of companies’ value
chains. How do you identify which scope 3 emissions
might be relevant, how do you measure them, and what,
if anything, are you doing to address them?

Voluntary reporting is a mean to communicate CGD’s Low
Carbon Program and its results and reinforces the
engagement of CGD with its stakeholders regarding climate
change. Also, it should be noted that the energy efficiency
measures implemented by CGD have greatly contributed to
the improvement of the environmental performance, meaning
relevant reductions in operational costs.

CGD conducted an analysis of all the categories of Scope 3,
according to the Guidelines ‘Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3)
Accounting and Reporting Standard GHG Protocol’ and tried
to report as much as relevant and possible. To this end, CGD
took into account several aspects, such as the internal and
external information available, the business sector in which
operates and the resources of the company available.

2. What does your company do to increase people’s
competences and skills with regards to climate change
management?

Based on the measurement of scope 3 emissions, CGD
defined several measures which aim the reduction of the
global footprint, such as: Mobility Plan, Renewable Energy
Credit, CGD Zero Carbon Card and other environmental
related products.

CGD considerers that information together with
communication, are essential for the success of its LCP and
for that has been working to build competencies and
awareness regarding climate change management. CGD
provides training in environmental and climate change matters.
An e-learning has been developed to all employees with the
aim to provide knowledge on the environmental policy and

CGD intends to improve its materiality analysis, working hard
with external stakeholders (e.g. suppliers and service
providers), in order to assess the applicability of each category
in a more accurate way, and to calculate more rigorously the
GHG emissions associated with each category.

19

Key statistics

This chapter includes the key statistics to track the
evolution of responses every year and between sectors16.

Key disclosure statistics17
In 2013 six more companies have responded increasing
the response rate to 44%. This is the largest increase
since the sample Iberia 125 has been established,
coinciding with a time when many companies affected
by the crisis have been forced to reduce the resources
devoted to reporting on non-financial issues in general
and climate change in particular.

This year the number of companies who explained its
refusal to provide information on their emissions and
climate change strategy has increased too. 24% of the
companies that explained its refusal to answer the CDP
questionnaire said they lacked the resources to do so,
while 29% indicated that they are in the early phases of
climate change monitoring. Moreover, 18% of the
companies in the sample could not identify anyone
responsible for reporting on climate change, which most
likely also indicates that there are no dedicated
resources to this task.

Key emissions statistics
This figure is slightly marred by the fact that the number
of Iberia 125 companies publicly responding has
stagnated since 2011 while the number of non-public
responses is growing (see Figure KS1). Climate change
information transparency is not only an important
principle for investors meaning the first step in ensuring
the quality of information, but it is also a prerequisite for
companies that intend to join CDLI and CPLI indexes.

Total Scope 1 and 2 emissions reported by
companies19 in 2013 add up to a total of 390 M tCO2e,
an amount slightly lower than in the previous year (the
reduction is less than 1%). The Utilities and Materials
sectors remain by far the biggest emitters for emissions
of Scope 1 and 2, jointly standing for more than 83% of
the total.

KS1 Responses summary (2011-2013)
Answered questionnaire,
response publicly
available

Answered questionnaire,
response not publicly
available

Indirect answer.
The company refers
to matrix

Declined to participate

41

CD

22%

CS

20%

50%

FIN
11 3

42

31

7 2 14

30%
14%

IT

60

42

6 2 11

64

9%

13%

HC

39

7%

14%

17%

MAT
2011

10%
100%

IND
2012

11%

EGY

No response
2013

KS2 Companies responding to CDP publicly and privately by
sector in percentage (2013)
Public
Non public

17%
60%

TCOM

20%
100%

UTIL
0

25

50
75
Number of companies

100

125

KS3 Year on year percentage of responding companies
disclosing Scope 1 or Scope 2 GHG emissions (2011-2013)18
2013

98%

2012

100%

2011

92%
0

20

40

0

20

40

60

80

100

16 Here and in the sector analysis of this report we have used the GICS classification. The
sectors and the abbreviations used are: consumer discretionary (CD), consumer staples (CS),
energy (EGY), financials (FIN), healthcare (HC), industrials (IND), information technologies (IT),
materials (MAT), telecommunications services, (TCOM) and utilities (UTIL).
17 The CDP questionnaire was answered by 55 companies, of which three were referred to the
response of a parent company. The percentages indicated in the figures KS1, KS2 and KS3
include these responses to provide a complete picture of the response rate (with the final figure
as of July 31, 2013), however the remaining analysis in this report is based on a total of 52
responses from companies, which excludes 3 indirect responses via parent company. The
number of companies that report their emissions in Scope 1 or 2 includes those who have made
“0” as the figure for their emissions.

60

80

100

18 The number of companies that report their emissions in Scope 1 or 2 includes those who
have made “0” as the amount of emissions.
19 It should be noted that although we are dealing with Spanish and Portuguese companies,
their emissions and reporting are not limited to these countries. Reported emissions are the
companies’ global emissions including those that occur anywhere in the world.

20

Key statistics continued

It should be noted that due to a change in CDP
approach to Scope 2 emissions, emissions figures of
this scope in 2013 are not comparable with the figures
published in previous years. When calculating Scope 2
emissions, companies can now incorporate specific
emission factors associated with energy supply from
renewable sources, if there is an appropriate monitoring
tool. This new approach can result in lower Scope 2
emission figures than the previous one.

questionnaire have identified and measured a maximum
of two Scope 3 emissions categories, with “business
travels” being the most reported category. Only 13% of
companies have measured more than four relevant
sources of Scope 3 emissions, and only 10% have
evaluated emissions from the use of its products.
Therefore we can see that Scope 3 measurement is still
not a consolidated practice in Iberia 125 sample and,
with few exceptions, most companies do not identify,
measure and report their main sources of Scope 3
emissions.

Measuring Scope 3 emissions follows a very slow
progression. 73% of companies that responded to the

KS4 Total Scope 1 emissions reported by Iberia 125
responding companies (M tCO2e) (2011-2013)

responding companies (MtCO2e) (2011-2013)

2013

350 (52 companies)

2013

40 (52 companies)

2012

357 (49 companies)

2012

36 (49 companies)

2011

333 (48 companies)

2011

38 (48 companies)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

responding companies by sector (KtCO2e) (2013)

0

10

20

30

40

50

responding companies by sector (KtCO2e) (2013)

CD (6)

175

CD (6)

CS (3)

407

CS (3)

944

EGY (2)

1.026

FIN (12)

MAT (5)

158.752

TCOM (4)

UTIL (7)

UTIL (7)
160.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0

134.742

1.830
12.024
0

TCOM (4) 134

18.015

20.000

MAT (5)

47

18.000

IT (2)

8

2.029

16.000

IT (2)

IND (10)

38.452

14.000

IND (10)

104

12.000

HC (1)

10.000

83

8.000

HC (1)

3.011

6.000

100

4.000

FIN (12)

2.000

17.383

EGY (2)

626

21

KS8 Number of Scope 3 categories identified by responding
companies as relevant and reported with emissions data (2013)20
1 1

3

0 categories

9

2

Companies with verification/assurance approved

1 category

Companies reporting verification/assurance underway,
first year it has taken place

2 categories

5

KS10 Third party verification/assurance of emissions
reported and approved (complete or underway, any scope)
(2011-2013)21

3 categories
4 categories

2

2013 (Iberia 125)

14

6 categories

30

2012 (Iberia 125)

5 categories

30

1

7 categories
8 categories

15

2011 (Iberia 125)

26
22

Number of companies

24

26

28

30

32

Number of companies

KS9 Number of companies reporting data for relevant Scope
3 categories, by category and sector (2013)

CD (6)

CS (3)

EGY (2)

HC (1)

IND (10)

IT (2)

MAT (5)

TCOM (4)

20 Only companies that
published their Scope 3
emissions categories
using the Greenhouse
Gas Protocol Scope 3
Standard have been
accounted. While in
some cases the category
“others” can be
legitimate elections, in
most cases, the data
contained in these
categories should be
assigned to one of the
above categories.
Companies are
encouraged to publish
their Scope 3 emissions
data using these specific
categories when
appropriate, since in
case of failing to do so
and using the categories
“other”, quality of the
data and therefore the
usefulness of the data for
investors, are greatly
affected. We have made
no attempt to attribute
categories subjectively
when companies have
selected “Other”.
Moreover, we have only
included the categories
for which emissions have
provided figures that are
greater than zero are
identified as relevant in
the questionnaire.

FIN (12)

UTIL (7)

Purchased goods and services
1

6

1

1

Fuel and energy related activities
1

1

1

Upstream transportation and distribution
1

Waste generated in operations
1

1

Business travel
1

8

1

2

Employee commuting
2

2

1

1

Downstream transportation and distribution
1

1

1

1

Use of sold products
2

2

1

None
1
0

1

1
2

1

3
4

3
6

8

10

12

14

21 In Figure KS10, the
term “communicated
and approved” refers to
the fact that the
calculation of companies
with verification is based
on CDP evaluation and
scoring of the verification
reports attached to the
questionnaire responses.
Companies that report
emissions verification in
more than one scope,
have been recorded only
once in the figure.

22

Key statistics continued

Key best practices statistics
As already noted, all indicators of best practices have improved in this edition with the exception of external verification of
emissions.
KS14 Disclose targets by sector (2013)

KS11 Board or other senior management oversight
by sector (2013)
Board or other comitte

Intensity

Absolute

Other senior management
oversight

CD
CS
EGY
FIN
HC
IND
IT
MAT
TCOM
UTIL

Ahead of or met

CD
CS
EGY
FIN
HC

0

20

40
60

80

100

IND

KS12 Rewarding climate change progress by sector (2013)
Monetary Reward

IT

Other types of incentives

CD
CS
EGY
FIN
HC
IND
IT
MAT
TCOM
UTIL

MAT
TCOM
UTIL
0

20

40

60

80

100


0

20

40
60

80

100

KS13 Demonstration of climate change being integrated into
overall business strategy by sector (2013)

KI15 Emissions reduction due to implementation activities by
sector (2013)22

CD
CS
EGY
FIN
HC
IND
IT
MAT
TCOM
UTIL

CD
CS
EGY
FIN
HC
IND
IT
MAT
TCOM
UTIL
0

20

40
60

80

100

0

20

40
60

80

100

23

Sector analysis

Introduction
Sector analysis of CDP questionnaire responses by
sector allows identifying trends that only make sense
when taking into account the business context of each
sector.
Using CDP general criteria we have classified the sample
companies according to the ten sectors defined by the
Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). However,
of these ten sectors we have chosen only those which
have more than five responding companies, as we
consider below this amount results may be
unrepresentative. Thus, the sectors of this analysis are
Consumer Discretionary (six companies), Financials (13
companies), Industrials (ten companies), Materials (six
companies) and Utilities (eight companies)23.

Abertis promotes different
measures in order to provide
incentives to customers to adopt
practices that contribute to emissions
reduction, like carpooling or the use
of electronic payment toll road
systems.
Abertis

As already noted, all key best practices statistics have
improved in this edition with the exception of external
verification of emissions. Industrials and Utilities are
above the average in most indicators. Conversely, the
Materials sector, the biggest emitter in the sample, has a
lower performance in terms of best practices in all the
sections. This shows the maturity of the Industrial and
Utilities sector in climate change management and in the
assumption of responsibility on the high impact
generated.
Thus, from the response rate of 33% of the sectors of
Discretionary Consumption and Materials, up to 100% of
responses from Utilities, we observed response rates of
37% in the Industrials sector and 59% in the Financials
sector. Moreover, the Industrials sector is the top
performer with three companies with an A as
performance band, while one company from the Utilities
sector has the same band A, one company from the
Financials sector has a band A- and none from
Consumer Discretionary or Materials sectors reaches
above the B performance band.

22 Companies can
communicate several
emission reductions due
to the implementation of
the activities, targets or
performance incentives.
In all these cases,
companies are counted
only once in the statistics
presented below, with
the exception of the
statistics of absolute
targets and objectives
relating to companies
that have both types of
target are counted once
in each type
23 These figures include
all the responses to CDP
questionnaire including
indirect answers from
companies that have
included information in
the response of its
parent company. The
rest of the analysis in this
section has been made
only from direct answers.
Companies that have
responded indirectly are
indicated in the list of
companies that match
the initials “(SA)”.

24


SECTOR RESPONSE RATE

33%

(6 OUT OF 18)

Responding companies
CIE Automotive
Inditex
Melia Hotels International
NH Hoteles

Atresmedia (NP)
Mediaset Espana
Comunicacion (NP)

Under the Scope 3 Standard, Inditex
is working to gather accurate and
comparable data from the supply
chain. Also, Inditex is providing
guidance and advice to suppliers on
how carbon reporting can enable
them to monitor emissions and obtain
costs savings.
Inditex

Non responding companies
Azkoyen
Codere
Cofina
Estoril Sol
Fluidra

Ibersol
Impresa
Media Capital
Prisa
SAG

175,144

Toyota Caetano
Vertice Trescientos
Sesenta

The Consumer Discretionary sector includes 11% of the
Iberia 125 responding companies in 2013, and is
responsible for 0.21% of total Scope 1 and 2 combined
emissions. It is a sector with low emissions in their
production processes whose Scope 3 emissions are not
very significant (slightly less than twice the emissions of
Scope 1 and 2).

tCO2e

Scope 1 total reported emissions

625,758

0.21%

tCO2e


Scope 1+2 emission
percentage from total
Iberia 125 emissions

1.98
Scope 3 / Scope 1+2 ratio

74 C

Sector average disclosure score and
performance band

Figure 1CD. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector responding
companies

Disclosure Score

CIE Automotive

Melia Hotels
Internacional

80
NH Hoteles

According to the CDP Reporting Roadmap
classification, 66% of the Consumer Discretionary
responding companies are currently providing a
complete response to the questionnaire that needs to
incorporate best practices in order to approach the
leaders. Some 33% of companies are still in the phase
of developing capacities to offer a complete answer.

Inditex

70
Atresmedia

60

50

Mediaset

E

D

C
B
Performance Band

Over 80% of the Consumer Discretionary responding
companies are ahead of their emission reduction targets.
However, their levels of disclosure and performance are
below the average with an average score of 74 C.
Public policies that most interest this sector are
mandatory reporting concerning climate change
management and adaptation to climate change, but only
a third of companies conduct direct engagement in
these areas.

100

90

The heterogeneity of this sector does not allow
generalisations in their emissions profile. The sample
includes sub-industries as diverse as media, hotels, retail
or automotive components. The Scope 3 emissions
inventories of these companies is rather limited with
most of the companies providing only the calculation for
business travel or commuting. Highlighted in this section
is the inventory of emissions generated by the transport
of Inditex products or emissions due to wastes and
waste treatment in the activity of NH Hoteles.

A-

A

25

Scope 3 emissions categories most reported in the sector
Employee commuting (2)
Business travel (1)
Downstream transportation and distribution (1)
Waste generated in operations (1)

Figure 2CD. Percentage of companies with emission
reduction targets and level of achievement in the sector

Figure 5CD. Most commonly reported risks
Changes in temperature extremes

Reputation


Changing consumer behaviour


0

20

40
60

80

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Figure 3CD. Engagement methods reported by the
companies in the sector

Figure 6CD. Most commonly reported opportunities
Changes in mean (average) temperature

Direct engagement
Reputation

Trade associations


Funding research organizations
Other

0

20

40

60

80

100


No

0

10

20
30

40

50

Figure 4CD. Engagement themes reported by the companies
in the sector

Figure 7CD. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company
(2011-2013)

Mandatory carbon reporting

350,000

Adaptation resiliency

300,000

Other

250,000

0

3

6

9

12

15

200,000

18


150,000
100,000
50,000
2011

2012

2013

CIE Automotive


Inditex

NH Hoteles

Informe CDP ingles 2013 27/11/13 09:47 Página 26

26

Financials


59%

(13 OUT OF 22)

Banco Comercial Portugués
Banco Popular Español
Banco Sabadell
Banco Santander

Banif
Bankinter
BBVA
CaixaBank
Mapfre

Bankia (NP)
Bolsas y Mercados
Españoles (NP)
Espírito Santo Financial
Group (SA

Banco BPI
Corporación Financiera Alba
Dinamia Capital Privado
Quabit Inmobiliaria

100,422

Realia Business
Renta4 Banco
Sociedade Comercial
Orey Antunes
Sonae Capital


tCO2e


800,509

0.23%

tCO2e


Scope 1+2 emission

0.26

73 C

performance band

Figure 1FIN. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector responding
companies
100
Caixa Bank

Disclosure Score

90
Banco Comercial
Portugués
Bankinter

Mapfre

Banco
Sabadell
Banif

60

Banco Popular
Español
Bankia

50

While Scope 3 emissions reported by Financials’
companies represent only 35% of combined Scope 1 and
2 emissions, Scope 3 emissions inventories of these
companies are very small and limited to the calculation of
emissions from business travels (eight companies),
employee commuting (2) and purchased products (1). No
company has reported emissions from their investment
portfolios, although it is a common practice among
Financials’ companies to report investments in renewable
energies as an indirect action to reduce GHG emissions.
Public policies in which most companies in this sector
are engaging are energy efficiency and clean energy
generation to represent a field needing funding and
financial services. However it is surprising that only 8%
of businesses state to engage on climate change
financing, the same level as much less specific issues in
this sector as emissions’ trading or mandatory reporting
on climate change.

80

70

With 13 companies, the Financials sector is the largest
in terms of companies that responded to the
questionnaire in 2013. The response rate (59%) is above
average and just below that of the Utilities,
Telecommunications and Energy sectors. The sector is
responsible for only 0.23% of reported Scope 1 and 2
emissions from responding Iberia 125 companies. It
should be emphasised, however, that the sector come
third in the amount of Scope 2 emissions, with 3.01
million tCO2e and above sectors such as Industrials.

Banco
Espirito Santo

Banco
Santander

BBVA

Banco Espirito Santo understands
that the changing consumer
behaviour is an interesting driver for
product development and an
opportunity to reinforce reputation
through engagement and awareness.
As public concern about climate
change grows, consumers are
increasingly interested in buying
products that have a positive
contribution to the environment.

E

D

C
B
Performance Band

A-

A

Assessment of the actions of the Financials shows that
they are underperforming with a score of 73 C. However,
the group of companies form a very broad spectrum
including companies with a very basic answer to leaders
like Banco Espírito Santo (99 A-) or CaixaBank (97 B).

27

Business travel (8)
Employee commuting (2)
Purchased goods and services (1)

Figure 2FIN. Percentage of companies with emission

Figure 5FIN. Most commonly reported risks
Cap and trade schemes

Fuel/energy taxes and regulation


General environmental regulations, including planning


0

10

20

30
40
50

60

70

Changes in precipitation extremes and droughts
Reputation

Figure 3FIN. Engagement methods reported by the

0

20

40

60

80

Direct engagement
Figure 6FIN. Most commonly reported opportunities

Trade associations

Reputation



Other
No

0

0
10

20

30
40
50

60

20

40
60

80

100

70

Figure 7FIN. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company
(2011-2013)
500,000

Figure 4FIN. Engagement themes reported by the

450,000
400,000


350,000
300,000

Cap and trade

250,000

Energy efficiency

200,000
150,000

Clean energy generation

100,000

Climate finance

50,000
0

Other

2011

0

Banco Com. Portugués
Banco Espirito Santo
Banco Popular Español

5

10
15
20

25

30

2012

2013
Banco Sabadell
Banco Santander
Banif

Bankinter
BBVA
Caixa Bank
Mapfre


28

Industrials


37%

(10 OUT OF 27)

Abengoa
Abertis Infraestructuras
Acciona
Ferrovial

Gamesa
International
Consolidated
Airlines Group

Martifer
OHL
FCC (NP)
Técnicas Reunidas (NP)

ACS
Brisa Auto-Estradas
de Portugal
CAF
Duro Felguera
Fersa Energías
Renovables

Grupo Empresarial
San José
Grupo Soares da Costa
Mota-Engil
Prosegur
Sacyr Vallehermoso
Semapa

38,452,203

Service Point Solutions
Solaria Energía y Medio
Ambiente
Sonae Indústria
Teixeira Duarte
Vueling
Zardoya Otis

tCO2e


2,028,623

10.44%

tCO2e


Scope 1+2 emission

10.96

79 B

performance band

Figure 1IND. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector responding
companies
Ferrovial

100

Acciona
OHL

Abengoa

Disclosure Score

90
Técnicas
Reunidas

IAG
Albertis

80
FCC

70
Gamesa

60

50

E

D

C
B
Performance Band

A-

A

Ferrovial has worked in recent years
on the development of new models of
finance, based on public-private
cooperation which could make it
possible gradually to renew the current
stock of buildings in the medium to
long term. It is an alternative for the
building sector, but also a great
opportunity for the country as a whole
because of its potential to generate
economic activity and jobs.
Ferrovial

The Industrials sector is the second largest of the
sample. With ten companies responding to the
questionnaire in 2013, it represents 19% of the
responses to the questionnaire. Industrial activity is the
third in volume of Scope 1 and 2 emissions with a total
of just above 40 million tCO2e (10.96% of the total
emissions of the sample).
The sector has some of the most advanced practices in
managing emissions. For example, reported Scope 3
emissions, representing 10.96 times the emissions from
Scope 1 and 2, is a clear sign of the increasing
sophistication on the indirect emission inventory from
Industrial companies. As a matter of fact, six of the ten
companies in this sector have emission inventories and
reported emissions generated by its suppliers as part of
the emissions of its value chain.
Other indicators that demonstrate the advanced
management level of these companies is that 80% of
industrials companies have reported absolute targets for
reducing emissions and 90% are ahead of these
objectives.
Industrials companies are the most active in public
policy engagement: 70% of companies reported direct
engagement with clean energy generation as the topic
most often addressed. Not surprisingly many of these
companies have diversified over the past decade from
construction activities towards renewable energy and
have now become a major player in this activity which is
strongly influenced by government action.
Average levels for disclosure and performance in
industrials are 79 B, above the average for all
responding companies. This sector includes three of the
four companies that are part of both CDLI and CPLI
indices simultaneously (Ferrovial, Acciona and Abengoa).

29

Three other companies (OHL, IAG and Abertis) issued a
complete response to the questionnaire. On the other
hand, 17 companies in this sector did not respond to
CDP questionnaire in 2013, including ACS, an IBEX35
company which answered the questionnaire until 2012.

Fuel-and-energy-related activities (not included in Scope 1 or 2) (1)
Business travel (1)
Downstream transportation and distribution (1)

Figure 2IND. Percentage of companies with emission

Figure 5IND. Most commonly reported risks





0

20

40
60

80

100

Reputation

0

10

20

Figure 3IND. Engagement methods reported by the

30

40

50

60

70


Direct engagement
Figure 6IND. Most commonly reported opportunities
Trade associations
Reputation
Other
0
0

20

40

60

10

80

Figure 4IND. Engagement themes reported by the

20

30

40

50

60

70


Figure 7IND. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company
(2011-2013)


25,000,000

Cap and trade

20,000,000

Carbon tax

15,000,000

Energy efficiency
10,000,000

5,000,000

0

Climate finance

2011

2012

2013

Abengoa

0

10

20
30
40

50

60

Gamesa

Abertis

Other

IAG

Acciona

OHL

Ferrovial

30

Materials


33%

(6 OUT OF 18)

Acerinox
Arcelor Mittal
Ercros

Corticeira Amorim (NP)
Miquel y Costas (NP)
Cementos Portland Valderrivas (SA)

Adveo
Altri
Cimpor
Ence Energía y Celulosa
Europac
F. Ramada Investimentos

Arcelor Mittal

Inapa
La Seda Barcelona
Portucel
Sniace
Tubacex
Tubos Reunidos

158,757,106

With a response rate of only 33%, and with only five
companies directly responding to the questionnaire, the
Materials sector is the biggest GHG emitter, responsible
for 46% of total Scope 1 and 2 emissions in the Iberia
125 sample.

tCO2e


18,051,078

tCO2e


46%
Scope 1+2 emission

0.07

70 C

performance band

Figure 1MAT. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector responding
companies
100

90
Disclosure Score

Arcelor Mittal

80

We engage with our key suppliers on
GHG emissions and climate change
strategy as part of our suppliers’
evaluation process. We ask them in
particular: Do they measure their
GHG emissions? If yes, do their
emissions improve year on year?
Have they set publically available
reduction targets? Is their GHG data
externally verified?

However, emissions management practices in the sector
are far below that of other sectors. Unsurprisingly then,
their average disclosure and performance scores are the
lowest of the sectors analysed: 70 C.
The sector’s Scope 3 emissions inventory is testimonial.
Just one single company is assessing emissions from its
suppliers and evaluating emissions from other energyrelated activities. However, the amount of GHG
emissions from Scope 1 and 2 is so high that some
companies justify their focus on these emissions as the
most relevant.
Due to the strong coupling between their production and
their emissions, most companies in the materials sector
opt for the establishment of intensity reduction targets
(80% of companies) versus absolute targets. However,
only 40% of companies are achieving or improving their
reduction targets, the lowest rate, by far, of the five
sectors analyzed.
Engagement in public policy is also very limited in this
sector. Only 40% of companies report engagement, with
emissions trading and carbon taxes as the issues
relevant to the sector.

Acerinox
Miquel y Costas
Ercros

70

60

50

E

D

C
B
Performance Band

A-

A

There is no company from the Materials sector with a
high-level disclosure or performance score. Two of the
five companies in the sector offer a comprehensive
response to the questionnaire not reaching though the
level of best practice (Arcelor Mittal and Miquel y Costas)
while two others are in the phase of developing capacity
to fully respond to the questionnaire.

31


Figure 2MAT. Percentage of companies with emission

Figure 5MAT. Most commonly reported risks



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

20

40

60

80

100


Figure 3MAT. Engagement methods reported by the

Figure 6MAT. Most commonly reported opportunities

Direct engagement
Trade associations
Other

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80


Figure 7MAT. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company
(2011-2013)

Figure 4MAT. Engagement themes reported by the

200,000,000

Cap and trade

180,000,000

Carbon tax
160,000,000

Other

140,000,000
120,000,000

0

5

10

20
25
30

35

40

100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
2011
Acerinox

2012

2013
Arcelor Mittal

Ercros

32

Utilities


100%

(8 OUT
OF 8)

EDP Energías de Portugal
Enagás
Endesa
Gas Natural Fenosa

Iberdrola
REE
REN
EDP Renováveis (SA)

134,742,477

Gas Natural Fenosa

EDP). It is a highly regulated sector with high carbon
intensity, and so it has been requested to act proactively
in climate change management.

tCO2e


12,024,069

38%

tCO2e


Scope 1+2 emission

26.08

90 B

performance band

The Utilities sector has the highest rate of response of
the sectors analyzed. All the Iberia 125 companies in this
sector responded in 2013 to CDP questionnaire (one of
them, EDP Renováveis, through its parent company
Figure 1UTIL. Disclosure score vs. performance band for sector
responding companies
100

While the Utilities represent 13% of all Iberia 125
responding companies, they are responsible for 38% of
total Scope 1 and 2 emissions, only behind the Materials
sector and well above the third sector (Industrials, with
10.44% emissions). They also have a large indirect
impact through their Scope 3 emissions that are 26
times greater than their combined Scope 1 and 2
emissions. Indirect emissions from this sector are very
high both upstream (mining and extraction and refining
of oil and gas) and downstream (electricity and gas
transport to consumers and sale of gas for combustion).
Aware of the high impact of their activities and the high
reputational risk linked to climate change the sector
faces, the corporate management of climate change is
well underway in these companies: the 90 B in the
average score of disclosure and performance is the
highest of the sectors analysed, and well above also the
average of the sample Iberia 125 (78 C).
All companies in this sector state they are meeting or
exceeding their emissions reduction targets.

Iberdrola
Endesa

Gas Natural
Fenosa

EDP

90
Enagás

Disclosure Score

Gas Natural Fenosa´s long term
strategy is driven by the EU Energy
Road Map which sets an emission
reduction to 50% below 1990 levels
by 2030 and to 80-95% by 2050. In
this context Research and
Development actions are key.

The Utilities sector is very active in engaging with climate
change public policy, both directly (100% of companies
are active in this line) and indirectly, mainly through
business associations (86% of companies).

REN

80
REE

70

60

50

E

D

C
B
Performance Band

A-

A

Four of the companies in this sector (Gas Natural
Fenosa, Iberdrola, Endesa and EDP) are among the
highest disclosure scorers in Iberia 125 (the Climate
Disclosure Leadership Index). Gas Natural Fenosa is the
company with the highest total score in the sample, with
a disclosure score of 100 points and a performance
band A. In addition, all companies sent a complete
response to the CDP questionnaire, demonstrating longterm action that has already passed the developing
capacity phase.

33

Upstream transportation and distribution (1)
Use of sold products (1)

Figure 2UTIL. Percentage of companies with emission

Figure 5UTIL. Most commonly reported risks
International agreements

Uncertainty surronding new regulation
0

20

40
60

80

100

Changes in temperature extremes

Figure 3UTIL. Engagement methods reported by the

Sea level rise

Direct engagement
0

20

Trade associations

40

60

80

Figure 6UTIL. Most commonly reported opportunities


International agreements
Other
0

20

40
60

80

100

Other regulatory drivers

Figure 4UTIL. Engagement themes reported by the

0

20

Cap and trade

40

60

80

Figure 7UTIL. Reported Scope 1+2 emissions by company
(2011-2013)

Carbon tax

60,000,000

Energy efficiency

50,000,000
40,000,000


30,000,000

20,000,000

Climate finance

10,000,000

Other

0
2011

0

20

40
60

80

100

EDP
Gas Natural Fenosa
REN

2012

2013
Enagás
Iberdrola

Endesa
REE

34

Conveying ESG data to capital markets in Portugal

Bank Credit vs. Capital Markets
Historically, the banking activity in Portugal commences in
close relation to big industrial groups, this may be partly why
today we see Portuguese companies resorting essentially to
banks to meet their finance needs. This trait is not specific to
the Portuguese economy and generally common in Europe.
However, since Portugal begun in 2011 its financial assistance
programme, Portuguese companies have increasingly turned
from bank credit to capital markets. Commercial banks started
deleveraging operations and recapitalising, forced to bring
down their credit to deposit ratio and up their core tier 1
capital ratio to improve resilience. Thus companies sought
other ways to back themselves; several listed companies
issued bonds in the primary market for retail investors or
searched for institutional investors and high-net-worth
individuals to reinforce their share capital.
Asset Managers
This reinforced relation of Portuguese companies with capital
markets should serve as a reminder that non-financial
information requested by investors also plays an important
role. The investors’ community is more and more sensitive to
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues and their
potential positive and negative impacts on company financials.
For example, according to Eurosif, in 2011 there were €3.2
trillion assets under management (AuM) in Europe run with the
explicit inclusion, by asset managers, of ESG risks and
opportunities into traditional financial analysis and investment
decisions. This figure not only grew 6.8% from 2009 to 2011,
but also makes for an impressive number considering the total
of European AuM in 2011 estimated by EFAMA was €13.8
trillion. Bloomberg as well estimated an increase upwards of
50% since 2009 in access to CDP and other ESG data
provided by its terminals. A company reporting to CDP its
emission reduction activities and emission reduction targets, is
ESG data of pivotal importance for an investor. That can be
one of the reasons why in 2013 only Iberia 125 10 responding
companies had “no target”, with a steady decline in number
since 2011.
Institutional Investors
Within the circle of institutional investors, the insurance sector
deserves a closer look; it understood early-on the added value
in CDP’s data. One reason being that climate change data has
a dual purpose in their arena, as it can play a serious role in
risk insurance analysis, adding to investment purposes. The
Portuguese insurance sector has €50.25 billion AuM; almost
40% of this capital is invested in corporate shares and bonds,
the latter being the largest of the asset classes used by the
sector.
Pension funds too can play a leading role in use of ESG data,
as they are naturally long term investors. Companies
disclosing to CDP only short-term investment in emission
reduction initiatives can be overlooked by investors of this sort;
we see precisely this trend in the Iberia sample with initiatives
with <1year and 1-3years payback periods gaining in numbers
since 2011. When speaking of pension funds one should

highlight Norges Bank Investment Management, which owns
roughly 2% of European equities, and is a significant player in
Portugal with shares in more than 20 companies listed in PSI
Geral. They are a signatory of CDP managing the Norwegian
Government Pension Fund Global, the largest pension fund in
the world, and are considered a proxy worldwide in use of
ESG information in investment analysis.
Retail Investors
The most remarkable news on use of ESG data by retail
investors comes from the 2012 EU proposal for Regulation of
Key Information Documents (KID) for Investment Products.
This proposal covers four groups of investment products
(investment funds, insurance-based investment products, retail
structured securities and structured term deposits) that make
up for a market in Europe worth up to €10 trillion. The nexus
with ESG is the proposal’s requirement for the KID to include
“an indication of whether the investment product manufacturer
targets specific environmental, social or governance
outcomes, either in respect of his conduct of business or in
respect of the investment product, and if so, an indication of
the outcomes being sought and how these are to be
achieved”. The responsibility of preparing the KID belongs to
the investment product manufacturer, meaning more asset
firms will research ESG data of listed companies, if the product
basket/investment fund entails corporate shares, bonds, etc.
Pre-empting information demands like such by disclosing in
CDP’s platform is of obvious value to listed companies in Iberia
in the short-term, as the full proposal is expected to be in
place by end of 2014.
In conclusion, more and more stakeholders see a need of ESG
disclosure. That is also why the European Commission in April
this year presented a legislative proposal mandating large
European companies (>500 employees) to report material
non-financial information. Also noteworthy is the UK
Government initiative of July 2013, introducing mandatory
corporate GHG disclosure to every company listed in the
London stock exchange. Euronatura hopes more
governments can follow this lead by launching and endorsing
disclosure initiatives that can, not only promote cost and
efficiency savings as a result of measurement and
management, but furthermore advance corporate
transparency in financial markets, benefitting companies and
investors.

André Baltazar
Researcher, Euronatura

35

Appendix I - Non-responding companies

Company name

Country

2013 status


Company name

Country

2013 status

Industrials

Azkoyen

Spain

NR

Prosegur

Spain

DP

Codere

Spain

NR

ACS Actividades de Construccion y Servicios

Spain

NR

Cofina

Portugal

NR

Brisa- Auto-Estradas de Portugal

Portugal

NR

Estoril Sol

Portugal

NR

Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles

Spain

NR

Fluidra

Spain

NR

Duro Felguera

Spain

NR

Ibersol

Portugal

NR

Fersa Energias Renovables

Spain

NR

Impresa

Portugal

NR

Grupo Empresarial San José

Spain

NR

Media Capital

Portugal

NR

Grupo Soares da Costa

Portugal

NR

Prisa

Spain

NR

Mota-Engil

Portugal

NR

SAG

Portugal

NR

Sacyr Vallehermoso

Spain

NR

Toyota Caetano

Portugal

NR

Semapa

Portugal

NR

Vértice 360

Spain

NR

Service Point Solutions

Spain

NR

Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente

Spain

NR

Consumer Staples
Baron de Ley

Spain

NR

Sonae Indústria

Portugal

NR

Bodegas Riojanas

Spain

NR

Teixeira Duarte

Portugal

NR

Dia

Spain

NR

Vueling

Spain

NR

Pescanova

Spain

NR

Zardoya Otis

Spain

NR

Sumol Compal

Portugal

NR

Viscofan

Spain

NR

Grupo Ezentis

Spain

NR

Vista Alegre Atlantis

Portugal

NR

Jazztel

Spain

NR

Novabase

Portugal

NR

Banco BPI

Portugal

NR

Reditus

Portugal

NR

Corporacion Financiera Alba

Spain

NR

Tecnocom

Spain

NR

Dinamia Capital Privado

Spain

NR


Spain

NR

Adveo

Spain

DP

Quabit Inmobiliaria

Spain

NR

Altri

Portugal

NR

Financials

Information Technology

Materials

Realia Business

Spain

NR

Cimpor

Portugal

NR

Renta 4 Banco

Spain

NR

Ence Energia y Celulosa

Spain

NR

Sociedade Comercial Orey Antunes

Portugal

NR

Europac

Spain

NR

Sonae Capital

Portugal

NR

F. Ramada Investimentos

Portugal

NR

Inapa

Portugal

NR

Almirall

Spain

NR

La Seda de Barcelona

Spain

NR

Biosearch

Spain

NR

Portucel

Portugal

NR

Clinica Baviera

Spain

NR

Sniace

Spain

NR

Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi

Spain

NR

Tubacex

Spain

NR

Natra

Spain

NR

Tubos Reunidos

Spain

NR

Natraceutical

Spain

NR

Zeltia

Spain

NR

Spain

NR

Healthcare

Telecommunication Services
Amper

Appendix Key:
AQ: Answered Questionnaire
DP: Declined to Participate
NR: No Response
SA: See Another - refers to another company response
Not public: the company responded privately
NL: Non Listed Company
Scope 3 column: value indicates number of S3 categories that were reported as ‘relevant and calculated’
*: the asterisk on scope 1 or scope 2 emissions figure indicates full points were awarded for verification that is complete or underway
using an approved standard
“Bold: companies that are in either CPLI (performance band A) or CDLI (disclosure score 95 or higher); or both”

To read 2013 company responses in full please go to www.cdp.net/en-US/Results/Pages/responses.aspx

36

Appendix II - Responding companies, scores and emissions data

Country

2013
Score

Atresmedia

Spain

60 D

CIE Automotive

Spain

85 C

Inditex

Spain

80 B

Mediaset España Comunicación

Spain

55 E


Spain

83 B

51,305

151,605

NH Hoteles

Spain

78 C

53,193

61,585

Ebro Foods

Spain

36

Jerónimo Martins

Portugal

66 C

239,509

Sonae

Portugal

98 A

57,225*

Company name

Scope
1

Scope
2

Scope
3


Company name

Country

2013
Score

Scope
1

Scope
2

Scope
3

Industrials
Not public

Abengoa

Spain

95 A

2,995,171*

658,190*

8

44,639

111,847

Abertis Infraestructuras

Spain

83 B

37,743*

100,520*

4

24,478*

290,119*

Acciona

Spain

97 A

607,528*

201,003*

7

CTT – Correios de Portugal (AQ - NL)

Portugal

86 B

14,568*

10,842*

5

2

Ferrovial

Spain

99 A

502,496*

105,672*

6

1

Fomento de Construcciones
y Contratas (FCC)

Spain

75 C

Gamesa Corporación Tecnológica

Spain

64 D

14,202

652,906

4

International Consolidated Airlines Group Spain

88 B

23,230,095* 131,636*

5

271,235

3

Martifer

Portugal

13

Obrascon Huarte Lain (OHL)

Spain

90 B

251,757*

1

Técnicas Reunidas

Spain

81 C

2

Not public

Consumer Staples
Not public

Energy
Galp Energia

Portugal

99 B

3,319,758*

214,685*

4

Repsol

Spain

98 B

14,062,806* 811,243*

3

Banco Comercial Português

Portugal

80 C

18,626*

60,510*

2


Portugal

99 A-

7,186*

20,044*

2

Banco Popular Espanol

Spain

59 D

788*

14,012*

2

Banco Sabadell

Spain

64 D

378*

381*

1

Banco Santander

Spain

84 B

31,857*

342,928*

2

Cementos Portland Valderrivas (See FCC) Spain

Portugal

63 D

4,134

5,124

1

Corticeira Amorim

Portugal
Spain

74 D

Miquel y Costas

Spain

1
0

51,038
Not public

40

Ercros

33,454

SA(AQ)

Banif

Not public

73 C

Information Technology
Amadeus IT Holding

Financials

Bankia

Spain

52 D

Bankinter

Spain

80 C

BBVA

Spain

76 D

Bolsas y mercados espanoles

Spain

Not public
312*

48

9,267

8,508*
295,771

1
1

Spain

79 B

Indra

Spain

62 D

6,437*

28,818*

Not public

Acerinox

Spain

75 D

167,876

217,573

Arcelor Mittal

Luxemburgo 88 B

1

Materials
158,192,000* 17,256,000*

1

Not public
321,539*

514,122*
Not public

Telecommunication Services

Not public

Portugal Telecom

Portugal

83 A

17,528*

124,215*

Portugal

95 B

3,664*

29,027*

2
2

111,124*

1,649,137*

6

Caixa Geral de Depósitos (AQ-NL)

Portugal

99 A

4,581*

26,812*

2

Sonaecom

CaixaBank

Spain

97 B

12,346*

15,939*

2

Telefónica

Spain

95 B

Espirito Santo Financial Group
(See Banco Espirito Santo)

Luxemburgo SA(AQ)

ZON Multimédia

Portugal

60 D

Mapfre

Spain

EDP - Energias de Portugal

Portugal

97 B

EDP Renováveis (See EDP)

Spain

SA(AQ)

Enagás

Spain

83 B

387,651

Endesa

Spain

98 B

54,676,230* 1,317,120*

5

Gas Natural Fenosa

Spain

100 A

26,062,058* 956,889*

2

Iberdrola

Spain

99 B

35,461,092* 7,189,301*

Red Eléctrica de España

Spain

71 C

77,355

880,011

REN - Redes Energéticas Nacionais

Portugal

80 C

32,520*

164,611*

78 B

6,897*

32,711*

2

Healthcare
Grifols

Not public

Utilities

Spain

90 B

83,005*

103,605,3

2

18,045,570* 1,454,760*
61,377

Appendix Key:
AQ: Answered Questionnaire
DP: Declined to Participate
NR: No Response
SA: See Another - refers to another company response
Not public: the company responded privately
NL: Non Listed Company
Scope 3 column: value indicates number of S3 categories that were reported as ‘relevant and calculated’
*: the asterisk on scope 1 or scope 2 emissions figure indicates full points were awarded for verification that is complete or underway
using an approved standard
“Bold: companies that are in either CPLI (performance band A) or CDLI (disclosure score 95 or higher); or both”

To read 2013 company responses in full please go to www.cdp.net/en-US/Results/Pages/responses.aspx

6

1


37

Appendix III - Investor members and signatoires

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
https://www.cdp.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/
Pages/investors.aspx

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
Sun Life Financial Inc
Sustainable Insights Capital Management
TD Asset Management
The Wellcome Trust

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.
KLP
London Pensions Fund Authority
Mobimo Holding AG

Figure 14. Investor signatory
breakdown - region
Africa (15)
America - Latin & Caribbean (71)
America - North (174)
Asia (71)
Australia and New Zealand (61)
Europe - North & Western (294)
Europe - Southern & Eastern (39)
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure 15. 2013 Signatory investor
breakdown
Figure 13. Increasing number of investors requesting climate data through CDP
Investor signatory assets

35
4.5

95
10

155
21

225
31

Number of investor signatoires

315
41

385
57

475
55

534
64

551
71

655
78

722
87

800

100
90

700

70
500

60

400

50
40

300

30
200

20

100
0

10
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Assets (US$ Trillions)

Number of Signatories

80
600

247 Mainstream Asset Managers
167 Pension funds
160 Banks
51 Insurance
39 SRI Asset Managers
34 Foundations
27 Other

38

Investor signatories

722 financial institutions
with assets of US$87 trillion
were signatories to the
CDP 2013 climate change
information request dated
February 1st 2013
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
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
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
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

39

Investor signatories continued

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 (AP1)
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
Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)
North Carolina Retirement System

40

Investor signatories continued

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 21 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 (AP2)
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

GHG emissions from this publication have been offset through CeroCO2 projects of emissions reduction and absorption. www.ceroco2.org

CDP contacts

ECODES contacts

PwC contacts

CDP Board of Trustees

Steven Tebbe
Managing Director
Steven.Tebbe@cdp.net

Víctor Viñuales
Director Ejecutivo
victor.vinuales@ecodes.org

María Luz Castilla
Socio, Sostenibilidad y Cambio Climático
mariluz.castilla@es.pwc.com

Chairman:
Alan Brown
Schroders

Diana Guzman
Director, Southern Europe
Diana.Guzman@cdp.net

Aurelio García
Director de Análisis
aurelio.garcia@ecodes.org

Pablo Bascones
Director, Sostenibilidad y Cambio Climático
pablo.bascones.ilundain@es.pwc.com

James Cameron
Climate Change Capital & ODI

Katharina Lütkehermöller
Project Officer, Southern Europe
Katharina.Luetkehermoeller@cdp.net

Marta Ferrer
marta.ferrer@ecodes.org
Charles Castro
charles.castro.garcia@ecodes.org
Aranzazu Romero
aranzazu.romero@ecodes.org
Carlos Martínez
carlos.martinez@ecodes.org

Marga de Roselló
margarita.de.rosello@es.pwc.com

CDP Europe
Reinhardtstraße 14
10177 Berlin
Germany
Tel: +49 (0)30 311 777 168
www.cdp.net, Twitter: @cdp
Carbon Discloser Project gGmbH
Executive Officers: Steven Tebbe;
Sue Howells; Roy Wilson; Registered
Charity no.HRB119156 B; local court
of Charlottenburg, Germany

Ecología y Desarrollo
www.ecodes.org
ecodes@ecodes.org
Plaza San Bruno, 9
50001 Zaragoza
España
Tel: + 34 976 298282
Fax: +34 976 203092

Paula Vazquez
paula.vazquez.varela@es.pwc.com

Ben Goldsmith
WHEB
Chris Page
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Dr. Christoph Schroeder

PwC Spain
www.pwc.es/sostenibilidad
Tel: 902 021 111
Tel: + 34 915 684 400
Torre PwC
Paseo de la Castellano, 259 B
Madrid 28046

Jeremy Smith
Takejiro Sueyoshi
Tessa Tennant
Martin Wise
Relationship Capital Partners

Avenida Diagonal, 640
Barcelona 08012
Claudia Coelho
ana.claudia.coelho@pt.pwc.com

EURONATURA contacts
Hugo Costa
Executive Director
hugo.costa@euronatura.pt
André Baltazar
andre.baltazar@euronatura.pt
EURONATURA
www.euronatura.pt
geral@euronatura.pt
Largo das Pimenteiras 6A
1600 - 576 Lisboa
Portugal

Carlos de Llera Ramos
carlos.llera.ramos@pt.pwc.com
PwC Portugal
www.pwc.com/pt
Tel: +351 213 599 000
Palácio Sottomayor
Rua Sousa Martins 1-2
Lisbon 1069-316

The sole responsibility lies with the author and the
Commission is not responsible for any use that may
be made of the information contained therein.

Co-funded by the LIFE+
programme of the
European Union

Spanish Lead Sponsor:

Spanish Collaborators:

Portugal Lead Sponsors:

Portugal partner:

Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013

Recently uploaded

Iberia 125 Climate Change Report 2013