Environmental Tracking: Global 800 2013 Carbon Rankings
REPORT:ET GLOBAL 8002013 CARBON RANKINGS
ENVIRONMENTALINVESTMENTORGANISATIONAn independent research body promoting carbontransparency and investment solutions designed toaddress climate change.ET Carbon Rankingsscoring the world’s largest companies by greenhouse gas emissions & levels oftransparencyET Index Seriesmainstream index series designed to give investors broad market exposure whilstcapitalising on, and driving, the shift towards a low carbon economyENVIRONMENTALTRACKINGglobal corporate Greenhouse Gas emissionsdesigned speciﬁcally to email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukWHAT WE DOWHY WE DO ITWHO WE AREET Engagementengaging with companies to improve standards of disclosure & lower emissions
Forewordinfo@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukDear Reader,Welcome to the ET Global 800 Report, examining the greenhouse gas emissions andtransparency of the world’s largest 800 companies. The ET Carbon Rankings apply a uniformmethodology across all sectors within a single public Ranking.This is one in a series of ET 2013 Carbon Ranking Reports covering the world’s largest 1,300companies and being released in the week commencing 29th April.Many companies now beneﬁt from talented, dedicated sustainability staff and are earning topspots for their efforts, but the overall picture globally remains poor. Many companies go togreat lengths to collect and analyse detailed greenhouse gas (GHG) data, only to fail at the lasthurdle with simple errors in data presentation, such that a member of the public cannotdecipher what the data means when set against the accepted GHG Protocol standard, themost widely used international accounting tool for GHG emissions. Unless all companies arereporting and presenting their GHG data in a clear and uniform manner, the task of crosscomparing against companies becomes all but impossible.Why is it that despite nearly two decades of major international initiatives, such as the UNGlobal Compact, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP),we ﬁnd ourselves in this situation? In the case of the GRI, its broad range of topics and lack ofany speciﬁc format for GHG data presentation, even lacking speciﬁc headings for Scope 1, 2and 3 emissions, explains itself. In the case of the CDP, operating as a private database withlimited public access, the onus has been taken away from the responsibility of companies toreport their own GHG emissions data in a clear, publicly accessible manner. Is it any wondersome companies are confused as to exactly what is expected of them? In simple terms, clearGHG reporting needs to be prioritised from the ever widening scope of CSR reporting if we areto have any chance of even passing the ﬁrst hurdle of the climate crisis, which is to establishthe reliability of the data itself.The EIO does not usually involve itself in the scientiﬁc debate, preferring to let those with thenecessary competence address such complex questions. Yet I could not help but be struck bya recent BBC Horizon Television Documentary entitled ‘Global Weirding’, a phrase which seemsto neatly encapsulate the current facts on the ground. Of particular note was a claim by USscientist Professor Katharine Hayhoe and quoted by many other sources including the MetOfﬁce, that atmospheric humidity has increased by 4% since 1970. Given that many of theextreme weather events we are facing are moisture driven, this seemed to me to be a quitestartling number. If we had been told that the global temperature had increased by 4% in thelast 40 years, I think most people would realise that something quite serious was happening.Given an average is simply that and severe events will concentrate at particular times andplaces, given time lags are an inevitable part of the climatic process, we have not even begunto see the impact of this or many other consequences of climate change. I do ﬁnd it surprisingthis particular number has not received greater attention. It does not require ‘an Einstein’ to
Forewordinfo@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukwork out that the wettest (or snowiest) decade since records began might have something todo with a 4% rise in atmospheric moisture.The term ‘Denialist’ has often been used to describe arguments querying the current scientiﬁcconsensus. But I do not see a consensus. On the contrary, it seems to me there are a greatrange of predicted outcomes and only those that are relatively ‘unalarmist’ get any seriouspress.Unfortunately, we have no real idea of the parameters of what we are triggering, being acomplex interaction of social, economic and climatic forces. I fear, as is already happening, ﬁrstthe vulnerable will suffer and then chaos and carnage will catch up with the rest. We are ineffect driving in the dark without lights, with a misplaced over-conﬁdence in where we areheading. Nothing new there in the history of human intelligence, it is just that on this occasion amiscalculation will leave 7 billion and counting in its aftermath.There is no historical precedent to this situation. There is no textbook answer. The real ‘denial’is in failing to recognise there is no obvious solution to this problem, in this extraordinarilycomplex globalised world. The global economy is made up of nearly 200 individual nationstates with vast gulfs of wealth, geographical size, exposure to risks, asymmetric political andsocial systems and multiple competing priorities. On the evidence to date, they are simply notgoing to suddenly a) all agree to a meaningful new global emissions regime and b) implement iteven if they did all sign it.The only immediate decentralised non-governmental solution I can see is from the activities ofthe investment world. Yet this will involve a fundamental and profound rethink of the purpose ofthe investment system and its current models, including current models of SRI and EthicalInvestment, if we are to have the slightest chance of impacting this problem in any serious orrapid time frame.Statements of intent. Fine. Statements of principle. Fine. But surely, we need to ask the longhard question, what might actually work?Who knows how the ﬁnal days of the people of Easter Island played out, but I can imagine asthose involved looked around them and asked ‘what have we done?’, their more intelligentyoung offspring were less than complimentary. A modern translation might read ‘thanks atonne!’.Michael Gill,Strategic Director & Founder, The Environmental Investment OrganisationApril 2013
The ET Carbon Rankings serve the twin purpose ofencouraging transparency through makingemissions data more publicly accessible, while alsolaying the foundations for the ET Index Series, amarket mechanism designed to operate globallyand incentivise carbon reductions within a rapidtime-frame.This latest set of Carbon Rankings build on themethodology established previously for the ET2011 Carbon Rankings, where companies wereplaced into one of four Disclosure and Veriﬁcationcategories and then ranked by carbon intensity(tonnes of CO2 equivalent per million US dollars ofturnover) based on Scope 1, 2 & 3 emissions.Where data is incomplete or not reported,companies are benchmarked against their sectoralcompetitors using the highest reported emissionsintensity for that sector. Please see the EIO websitemethodology section for a more comprehensiveexplanation of the four disclosure categories andthe inference method.With the introduction of the long awaited NewScope 3 Standard from the Greenhouse Gas (GHG)Protocol in 2011, the EIO continues to take aproactive approach to incentivising companies toadopt this important new standard in GHGReporting. It has long been the EIO’s stated viewthat Scope 1 & 2 emissions do not in themselvesprovide an accurate picture of a company’s carbonimpact and therefore a bold approach needs to betaken to reward those companies fully reportingScope 3 data.Only when a company reports or explains its dataacross all 15 categories will that Scope 3 data beaccepted. In all other cases, whilst the Scope 3data is recorded and published, the inferencemethod determines the actual Scope 3 intensityapplied within the Ranking. The disclosurecategories and inference method are essential toolsto ensure that the ET Carbon Ranking is based oncross comparable information and no company isunfairly disadvantaged by disclosing fully its Scope1, 2 and 3 emissions.THE RANKINGS ARE BASED ON THEFOLLOWING CORE PRINCIPLES:‣ DATA USED IN THE RANKINGS MUST BEPUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND THEREFOREFULLY TRANSPARENT.‣ IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OFCLIMATE CHANGE, THE RANKINGS’PRIMARY OBJECTIVE MUST BE TOENCOURAGE DISCLOSURE.‣ DATA WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY ANINDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY WILL ALWAYSBE RANKED ABOVE DATA WHICH HAS NOT.‣ COMPANIES HONEST ENOUGH TODISCLOSE THEIR TOTAL EMISSIONS MUSTNOT BE PENALISED FOR DOING SORELATIVE TO THOSE WHO FAIL TODISCLOSE.‣ IN ORDER TO BE FULLY EFFECTIVE, THERANKINGS MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNTTHE FULL SCOPE OF A COMPANY’SCARBON EMISSIONS, INCLUDING SCOPE firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukEXECUTIVESUMMARY5
email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comKey Findings‣ BASF, (Complete & Veriﬁed), comes top,disclosing all 15 Scope 3 Categories,according to the GHG Protocol Scope 3Reporting Standard, with a combinedScope 1, 2 & 3 emissions intensity of932.74 tCO2e/$M turnover.‣ US based First Energy comes last, withno public data and an inferred combinedScope 1, 2 & 3 emissions intensity of10,342.03 tCO2e/$M turnover.‣ RWE, (Complete & Veriﬁed), has thehighest publicly disclosed Scope 1 & 2ﬁgure of 166,200,000 tCO2e, with acombined Scope 1, 2 & 3 intensity of3,870.19 tCO2e/$M turnover.‣ GDF Suez, (Complete & Veriﬁed), has thesecond highest publicly disclosed Scope1 & 2 ﬁgure of 156,899,254 tCO2e, with acombined Scope 1, 2 & 3 intensity of2,617.98 tCO2e/$M turnover.‣ 63% of companies in the ET Global 800report incomplete data or no data at all,indicating the scale of the GHG reportingchallenge.‣ Italy and Spain rank joint highest interms of disclosure and veriﬁcation with62% of companies reporting completedata and a further 54% having their dataveriﬁed.‣ In total, only 21% of the ET Global 800report public, complete andindependently veriﬁed data, as deﬁnedby the ET Global Carbon RankingMethodology.firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukEXECUTIVESUMMARY6Know your Scopes!‣ Scope 1 emissions: All directemissions‣ Scope 2 emissions: Indirectemissions generated from thepurchase of electricity‣ Scope 3 emissions: All other indirectemissions, such as distribution ofgoods, transportation of purchasedgoods, transportation of waste,disposal of waste, employeecommuting, business travel orinvestments.
email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukEXECUTIVESUMMARY7Key Reporting Recommendations‣ Report Scope 1, 2 & 3 emissionsfollowing GHG Protocol guidelines‣ Ensure emissions data is publiclyavailable in CSR/Sustainabilityreports/Integrated Annual report andonline‣ Have emissions data veriﬁed by anindependent third party‣ Ensure veriﬁcation statements arepublicWith 258 companies not reporting any data atall, and 243 reporting incomplete data, there isclearly signiﬁcant room for improvement in theGlobal emissions reporting landscape.The ET Carbon Rankings make up the ﬁrstphase of the Environmental Tracking conceptpaving the way for the second stage: the ETIndex Series. This will see the Rankings used tocreate a series of tradeable indexes, providingthe investment community with a mainstreamtool to encourage transparency and emissionreductions on a global scale. It has alreadydemonstrated the ability of these ET Indexes totrack their conventional equivalents withminimal tracking error, through the launch of itstwo pilot indexes, the ET Europe 300 and theET UK 100, based on previously publishedRankings. For more information, includingbacktested performance data based on the2013 ET Carbon Rankings, please refer to theET Index Section of the EIO website.Key Findings‣ Europe leads the world on all disclosuremetrics: 35% of companies reportcomplete and independently veriﬁeddata. This compares to 11% for theBRICS, the lowest of any region.‣ 8 of the top 10 companies in the ETGlobal 800 are Europe based.‣ 267, or 33%, of companies within the ETGlobal 800, report one or more Scope 3categories. However, only 15, or 2%,report 5 or more Scope 3 categories.‣ Of this group, only one company, BASF,reports all 15 Scope 3 categories,according to the GHG Protocol Scope 3Reporting Standard.
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comTopping the 2013 ET Global 800 CarbonRanking is the German based chemicalcompany BASF, which is the only company inthe Global 800, and indeed the entire ET GlobalUniverse, to report on all 15 Scope 3categories. Any company with complete andveriﬁed Scope 1 & 2 emissions reporting fullyon Scope 3 emissions is guaranteed a top spotin the Rankings. BASF is the only company notto have been given an inferred Scope 3intensity within its sector, meaning that thenumbers displayed reﬂect its actual reportedScope 3 intensity. This combined intensityﬁgure, which gives Scope 3 emissions a 50%weighting, stands at 932.74.Second place is occupied by the Telecomscompany Swisscom with a combined carbonintensity of 37.58. Swisscom discloses 4 Scope3 categories. Canada based telecoms companyBCE ranks third with a combined intensity of46.70.Fourth placed Singapore Telecom is the onlyAsian company to make the top 10.(Emissions Intensity is measured in tCO2e/$M turnover)RANKINGHIGHLIGHTS8ETRankCompany NameS1+2emissions(tCO2e)S1+2IntensityS3CategoriesdisclosedS1+2 + 50%Inferred S3IntensityDisclosure &Veriﬁcation status12345678910BASF 25,799,000 266.25 15 932.74 Complete & VeriﬁedSwisscom 23,242 1.86 4 37.58 Complete & VeriﬁedBCE 215,029 10.98 2 46.70 Complete & VeriﬁedSingapore Telecom 181,965 11.81 2 47.53 Complete & VeriﬁedTelefonica 1,728,109 20.86 1 56.58 Complete & VeriﬁedBT Group 710,000 21.76 3 57.48 Complete & VeriﬁedFrance Telecom 1,362,641 22.83 1 58.55 Complete & VeriﬁedDeutsche Telekom 2,138,039 27.65 1 63.37 Complete & VeriﬁedTelecom Italia 1,141,355 28.90 2 64.62 Complete & VeriﬁedVodafone Group 2,199,598 29.49 2 65.21 Complete & VeriﬁedET Global 800 Top 10 Figure email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk
The last four places in the ET Global 800 areoccupied by Utilities companies, two from theUnited States, one from Australia and the otherfrom Canada. The remainder of the bottom 10is occupied by companies from the broad Oiland Gas sector.First Energy, the US Electricity conglomerate,comes bottom overall as the largest of the fourcompanies in the Utilities sector not to publiclydisclose emissions data. USA’s EdisonInternational is saved from the bottom spot byvirtue of having a slightly smaller market valuecompared to First Energy.50% of the bottom 10 companies are based inthe USA those not already mentioned comingfrom Russian, and China also. Again, wherecompanies have the same combined intensityscore across the three Scopes, advantage isgiven to the smaller company in terms ofmarket value.(Emissions Intensity is measured in tCO2e/$M turnover)firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comRANKINGHIGHLIGHTS9info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukETRankCompany NameS1+2emissions(tCO2e)S1+2IntensityS3CategoriesdisclosedS1+2 + 50%Inferred S3IntensityDisclosure &Veriﬁcation status791792793794795796797798799800Petrochina No public data 3,926.62 - 7,086.52 No public dataSurgutneftegas No public data 3,926.62 - 7,086.52 No public dataEOG Resources No public data 3,926.62 - 7,086.52 No public dataPhillips 66 No public data 3,926.62 - 7,086.52 No public dataAnadarko Petroleum No public data 3,926.62 - 7,086.52 No public dataOil Company Lukoil No public data 3,926.62 - 7,086.52 No public dataPembina Pipeline No public data 6,421.64 - 7,727.13 No public dataOrigin Energy No public data 6,421.64 - 7,727.13 No public dataEdison Intl. No public data 9,036.54 - 10,342.03 No public dataFirst Energy No public data 9,036.54 - 10,342.03 No public dataET Global 800 Bottom 10 Figure 2.
Complete & VerifiedComplete & UnverifiedIncomplete dataNo public data0% 60%32%No public dataComplete & UnverifiedIncomplete dataComplete & Verified0% 30% 60%17%21%Complete & VerifiedComplete & UnverifiedIncomplete dataNo public data30%Complete0 800299Complete0 400 800164The disclosure and veriﬁcation landscape of the ET Global email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comFigure firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukDISCLOSUREOVERVIEW10Complete data versus veriﬁed data Figure 4.Companies with complete dataCompanies with complete & veriﬁed data
The ET Carbon Rankings have been designedspeciﬁcally to encourage disclosure andveriﬁcation, paving the way for absolute emissionsreductions.In essence, the ET Carbon Ranking methodologyfollows a three step process based on fourinformation categories, as detailed below.Step 1: CategorisationCompanies are placed into one of four datacategories based on Scope 1 & 2 emissions:1) Public, Complete, Veriﬁed2) Public, Complete, Unveriﬁed3) Public, Incomplete4) No Public DataStep 2: InferenceWherever data is not complete, which meansScope 1 and 2 have not been reported for thecompany’s entire operations or they have not beenexpressed in a sufﬁciently clear manner or there issimply no public data available, a worst case ﬁgureis inferred; based on the highest reportedemissions intensity by any company within thesame sector across the full universe of companieswithin the ET Carbon Rankings. This is designedspeciﬁcally to encourage disclosure and to avoidpenalising companies honest enough to report theiremissions ﬁgures.The same principle is applied but in a slightlydifferent manner to Scope 3 emissions. Because ofthe controversial nature of Scope 3 emissions - bydeﬁnition they are not under the ownership ordirect control of a company, nor do they alwayslend themselves to easy calculation oridentiﬁcation, it does not appear logical to the EIOfor these emissions to be given equal weight toScope 1 and 2 emissions, which clearly are theresponsibility of the company. email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comTHE CARBON RANKINGS HAVE BEENDESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO ENCOURAGEDISCLOSURE AND VERIFICATIONCOMPANIES WITH EXTERNALLY VERIFIEDDATA WILL ALWAYS FIND THEMSELVESRANKED ABOVE THOSE WITHUNVERIFIED DATACOMPANIES THAT DO NOT HAVE ANYPUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA AREBENCHMARKED AGAINST THE HIGHESTINTENSITY FROM THE WORST PERFORMINGCOMPANY WITHIN THEIR SECTORinfo@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukCARBON RANKINGMETHODOLOGY11
The EIOs current approach is to give a 50%weighting to any fully reported Scope 3emissions total reported according to the 15categories of the new Scope 3 standard. This isthen added to the Scope 1 and 2 total that hasalready been reported. Whenever a company doesnot report a complete Scope 3 total, exactly thesame inference method described for Scope 1 and2 is employed for Scope 3 emissions.The company in the relevant sector across the fulluniverse of ET Rankings with the highest reportedScope 3 ﬁgure is identiﬁed and used to infer aﬁgure for the remaining companies, thus avoidingpenalising a company for being honest enough toreport a high ﬁgure. The only route by which acompany can avoid having an inferred ﬁgureallocated to them is to report its own completeﬁgure, and if that happens to be lower than theexisting benchmark, then it gains the advantage ofa higher ranking position by virtue of its loweremission total. If it is higher, then all the remainingnon disclosing companies are benchmarkedagainst it.In summary, combined emissions intensity acrossthe three Scopes is calculated according to the following formula: 100% of Scope 1 & 2 emissionsintensity (disclosed or inferred) + 50% of Scope 3emissions intensity (disclosed or inferred).Step 3: RankingFirst companies are categorised according to thecompleteness and veriﬁcation of their Scope 1 & 2data. Secondly, companies are ranked within theDisclosure Categories, according to their combinedemissions intensity across Scopes 1, 2 and 3; withthe exception of any company reporting completeScope 3 data across all 15 GHG Protocol Scope 3Standard categories in addition to having completeand veriﬁed Scope 1 & 2 data. Companies fallinginto the latter category will rank above all othercompanies in the Rankings, and will bedifferentiated according to combined intensity.Please refer to the inference method as describedin the previous section for details on howcompanies not providing complete data firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comCARBON RANKINGMETHODOLOGY12info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukIT IS KEY THAT SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS AREIDENTIFIED, REPORTED ANDULTIMATELY REDUCEDScope 3 Categories:Upstream1. Purchased goods and services2. Capital goods3. Fuel- and energy-related activities (not included in scope 1 or scope 2)4. Upstream transportation and distribution5. Waste generated in operations6. Business travel7. Employee commuting8. Upstream leased assetDownstream9. Downstream transportation and distribution10. Processing of sold products11. Use of sold products12. End-of-life treatment of sold products13. Downstream leased assets14. Franchises15. Investment
Accounting for sizeEmissions intensity is calculated using turnoverﬁgures from the same ﬁnancial year as their latestpublicly available (at time of publication) reportedemissions.Whilst there is no universally accepted system ofestablishing relative company size, turnover isgenerally accepted within the ﬁeld of carbonaccounting as a reasonable metric to determinecompany size.Where one or more companies have the sameemissions intensity within the Rankings, smallermarket capitalisation is given an advantage. Thejustiﬁcation for this is simple: larger companieshave greater resources to both improve theirreporting and realign their business towards a lowcarbon email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukCARBON RANKINGMETHODOLOGY13FOR A COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF THEMETHODOLOGY BEHIND THE ET CARBONRANKINGS PLEASE VISIT EIO.ORG.UK
Oil&GasBasicMaterialsIndustrialsConsumerGoodsHealthCareConsumerServicesTelecommunicationsUtilitiesFinancialsTechnologyAlternativeElectricityinfo@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk025005000750010000Average Scope 3 Scope 3 of benchmarked companyFigure 5.SPOTLIGHT ONSCOPE 314Figure 6.CarbonIntensity(tCO2e/$Mturnover)Global Scope 3 Benchmark companiesSector Benchmark Company NameNo. of Scope 3Categories DisclosedScope 3IntensitySector Scope 3Intensity AverageOil & Gas Santos 1 6,319.81 1,473.57Basic Materials Rio Tinto 3 8,120.15 1,047.41Industrials Honda Motor 1 2,130.92 129.73Consumer Goods Panasonic 2 856.03 109.11Health Care Baxter Intl 12 291.54 23.43Consumer Services Intercontinental Hotels Gp. 2 2,475.03 72.80Telecommunications Sprint Nextel 5 71.44 7.35Utilities PG&E 1 2,610.97 861.67Financials British Land 3 531.72 9.96Technology Intel 3 314.82 36.16Alternative Energy Cemig 3 0.45 0.45Global Scope 3 Analysis
ET Global 800 8000 400 firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comTotal no. of companiesGlobal 800 Scope 3 Analysis Figure 7.Companies disclosing some Scope 3 emissions email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukSPOTLIGHT ONSCOPE 315Global 800 Extent of Scope 3 Disclosure Figure 8.Scope 3categoriesdisclosedNumber ofcompanies12345678910111213141512553472483000201001This clearly demonstrates thatthe companies comprising theGlobal 800 still have a longway to go in terms of beginningto account for the full extent oftheir companies’ Scope 3emissions.
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comSPOTLIGHT ONINFERENCE:SCOPE email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukDisclosure &Veriﬁcation statusCarbonRankCompany NameNo. of S3CategoriesDisclosedTotal Scope 3EmissionsDisclosedScope 3IntensityInferred Scope3 IntensityNo Public DataNo Public DataNo Public Data777 Mfrisco - No Public Data - 8,120.15778 Silver Wheaton - No Public Data - 8,120.15779 China Shenhua - No Public Data - 8,120.15Figure 9.As these three companies from the Basic Materials sector fail to disclose all 15 Scope 3 categoriesas deﬁned by the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard, their disclosed Scope 3ﬁgures are considered to be incomplete, and therefore they are given an inferred Scope 3 ﬁgure.Sector Benchmark Company NameScope 3IntensityOil & Gas Santos 6,319.81Basic Materials Rio Tinto 8,120.15Industrials Honda Motor 2,130.92Consumer Goods Panasonic 856.03Health Care Baxter Intl 291.54Consumer Services Int. Continental Hotels Group 2,475.03Telecommunications Sprint Nextel 71.44Utilities PG&E 2,610.97Financials British Land 531.72Technology Intel 314.82Alternative Energy Cemig 0.45Rio Tinto is one of the Scope 3 benchmark companies for the ETGlobal Universe, which means it is the company with the highestdisclosed Scope 3 intensity within the Basic Materials sector.NB. Example taken from ET Global 800
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukSPOTLIGHT ONSCOPE 1 & 218Global Scope 1 & 2 Benchmark companiesSector Benchmark Company NameScope 1 & 2IntensitySector Scope 1 &2Intensity AverageOil & Gas Producers Sasol 3,926.62 637.62Oil Equipment, Services & Distribution Transcanada 1,274.87 274.59Alternative Energy Tractebel 1,792.34 732.14Chemicals Air Prds& Chems 2,412.22 527.69Forestry & Paper Mondi 685.07 528.76Metals Mining & Production Usiminas 2,203.99 825.31General Mining Harmony Gold Mng 2,434.17 652.35Construction ACC 16,462.39 1,818.72Aviation & Defence Meggitt 54.67 25.31Diversiﬁed Industrials Swire Paciﬁc 3,602.58 393.03Electronic & Electrical Products Samsung Elto.Mechanics 139.38 54.13Industrial Engineering Mahindra & Mahindra 130.66 33.84Industrial Transportation A P Moller - Maersk 720.44 328.55Waste Disposal & Business Services Waste Man 1,099.20 110.08Automotive Astra International 360.96 56.47Beverages Sabmiller 139.63 77.65Food Producers Monsanto 222.05 87.10Household Durables and Non-Durables Steinhoff Intl 146.90 49.53Leisure Goods & Consumer Electronics Samsung Electronics 73.34 34.27Clothing, Footwear & Personal Products Colgate-Palmolive India 1,870.83 157.14Medical Products & Services Mediclinic International 77.42 29.46Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Products Novozymes 198.15 38.83Retailers Food & Drug Lawson 130.51 39.56Retailers General The Foschini Group 142.70 46.36Media Dai Nippon Printing 53.33 15.97Lesuire & Travel Services Int. Continental hotels gp 2,576.05 498.77Telecommunications Fixed Line Chunghwa Telecom 121.62 36.84Telecommunications Mobile Taiwan Mobile 70.96 40.01Utilities Electric American Elec Power 9,036.54 3,007.06Utilities General Duke Energy 6,421.64 1,124.00Financials Weyerhaeuser 418.28 22.78Computer & Internet Services Wipro 63.80 28.49Telecommunications & Computer Products United Micro Eltn 413.39 76.90Figure 11.
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comSPOTLIGHT ONINFERENCE:SCOPE 1 & 219Figure email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukDisclosure & VeriﬁcationstatusCarbonRankCompany NameAbsolute EmissionstCO2e (Scope 1+2)Emissions Intensity(tCO2e/$Mturnover)No. of S3CategoriesDisclosedNo Public DataNo Public Data799 Edison Intl. No Public Data 9,036.54 -800 First Energy No Public Data 9,036.54 -Disclosure & VeriﬁcationstatusCarbonRankCompany NameAbsolute EmissionstCO2e (Scope 1+2)Emissions Intensity(tCO2e/$M turnover)No. of S3CategoriesDisclosedComplete & UnveriﬁedComplete & UnveriﬁedComplete & Unveriﬁed297 Duke Energy 93,300,000.00 6,421.64 -298 Xcel Energy 79,300,000.00 7,446.89 -299 American Elec Power 136,000,000.00 9,036.54 -Here, Edison International and First Energy havebeen benchmarked against the highest disclosingcompany with complete data from the Electricityindustry. This means they have been given aninferred intensity of 9,036.54 tCO2e/$M turnover.This is not an approximation of their emissions but ameans of making sure that the highest disclosingcompany in the sector is not penalised for beinghonest enough to report a large ﬁgure.As both companies have the same inferred intensityﬁgure, the company with the largest marketcapitalisation is placed lower down the Ranking.American Electric Power is the company with the highestemissions intensity disclosing complete data within theElectricity Industry across the entire ET Global Universe.NB. Example taken from ET Global 800
Figure 13 lists the ten lowest absolute emittersfrom those disclosing complete Scope 1 & 2information. Veriﬁcation status is included onthe right but does not affect the ranking.Despite their low absolute emissions, BMFBovespa, Prologis and Hong Kong Exchangeand Clearing, which occupy 1st, 2nd and 3rdplaces do not appear in the top 30 of the ETCarbon Ranking.50% of the companies come from the broadFinancials sector, 20% from Consumer Servicesfollowed by another 10% in each of theTe c h n o l o g y, C o n s u m e r G o o d s a n dTelecommunications Sectors.Only one company, Swisscom, also ranks in thetop 10 of the ET Carbon Rankings, whichorders companies based on firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comAbsoluteRankETRankCompany NameScope 1+2emissions(tCO2e)Scope 1+2IntensityScope 1+2 + 50%Inferred S3 IntensityDisclosure &Veriﬁcation status1234567891037 BMF Bovespa 773 0.75 266.61 Complete & Veriﬁed38 Prologis 8,667 5.65 271.51 Complete & Veriﬁed40 HK Exs & Clear 11,137 11.73 277.59 Complete & Veriﬁed17 Asustek Computer 13,060 0.99 158.40 Complete & Veriﬁed2 Swisscom 23,242 1.86 37.58 Complete & Veriﬁed243 Kohls 27,269 1.45 1,238.97 Complete & Unveriﬁed248 SES FDR 27,496 12.03 1,249.55 Complete & Unveriﬁed39 Deutsche Boerse 29,799 10.12 275.98 Complete & Veriﬁed41 British Land 31,346 61.61 327.47 Complete & Veriﬁed202 Li & Fung 32,120 1.60 429.61 Complete & UnveriﬁedFigure email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukLowest Absolute Emitters (Scope 1 & 2 Only)RANKINGANALYSIS20Highest and Lowest Absolute Emitters:Scope 1 & 2Taken from the 356 Companies reporting complete data
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comFigure 14 lists the ten largest absolute emittersfrom those disclosing complete Scope 1 & 2information, ignoring veriﬁcation status.Six of the bottom 10 are from the carbonintensive Utilities sector, including, the largestabsolute emitter in the ET Global 800 acrossScope 1 & 2 emissions, RWE.Interestingly there is a large gulf between the ﬁrstand last of the bottom 10 with the total Scope 1& 2 emissions of Duke Energy only 56% those ofbottom ranked RWE.Perhaps unsurprisingly, two of the world’s largestcement companies, French based Lafarge andSwiss based Holcim, feature in the bottom 10.Lafarge emits 4,100,000 tCO2e less per yearthan its competitor and is marginally less carbonefﬁcient.Interestingly, within the Utilities sector whilstthose in the bottom 7 have comparative absoluteemissions, some appear to be far more efﬁcientthan others. American Electric Power has aScope 1 & 2 emissions intensity of 9,036.54tCO2e/$M turnover, compared to EON and GDFSuez, which have intensities approximately 5times lower at 2,287.24 and 2,617.98 tCO2e/$Mturnover, email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukRANKINGANALYSIS21AbsoluteRankETRankCompany NameScope 1+2emissions(tCO2e)Scope 1+2IntensityScope 1+2 + 50%Inferred S3 IntensityDisclosure &Veriﬁcation status290291292293294295296297298299297 Duke Energy 93,300,000 6,421.64 7,727.13 Complete & Unveriﬁed161Lafarge95,000,000 4,714.57 5,780.03 Complete & Veriﬁed158 Holcim 99,100,000 4,373.13 5,438.59 Complete & Veriﬁed110 Enel 123,832,000 1,210.82 2,516.30 Complete & Veriﬁed276 Gazprom 133,400,000 878.81 4,038.71 Complete & Unveriﬁed299 American Elec Power 136,000,000 9,036.54 10,342.03 Complete & Unveriﬁed121 Exxon Mobil 143,000,000 329.85 3,489.76 Complete & Veriﬁed108 E On 146,200,000 981.75 2,287.24 Complete & Veriﬁed111 GDF Suez 156,899,254 1,312.50 2,617.98 Complete & Veriﬁed128 RWE 166,200,000 2,564.70 3,870.19 Complete & VeriﬁedFigure 14.Highest Absolute Emitters (Scope 1 & 2 Only)Highest and Lowest Absolute Emitters:Scope 1 & 2Taken from the 299 Companies reporting complete data
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comGEOGRAPHICALANALYSIS22Regions leading the ﬁeld of disclosure Figure email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukSummaryThere are multiple ways of presenting the aboveinformation: ranking regions according to lowestlevels of companies failing to report any data;combining the total number of companiesreporting complete data (veriﬁed or unveriﬁed);and, by the total number of companies reportingpublic, complete and veriﬁed data.Since the purpose of the ET Carbon Rankings isto incentivise all companies across all regions toreport complete and veriﬁed data, the regionshave been ranked by the total number ofcompanies reporting public, complete andveriﬁed data.Whilst it is perhaps of no great surprise thatEurope is the leading region in terms ofcomplete and veriﬁed disclosure of GHG data, itis perhaps more surprising that Asia-Paciﬁc hasa higher proportion of companies reportingsome data than North America.It is equally surprising that the level of completeand veriﬁed data is essentially comparablebetween the BRICS, Asia Paciﬁc and NorthAmerican Regions. Clearly, in all regions, thegap between aspiration and reality is great.EuropeNorth AmericaAsia & PacificBRICS0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%60.87%31.67%40%14%20.4%41.67%22.33%34.33%7.69%14.33%24.67%16.67%11.04%12.33%13%35%Public, Complete, VeriﬁedPublic, Complete, UnveriﬁedPublic, IncompleteNo Public Data
11%13%13%14%17%19%21%21%25%32%36%40%43%48%50%50%53%53%54%56%62%62%ITALYSPAINGERMANYSWITZERLANDNETHERLANDSSOUTH AFRICAFRANCESWEDENUNITED KINGDOMAUSTRALIASOUTH KOREACANADAUNITED STATESJAPANPHILIPPINESBRAZILTAIWANTHAILANDINDIARUSSIAN FEDERATIONSINGAPOREHONG KONG 9%13%4%12%8%12%12%0%7%11%15%27%27%28%12%37%24%53%33%39%54%54%% of companies reporting complete and veriﬁed firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comGEOGRAPHICALANALYSIS23Countries leading the ﬁeld of disclosure Figure email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukSummaryItaly and Spain rank joint highest in terms ofdisclosure and veriﬁcation with 62% ofcompanies reporting complete data and a further54% having their data veriﬁed.While intensity ﬁgures may to a certain extent beexplained by different economic sectors,performance in terms of disclosure objectivelymeasures how transparent companies in aparticular geography are about their emissions.The results conﬁrm the regional disclosureanalysis on the previous page. Europeancountries are clearly leading the way, with 7 of thetop 10 countries located in Europe. The worstplaced European country, the UK, is well ahead ofall the remaining countries, with the exception ofAustralia, in terms of public disclosure ofcomplete GHG emissions data.It is also interesting to note that no company fromthe Philippines sought veriﬁcation.% of companies reporting complete dataPlease note that only countries with 10 or more companies inthe ET Global 800 Ranking have been included in this analysis
Basic MaterialsTelecommunicationsTechnologyUtilitiesIndustrialsConsumer GoodsHealth CareOil & GasConsumer ServicesFinancials firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comFigure email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukThe Global Rankings show that there is vast roomfor improvement of GHG emissions reporting andveriﬁcation in the dominant industry sectors.Basic Materials and Utilities, despite being carbonintensive industries, have some of the largestpercentage of companies reporting completedata. Interestingly, Basic Materials also has thesecond highest percentage of companiesreporting veriﬁed emissions data, with onlyTelecommunications boasting a higher ﬁgure. Thesector with the lowest percentage of companiesreporting complete data was Financials.SECTORALANALYSIS26Summary% of companies reporting complete data% of companies reporting complete and veriﬁed dataSectors leading the ﬁeld of disclosure
Non-Sectoral approachThe ET Carbon Ranking methodology is based ona non-sectoral approach as it is intended tocreate incentives for disclosure and emissionsreduction across the board. Under this widerEnvironmental Tracking system, companies withhigher intensities will experience greaterdownward pressure than those with lowintensities, reﬂecting the science behind climatechange mitigation dictating that absoluteemissions have to be reduced.Disclosure & Veriﬁcation before intensityIt could be argued that the present Ranking doesnot accurately reﬂect the emissions landscape asthe key determinant of positioning is disclosureand veriﬁcation before intensity. However, withoutcomplete and veriﬁed data we cannot accuratelypaint a picture of the emissions landscape.High intensity by deﬁnitionBy deﬁnition some companies pollute more thanothers, moreover, many of these companiesprovide valuable and vital services to society. Yetwithout strong incentives to change, they willcontinue to carry out their activities in a waywhich is detrimental to the environment. Virtuallyall the technological advances needed to tackleclimate change are already in existence, or areonly a few years away with the necessaryinvestment.The only way we can expect these companies toinvest in new technologies and employ newenvironmentally friendly policies is to providethem with an incentive to do so. The EIO arguesthat within the framework of the existing systemthis incentive must accord with a company’sraison dêtre: to maximise share price return. Thiscan only be achieved by creating a system whichinﬂuences share price according to theenvironmental costs of a company’s firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukWITHOUT COMPLETE AND VERIFIED DATAWE CANNOT ACCURATELY PAINT A PICTUREOF THE EMISSIONS LANDSCAPECONSIDERING BUSINESS MOTIVATION TOPROVIDE SHAREHOLDER RETURN, WE CANINCENTIVISE CHANGE THROUGH AFFECTINGA COMPANYS SHARE PRICEDISCUSSIONKEY POINTS27
Global Reporting landscapeDespite signiﬁcant action being taken in the pasttwenty years, we still have a long way to go. Withlarge differences between regions, large differencesbetween developed and developing countries aswell as large differences between companies, thereis vast room for improvement, innovation andcollaboration. But in order to improve, we shouldﬁrst know where we are. That is why monitoring ofand (complete) reporting on GHG emissions iscrucial to taking the next steps.Sustainability ReportingSustainability reporting has grown rapidly over thepast two decades as companies supplement theirannual reports with issues pertaining to corporatesocial responsibility.However, the lack of a universally accepted ormandatory standard concerning corporateresponsibility disclosure means both reportingformats and content vary widely.A large number of Europe’s top companies followthe framework set out by the Global ReportingInitiative. This clearly deﬁnes the disclosure ofenvironmental, social and governance indicators,including Greenhouse Gas emissions expressed asmetric tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e). (Seepage 36 for more details). However, following GRIguidelines does not speciﬁcally require clear Scope1 and 2 reporting.The internationally recognised and acceptedstandard for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting hasbeen established by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol,and deﬁnes Greenhouse Gas emissions reportingby Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. However, as thisreport highlights companies do not always applythe standard correctly. Important issues ofcoverage and key calculation and reportingrequirements are often not clearly stated or arehidden within the main document.In 2000 the Carbon Disclosure Project launched aninitiative to encourage corporate GHG disclosure.However, this information is not always included insustainability reports or placed in the publicdomain.AS THE ET GLOBAL 800 CARBONRANKING HIGHLIGHTS, THERE AREMAJOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEENCOMPANIES IN REGARDTO THE QUALITYOF REPORTINGinfo@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.uk‣ Scope 1 emissions:All direct emissions‣ Scope 2 emissions:Indirect emissions generated from thepurchase of electricity‣ Scope 3 emissions:All other indirect emissions, such asdistribution of goods, transportation ofpurchased goods, transportation of waste,disposal of waste, employee commuting,business travelREPORTINGLANDSCAPE28SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING HASGROWN RAPIDLY OVER THE PAST TWODECADES AS COMPANIESSUPPLEMENT THEIR ANNUALREPORTS WITH ISSUESPERTAINING TO CORPORATESOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
VariationsAs pointed out by the ERM (2010) study on GHGreporting methods and initiatives, “Voluntarymethods are open to varying degrees ofinterpretation by the user whilst mandatorymethods tend to be much more prescriptive. Anexample of this can be seen on the issue ofboundary setting. Voluntary methods such as theWBCSD/WRI GHG Protocol, and voluntaryreporting schemes such as CDP, allow the user toselect the boundary based on a number of options(e.g. operational or ﬁnancial control; equity share),to ensure maximum ﬂexibility. By way of contrast,mandatory schemes and their associatedcalculation methods, such as those for the UKCarbon Reduction Commitment and the schemeslinked to trading of emissions allowances orpermits (e.g. EU ETS; JVETS), deﬁne quiteprecisely the boundary, to ensure consistency inreporting between organisations covered by thescheme.”GapsInterestingly, the report notes that “few methods orinitiatives provide incentives such as benchmarks,league tables and ﬁnancial penalties/rewards”. Thisis a gap the EIO seeks to address through itsEnvironmental Tracking (ET) Carbon Rankings andIndex Series.The report also draws attention to the “lack of clearstatement of a ‘mandatory minimum’ GHGreporting requirements in most of the voluntarymethods and initiatives”, suggesting that “mostvoluntary methods have shied away from beingprescriptive on key issues or have put complexarrangements in place to ensure adaptability” inorder to encourage maximum uptake (ERM 2010).Please see the Reporting guidance section forsuggestions on the EIO’s recommendations forhow companies can report their GHG emissionsmore firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukTHERE ARE CURRENTLY WIDE VARIATIONSIN INTERPRETATION OF METHODS FORTHE MAJORITY OF VOLUNTARY SCHEMESERM (2010) NOTES THAT THERE ARE FEWINITIATIVES PROVIDING INCENTIVES SUCHAS LEAGUE TABLES OR FINANCIALPENALTIES/REWARDS - A GAP THE EIOSEEKS TO ADDRESS DIRECTLY THROUGHITS ET CARBON RANKINGS AND INDEXSERIESREPORTINGLANDSCAPE29
EXEMPLARYREPORT30info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comTaken from IBM’s website, this template clearly shows Scope 1 & 2 emissions and is easilyaccessible from the company’s online GRI index (see next page), under the EN16 link.IBM also provides its Scope 3 emissions information which is clearly referenced under EN17.IBM ranks 50th in the ET North America 300 and 187th in the Global email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comUsing a Global ReportingInitiative index helpsanyone reading a report tonavigate it quickly andeasily.To the left are the keyindicators the EIO focuseson to determine:✓ the scope of a companyreport✓ whether or not anymaterial elements havebeen excluded✓ whether is has beenassured by a third-party✓ whether the company isreporting its Scope 1, 2and 3 email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukGRITEMPLATE31
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comIn this example we see the company disclose fully on all 15 GHG Protocol Scope 3categories. The company clearly identiﬁes each category, reports its emissions andexplains any omissions.BASF is the only company in the ET Carbon Rankings series to report on all 15 Scope 3categories, and therefore enjoys pole position in both the ET Global 800 and ET Europe300 for the second time email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukREPORTINGEXAMPLES32
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comHere we see a very good example of clear reporting, across all Scopes adhering to theGHG Protocol terminology and presenting information over multiple years for ease ofcomparison.Baxter International ranks 35th in the ET Global 800 and 13th in the ET North American300.email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukREPORTINGEXAMPLES33
Recommendations for reportingCompanies can easily improve their standingswithin the ET Carbon Rankings by following severalsimple steps:1. Publishing emissions data for Scopes 1, 2 and 3in the public domain, in a clear and accessiblemanner, either on the company website or in aSustainability Report, Annual report, IntegratedAnnual report or ideally, all of those that apply.2. Ensuring this information has been externallyveriﬁed to a reasonable standard of assurance,ideally against a speciﬁc GHG standard such asISO 14064-3, but at least in accordance with ageneral assurance standard, such as ISAE 3000(the International Standard on AssuranceEngagement).3. Calculate Scope 3 emissions comprehensivelyaccording to the new GHG protocol CorporateValue Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and ReportingStandard. The latest information on veriﬁcation ofScope 3 can be found at the GHG Protocol andISO websites.4. Ensure that any veriﬁcation statement is publiclyavailable and included in the relevant SustainabilityReport or Annual Report, as well as ensuring it canbe easily found on your companys website.One of the primary aims of the EIOs series ofRankings is to ensure that reliable GHG emissionsdata is publicly available and we applaud allcompanies making a serious effort to reach thisstandard.Encouraging clearer reportingThe key areas which are identiﬁed by the variousbodies of research carried out in the ﬁeld of GHGemissions reporting, including by the EIO, suggestthat there is an urgent need for:‣ Standardised reporting‣ More emphasis on the veriﬁcation of GHGemissions data reported by companiesThe following page outlines the EIO’s proposal forthe ET Reporting template firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk‣ Report Scope 1, 2 & 3 emissionsfollowing GHG protocolguidelines‣ Ensure emissions data is publiclyavailable in CSR/Sustainabilityreports/Integrated Annual reportand online‣ Have emissions data veriﬁed byan independent third party to arecognised standard‣ Ensure veriﬁcation certiﬁcatesare publicREPORTINGGUIDANCE34
ET REPORTINGTEMPLATE35info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukThe EIO, is seeking sponsorship for its forthcomingEnvironmental Tracking (ET) Reporting Template initiative.The ET Reporting Template will provide companies with acloud-based, simple, straightforward and standardisedway of reporting their greenhouse gas emissions in thepublic domain. The EIO is offering sponsors theopportunity to showcase their brand while supporting acutting edge and urgently needed piece of infrastructure inthe carbon reporting landscape.Below is an example of the points the template will seek tocover.ENVIRONMENTAL TRACKING REPORTING TEMPLATEENVIRONMENTAL TRACKING REPORTING TEMPLATEENVIRONMENTAL TRACKING REPORTING TEMPLATEReporting Period:Reporting Period:Reporting Period:1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012: Yes/No? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012: Yes/No? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________1 January 2011 to 31 December 2012: Yes/No? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________If other please specify __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________If other please specify __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________If other please specify __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Metric tonnes of CO2e (tCO2e)Metric tonnes of CO2e (tCO2e)Scope 1Scope 2Scope 3Scope 3 UpstreamScope 3 UpstreamScope 3 UpstreamPurchased goods and servicesCapital GoodsFuel - and Energy - related Activities not included inScope 1+2Transportation & Distribution (Upstream)Waste Generation in OperationsBusiness TravelEmployee CommutingLeased Assets (Upstream)InvestmentsScope 3 DownstreamScope 3 DownstreamScope 3 DownstreamTransportation & Distribution (Downstream)Processing of Sold ProductsUse of Sold ProductsEnd-of-Life Treatment of Sold productsLeased Assets (Downstream)FranchisesTotal gross emissionsGreen tariff Energy Purchased -Total net emissions
ET REPORTINGTEMPLATE36info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukENVIRONMENTAL TRACKING REPORTING TEMPLATE (Continued)Other greenhouse gasesDoes your company produce any greenhouse gases which are not covered by the Kyoto basket of 6 gases? Yes/No?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________If you have answered yes to the previous question what percentage do they represent of the total and have they been included in the Scope 1, 2 and 3 calculations listed above?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Boundary setting:What reporting boundary method have you adopted under the terms of the GHG Protocol?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Scope of Reporting: Scope 1 & 2Do the gross emissions reported for Scope 1 & 2 as defined by the GHG Protocol represent 100% of your company’s emissions for these Scopes? Yes/No?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________If you have answered no to the previous question, what percentage of your company’s operations do they represent?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Scope of Reporting: Scope 3How many Scope 3 categories does your company disclose data for?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Please attach a full breakdown with the percentage coverage for each______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Verifications/Assurance (to be completed by an independent third party)Name of Verifier: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Which standard has been used to assure the data? (E.g. ISO14064, AA1000AS etc)_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Which Scopes have been verified? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________If the company is reporting Scope 3 emissions, has it covered all of the Scopes accurately (for Scope 3 please refer to the GHG Protocol new Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3)Accounting and Reporting Standard), including any GHGs not covered by the GHG Protocol which may be material? Yes/No?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Are there any material issues with the numbers represented for the company under Scope 1, 2 or 3? Yes/No?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Is the data presented by the company representative of the company’s entire scope of operations? Yes/No? If no approximately what % does it cover?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Please state any other further comments or qualifications______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Please attach the verification full statement.While many companies disclose their greenhouse gasemissions through third party databases such as theCarbon Disclosure Project, there is currently nostandardised reporting template available for companies todisclose their emissions on their websites, corporate socialresponsibility reports and/or annual reports. With manyvariations and inconsistencies in reporting styles andpractices, the vast majority of information disclosed bycompanies on their greenhouse gas emissions is extremelydifﬁcult to interpret and makes cross comparison virtuallyimpossible. In order to address this issue the EIO isproposing its ET Reporting Template initiative.
EMISSIONSLANDSCAPE37info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukIntroductionOn the 8th of December 2012, the Conference ofthe Parties (COP) to the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)completed its eighteenth annual meeting.Convened to discuss the future of the KyotoProtocol, as well as funding initiatives fordeveloping states threatened by climate change,the meeting produced the Doha Climate Gateway.This agreement mandated an eight-year extensionof the Kyoto Protocol, including the extension ofKyoto’s ﬂexible mechanisms, such as EmissionsTrading, Joint Implementation, and the CleanDevelopment Mechanism. In addition, it includesthe basis of a Loss and Damage Clause, whichwas formalised for the ﬁrst time at this meeting.This mechanism is a landmark attempt toﬁnancially compensate countries that aresigniﬁcantly affected by the negative effects ofclimate change. The Doha Climate Gateway alsoapproved moving forward with the DurbanPlatform. Agreed at the previous COP in 2011, theDurban Platform mandated countries to reach anagreement on a work-plan for legally binding post-Kyoto negotiations by 2015, to be implemented by2020. Reaction to this meeting has been varied,with developed states arguing that the Loss andDamage Clause is a breakthrough; and developingstates demanding that more needs to be done. Extension of KyotoWhile other aspects of the agreement are highlydebated, many see COP18’s extension of theKyoto Protocol as the success that the meeting setout to achieve. Yet the fact remains that nearly 85percent of global emissions remain outside of thejurisdiction of this agreement. One of the world’slargest emitters, the United States, is not party tothe Kyoto Protocol, and Canada, another sizeableemitter, withdrew from the Protocol altogether in2011. Parties at Doha called for the post-Kyotoclimate agreement to be inclusive, allowing allstates to participate.States participating in the new second Kyotoperiod are now bound by targets of 18 percentbelow 1990 emissions levels. However, thesetargets are insufﬁcient in addressing the global
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukEMISSIONSLANDSCAPE38climate crisis, according to IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports(Greenpeace 2012). Countries agreed to revisittargets in 2014, and in the interim, to increase theirinternal national efforts. The EU has pledged toincrease its emission reduction commitments from20 percent to 30 percent of 1990 levels by 2020,dependant on other developed countries settingsimilar targets (UNFCCC 2012).One of the most contentious issues that threatenedto derail the Doha negotiations was the issue of‘hot air’. In short, the delegations of Russia,Ukraine, Poland, and Belarus expressed theirdesire for their accumulation of unused carboncredits, otherwise known as Assigned AmountUnits (AAUs), or ‘hot air’, to be carried over to thesecond Kyoto commitment period.The large accumulation of unused carbon creditsoriginates from the fact that the Kyoto Protocolused 1990 as its baseline year to measure carbonlevels, at which point industrial output was farhigher than it was following the collapse of theSoviet Union. This permitted former Sovietcountries to engage in the controversial practice ofmaking large proﬁts from selling vast quantities ofsurplus emissions credits, granted to them uponsigning the Kyoto Protocol. If the Doha agreementhad been altered to include this intervention beforethe ﬁnal plenary session, the Doha ClimateGateway document would have required extensiverewording. The ﬁnal paper was therefore decidedupon without taking note of the protest. Otherdelegations discussed the possibility of onlydealing in AAU credits at a domestic level, orauctioning hot air to prevent countries from beingallocated too many or too few AAUs. This will befurther discussed at subsequent UNFCCCmeetings. Many believe the Doha agreement failed to differfrom previous international climate meetings inwhich meaningful international efforts were alsostunted for various reasons. Many developingnations have welcomed a second Kyotocommitment period, but are concerned that stallingthe introduction of a replacement policy untilbetween 2015 and 2020 will not serve to effectivelymitigate anthropogenic climate change.
EMISSIONSLANDSCAPE39info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukFurthermore, Australia, Canada, and the UnitedStates remain uncommitted to the climate changeregime, yet these positions have been increasinglychallenged by the EU due to its strong bargainingposition, as well as by increasingly assertive smallisland states.Loss and Damage ClauseAn inclusion within the Climate GatewayAgreement that many have hailed as abreakthrough is the Loss and Damage Clause. Thebasic idea of this clause is to compensatecountries affected by the negative impacts ofclimate change. This includes impacts related toextreme weather events, and slow onset eventssuch as coral bleaching and land erosion.Countries are invited to build national riskmanagement strategies, and present them to theUNFCCC, where a body will then decide on theappropriate level of compensation. However, theclause stops short of making developed nationslegally liable for the negative consequences ofthese climate changes. Moving away fromdiscussions around mitigation and adaptation, theclause has created consensus that the negativeimpacts of climate change are unavoidable, andthat we must move forward with compensation atonce. At COP19, which will be held in 2013,supplementary institutional arrangements will bedecided upon to address loss and damage invulnerable developing countries (IISD December2012).Green Climate FundReferring to the agreed $100 billion per year tovulnerable countries, decided at Copenhagen in2009, negotiators in Durban sought a ﬁnalsettlement on where these funds would comefrom, how they would be managed, and atimetable on incremental increases of this aid. Thisfunding is meant to be a combination of privateand public funding managed by the Green ClimateFund (GCF). Established at Copenhagen, the fundis designed to raise and manage the transfer ofsuch funds from developed to developing nations.This includes ﬁnancial support offered to cleantechnology transfer and capacity-building
email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukEMISSIONSLANDSCAPE40(UNFCCC 2009). Yet COP18 did not reachconsensus on this proposal. According toGreenpeace, a large part of the failure is a result ofblocking tactics utilised by the United States,Japan, Canada, and New Zealand: real progresson clean development and technology will only bemade once these large economies relinquish theirdependence on fossil fuel economics (Greenpeace2012). As of the end of COP18, there were no ﬁrmcommitments for the GCF, nor was there thereconsensus on the distribution or allocation offunding. Nonetheless, the Green Climate Fund isexpected to begin its work in the second half of2013, with projects beginning in early 2014. One positive in the ﬁnancial sphere of Doha camein the form of ﬁrm commitments by Germany, theUnited Kingdom, France, Denmark, Sweden, andthe EU Commission, who all committed concreteﬁnancial pledges to the fund totaling $10 billion, forthe period leading up to 2015 (Greenpeace 2012). Flexible MechanismsThe outcome of the COP18 did little to addressongoing issues of implementation, reform, orﬁnance of the three ﬂexible mechanisms.Though the three ﬂexible mechanisms, the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM), JointImplementation (JI), and International EmissionsTrading (EIT) were extended to 2020, delegates atthe COP could not reach consensus on a much-needed reform of the CDM. As the delegate ofZambia argued, reforming of the CDM is necessaryto address uncertainty over transparency,a c c o u n t a b i l i t y, a n d m e t h o d o l o g i e s o fimplementation. The CDM, for example, is notclear on the interplay between access to carboncredits through CDM projects, and the availabilityof technology through technology transferinitiatives. Developed countries can invest inCertiﬁed Emissions Reduction Projects (CERP) indeveloping countries to earn AAUs, yet developedcountries are not obliged to share more energyefﬁcient products or designs with the countriesthat they are assisting. Other questions arose overaccess to ﬂexible mechanism projects forcountries not participating in the second Kyotocommitment period. For example, whethercountries who don’t sign up to Kyoto’s second
EMISSIONSLANDSCAPE41info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukcommitment period will be able to use CDMprojects to generate excess carbon credits, orwhether these credits will count towards their initialKyoto commitments. Further calls were made toreform the distribution of CDM projects, whichhave traditionally been focused on countries withadequate infrastructure. For example, only 2.7percent of registered Certiﬁed EmissionsReduction (CER) projects leading up to 2012 havebeen focused on Sub-Saharan Africa, one of theworld’s poorest regions that is in need of muchgreater assistance (Boyd 2009).Furthermore, a debate took place on the inclusionof ﬂexible mechanisms within the second Kyotoperiod. A proposal was put forward to limit thebeneﬁts of ﬂexible mechanisms to those countriesthat agreed to partake in the second commitmentperiod, thereby excluding countries that refused toratify Kyoto, or have since left the agreement. Itwas ultimately concluded that access to ﬂexiblemechanisms would be limited to countries thatagree to a second commitment period. Negotiating Blocs at the TalksMany delegates formed coalitions with otherparties sharing their interests at COP18. Thefollowing sections outline the positions of some ofthese blocs:The Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS) One of the most important coalitions within themeeting was AOSIS. During the 20th century, sealevels have risen by an average of around 1.7millimeters per year, with evidence showing thatthe most drastic rise has occurred most recently.As around 23 percent of the world’s populationlives in coastal regions, and a signiﬁcant number ofpeople therefore are threatened by rising sealevels. Low-lying small island states represent themost vulnerable states to the changing climate, asrising sea levels have begun to cause erosion andcould inundate or engulf some regions. Recentprojections by the IPCC (a scientiﬁc bodyestablished by the United Nations) show that sealevels may rise between 26 and 59 centimetres bythe end of the 21st century (IPCC 2007). In
firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukcontext, the Paciﬁc small island of Tuvalu is only460 centimeters above sea level at its highestpoint. In an even more drastic situation, theMaldives, at its highest point, is only 243centimeters above sea level. However, over 80percent of the country is less than 100 cm abovesea level (UNDP 2011). Some experts have evengone so far as to project that if current trendsremain in a business-as-usual scenario, these twoisland states will be uninhabitable by 2100. Withoutimmediate action, even the widely accepted 2degrees celsius reduction in global temperatures,according to AOSIS, will not be enough to preventcatastrophic damage to small island states (UNDPI2011).In his opening statement before COP18, therepresentative of Nauru, on behalf of AOSIS,reiterated a necessity for bringing all countriestogether under one strong agreement, which heargued must begin with a strengthened KyotoProtocol during its second implementation phase.Though the Protocol has been a point ofcontention, with many arguing it is not capable ofeffectively governing the climate change regime,AOSIS states believe that it is their bestopportunity to immediately combat climate changeat the multilateral level. He also argued that smallisland states require funding which can be madeavailable through a global platform of negotiations.He said that long-term ﬁnance was the missing linkin the Durban Platform, and that efforts need to bemade towards fulﬁlling the promise of the $100billion per year that developed countries hadcommitted to spending on climate changeabatement and adaptation projects (AOSIS 2012).The agreement reached at Doha attempted topartly address funding issues through the Loss andDamage Clause.Umbrella GroupRepresentatives of the Umbrella Group, which istraditionally composed of Australia, Canada,Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Ukraine andthe United States, stated that the secondcommitment period of the Kyoto Protocol must beimplemented on 1 January 2013, for an eight-yearperiod. The Umbrella Group appears to besupportive of continuing Kyoto’s ﬂexibleEMISSIONSLANDSCAPE42
EMISSIONSLANDSCAPE43info@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.ukmechanisms, and ensuring broad access to them.Commitments to the Kyoto Protocol are, as theUmbrella Group has noted, a broad and sharedendeavour that must support all nations.Furthermore, on international actions, the Groupsupports a bottom-up approach, includingincentivising nations to comply. The group hastraditionally called for a “common ground” inclimate negotiations (IISD May 2012). As such,their current stance relates to the necessity ofequalising emissions levels between Annex Icountries (those countries classiﬁed by the KyotoProtocol as developed) and major emitters such asIndia and China. They look to negotiate a newbinding agreement that is equally applicable to allnations.Least Developed Countries (LDCs)Representatives of the Least Developed Countries(LDCs) spoke out against the lack of formalcommitments achieved at COP18. They hadsought improved and ﬁrm commitments to ﬁnanceduring the 2013-2020 gap between major climateagreements, and are disappointed at Doha’s failureto achieve this. Many LDCs are extremelyvulnerable to climate change, and therefore LDCsremain adamant over the necessity of a strongKyoto Protocol. They also advocated removing theright to purchase AAUs for developed countriesthat did not ratify the second Kyoto commitmentperiod. Furthermore, there was general criticism ofthat fact that a ﬁrm decision on the Loss andDamage Clause was delayed for a year. AOSIS,LDCs and the Africa Group represent over a billionpeople who are vulnerable to climate change. Coalition for Rainforest NationsAt COP18, the Coalition for Rainforest Nationssupported the implementation of a second Kyotoimplementation period, but argued that it shouldincorporate a mid-term target review to aligntargets with recommendations made by the ﬁfthIPCC report (to be completed in 2014). They alsofelt that each country should report their ownemissions, to maintain their environmental integrity,and they staunchly supported policies designed toreduce deforestation, such as the United Nations
email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukReducing Emissions from Deforestation and ForestDegradation (REDD) programme.In paying forest land managers more than theywould gain by selling timber, the programmeprovides an economic incentive for forestmanagers to leave trees, and any carbon dioxidesequestered within them, intact. This strategicfunding programme also supports programmessuch as REDD+, which is an expanded programthat channels REDD funding to those managersimplementing sustainable forest management andbiodiversity protection plans. As many coalitioncountries have channelled extensive ﬁnancialresources into erosion control, carbon sinks, andforest maintenance projects, the coalition arguedthat funds to continue these projects, such asthose made available through REDD+, should bemade available more widely.ConclusionUltimately, the Doha agreement can be viewed as a“very modest step forward in safeguarding the onlyexisting legally binding, top-down and rule-basedsystem” (IISD December 2012). As with previousCOP meetings its ambition was loftier than itsoutcome, however incrementally it is a step in theright direction. Yet to the scientiﬁc community, thecurrent commitments under the newly agreedsecond Kyoto period are “almost laughablyinsufﬁcient” (Jagger 2012). As has been atraditional theme with climate negotiations, policyresponses appear drastically disconnected fromthe scientiﬁcally identiﬁed need to take signiﬁcantmitigative actions.In the ﬁnal days of the meeting, the lead negotiatorof the Philippines Nederev Sano, addressed theCOP, leaving delegates with a lasting question forthis and future negotiations: “…If not us, thenwho? If not now, then when? If not here, thenwhere?” COP19 will be held in December 2013, inPoland.EMISSIONSLANDSCAPE44
Moving forward: The ET Index SeriesThe ET Carbon Rankings represent the ﬁrstphase of the Environmental Tracking concept,paving the way for the ET Index Series, which willfollow soon after.The ET Index Series has been designed toprovide the investment community with a tool toencourage transparency and emission reductionson a global scale. Through the creation of amainstream ﬁnancial product, in the form of aseries of broad market indexes, the world’slargest companies can be incentivised to cuttheir emissions. This is done by re-weightingcompanies in the index series, either positively ornegatively, on a sliding scale, according to theirposition in the ET Carbon Ranking.As pointed out by the recent Mercer report onClimate Change Scenarios and the Implicationsfor Asset Allocation (Mercer 2011), the use ofsustainability themed indices in passiveportfolios is identiﬁed as one way investors cantake action to improve their portfolio resilience toclimate-related risks.However, the key question, which the EIO seeksto address through its Index series, is how tocreate an investable index which can havesufﬁcient appeal to investors, evidentlyconcerned with the bottom line. This is why theET Index Series has been created to mirror therisk/reward proﬁle of their non weight-adjustedcounterparts, whilst still applying pressure tocompanies across the board to reduce theiremissions.The potential of ET Index Series to tackle GHGemissions rests on the logic that if a signiﬁcantlylarge pool of investors track the indexes, it willalter the supply and demand for thesecompanies’ shares based on their position in ourRanking. This effectively increases the cost ofemitting Greenhouse Gases, incentivisingcompanies to take firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.comNATIONAL INDEXES:ET UK 100REGIONAL INDEXES:ET EUROPE 300ET NORTH AMERICA 300ET ASIA-PACIFIC 300ET BRICS 300GLOBAL INDEXES:ET GLOBAL email@example.com | www.eio.org.ukTHROUGH APPLYING PRESSURE TO ACOMPANY’S SHARE PRICE, THE ETINDEX SERIES AIMS TO RAISE THECOST OF CARBON FOR COMPANIESET INDEXSERIES44
BAU: Business As UsualCCC: Committee on Climate ChangeCCX: Chicago Climate ExchangeCDM: Clean Development MechanismCED: Clean Energy DialogueCRC: Carbon Reduction CommitmentC(S)R: Corporate (Social) ResponsibilityCO2e: Greenhouse Gas emissions expressed as Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Equivalents, meaning calculatedto express their global warming potential in terms of CO2.DECC: Department of Energy and Climate ChangeEIO: Environmental Investment OrganisationEPA: Environmental Protection Agency (US)ET: Environmental TrackingEU ETS: EU Emissions Trading SchemeGDP: Gross Domestic ProductGHG: Greenhouse GasGRI: Global Reporting InitiativeGWP: Global Warming PotentialIMF: International Monetary FundISAE: International Standard on Assurance EngagementsISO: International Organization for StandardizationJVETS: Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading SchemekWh: kilowatt hoursMt: Mega tonnesOECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentRGGI: Regional Greenhouse Gas InitiativeJI: Joint ImplementationtCO2e: Metric Tonnes Carbon Dioxide EquivalentROC: Renewable Obligation CertiﬁcatesScope 1 (or S1): All direct GHG emissions.Scope 2 (or S2): Indirect GHG emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, heat or steam.Scope 3 (or S3): Other indirect emissions, such as the extraction and production of purchased materialsand fuels, transport-related activities in vehicles not owned or controlled by the reporting entity,electricity related activities (e.g. T&D losses) not covered in Scope 2, outsourced activities, wastedisposal, etc.UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeWBCSD/WRI: World Business Council for Sustainable Development / World Resources InstituteWCI: Western Climate Initiativeinfo@eio.org.uk | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukGLOSSARYOF TERMS46
AOSIS (2012). Statement delivered by Nauru on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), OpeningPlenary 18th Conference of the Parties, Doha Qatar, 26 November 2012. Available from:h ttp://aosis.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Opening-Statement-UNFCCC-COP-26-November-2012-Doha.pdfBoyd, Emily, et al (2009). Reforming the CDM for Sustainable Development: lessons learned and policy futures.Environmental Science & Policy, Vol 12, pp. 820-831.Gillies, Rob, et al (2011). Canada formally pulls out of Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Startribune. Availablefrom: http://www.startribune.com/world/135469408.html?refer=yGreenpeace (2012) What happened in Doha? Analysis of the conduct and outcome of the COP18 climatenegotiations, pp 1-3. Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/climate/Doha2012/QandAoutcomeDoha.pdfIISD (May 2012) Summary of the Bonn Climate Change Conference: 14-25 May 2012. Earth Negotiations Bulletin28th May 2012, Vol. 12, No. 546, pp. 1-30. Available from: http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12546e.htmlIISD (December 2012) Summary of the Doha Climate Change Conference: 26 November – 8 December 2012.Earth Negotiations Bulletin 11th December, Vol. 12, No. 567, pp. 1-30. Available from: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop18/enb/IPCC (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Available from:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.htmlJagger, Bianca (December 2012) COP18 Failed To Turn Down the Heat. Huffington Post, 11th December 2012.Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bianca-jagger/cop18-failed-to-turn-down-heat_b_2278758.htmlUNDP (2011) About the Maldives. Available from: http://www.undp.org.mv/v2/?lid=130UNDPI (2011) Press Conference on Small Island Developing States’ Position Ahead of Durban Climate ChangeConference. Available from: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2011/111123_SIDS.doc.htmUNFCCC Appendix I - Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020. Available from: http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5264.phpUNFCCC (2009) Copenhagen Accord. Available from: http://email@example.com | www.eio.org.uk | www.ETindex.firstname.lastname@example.org | www.eio.org.ukBIBLIOGRAPHYOF SOURCES47