Anda di halaman 1dari 14

Carbon Disclosure Project

The Carbon Chasm

Based on Carbon Disclosure Project 2008 responses

from the world’s 100 largest companies

This research was supported by BT Carbon Disclosure Project
+44 (0) 20 7970 5660

The Carbon Chasm Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The Carbon Chasm


If we consider CO² emissions as a withdrawal from the Bank of Climate Stability

then ever since the industrial revolution we have been increasing our climate debt.
In 2007 the IPCC stated that Company target setting is One Size fits all won’t work –
The level of climate debt is now so high that we are on the verge of a climate developed economies must reduce motivated by market forces, Although there was recognition
crunch, as large in scale as the onset of an ice age – but in the opposite direction. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by not scientific requirements – that harmonisation of targets has
80-95% by 2050 in order to avoid reduction targets are used to identify advantages, there was broad
Although it will be many years before we are in a position to pay back our loans dangerous climate change1. inefficiencies in corporate operations, consensus among interviewees that
to achieve cost savings, stimulate a ‘one-size-fits-all’, cross-industry
(which would actually require a net removal of CO² from the atmosphere every year), This report utilises the Carbon innovation, to minimise climate approach, is not a favoured option
we urgently need to reduce the amount we are ‘borrowing’ (i.e. emitting) every year. Disclosure Project (CDP) dataset2 change risks, to benchmark against within a voluntary process. It was
to analyse how the world’s largest competitors and satisfy stakeholder argued that sector and company
companies currently set emissions demands. Some also cite a positive differences could result in skewed data
For industrialised countries the IPCC tells us that to prevent dangerous climate reduction targets and whether planned impact on the environment and staff or incentives and reduce transparency
change we need to reduce our annual ‘withdrawals’ to 20% of what they were in reductions are sufficient to combat motivation and recruitment as a factor if one target methodology was applied
1990. If we are to achieve this by reducing emissions by a fixed percentage every long term climate change. It also draws too. across the board.
year then it’s quite easy to calculate that the percentage reduction needs to be evidence from 12 in depth interviews
with Global 1003 companies to show CO²-equivalent targets dominate Recommendations:
around 4% per annum on a compound basis between now and 2050. what motivates senior management in and are more popular than energy 1. Every company should set a CO²-e4
setting GHG reduction targets. efficiency or energy consumption reduction target.
The business world is rising to this challenge and most large companies now targets. 62% (84) of the targets are 2. Targets must have clear baseline
measure their carbon footprint and many have set carbon reduction targets. But This work was conducted in CO²-e related, compared to 15% (21) and target years.
conjunction with BT (British based on energy consumption and 9% 3. Governments need to agree clear
how many of those targets are actually in line with the required reduction to prevent Telecommunications plc), which has (13) based on energy efficiency. medium and long term reduction
dangerous climate change? ignited a debate around science led goals in Copenhagen to provide a
targets with its proposed Climate Absolute targets outstrip intensity framework for business to set
Stabilisation Intensity target (CSI) in popularity, with almost twice as required targets.
In an attempt to answer this question for its own emissions, BT worked with Prof. methodology. many absolute (86) targets compared 4. Company targets should reflect the
Jorgen Randers of the Norwegian School of Management to establish a new to intensity (45). Companies favouring IPCC scientific recommendations
approach to target setting. We called this a Climate Stabilisation Intensity target Key Findings: absolute targets say they are more and whilst absolute targets are
and discussions on this new methodology with the CDP led us to the research We are facing a Carbon Chasm – to transparent and deliver absolute preferred for clarity, aggressive
cut emissions in developed economies reductions, while those preferring intensity targets can also deliver.
described in this report. by the required 80% by 2050, we intensity targets say they benefit from
need to see a minimum annual global more flexibility, especially in terms of This report highlights a key issue –
The findings highlight a significant gap between what’s needed from the corporate reduction rate of 3.9% per annum. business growth. the vast array of targets makes it
sector and what’s currently promised. Whether this is because everyone is waiting However, analysis of reduction targets very challenging to assess one target
from the Global 100 companies 84% (103) of target deadlines are against another. There is a major need
on the outcome from Copenhagen in December is not clear. Whatever the reason, shows they are currently on track for set to 2012 or before which suggests for more harmonisation in setting
we in the business world need to find a way of closing the carbon chasm. an annual reduction of just 1.9% per that businesses are waiting to hear targets in line with the science and
annum. If we were all to continue on outcomes of the UN Conference of the while some companies appreciate
that trajectory we will not achieve the Parties meeting in Copenhagen this the need for dramatic reductions,
required reductions until 2089, 39 December (COP-15), before setting the capacity to harmonise targets
years too late. The consequences for longer term reduction goals. Just 16% at all, let alone in line with scientific
the climate could be dramatic. (19) of those with a target year, are set requirements has significant barriers.
beyond 2012 suggesting government More consistency is needed across
73% of Global 100 companies leadership is required to stimulate the whole of industry such that the
report some form of reduction longer term target setting. laggards catch up with the leaders in
target, while a significant minority undertaking major emissions cuts over
(27%) do not. There is an urgent need The wide range of targets is not the short, medium and long term in
for all companies to establish and directly comparable and it is order to permanently close the Carbon
achieve required targets. difficult to judge the impact. The Chasm.
Chris Tuppen absence of a standard framework for
Chief Sustainability Officer 1

Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change
Fourth Assessment Report, 2007
setting emissions reduction targets
BT 2 CDP 2008 data was collected on behalf of 385 institutional has led to a patchwork of company

investors. There are now 475 institutional investor
signatories to the CDP information request
specific targets, which have developed
3 Largest 100 companies within the FTSE Global Equity from individual company priorities and

Index Series
CO²-equivalent covers the 6 major greenhouse gases,
market forces.
normalised to CO²

2 3
The Carbon Chasm Introduction

Introduction This research report utilises the CDP Research Methodology
dataset to analyse how companies
In 2007 the IPCC stated that currently set targets and looks at CDP set out to understand how
developed economies must reduce whether planned reductions are companies are currently tackling
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by sufficient to combat long term climate emissions reductions and how their
80-95% by 2050 in order to avoid change. Our analysis shows that there targets measure up against IPCC
dangerous climate change5. is a Carbon Chasm between what the requirements. In order to gain a full
science requires and what the world’s picture of current corporate targets, we
Foreword 2 This Herculean task is essential, but largest companies are doing to cut analysed two separate datasets:
can only be achieved through strong emissions. It also shows high levels
Executive Summary 3 government leadership, innovations of complexity and a significant lack in 1. Responses from 92% of the
in technology, decoupling economic comparability of corporate reduction world’s 100 largest publicly quoted
Contents 4 growth from emissions increases targets, which will eventually need to companies (Global 100)9 to CDP
and dramatic changes in consumer be harmonised in line with the scientific 2008 Questionnaire.
Introduction 5 consumption patterns6. Clearly targets. 2. In depth interviews conducted
much work needs to be done, as by CDP with executives at 12 of
Research Methodology 5 global emissions are still growing and At present we are not on track to the Global 100 companies on target
continuing with business as usual will achieve the 2050 targets but the key setting.
Section 1: Analysis of Global 100 Responses 6 mean a further 55% increase by 20307. issue will be how companies respond
to this challenge as many of them set Section 1 of this report analyses
Section 2: Interview Analysis 13 It is widely accepted that if companies targets beyond 2012. CDP responses to show the level of
don’t measure their emissions, they reductions companies are planning
Conclusion 19 can’t manage them. So the first step This work was conducted in to make. In section 2 the interview
towards managing GHG emissions conjunction with BT (British findings demonstrate what motivates
Appendix – Global 100 Reduction Targets 20 has to be calculating your emissions Telecommunications plc) which has companies to set their targets. The
and then tracking them over time. The developed a Climate Stabilisation analysis of the two datasets enables
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) has Intensity target (CSI) methodology for us to understand the “what” and
been collecting GHG emissions data setting emissions reductions goals in the “why” of companies’ emissions
from the world’s largest companies, line with globally required emissions reductions targets.
along with their climate change reductions8.
strategy information for 7 years. More
than 2,500 companies now report
through CDP.

5 Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Fourth

Assessment Report, 2007
6 A Carbon Crunch is Coming, Citigroup, 2008
7 McKinsey & Company, 2009. Pathways to a Low-Carbon
Economy, Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas
Abatement Cost Curve. Available at:
9 Top 100 companies within the FTSE Global Equity Index

4 5
The Carbon Chasm Analysis of Global 100 responses to CDP

Analysis of Global 100

responses to CDP
While the majority of respondents It is concerning though that responses
report some form of target or show weak representation from high “Our ambition is to be
combination of more than one target, impact sectors such as Oil and Gas. able to generate energy
more than one quarter do not disclose We can expect to see mounting
any form of target at all. If some pressure from governments on such
at low cost and zero
companies fail to reduce emissions, high impact sectors to develop robust emission by 2020.”
this will increase the burden on those targets, as without them long term
who do intend to reduce emissions in reductions will be very hard to achieve. ENEL
This section is based on analysis CO² targets lead the way order to reduce in line with scientific
“From 1990 to 2007, of the Global 100 companies’ • 73% (73) of Global 100 companies recommendations. Finally it is interesting to note that
while our worldwide emissions reductions targets and have set some form of reduction European companies are strong on
strategies reported to the CDP 2008 target. 27% of the Global 100 either The popularity of CO²-e targets is setting targets, likely due to the impact
sales increased by over Questionnaire. The aim of the analysis do not disclose or do not currently evidence that companies recognise of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, Fig 1 Types of Target
400%, Johnson & John- was to understand trends in target have a target. these reductions as a key part which has raised awareness and is
son companies cut CO² setting, the types of targets companies • CO²-equivalent (CO²-e) targets are of climate change management. driving reductions in the high impact
are adopting, why they are chosen more popular than energy efficiency However, energy efficiency and energy sectors. The EU also has a target of 6%
emissions by 12.7% on 5%
and how they measure up against the or energy consumption targets. consumption reductions also play a 20% reduction by 2020 against 1990
an absolute basis.” required reductions stipulated by the 62% (84) of the targets are CO²-e role – and are often favoured because levels, which has led to more pressure
IPCC. (See Appendix for company related, compared to 15% (21) of the more direct link to reduction in at national level for companies to
Johnson & Johnson targets.) based on energy consumption and energy costs as well as emissions. reduce emissions. US companies
9% (13) based on energy efficiency. Although generally CO²-e targets result are also demonstrating strong
• There are 137 targets in total – in a reduction in energy use which commitments to target setting with 15%
showing that many companies have often translates into a cost reduction. 71% reporting some form of target.
more than one target.
“In 1992, we began • 6% (8) of targets are ‘other’ types
tracking the efficiency of target, including targets relating to
indirect impact, while 5% (7) are
of our energy use sector specific targets, such as
across all of our opera- flaring for the Oil and Gas sector.
tions. Since that time, • There was strong representation 62%
we have increased our from low intensity sectors such as
Financials and Health Care in CO²-e
energy efficiency per related targets. CO²-e
unit of output by 27% • The Energy sector, which includes Energy Efficient
…We continue to set Oil and Gas, is significantly lagging Energy Consumption
yearly targets for im- the Electric Utilities sector. Within Other GHC
Electric Utilities, 100% (5) Sector Specific
provement.” companies have a CO²-e related Other
target, however within the Energy
Chevron Corporation sector, 54% (7) of companies have
CO²-e related targets.
• European companies have the
strongest target setting with 84%
(38) reporting a reduction target.
• 71% (27) of US based companies
have a target.
• 66% (6) of Asian companies in the
sample have CO²-e targets.

6 7
The Carbon Chasm Analysis of Global 100 responses to CDP

Box 1 Majority choose absolute Fig 2 shows a breakdown of the Companies use growth Fig 3 Reported Intensity Measures
targets over intensity various target types, including absolute related intensity measures “[Our emissions target
compared to intensity based targets. is a] 25% revenue
A major differentiator between The key trends that can be seen in the Within the intensity target categories, 33%
Absolute emissions targets is whether they are absolute data are: there is considerable variation of
normalised reduction in
CO² emissions intensity 2%
reduction targets or intensity based. A 2% absolute normalisation factors against which 2%
are defined by the target will generally deliver far greater • Within both absolute and intensity reductions are set and Fig 3 shows (which equates to a 13%
emissions reductions in a growing target categories, the most popular common traits. 1% absolute reduction)
GHG Protocol as business than a 2% intensity related targets are CO²-e, followed by
goals to “reduce target, so intensity percentage targets energy consumption and energy • All intensity denominators used are by 2012 from 2007
absolute emissions tend to appear higher and are linked to efficiency. a proxy for the size of the business baseline.”
another measure – e.g. revenue, sales, • Absolute targets outstrip intensity in e.g. production or sales volume.
over time”. Absolute or production unit. Box 1 highlights the popularity, with almost twice as This gives more flexibility than an
targets are most differences. many absolute (86) targets absolute target, because it allows
Boeing Co., Ltd.
frequently expressed compared to intensity (45). for an absolute rise in GHG
in percentages or • Some companies have more than emissions where the business is
one absolute CO²-e target, set over growing.
in tonnes of CO²-e. different timelines or targeting • Intensity targets are used by 29% 50%
Absolute reduction different parts of the business. (29) of the Global 100 companies
targets are often • Both CO²-e absolute and intensity and some of those have more than
targets are used across a wide one intensity target. Revenue / Sales
considered to be more range of sectors. • A total of 33% (45) of reported Production Unit
environmentally robust • 25% (34) of targets reported are targets are intensity based. Employee Related
by organisations such energy rather than CO²-e related. Floor Space
as WWF Climate Savers The wide range of normalisation Other
Although absolute targets are more measures and uncertainty of
or Greenpeace. popular in all categories, there is a business growth makes it difficult to
significant minority selecting intensity compare the impact and resulting
Intensity emissions targets, demonstrating that both reductions that will be generated by
reduction targets are currently play an important role in companies’ targets. Production unit
target setting for major companies. and revenue are the most frequently
defined by the GHG We explore the benefits of each in the used measures, but even within these
Protocol as goals to interview section later in the report. subsections there is further variation.
“reduce the ratio of In order to accurately calculate
the reductions each target would
emissions relative generate, far more detailed financial
to a business metric Fig 2 Absolute and Intensity Target Breakdown and production data from each
over time”. These are company would be required along with
favoured by some assumptions of future growth.
Target Numbers

companies who think it

is difficult to decouple 55
emissions growth from
business growth. 40

Based on Greenhouse 30

Gas Protocol 30 29

9 8 4
0 6 5 2 2 2 1
absolute CO²-e

not disclosed / no target

intensity CO²-e

absolute energy consumption

absolute energy efficiency

intesity energy consumption

absolute sector specific

intensity energy efficiency

absolute other ghgs

intensity other


other CO²-e

intensity sector specific

8 9
The Carbon Chasm Analysis of Global 100 responses to CDP

Companies favour short Although the Kyoto Protocol expires Current Global 100 targets CDP also calculated what percentage • In order to ensure the robustness
“Over the longer term term targets in 2012 and Kyoto national and will not achieve scientific annual reduction is required in order of the analysis, it is based on
we have reduced our international targets run to 2012, the requirements to achieve the IPCC recommended conservative assumptions:
The popularity of the target years IPCC states clearly that reductions are reductions of 25-40% by 2020 and • Due to the lack of corporate
GHG emissions by up to and including 2012, suggests required well beyond 201211 and we The enormous range and types 80-95% by 2050, against a 1990 data from 1990 levels and because
nearly 25% compared that businesses are waiting to hear require medium and long term goals. of targets used by the Global 100 baseline14. the majority of companies baseline
with 1990 baseline. Our outcomes of the UN Conference of the A minority of companies, including companies and the corporate sector • To achieve 25% reductions by 2020, years are set at 2005-9 rather than
total upstream flaring Parties meeting in Copenhagen this E-On, Procter & Gamble Company, more broadly, raises a fundamental we require a global reduction rate 1990 levels, this analysis assumes
December (COP-15), before setting Vodafone and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. question. Will this patchwork of per annum of 2.6%. If we continue 2009 as the start point for
has dropped nearly longer term reduction goals. are setting mid to long term reduction voluntary targets sufficiently reduce at the Global 100 CO²-e emission reductions. If the start point had
60% since 2001.” targets. However, the high proportion emissions in line with scientific targets reduction rates, we will not reach the been set at IPCC baseline of 1990,
We look at the target years chosen of targets which run to 2012 suggests to stop dangerous climate change? 25% reduction until 2024, or 40% the required reductions per annum
Royal Dutch Shell plc by companies to ascertain trends and that a global deal in Copenhagen is until 2035. would be even greater.
understand how they correlate with essential to provide businesses with In order to answer this essential • To achieve 80% reductions by • We have not included those
scientific requirements. more certainty on credible long term question, CDP has calculated the 2050, we need to see an annual companies which do not report
reductions. Many companies report to average annual reduction across the global reduction rate of 3.9%. a target – assuming they do not
• A total of 89% (122) of the 137 CDP that the outcome of the COP-15 Global 100 companies. The analysis However, if we all continue at the have any form of target, had they
targets reported have a target year. meeting in Copenhagen will have a took the 55 CO²-e related absolute current average Global 100 been included, the required per
• 84% (103) of these targets are set significant impact on their long term reduction targets and the 29 CO²-e reduction rate of 1.9%, we will not annum reductions would increase.
to 2012 or before. planning. related intensity targets to ascertain the achieve this reduction level • Constant rather than nominal
• The most popular target years are average annual CO²-e reduction rate, until 2089, 39 years too late. The GDP growth is a more
2010 and 2012. 2012 correlates As budget cycles for many businesses based on these targets. The intensity consequences for the climate could conservative assumption.
with the final year of the Kyoto tend to be either annual or run over related targets were adjusted for therefore be dramatic.
Protocol10. a few years, it is not surprising that real GDP growth to give an accurate • The intensity based CO²-e targets, The analysis assumes that companies
• Just 16% (19) of those with a target reduction targets follow a similar reflection of what they will deliver in which currently achieve an annual cut emissions year on year at the same
year, are set beyond 2012. pattern. But the question is, how terms of absolute reductions12. 0.7% reduction, would not achieve rate as indicated in their current plans.
• There are just five companies with successful will targets be in the context the required 25% reduction for Although this doesn’t mirror exactly
targets to 2020, including ENEL, of preventing dangerous climate The analysis found: 2020, until 2050. the methods of reduction applied
France Telecom, Tesco and change if they are driven by financial • The average absolute reduction • 27% of Global 100 companies do by all companies (i.e. some set a 4
Vodafone; with E-ON setting a rather than scientific imperatives? targets from the Global 100 not disclose any target. This gap year target and focus less on annual
target through to 2030. will achieve a 2.5% annual CO²-e hasn’t been factored into analysis. numbers), it is the closest reflection
• Just eight companies have an reduction within the target years. If it was, the Carbon Chasm would of what many companies are doing.
annual target, which often applies • The intensity targets will achieve be even greater. The analysis focuses on CO²-e related
over a number of years. a 3.3% average reduction, but targets as these are the only ones
• Not all companies disclosed a when normalised for GDP growth, from which it is possible to measure
baseline year or a start date, so will achieve just 0.7% reduction per the projected percentage of emissions
impact is unclear and it’s hard to annum. reductions with the reported data.
judge the quality of these targets. • The two types of targets
combined, when normalised
for GDP growth will achieve 1.9%
annual CO²-e reduction13.

Fig 4 Reported target years

No of targets

36 35





12 11
8 12,3343,en_2649_33715_
05 6 5 1873295_1_1_1_1,00.html
3 2 2 13 For our analysis we used real rather than nominal GDP
0 1 1 10 The Kyoto Protocol runs to 2012 and targets years are set growth. This is a conservative assumption and using
at 2012 against 1990 levels nominal GDP growth would further exacerbate the problem with hitting scientific requirements













11 Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Fourth 14 These requirement apply to Annex 1 under Kyoto Protocol –
Assessment Report, 2007 industrialised countries and countries in transition

10 11
The Carbon Chasm

Analysis of
in depth Interviews
A recent report focused on climate It shows the majority of companies are
change by Goldman Sachs noted that currently failing to deliver the reductions
“the equity market is only just beginning required to avoid dangerous climate
to reflect the magnitude of change that change. Although a minority of leading
lies ahead and we are approaching companies do have targets which will
a tipping point at which the issue’s deliver the required reductions, the CDP interviewed 12 Global 100 Companies target setting is
importance to business performance majority do not. It is vital that we see companies16 in Spring 2009, within the motivated by market forces “We wanted our
and investors will escalate.”15 significantly more aggressive targets Global 100. Companies were asked to renewables target to
developing if business is to reduce explain motivations and processes for The motivations companies cite for
The analysis done by CDP identifies a emissions sufficiently. Government setting targets. The following section setting targets are varied, but are
be stretching, easily
serious Carbon Chasm. The Chasm leadership and action appears to be analyses the findings from those largely driven by market forces. They understood internally
highlights the gap between current required to ensure this happens. interviews. include: and provide a simple
Global 100 reduction targets and what signpost to the changes
we need to see if we are to reduce in Companies interviewed: Cisco, • Emissions reduction targets are
line with scientific recommendations. The Coca-Cola Company, used to identify inefficiencies in needed.”
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), IBM, corporate operations, to achieve
L’Oréal, Microsoft, Nokia, PepsiCo cost savings and stimulate PepsiCo UK
UK, RWE, Siemens, Tesco and innovation.
Fig 5 The Carbon Chasm Wells Fargo & Company. • Targets can help minimise GHG
associated risks, whilst preparing for
Companies were selected for their potential future regulation.
100% expertise in carbon management • External pressure due to increased “We identified
or because they were in the climate change awareness, from significant emissions,
process of setting a target. They customers or other stakeholders,
represent high and low intensity particularly for consumer facing
including electricity use,
sectors. companies. refrigerants and diesel
• Shareholder pressure and actions from distribution and
on climate change – some established possible
475 institutional investors require
companies to report through CDP savings.”
60% annually. There have also been 67
shareholder resolutions on climate Tesco
change filed in the US and Canada
during the 2009 proxy season17.
• Competitive advantage and
benchmarking on emissions levels
and reductions is becoming
30% increasingly important.
• Desire to have a positive impact
20% on the environment and support
staff motivation and recruitment.
% Reduction

The range of market forces listed
above demonstrates that companies
0 are currently planning within existing
systems and are not driven by






















the scientific recommendations.

Interviewees recognised the value of
taking scientific recommendations into
CDP Analysis Average account and some corporate targets
3.9% Required Reductions will deliver in line with the scientific
IPCC 2020 Target requirements, however this is not a
IPCC 2050 Target major factor in target setting at this

16 Interviewees were directors or managers and worked in

environmental, sustainability, CSR and EHS, investor
relations or communications departments
17 Investor Network on Climate Risk, 2009. Climate
15 Change is coming: A framework for climate change – Resolutions Toolkit. Available at:
a defining issue of the 21st century, GS Sustain, 2009 resolutions

12 13
The Carbon Chasm Analysis of in depth Interviews:

You can’t manage what you No two targets are the same Box 2 Targets of Research Participants The scope of targets varies
“IBM has been don’t measure considerably
collecting emissions Our analysis of the Global 100 found
As the decision to set a target is being large variations in their targets. This An important factor in assessing the
data since the made, companies tend to follow a step finding was reinforced through a more Cisco impact of a target (whether absolute
early 1990s and we process by which they come to select detailed analysis of the interviewed › US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) target: 25% absolute by 2012; baseline of 2007 or intensity based) is its scope. We
have leveraged this their target methodology and set their companies that found: › Clinton Global Initiative air travel target: 10% by 2010; baseline of 2006 found considerable variation in terms
information in setting targets: • The scope of targets varies The Coca-Cola Company of scope of targets, which is a further
significantly. › Manufacturing: ‘Grow business but not the carbon’ (system wide; all bottling obstacle to understanding impact:
our emissions reduction • The percentage reduction for every companies included) by 2015; baseline of 2004
targets as it enabled Step 1: Measure emissions target is different. › Complimentary target: 5.7 million metric tonnes CO2-e below 2004 levels • 8 companies had company-wide
us to determine Step 2: Process of measurement • Some reduction targets are stated in (aggregate target for all countries) by 2015; baseline 2004 targets.
the highest impact highlights hotspots for tonnes of CO²-e, some in › Annex I (industrialised countries and countries in transition) countries: • 4 companies had different targets
emissions reductions percentage terms. CO²-e 5% absolute by 2015; baseline 2004 for various business units. Some
emissions sources. Step 3: Select methodology and • The baseline and target years vary GlaxoSmithKline plc interviewees highlighted the benefits
We look at where our scope of target significantly. › 20% CO²-e indexed to net operating revenue (adjusted for constant exchange of targets specific to parts of the
activities intersect with Step 4: Set target • All companies except one have rates) by 2010; baseline 2006 business, which focus on hotspots.
more than one target, often a › 45% CO²-e indexed to net operating revenue (adjusted for constant exchange • 2 companies had company-wide,
the environment and combination of intensity and rates) by 2015; baseline of 2006 as well as specific targets for parts
therefore where we Most companies use the measurement absolute. IBM of the business.
should focus our efforts process to identify the highest › CO²: 12% absolute by 2012; baseline 2005
in order to achieve the impact areas or best opportunities As a result, targets are not directly › PFC: 25% absolute by 2010; baseline 1995 Company wide targets will engender
for reduction and targets are comparable and it is difficult to judge › Energy consumption (incl. fuels): 3.5% absolute on annual basis; baseline is reset annually different outcomes from those focused
greatest results.” developed from there. The other the full impact. Most targets are L’Oréal on a specific area of operations.
major consideration highlighted by voluntary: the absence of a regulatory › CO²-e 2% absolute annual (internally also indexed to denominators, including Furthermore, targets focused on direct
IBM interviewees is the assessment of framework for setting emissions finished product), baseline is reset annually impact will deliver a different outcome
what is reasonable, aggressive and reduction targets has led to a › Energy consumption 5% indexed to production unit from those focused on indirect impact,
achievable and will have the highest patchwork of company specific targets Microsoft such as supply chain. Companies
impact from an emissions reduction which have developed from individual › 30% CO²-e indexed to revenue by 2012; baseline 2007 including IBM, L’Oréal and PepsiCo
perspective. company priorities and market forces. › Industry goals: Challenge to computing industry with Climate Savers Computing already use CDP to better understand
“We identified areas Initiative to reduce absolute GHG emissions by 54 million metric tonnes (24 million their supply chain emissions and risk
with the largest impact, metric tonnes per year) by 2010 exposure and for many companies
Nokia between 40-60% of organisations’
where there are › Minimum of 10% by 2009; baseline 2006 total greenhouse gas emissions18 are
opportunities to reduce. › Minimum of 18% by 2010; baseline 2006 recognised as residing outside their
We have intensity › Ensure that all our key suppliers set energy efficiency and CO² reduction targets direct control19.
targets for internal › Set CO² reduction targets for logistics service providers
PepsiCo UK The way in which companies account
purposes and we have › No direct GHG emissions reduction target for any growth as a result of an
absolute company › 25% reduction of energy intensity per unit of production by 2011; baseline 2008 acquisition also influences the impact
targets which cover › Entire UK business supplied with renewable energy, including manufacturing of a target. The GHG Protocol20
all main areas of the and distribution by 2023 recommends that base emissions are
RWE not recalculated for organic growth or
business.” › Reduction of approximately 38 million tonnes CO²-e to some 21% reduction by decline but they can be recalculated
2012; baseline 2006 in cases of mergers and acquisitions.
Nokia › Reduction of approximately 63 million tonnes CO²-e to some 37% reduction by Some companies absorb smaller
2015; baseline 2006 acquisitions without readjusting the
Siemens baseline, while others readjust the
› No direct GHG emissions reduction target baseline, depending on the size of the
› Improve energy efficiency (associated with GHG emissions originating from use of acquisition. For those with an intensity
fossil fuels / electricity in factories) by 20% indexed to local sales by 2011; baseline 2006 based target, there is usually no
› 10% absolute energy consumption target at US based Osram Sylvania requirement for a readjustment.
› 50% absolute for existing and new distribution centres/stores by 2020; baseline 2006 Decisions made when targets are set,
› 50% indexed to cases delivered by distribution fleet by 2012; baseline 2006 as to scope, inclusion or exclusion
Wells Fargo & Company of indirect impact and accounting for
› No target for GHG emissions reductions (in process of setting target at time of interview) acquisitions will of course impact the
number of tonnes of CO²-e reduced.
Source: CDP Furthermore, the selection of intensity
or absolute also plays a major role.
18 The McKinsey Quarterly 2008
19 within the supply chain through activities such as processing, packaging and transportation
20 The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, p39

14 15
The Carbon Chasm Analysis of in depth Interviews:

Absolute wins over intensity Methodology Case Study Box 3 Climate Stabilisation Intensity Target (CSI)
“There are appropriate in popularity “We work hard to
circumstances for both BT has selected an intensity based increase our energy
As reflected in the Global 100 analysis target methodology that demonstrates
intensity targets and in Section 1 there is considerable how absolute reductions can be Climate Stabilisation Intensity Target (CSI)
efficiency and establish
absolute targets. It’s variation in terms of absolute and achieved with an intensity target. the best savings
the total concentration intensity measures and all companies BT’s CSI methodology indexes the company’s emissions to its contribution to global potential possible,
of greenhouse gases reported this as one of the major Unlike many companies, BT’s starting GDP in order to set the target. which leads to CO²
decisions in setting a target. The point was the scientific consensus
in the atmosphere that majority favoured absolute. of achieving necessary total global CSI Methodology: reductions. Due to
impacts the climate emissions reductions 80% for In economic terms a company’s contribution to GDP is termed its Value Added portfolio changes and
system. So, even Fig 6 outlines the major benefits developed economies against a 1990 › Value added = EBITDA + employee costs revenue dynamics we
though some our and disadvantages outlined by base year level. The BT CSI approach21 have chosen a relative
interviewees. associates an organisation’s total This leads to the measure of:
countries are exhibiting CO²-e emissions with the contribution › Climate Stabilisation Intensity = CO²-e emissions / Value Added CO² target.”
double-digit growth, we Ultimately, the strength of any target is it makes to the world economy. Targets
defined our GHG target dictated by its end results and whether for reducing the company’s carbon To align with the scientific recommendations and to accommodate average Siemens
it actually achieves real reductions of a intensity (CO²-e per unit of contribution economic growth rates, CSI reduction targets need to deliver at least 9.6% per
in absolute terms.” company’s total carbon impact. Both to GDP) are then set in line with world annum.
absolute and intensity targets can targets to reduce CO²-e emissions
The Coca-Cola achieve this goal. per unit of GDP. It has committed to
Company reducing emissions by 80% against As part of this research, interviewees • The complexity of the formula also
this measure across the globe, against were asked to consider the CSI raised a further barrier in broader
1996/7 levels by 2020. This requires an methodology and whether such a adoption.
annual intensity reduction of 9.6% per target could be adopted by a larger • Interviewees also questioned how
annum. number of companies. The following viable setting one target across a
“An absolute target observations were made: number of companies would
brings clarity and our be, due to current gaps in carbon
stakeholders, from • The target methodology was widely accounting, which would make it
customers to NGO’s, praised for setting reductions in line very difficult to compare like with
Fig 6 Major benefits and disadvantages with scientific recommendations. It like.
require absolute was also recognised that it provided
targets.” flexibility by allowing for growth. Interviewees recognised how valuable
• Some interviewees require an the CSI methodology is in driving
L’Oréal Absolute Intensity absolute, company-wide target debate and development around
to create clarity with stakeholders science based reduction target
Absolute shows real reductions Intensity goals not always comparable and enable comparability with other methodologies and suggested further
targets. For this reason, they said discussions around the following areas:
Transparent Can still allow real emissions to grow the CSI target wasn’t appropriate for
their business. • Integration of indirect emissions, for
Clear to stakeholders Reductions can be unclear • Questions were raised as to whether example supply chain, which
the CSI target would be appropriate can make up the majority of some
Can be restrictive to a growing Allows for growth to a broader set of companies and companies’ total carbon footprint.
company sectors. It was also observed that • Development of a system which
the nature of the formula would recognises emission reductions
mean that absolute reductions delivered through customer
could be allowed to fluctuate year application of the company’s
on year which would create planning products, e.g. travel substitution and
challenges. The use of value added energy efficiencies.
is not a commonly recognised • Recognition that different sectors
measure amongst some businesses. have very different drivers and
• Concerns were raised that one operational scope for emissions
denominator for many companies reductions and this has to be
would not necessarily lead to reflected in the methodology used
accurate comparisons between by individual companies.
companies and it was observed that
the choice of denominator can have
significant impact on where
companies might rank against one

16 17
The Carbon Chasm Analysis of in depth Interviews:

One-Size-Fits-All will not Several argued for a more market Conclusion

“Harmonisation is work based approach, by treating carbon Recommendations: “There is a need for
certainly beneficial, but like other resources and allowing the The findings from the analysis consistency, but due
As a result of the discussions on the market to decide, thus driving further conducted on both the Global 100 1. Every company should set a
in many cases it is very CSI target, broad consensus was comparability and harmonisation. There responses as well as the interviews, CO²-e reduction target.
to variability across
difficult to compare reached that a ‘one-size-fits-all’, cross- was also recognition that companies shows there is a very wide range 2. Targets must have clear baseline sectors, using one
businesses, even those industry approach, is not a viable or require more guidance and structure of approaches to target setting. and target years. methodology would not
within the same sector.” welcome option within a voluntary around target setting and further Interviews show leading companies 3. Governments need to agree clear be comparing like with
process. Companies argued that the research is required around individual are taking steps to reduce their impact medium and long term reduction
huge differences between sectors and industry allocation for emissions on climate change and some have goals in Copenhagen to provide like.”
Nokia individual companies could result in reductions. aggressive targets, but the targets a framework for business to set
skewed data or incentives and reduce are market driven, not determined required targets. L’Oréal
transparency if one target methodology This highlights a key issue – companies by the science. As a result Global 4. Company targets should reflect
was applied across the board. appreciate the need for dramatic 100 targets often fail to deliver the the IPCC scientific
reductions but the capacity to required cuts and detailed analysis recommendations and whilst
Several argued that harmonisation harmonise targets at all, let alone in of the 2008 Global 100 responses absolute targets are preferred for
is not essential and question the line with scientific requirements has shows the Carbon Chasm between clarity, aggressive intensity targets
requirement to harmonise targets at significant barriers. However because corporate reduction targets and can also deliver.
all. Other interviewees do recognise a target with a scientific basis seems scientific reduction requirements is
the benefits of greater comparability for the most logical if we are to stop huge. In essence the corporate sector
benchmarking purposes but they also dangerous climate change, there is an is currently failing to deliver reductions The vast array of targets makes it
recognise that even within one sector urgent requirement for a system which in line with scientific requirements to very challenging to assess one target
this can be very challenging, due to the supports companies to establish and stop dangerous climate change. against another, but there is a major
unique nature of individual businesses. achieve such a target. unease in the corporate world for
It was also observed that comparison We live in one world, in which a tonne more harmonisation in setting targets.
at a product level could be more of carbon has the same impact, However, more consistency is needed
beneficial. whether it is emitted in Beijing or across the whole of industry such that
Birmingham. However, there is a huge the laggards catch up with the leaders
patchwork of different types of targets, in undertaking major emissions cuts
no unified approach and no authority in line with the scientific requirements,
which is currently delivering a unified over the short, medium and long term
global system for deep emissions in order to permanently close the
reductions. Carbon Chasm.

18 19
The Carbon Chasm Appendix – Company reduction targets

Appendix – Company
reduction targets22
Constituent Sector Name Target Target Type Intensity Baseline Timeline
name Denominator
Wal-Mart Stores, Multiline Retail CO²-e Existing stores, Sam’s Club Absolute 2005 2012
Inc. and distribution centres
Constituent Sector Name Target Target Type Intensity Baseline Timeline Energy Store Prototype 25% more Absolute 2005 2009
name Denominator Efficiency energy efficient
Exxon Mobil Integrated Oil & Gas CO²-e CO²: 2 million metric tons Absolute Not Annual Fuel Truck Fleet Efficiency Absolute 2005 2015
Corporation at Wyoming facility disclosed Consumption 100%
Energy Increase energy efficiency Absolute Not 2012 Total S.A. Integrated Oil & Gas Flaring 50% Absolute 2005 2012
Efficiency by 10% disclosed
Energy Refining- reduce Energy Intensity Production 2004 2012
Flaring Reduce upstream Absolute Not Not Consumption Intensity Index (Solomon unit
hydrocarbon flaring volume disclosed disclosed index)
by 50%
Energy Base chemical - 10% Absolute 2005 2011
China Mobile Ltd. Wireless No Response Efficiency
Services Johnson & Pharmaceuticals CO²-e 7% Absolute 1990 2010
Microsoft Software CO²-e 30% Intensity Revenue 2007 2012 CO²-e Each Franchise receives 1990 2010
Corporation targets that is analysed
CO²-e Climate Savers Computing Absolute 2007 2010 by annual performance
Initiative target for reviews
computing industry reduce
absolute GHG emissions Nestlé SA Food Products Energy 1-2% Intensity Production Reset Annual
by 54 million metric tonnes Consumption unit annually
(24 million metric tonnes Chevron Energy CO²-e Preliminary goal for 2008- Absolute 2004 2008
per year) Corporation total emissions 62.5 million
JSC Gazprom Integrated Oil & Gas No Response metric tons
Neft Energy Annual energy efficiency Not Annual
AT&T Inc. Telecommunications No Target Efficiency targets - not disclosed disclosed

BP plc Oil & Gas Refining & CO²-e 24 Mte yearly Absolute 2001 2015 Cisco Systems, Internet Software & CO²-e EPA Climate Leaders - Absolute 2007 2012
Marketing Inc. Services 25%23
CO²-e Any increase in emissions Absolute 2001 2012 CGI - 10% (Air travel)24 Absolute 2006 2010
from operations will be less
Citigroup Inc. Diversified Financials CO²-e 10% Intensity Occupant 2005 2011
than benefits attributable
- N. America (this includes
to low carbon business
Procter & Gamble Consumer CO²-e 10% Absolute 2002 2012 and agents
Company who use
CO²-e 40% Absolute 2002 2017 Citigroup
Other Additional 10% (CO², Intensity Production 2002 2012 offices)
energy, water, waste) unit Altria Group, Inc. Beverages & Tobacco Energy 10% Absolute 2004 2008
Energy 10% Absolute Absolute 2002 2012 Consumption
Consumption Pfizer Inc. Pharmaceuticals CO²-e 20% Absolute 2007 2012
Google Inc. Internet Software & Not disclosed 2006 Energy 35% renewables Absolute 2010
Services Consumption
Bank of America Banks - N. America CO²-e 9% Absolute 2004 2009 Apple Inc. Computers & No information
Corporation Peripherals supplied
Indirect CO²-e 7% within energy and utility Absolute Not Not
portfolio disclosed disclosed Nokia Wireless CO²-e Minimum of 10% Absolute 2006 2009
Toyota Motor Automobiles CO²-e Worldwide 35% Absolute Intensity Sales 2001 2010 Corporation Telecommunication
Corporation Services
CO²-e Japan (TMC) 60% Intensity Sales 1990 2010
CO²-e Minimum of 18% Absolute 2006 2010
CO²-e Japan (TMC) 30% Intensity Volume 1990 2010
Suppliers: Ensure that all our key Not Not
HSBC Holdings Diversified Financials CO²-e 5% Absolute 2004 2007 Energy suppliers set energy disclosed disclosed
Efficiency efficiency and CO²
Energy 7% Absolute 2004 2007
reduction targets
Suppliers: Set CO² reduction targets Not Not
Vodafone Group Wireless CO²-e 50% Absolute 2006 2020
CO²-e for logistics service disclosed disclosed
plc Telecommunication
JPMorgan Chase Diversified Financials CO²-e 20% (excluding air travel, Absolute 2005 2012
& Co. - N. America global employee air travel
will be offset)

22 Companies are listed by market capitalisation (2008).

13 companies that reported to CDP in 2008 did not make 23 Environment Protection Agency
their responses public and are not included on this list. 24 Clinton Global Initiative
20 21
The Carbon Chasm Appendix – Company reduction targets

Constituent Sector Name Target Target Type Intensity Baseline Timeline Constituent Sector Name Target Target Type Intensity Baseline Timeline
name Denominator name Denominator
Berkshire Insurance - No Response Hewlett-Packard Computers & Energy 25% (operations and Absolute 2005 2010
Hathaway Inc. N. America Company Peripherals Consumption products)
Intel Corporation Semiconductor CO²-e 20% Absolute 2007 2012 Energy 16% (facilities) Absolute 2005 2010
Equipment & Consumption
Novartis AG Pharmaceuticals CO²-e 5% of on-site Scope 1 Absolute 1990 2012
CO²-e Original EPA target: 30% Intensity Production 2004 2010
unit CO²-e 10% of vehicles fleet Absolute 2005 2010

Energy 5% Intensity Production 2007 2012 Energy 10% Absolute 2006 2010
Consumption unit Efficiency

PFCs 10% Absolute 1995 2010 ENI Integrated Oil & Gas Flaring 50% Absolute 2007 2011

American Insurance - N. No information Merck & Co., Inc. Pharmaceuticals CO²-e 12% Absolute 2004 2012
International America supplied ConocoPhillips Integrated Oil & Gas In process of
Group, Inc. setting target
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals CO²-e 20% Intensity Net operating 2006 2010 Energy 10% Absolute Not 2012
plc revenue Efficiency disclosed
for constant BHP Billiton Materials CO²-e 13% Intensity Production 2006 2012
exchange unit
rates) Energy 6% Intensity Production 2006 2012
CO²-e 45% Intensity Net operating 2006 2015 Consumption unit
revenue Verizon Telecommunications Not disclosed
(adjusted Communications
for constant Inc.
rates) PepsiCo, Inc. Food Products Energy 20% Absolute Production 2006 2015
Consumption unit
Royal Dutch Oil & Gas CO²-e 5% Absolute 1990 2010
Shell plc Fuel 25% Intensity Production 2006 2015
CO²-e Canada: 6% for Products & Absolute 1990 2008 Consumption unit
Rio Tinto Metals & Mining CO²-e 4% Intensity Production 2003 2008
CO²-e Canadian Oil Sands Absolute Estimated 2010 unit
Business: 50% emissions at project
cut / offset start-up Energy 5% Intensity Production 2003 2008
Efficiency unit
The Coca-Cola Beverages & Tobacco CO²-e Grow the business but not Absolute 2004 2015
Company the carbon Unicredit Group Banks - Europe In process of
setting target
Energy 40-50% for drinks storage Absolute 2000 2010
Efficiency systems Schlumberger Oil & Gas No Target
International IT Consulting & CO²-e 12% (EPA Climate Leaders: Absolute 2005 2012
Business Services 7% globally; Chicago (CCX: Wells Fargo & Banks - N. America In process of
Machines Corp. Climate Exchange-CCX: 2010) Company setting target
Companhia Vale Metals & Mining No Target Vale Carbon Program does
PFCs 25% Absolute 1995 2010 do Rio Doce - not establish quantitative
CVRD targets for GHG emissions
Energy 3.50% Absolute Reset Annual but rather formal processes
Consumption annually for continuous reduction of
Siemens AG Electronic Equipment Energy 20% (CO² emissions Intensity Local sales 2006 2011 its specific emissions
& Instruments Efficiency originating from fossil fuels Mitsubishi UFJ Banks - Asia CO²-e 25% Absolute 2000 2012
and electricity in factories) Financial Group
Energy Osram Sylvania: 10% Absolute Not Not Inc
Consumption disclosed disclosed UBS AG Banks - Europe CO²-e 40% Absolute 2004 2012
Banco Santander Banks - Europe In process of Reliance Diversified Industrial No Response
setting target Industries
E.ON Ltd. Electric Utilities - CO²-e 50% Intensity Production 1990 2030 Oracle Software CO²-e 6% Intensity Unit Building 2003 2010
International unit Corporation Area
Roche Holding Pharmaceuticals CO²-e 10% Intensity Sales 2003 2008 StatoilHydro Integrated Oil & Gas CO²-e 1.5 million tonnes Intensity Equity basis 1997 2010
Energy 10% Intensity Employee 2005 2010 ArcelorMittal Steel No Target
France Telecom Integrated CO²-e 20% Absolute 2006 2020
HCFC Replacement of HCFC Absolute 2010 SA Telecommunication
installations Services
HFCs and Replacement of HFC/PFC Absolute 2015 Energy Change entire transport Absolute 2011
PFCs containing equipment Efficiency fleet to lower emitting

22 23
The Carbon Chasm Appendix – Company reduction targets

Constituent Sector Name Target Target Type Intensity Baseline Timeline Constituent Sector Name Target Target Type Intensity Baseline Timeline
name Denominator name Denominator
Deutsche Integrated CO²-e CO² Neutrality of overall Absolute 2008 Barclays plc Banks - UK & Ireland CO²-e 1% minimum Absolute Reset Annual
Telekom AG Telecommunication electric power consumption annually
Services in Germany
CO²-e 20% (UK only) Absolute 2000 2010
Royal Bank Of Banks - UK & Ireland CO²-e 20% Absolute 2007 2011
Scotland Group CO²-e 20% (UK only) Intensity £1 million of 2005 2010
plc UK income

Intesa Sanpaolo Banks - Europe CO²-e 230,000 tons Absolute 2008 Energy 5% (no less than 1% each Intensity Full time 2010
SpA consumption year) employee

América Móvil Wireless No Response United Industrial CO²-e 12% Absolute 2006 2010
Telecommunication Technologies Conglomerates
Services Corporation

BBVA Diversified Financials In process of Global Eco-efficiency Plan ENEL Electric Utilities - CO²-e Ability to generate energy Absolute 2020
- Europe setting target 2008-2012 launch in 2008 International at low cost and zero
Allianz SE Insurance - Europe CO²-e 20% Absolute 2006 2012
Lukoil Oil & Gas No Response Sent acknowledgement
Anglo American Metals & Mining CO²-e 10% Intensity Production 2004 2014 letter to CDP
plc unit
UnitedHealth Health Care Providers Not disclosed 2008
Energy 15% Absolute 2004 2014 Group Inc. & Services
Boeing Co., Ltd. Aerospace & Defence CO²-e 25% (equates to 1% Intensity Revenue 2007 2012
Abbott Pharmaceuticals CO²-e 30% Intensity Sales 2006 2011 absolute)
Energy 12% Intensity Sales 2006 2011 Energy 25% Intensity Revenue 2007 2012
Consumption consumption
Fuel Eliminate 12% of combined Absolute 2011 NTT DoCoMo, Wireless CO²-e 15% below natural base of Absolute Not yet set 2010
Consumption fuel / oil / coal by switching Inc. Telecommunication financial year 2010 (emissions
to cleaner fuels Services lower than
L’ Oréal Consumer CO²-e 2% Absolute Reset Annual as usual
annually scenario
Energy 5% Intensity Production Reset Annual of financial
Consumption unit annually year 2010)
Suez Industrial Products & No Target Société Générale Banks - Europe CO²-e 11% Intensity Occupant 2007 2012
Environnement Services SA
SA RWE AG Electric Utilities - CO²-e Approximately 38 million t Absolute 2006 2012
Nintendo Co., Ltd Household durables/ CO²-e 2% Absolute Reset Annual International CO²-e to some 21%
Electrical Equipment annually CO²-e Approximately. 63 million t Absolute 2006 2015
ING Group Diversified Financials CO²-e CO² Neutrality (achieved) Absolute Not CO²-e to some 37%
- Europe disclosed NTT - Nippon Wireless CO²-e 35% for all Intensity Subscriber 1991 2011
Energy Not Disclosed Not Not Telegraph & Telecommunication telecommunications
Consumption disclosed disclosed Telephone Corp. Services carriers
Energy Not Disclosed Not Not CO²-e 25% for all other group Intensity Sales 1991 2011
Efficiency disclosed disclosed companies
AXA Group Insurance - Europe CO²-e 5% Intensity Full time 2005 2009 BG Group plc Integrated Oil & Gas CO²-e 1 million tonnes, represents Absolute 2006 2012
employee approximately 8% of
forecasted 2012 emissions
Energy 5% (Green Computing Intensity kWh / 2005 2009
Consumption Program: shift to virtual full time AstraZeneca plc Pharmaceuticals CO²-e 55% Absolute 1990 2010
servers will reduce energy employee CO²-e 2010 absolute emissions Absolute 2001-2002 2010
consumption by expected will be no greater than they
85%) were in 2001-2002
Wachovia Banks - N. America CO²-e 10% Absolute 2005 2010 CO²-e 12% Absolute 2001-2002 2010
Credit Suisse Banks - Europe CO²-e CO² Neutrality Absolute 2005 2009
Rosneft Oil Oil & Gas No Response Group AG
Company Energy 1.50% Absolute Reset Annual
Efficiency annually
Iberdrola SA Electric Utilities - CO²-e 42% Intensity Production 2001 2010
International unit American Diversified Financials CO²-e 10% Absolute 2006 2012
Genentech, Inc. Biotechnology Energy 10% Absolute 2004 2010 Company
Tesco plc Food & Drug Retailing CO²-e 50% for existing and new Absolute 2006 2020
distribution centres / stores
CO²-e 50% Intensity Cases 2006 2012
delivered by
24 25
CDP Contacts

Paul Simpson Carbon Disclosure Project

Chief Operating Officer 40 Bowling Green Lane London EC1R 0NE
United Kingdom
Joanna Lee Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7970 5660 / 5667
Director, Communications & Corporate Partnerships Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7691 7316
Marieke Beckmann
Officer, Communications & Corporate Partnerships

The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project. This does not represent a license to repackage
or resell any of the data reported to CDP or the analysis presented in this report and therefore if you intend to do this you need to obtain express permission from CDP
before doing so. CDP prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to the CDP 2008 information request. CDP does not guarantee the accuracy or
completeness of this information. CDP makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information
and opinions contained herein. All opinions expressed herein are based CDP’s 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. CDP and their
affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, directors, officers and/or employees, may have a position in the securities discussed herein.
The securities 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. © 2009 Carbon Disclosure Project.

‘Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refers to Carbon Disclosure Project and its subsidiaries. Carbon Disclosure Project is a United Kingdom company limited by
guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330.