FINAL Amazon Scorecard
Transcription
FINAL Amazon Scorecard
Company Scorecard Report Consumers and Companies Together Fighting to Stop Climate Change June 2007 Company Scorecard Report The Impact of Companies—and Consumers—on Global Climate Change The scientific case on global warming is no longer in dispute. Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of hundreds of the world’s foremost climate scientists, concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver. Most scientists estimate that we have a 10-year window to significantly reduce our global warming pollution if we are to avoid the most dangerous global warming impacts. Major companies can have a profound influence in reducing the climate crisis; the creation, manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sale of products all contribute significantly to global warming pollution. While a number of companies are playing a leadership role in addressing climate change, others are behind the curve. Meanwhile, an increasing number of consumers are making environmentally conscious purchasing and investing decisions. Yet these decisions have been limited to products that are transparently climate-friendly or energy-efficient, such as hybrid cars, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and energy-efficient appliances. Consumers have not yet had a way to make climate-friendly decisions on a host of other everyday items—from which cell phone to use to which fast-food franchise to get their burgers. The new Climate Counts Company Scorecard now makes this possible. The Climate Counts Company Scorecard The Climate Counts Company Scorecard provides consumers with an objective, balanced way to gauge which companies are seriously committed to reversing climate change—and which ones are not. The Scorecard rates companies annually on their practices to reduce global warming; the higher the score, the greater the company’s commitment to reversing climate change. Our full scorecard ranks 56 companies in eight major consumer sectors, among them Electronics, Household Products, Apparel, and Food Products. Companies were chosen based on their popular household use among mainstream consumers in North America and the United Kingdom and for being market leaders in their respective sectors. Summary of Results The results of the first round of Climate Counts’ company scoring vary from sector to sector, reflecting both the different degrees to which corporations focus on climate issues and climate reporting and the extent to which different sectors have an impact on climate change. The scores offer a snapshot of a moment in time on a dynamic issue among a representative set of large, well-known companies. It should be noted that companies were not chosen for the first round of scoring because they represent sectors believed to have the greatest adverse impact on climate change. That said, certain manufacturing sectors have responded more quickly and extensively to their environmental impact and to engaging consumers and investors on the climate change issue, compared to more information-driven sectors. For example, a higher percentage of companies in the Electronics/Computer sector appear to have made significant progress in addressing climate change than those in the Media or Internet/Software sectors. Analyzed as a whole, the track records on climate change of all the companies Climate Counts scored in this first release make it clear that there is significant work to be done across all sectors. The company with the highest overall score on a scale of 0 to 100 (100 being the highest) is electronics giant Canon with a score of 77. The only other three companies to score 70 or above were Nike (Apparel/Accessories) with 73, Unilever (Food Products) with 71, and IBM (Electronics/Computer) with 70. Twelve companies scored a total of 2 points or lower, with four of those companies falling within the six-company Food Services sector and three of them falling within the seven-company Apparel/Accessories sector. Six out of 12 companies in the Electronics/Computer sector scored 50 points or higher. Notably, a reputation for product and marketing innovation does not necessarily correlate with a company’s leadership on climate action or climate reporting. For example, high-tech movers and shakers like Apple and Amazon.com are behind the curve when it comes to taking meaningful action to address climate change relative to other companies in their respective sectors. Similarly, a long-time track record of social responsibility does not always translate into climate leadership. Levi Strauss, a recognized leader in progressive labor practices and in asserting these practices along its supply chain, has yet to publicly articulate a clear position on climate protection or implement a measurable and public corporate climate change initiative. A number of the companies we examined had environmentally friendly policies and programs in force, but those policies did not guarantee that the companies would rate high on the Climate Counts scorecard. This was because many of the programs we reviewed appeared limited in scope, and not of the scale necessary to truly make a measurable difference in reducing climate change. That said, Climate Counts certainly applauds general corporate environmental initiatives but challenges companies that have them to harness those programs to form the foundation of robust and meaningful climate action strategies. Clearly, those companies have a tremendous opportunity to make progress on climate change quickly and credibly. APPAREL/ACCESSORIES Fashion changes at a notoriously break-neck pace; what was “in” one season is “out” another. It follows that the companies that define and produce the styles that keep many consumers buying comprise a huge manufacturing sector with the potential to play a significant role in reducing climate change. That said, the Apparel/Accessories sector’s track record on the issue can be characterized as bipolar, with notable leadership on climate issues from some companies, and unimpressive showings from others. The sector has faced and dealt with scrutiny on developing-world labor issues for years, but has yet to collectively give the same attention to climate change— which may explain the scoring divide in the sector. APPAREL/ACCESSORIES Nike Gap Inc. Liz Claiborne Limited Brands VF Corporation Levi Strauss Jones Apparel Group Score 73 39 15 5 2 1 0 Climate Counts ranked seven companies that fall within the Apparel/Accessories sector: Nike, Gap, Inc., Liz Claiborne, Limited Brands, VF Corporation, Levi Strauss, and Jones Apparel Group. Of these companies, Nike leads the Apparel/Accessories sector and is among the top three of all 56 scored companies with a score of 73. The second highest scorer in the sector is Gap, Inc. with 39 points, as a result of its general efforts to measure emissions, set goals and report. At 15 points, Liz Claiborne falls short of what could be considered leadership but has begun to implement energy efficiency programs and renewable energy initiatives that distinguish it from companies that scored at the bottom of the sector: Limited Brands, VF Corporation, Levi Strauss, and Jones Apparel Group. BEVERAGES-BEER Most would agree a bottle of beer is nothing without CO2, but it certainly doesn’t mean that beverage and beer companies shouldn’t do more to reduce carbon emissions in their production processes to affect climate change. Climate Counts scored three of the world’s largest beer producers— Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors, and SABMiller—to see if climate-conscious consumers had a clear choice. BEVERAGES - BEER Score SABMiller Anheuser-Busch Molson Coors Brewing 48 29 20 Research found that the London-based SABMiller and maker of the well-known Miller brands currently outpaces rivals Anheuser-Bush and Molson Coors Brewing when it comes to leadership on the issue. The climate difference? SABMiller has set the sector standard for measuring its production of greenhouse gas emissions. It has also set clear and substantial reduction goals and demonstrated a commitment to engaging stakeholders in its efforts to curb global warming pollution. Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors are making strides in building their own foundations for increasing their climate focus. These developments promise to make future rounds of scoring in this sector worth watching. ELECTRONICS/COMPUTER The companies in the Electronics/Computer sector require a significant amount of energy to make the products that keep us connected. And the products that keep us connected require a lot of energy to operate. For the most part, the sector has set a high standard for itself in reviewing, reducing, and reporting to consumers on its climate performance. That said, there is still room for improvement. Climate Counts ranked 12 companies that fall within the Electronics/Computer sector: Canon, IBM, Toshiba, Motorola, HP, Sony, Dell, Hitachi, Siemens, Samsung, Nokia and Apple. ELECTRONICS Score Canon IBM Toshiba Motorola Hewlett-Packard Sony Dell Hitachi Siemens* Samsung Nokia Apple 77 70 66 60 59 51 41 36 34 33 29 2 Of the companies scored, six of the 12 are hitting their stride in addressing the issue, with Canon taking the top spot— both in the Electronics sector and in the overall scorecard— and IBM a notable second. Toshiba, Motorola, HewlettPackard and Sony follow to make this the sector with the highest percentage of companies to earn at least 50 points (out of 100 possible). Five more electronics companies— Dell, Hitachi, Siemens, Samsung and Nokia—are well on their way to moving beyond the starting gate in taking responsibility for climate protection. Apple stands out among the scored companies in this sector by lagging so significantly, 27 points, behind the next highest scorer. Apple has recently announced plans to map a greener future, which has the potential to change this sector’s profile. MEDIA The flow of words, ideas, and entertainment would not appear on first glance to generate pollution that would contribute to global warming. But major media companies today are rarely solely in the information business. As some of the largest corporations in the world, they have tentacles that reach across the globe, spanning millions of employees and countless suppliers and distributors—not to mention the profound influence they have in shaping public opinion. Climate Counts ranked six companies that fall within the Media sector: General Electric, News Corporation, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom and CBS. MEDIA General Electric* News Corporation Disney Time Warner Viacom CBS Some media companies, while perhaps best known for their role in worldwide communications, are large conglomerates that have holdings in scores of other businesses. General Electric is one such diversified company and the parent company of such well-known media properties as NBC and Universal. It also leads the way among companies categorized in the scorecard’s Media sector, for its inclusion of climate protection in its overall business strategy, its detailed measurement of its emissions, and its strong goals to reduce its impact on global warming News Corporation—the parent company of such media brands as Fox and DirecTV—has moved aggressively in recent months to make climate protection central to its future corporate plans. At 57 points, the company is nearing GE’s current total of 61. The sector’s third-ranked company, Disney, is far below the top two but has demonstrated an intention to make up for lost time. The bottom three scored companies—Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS—have not yet made significant efforts in the area of climate control. While not a high greenhouse gas-emitting manufacturing sector, the Media sector yields great potential to provide useful, substantive information on issues like climate change to the public at large. Companies that are leading this sector are working to incorporate strong climate change programming into their schedules and portfolios. Score 61 57 24 10 3 0 FOOD PRODUCTS The Food Products sector is made up of major companies with tremendous distribution networks, packaging needs, and consumer demand, resulting in a large baseline climate footprint. That expansive footprint translates to significant bandwidth for improvements that could have a real impact on reducing climate change. Climate Counts scored 11 Food Products companies: The Coca-Cola Company, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Groupe Danone, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Nestle, PepsiCo, Sara Lee, Stonyfield Farm, and Unilever. FOOD PRODUCTS Unilever Stonyfield Farm The Coca-Cola Company Groupe Danone Kraft Foods Nestle General Mills PepsiCo Kellogg ConAgra Foods Sara Lee Unilever, the maker of everything from Lipton to Slimfast, ranks among the top three scored companies not only within the food sector but for all sectors reviewed. Unilever was awarded 71 points for its detailed reporting, solid corporate structure for high-level oversight of climate issues, goalsetting, and reduction efforts thus far. The Coca-Cola Company is also among the sector’s top tier, with 57 points. The publicly held Groupe Danone scored 50 points. Stonyfield Farm, which is a subsidiary of Groupe Danone and the principal funder of Climate Counts, earned 63 points. Score 71 63 57 50 43 42 37 26 24 6 2 The sector’s notable middle tier is comprised of Kraft Foods, Nestle, General Mills, PepsiCo, and Kellogg, respectively, with the principal distinction among them being the degree to which each company has set public reduction goals and targets and is working to clearly communicate their efforts to the public in a timely and open manner. ConAgra Foods with 6 points and Sara Lee with 2 points occupy the sector’s bottom tier and have made limited or no public efforts to engage in a widening discourse on climate change and corporate climate initiative. FOOD SERVICES American food service companies are responsible for some of the most internationally recognized brands in the world, thanks to aggressive marketing campaigns that place chains in nearly every region in the world. These food-services companies - including fast-food chains - use vast amounts of energy and generate an enormous amount of waste. They employ millions of commuting workers and are connected to an extensive network of suppliers. Taken together as a whole, all of these practices can have a significant impact on climate change. FOOD SERVICES Starbucks McDonald’s Yum! Brands Burger King Darden Restaurants Wendy’s International Climate Counts ranked six companies that fall within the Food Services sector: Starbucks, McDonald’s, Yum! Brands, Burger King, Darden Restaurants and Wendy’s International. Starbucks, the only coffee company included in the scorecard’s Food Services sector, earned 46 points on the 100-point scale for its efforts to incorporate climate change into its increasingly comprehensive corporate social responsibility profile. While the company’s reduction goals are still loosely defined, Starbucks has asserted itself in the policy and emissions accounting arenas and by establishing clear links between its own efforts to reduce its climate footprint and its communication with its employees, customers and suppliers. Its efforts put it ahead of more traditional fast-food companies ranked in the sector. Among the scored fast-food companies, McDonald’s ranks significantly ahead of Burger King, Wendy’s, and Yum! Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Kentucky Fried Chicken). Unlike its rivals, McDonald’s is at the beginning stages of measuring its global warming pollution. It has formulated loose goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and taken preliminary actions to achieve reductions, notably with respect to restaurant energy efficiency and biofuel and refrigerant innovations. The company has also openly acknowledged that it has an impact on climate change and has begun reporting to consumers and investors on its actions to reduce global warming pollution. Like Burger King and Wendy’s, Darden Restaurants, the parent company of such familiar restaurants as Red Lobster and Olive Garden, has not yet articulated that climate change is among the societal issues it has prioritized. Score 46 22 1 0 0 0 HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS Most of the necessities of day-to-day life fall within the Household Products sector—among them, toothpaste, toilet paper, cosmetics, and cleaning supplies. The production of basic household goods is resource-intensive; it also has a multi-faceted impact on the environment through packaging, disposal, and more. Climate Counts evaluated six companies in the Household Products sector: Avon, Clorox, Colgate-Palmolive, Kimberly Clark, L’Oreal, and Procter & Gamble. HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS Procter & Gamble L'Oreal Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Clorox Score 53 45 41 40 11 1 The highest score in the sector is not among the top ten scores overall, yet Procter & Gamble with 53 points has set the pace among the six household product companies currently scored by Climate Counts. The producer of Crest toothpaste and Tide detergent, among numerous other familiar products, P&G has solid public reporting, demonstrated climate protection actions, and emissions accounting that put it just ahead of a cluster of three other leading household products companies—L’Oreal (45 points), Kimberly Clark (41 points), and Colgate-Palmolive (40 points). All three of those companies are within the top half of scored companies overall and should improve with a deeper commitment to detailed reporting and public engagement on climate issues. The absence of public accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and reported goal-setting to reduce emissions keeps Avon, with 10 points, and Clorox, with 1 point, at the bottom of this sector. INTERNET/SOFTWARE The Internet/Software sector represents one of the most explosive growth sectors in the nation’s increasingly information-based economy. The new media sector employs an ever-growing number of people and reaches more and more consumers every day. Ten years ago, no one could have anticipated the impact companies in this sector would have on the way we work and communicate. As those companies have grown, they have also come to have an impact on climate change. INTERNET/SOFTWARE Yahoo! Microsoft Google eBay Amazon.com Climate Counts ranked five companies that fall within the Internet/Software sector: Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, eBay and Amazon.com. At the top of the scored sector is Yahoo!, thanks to its top brass’s commitment to a major companywide climate protection strategy, complete with solid greenhouse gas emissions accounting. But its 36 points are far below leaders in other scorecard sectors. Yahoo! has been committed to offsetting emissions, but in the Climate Counts scoring system, offsetting emissions does not earn as many points on the Climate Counts rating system as do other activities that directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Microsoft—at 31 points—follows Yahoo! in the sector, with clear greenhouse gas emissions accounting. But Microsoft falls short of providing clear plans for reducing its impact. Google has also begun to move forward, but because it does not provide a public accounting of its emissions, it falls behind other sector leaders. eBay and Amazon.com, despite being clear powerhouses in the arena of online commerce, have not yet translated their spirit of innovation to taking public corporate action on climate protection. Score 36 31 17 2 0 How We Rank the Companies Our company ratings are based on a rigorous scoring process that screens publicly available information on each company against 22 criteria drawn from scientifically accepted climate and corporate performance tools. We use these 22 criteria to measure the following four key benchmarks: How well does the company M E A S U R E its climate “footprint”? How much has the company done to R E D U C E its global warming pollution? Does the company explicitly S U P P O R T (or express intent to block) progressive climate legislation? How clearly and comprehensively does the company publicly D I S C L O S E its climate protection efforts? The Four Benchmarks How well does the company m e a s u r e its climate footprint? This benchmark measures the degree to which companies have identified and quantified their greenhouse gas emissions. Climate Counts considers the extensiveness of the company’s self-reported inventory, including the company’s use of a standard inventory protocol, its efforts to account for all relevant greenhouse gases and emissions sources, and any third-party verification of the accuracy of its impact review. How much has the company done to r e d u c e its climate impact? This benchmark measures whether companies have set meaningful goals and timelines for reducing their global warming pollution based on their inventory data. This benchmark gauges not only the magnitude of a company’s goals but also its efforts to incorporate emissions reduction into its overall business management structure – with oversight at the highest organizational levels. The Climate Counts Company Scorecard acknowledges publicly reported efforts that a company has made toward achieving any reductions in its global warming pollution, whether or not those reductions are associated with any goal or target. Climate Counts also recognizes extraordinary efforts at climate leadership, whether it be the company’s initiative in addressing the issue prior to current and heightened levels of public awareness or a company’s willingness to assert its influence on its employees, suppliers, distributors, or the public at large. Does the company explicitly s u p p o r t (or suggest a desire to block) progressive climate change legislation? Public policy leadership at every level — international, federal, regional, state, and local – is essential in fighting climate change, and companies have the power to shape legislation and regulation both positively and negatively. Climate Counts recognizes those companies that have been willing to articulate public support for progressive legislation geared toward measurable climate protection. How clearly and comprehensively does the company publicly d i s c l o s e its climate protection efforts? This benchmark measures the extent to which companies promote broad public awareness of company climate action. The meaningful efforts that companies make to engage consumers as partners in the fight against climate change is the true mark of a “Climate Counts” company. Keeping Current The Climate Counts Company Scorecard will be updated on an annual basis. While the scores represent a snapshot of a company’s practices at a given moment, we recognize the need to reflect the dynamic and everevolving nature of the business landscape. This is why we will reach out to companies on a regular basis to solicit the latest, up-to-date information on their policies and practices, with ongoing monitoring support from our partners ClimateBiz.com and GreenBiz.com. Who is Behind the Climate Counts Company Scorecard? The Climate Counts Company Scorecard was developed with input from a panel of business and climate experts from leading non-governmental organizations and academic institutions. Criteria were chosen for their effectiveness at accomplishing a single goal—stopping global warming. A team of researchers then used these criteria to rate companies and allocate points for climate-related actions. Project staff made multiple efforts to contact each company at the start of the scoring process to confirm that they were basing their research on the most accurate and up-to-date data. Researchers worked independently and with peers to assess company performance on a scale of 0 to 100, and worked with project staff to ensure consistency in scoring. GreenOrder, a leading sustainability strategy firm, provided strategic guidance on the Climate Counts program, assisted in the development of the scoring system, and verified the scoring results for accuracy. GreenOrder’s clients include companies scored by Climate Counts (see www.greenorder.com). Board of Directors About Climate Counts Climate Counts is a new non-profit organization bringing consumers and companies together in the fight against global climate change. It is funded by Stonyfield Farm and launched in collaboration with Clean Air-Cool Planet, a leading organization dedicated to finding and promoting solutions to global warming. Please visit www.climatecounts.org for more information. Gary Hirshberg, Board Chair Stonyfield Farm, President and CEO Lisa Witter, Board Vice Chair Fenton Communications, COO and Executive Vice President Adam Markham Clean Air-Cool Planet, Executive Director Joel Makower Greener World Media, Chairman and Executive Editor Michael Martin MusicMatters, President Lisa Drake Stonyfield Farm, Natural Resources Manager Staff Wood Turner Climate Counts, Project Director PO Box 4844 Manchester NH 03108-4844 (603)216-3788 [email protected] www.climatecounts.org A Project of: This report was designed for on-screen viewing. Should you need a hard copy, please consider printing double-sided on paper with post-consumer recycled content. The Climate Counts Company Scorecard Appendices Amazon.com Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 0 0 0 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 0 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 0 Amazon's Shipping Policy Carbon Disclosure Project (no responses or declined to participate) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Anheuser-Busch Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 13 13 0 3 29 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 13 5 22 5 3 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 4 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 1 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 13 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 1 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 8 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 2 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 3 3 12 10 0 29 2005 Environmental, Health, and Safety Report 2004 Environmental, Health, and Safety Report Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3 -- permission declined for public access to CDP2/CDP1 response) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Apple Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 2 0 0 2 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 2 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 2 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4) Apple and the Environment website "A Greener Apple" - Statement from Steve Jobs, CEO Apple Supplier Code of Conduct Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Avon Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 2 6 0 3 11 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 2 1 22 5 0 3 0 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 1 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 6 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 1 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 2 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 2 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 3 3 12 10 0 11 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3; permission declined for public access to CDP4/CDP1 responses; no response CDP2) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Burger King Climate Counts Scorecard Summary: www.climatecounts.org Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 0 0 0 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Copyright 2007 Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 0 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 0 No relevant public information available Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Canon Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 18 45 3 11 77 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 18 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 3 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 1 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 45 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 3 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 4 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 5 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 8 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 6 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 4 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 3 3 10 10 0 (up to -10) 11 9 12 10 2 77 Canon Sustainability Report 2006 Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 -- permission declined for public access to CDP1 response) Canon Environmental Activities website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 CBS Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 0 0 0 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 0 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 0 CBS Television 2004 Corporate Social Responsibility Report Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Clorox Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 0 1 1 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 0 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 1 1 12 10 0 1 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3; no response or declined to participate CDP4/CDP2/CDP1) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 The Coca-Cola Company Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 20 26 2 9 57 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 20 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 2 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 4 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 26 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 2 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 3 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 5 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 4 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 2 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 2 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 2 2 10 10 0 (up to -10) 9 8 12 10 1 57 2005 Environmental Report 2006 Environmental Report from Coca-Cola West Japan Group 2005 URS Verification Statement 2004 Environmental Report 2003 Environmental Report (plus supplement) 2002 Environmental Report Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2) Coca-Cola Environmental Responsibility website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Colgate-Palmolive Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 12 24 0 4 40 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 12 3 22 5 3 3 1 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 1 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 24 3 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 4 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 1 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 2 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 8 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 3 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 4 4 12 10 0 40 Colgate: Respecting The World Around Us (2004 Sustainability Report) Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 – no public access to CDP1 response) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 ConAgra Foods Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 5 0 1 6 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 5 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 1 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 3 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 1 1 12 10 0 6 ConAgra 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report ConAgra Sustainable Development Program website ConAgra 2002 Environmental Commitment document Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Darden Restaurants Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 0 0 0 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 0 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 0 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4) Darden Restaurants' Public Responsibility Charter Darden Restaurants' Environmental Stewardship statement Darden Environmental Trust website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Dell Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 14 18 1 8 41 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 14 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 3 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 18 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 4 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 3 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 3 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 1 1 10 10 0 (up to -10) 8 7 12 10 1 41 Dell Sustainability Report 2006: Reaching Far and Wide Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1) Product Energy Efficiency website Dell Environmental Commitment website Computer TakeBack Campaign website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Disney Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 3 18 0 3 24 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 3 1 22 5 1 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 1 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 18 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 5 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 3 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 3 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 2 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 3 3 12 10 0 24 Disney Enviroports (2001-2006) Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 eBay Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 1 0 1 2 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 1 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 1 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 1 1 12 10 0 2 Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3 response) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Gap Inc. Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 9 25 1 4 39 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 9 4 22 5 3 3 1 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 1 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 25 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 5 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 7 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 4 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 1 1 10 10 0 (up to -10) 4 4 12 10 0 39 2004 Social Responsibility Report US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP1 response) Gap Inc. Social Responsibility website Cornell University Department of Design and Environmental Analysis Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 General Electric Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 16 31 7 7 61 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 16 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 2 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 1 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 3 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 31 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 4 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 4 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 4 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 5 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 3 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 7 7 10 10 0 (up to -10) 7 7 12 10 0 61 2005 Ecomagination Report 2006 Citizenship Report: Solving Big Needs US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1) GE Citizenship website AES-GE Press Release: "GE, AES Plan Partnership To Lead US Market In Offsetting Greenhouse Gas Emissions" USCAP website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 General Mills Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 13 19 0 5 37 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 13 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 3 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 19 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 5 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 2 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 3 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 2 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 5 5 12 10 0 37 Environmental Report 2006 Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1) General Mills Corporate Commitment website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Google Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 14 1 2 17 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 14 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 2 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 1 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 2 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 1 1 10 10 0 (up to -10) 2 2 12 10 0 17 Annual Reports 2005-2006 Carbon Disclosure Project (did not participate) The Official Google Blog SFGate.com: "Google, PG&E, Bay Area firms pledge to combat climate change" Google Benefits website Google Earth Nemertes Research: "Google's Power Proposal" Treehugger.com: "Google Ends Search for Corporate Alternative Energy Source" Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Groupe Danone Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 18 25 2 5 50 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 18 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 4 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 25 3 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 4 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 3 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 5 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 5 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 2 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 2 2 10 10 0 (up to -10) 5 5 12 10 0 50 Danone Sustainable Development website Social and Environmental Responsibility Reports (2004-2005) Annual Reports 2000-2005 Green Plants report Integrated Environment System report The Kyoto Protocol report Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3/CDP2 responses) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Hitachi Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 14 17 0 5 36 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 14 5 22 5 2 3 2 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 1 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 3 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 17 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 2 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 2 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 2 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 3 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 5 4 12 10 1 36 “hitachi green web” website Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP1 response) Corporate Social Responsibility website CSR Report 2006 Hitachi News Release: "Hitachi Unveils Environmental Vision 2015 Medium-Term Plan for Environmental Management" Hitachi News Release: "Hitachi and GE to Create a Global Alliance for Nuclear Power Business" Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 HP Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 16 33 0 10 59 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 16 3 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 4 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 33 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 3 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 4 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 8 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 3 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 2 4 1 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 10 8 12 10 2 59 FY05 Global Citizenship Report Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1) 2005 Global Greenhouse Gas Register report HP Environmental Sustainability website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 IBM Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 17 43 1 9 70 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 17 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 3 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 43 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 4 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 7 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 7 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 4 4 5 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 1 1 10 10 0 (up to -10) 9 8 12 10 1 70 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report (also 2001, 2002, 2004) US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3) IBM Energy and Climate Protection 2006 fact sheet Lenovo Environmental Report 2007 2001 Energy Star Award Recipient summary Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Climate Counts Scorecard Jones Apparel Group www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 0 0 0 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 0 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 0 Jones Apparel 2005 Annual Report Carbon Disclosure Project (no responses or declined to participate) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Kellogg Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 9 11 1 3 24 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 9 4 22 5 1 3 2 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 2 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 11 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 4 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 1 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 1 1 10 10 0 (up to -10) 3 3 12 10 0 24 US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP2 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3 response) Kellogg company website International Chamber of Commerce website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Kimberly-Clark Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 13 21 0 7 41 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 13 4 22 5 3 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 2 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 21 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 1 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 3 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 6 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 4 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 2 4 3 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 7 6 12 10 1 41 Kimberly-Clark’s Sustainability Reports 2001-2005 US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 – no public access to CDP1 response) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Kraft Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 14 19 3 7 43 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 14 4 22 5 2 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 4 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 19 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 4 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 4 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 3 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 3 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 3 3 10 10 0 (up to -10) 7 7 12 10 0 43 Kraft environmental website Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2) Wuppertal Institute 2005-06 Annual Report Iowa Department of Natural Resources Case Study: Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Levi Strauss Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 1 0 0 1 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 1 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 1 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3; no response or declined to participate CDP4/CDP2/CDP1) Levi Strauss & Co. Contribution to the Commission's Consultation on The Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility Levi Strauss & Co. Global Sourcing and Operating Guidelines CSR Wire: "Levi's Brand Launches 100% Organic Cotton Jeans; Denim Leader to Offer Organic Options in its Most Popular Styles for Fall 2006" Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Limited Brands Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 4 0 1 5 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 4 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 3 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 1 1 12 10 0 5 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access) Limited Brands Environmental Responsibility website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Liz Claiborne Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 14 0 1 15 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 14 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 6 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 3 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 1 1 12 10 0 15 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access) EPA Green Power Partnership website prAna Natural Power Initiative website reFOCUS article: "Top U.S. retailers buy green power for 82,000 homes" Grist interview: Beaver Theodosakis, founder of prAna Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 L'Oréal Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 12 29 0 4 45 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 12 3 22 5 3 3 1 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 29 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 2 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 3 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 6 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 5 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 3 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 2 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 4 4 12 10 0 45 2005 Sustainable Development Report Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 – no public access to CDP4 response) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 McDonald's Climate Counts Scorecard Summary: www.climatecounts.org Score Highest Possible Score 8 6 0 8 22 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Copyright 2007 Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 8 2 22 5 3 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 2 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 6 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 4 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 8 7 12 10 1 22 McDonald’s Worldwide Corporate Responsibility Report 2006 Open Doors Policy Report No Carbon Disclosure Project response Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Microsoft Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 13 15 0 3 31 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 13 5 22 5 2 3 2 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 2 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 2 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 15 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 5 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 1 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 2 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 3 3 12 10 0 31 2006 Citizenship Report Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2) Policy Agenda Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Climate Counts Scorecard Molson Coors Brewing www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 7 14 -5 4 20 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 7 1 22 5 2 3 1 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 1 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 1 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 14 2 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 2 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 1 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 5 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 1 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 -5 0 10 10 -5 (up to -10) 4 3 12 10 1 20 Social Responsibility and Environment Review 2003 US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4) Molson Coors 2005 EHS Progress Report EPA Climate Leaders Parters Molson Coors company website Castle Rock Foundation website National Center for Policy Analysis website American Enterprise Institue for Public Policy Research website Treehugger.com: "Coors To Turn Brewery Waste into Vehicle Fuel" Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Motorola Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 15 36 2 7 60 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 15 4 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 2 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 36 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 3 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 3 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 10 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 4 4 2 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 2 2 10 10 0 (up to -10) 7 7 12 10 0 60 Global Corporate Citizenship Reports (2000-2005) Environmental, Health, and Safety Reports (1998-1999) Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2) Motorola Corporate Citizenship website IT Week: "Greenpeace praises Dell for green IT, slams Motorola" Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Nestlé Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 14 22 -1 7 42 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 14 4 22 5 2 3 0 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 3 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 22 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 3 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 5 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 4 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 4 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 -1 0 10 10 -1 (up to -10) 7 7 12 10 0 42 The Nestlé Policy on the Environment (1999) The Nestlé Sustainability Review (2002) 2005 Consolidated Nestlé Environmental Performance Indicators Environmental Progress Report (2000) Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1) Corporate Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire 2006 Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 News Corporation Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 13 31 5 8 57 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 13 5 22 5 3 3 0 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 3 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 1 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 31 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 3 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 4 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 6 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 1 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 3 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 3 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 5 5 10 10 0 (up to -10) 8 6 12 10 2 57 Annual Report 2006 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access) Company website: Energy Initiative and Press Releases Sky Corporate Responsibility Review 2005-06 Fast Company weblog Columbia Journalism Review: "Murdoch Goes Green, and His Empire Follows" Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Nike Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 18 44 0 11 73 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 18 4 22 5 3 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 3 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 4 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 44 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 5 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 5 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 8 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 9 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 3 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 3 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 11 9 12 10 2 73 2004 Corporate Responsibility Report World Wildlife Fund Climate Savers Final Report Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP2/CDP1 responses) Nike Responsibility website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Nokia Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 12 13 0 4 29 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 12 4 22 5 3 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 13 2 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 2 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 2 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 1 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 2 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 4 3 12 10 1 29 Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 responses) 2006 CR Report 2004 Environmental Report Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 PepsiCo Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 1 16 7 2 26 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 1 1 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 16 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 2 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 7 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 2 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 7 7 10 10 0 (up to -10) 2 2 12 10 0 26 2005 Sustainability Report: Our Values in Action US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1) PepsiCo Environmental News website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Procter & Gamble Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 12 28 2 11 53 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 12 5 22 5 3 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 28 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 3 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 3 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 4 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 9 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 4 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 2 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 2 2 10 10 0 (up to -10) 11 9 12 10 2 53 2006 Global Sustainability & Philanthropy Report Sustainability Reports 1999-2006 Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP2/CDP1) Climate RESOLVE website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 SAB Miller Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 14 26 0 8 48 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 14 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 26 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 5 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 6 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 4 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 8 7 12 10 1 48 Sustainable Development Report 2006 Sustainability Reports 1999-2001 Corporate Accountability Reports 2002-2005 Corporate Citizenship Reviews 1998-2001 SAB Miller company website US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Samsung Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 2 28 1 2 33 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 2 2 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 28 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 5 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 5 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 5 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 1 1 10 10 0 (up to -10) 2 2 12 10 0 33 Samsung Electronics 2005 Green Management Report Carbon Disclosure Project responses (permission declined for public access to CDP4/CDP3/CDP2 responses) Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Sara Lee Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 2 0 0 2 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 2 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 2 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 responses) Sara Lee Global Standards for Suppliers Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Siemens Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 9 12 8 5 34 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 9 3 22 5 2 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 12 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 1 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 2 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 2 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 8 8 10 10 0 (up to -10) 5 4 12 10 1 34 Siemens corporate responsibility website Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP4) 2006 Corporate Responsibility report U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) Web Site Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Sony Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 16 25 1 9 51 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 16 4 22 5 3 3 2 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 1 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 2 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 25 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 3 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 4 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 4 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 1 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 1 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 3 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 1 1 10 10 0 (up to -10) 9 8 12 10 1 51 CSR Reports 2003-2006 Social and Environmental Report 2002 Environmental Reports (1997, 1999, 2001) Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1) WWF article: "Companies commit to saving climate" Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Starbucks Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 16 18 5 7 46 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 16 4 22 5 3 3 2 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 4 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 2 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 1 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 18 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 2 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 6 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 5 5 10 10 0 (up to -10) 7 7 12 10 0 46 2006 CSR/Environment Report 2005 CSR/Environment Report Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2) Starbucks C.A.F.E. Practices Generic Scorecard Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Stonyfield Farm Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 20 26 6 11 63 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 20 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 4 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 2 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 26 1 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 4 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 8 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 3 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 2 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 2 2 6 6 10 10 0 (up to -10) 11 10 12 10 1 63 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Resources emissions inventories National Wildlife Federation publication: "Goal: Confronting Global Warming" StopGlobalWarming.org Biography: Gary Hirshberg Letter from Stonyfield Farm's VP of Natural Resources Stonyfield Farm corporate website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Time Warner Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 8 0 2 10 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 8 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 1 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 4 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 1 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 1 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 2 2 12 10 0 10 Carbon Disclosure Project responses (permission declined for public access to CDP4/CDP2/CDP1 responses) Time Warner 2006 Corporate Social Responsibility Report Time Warner 2005 Sustainability Report Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Toshiba Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 18 39 0 9 66 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 18 5 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 4 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 39 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 3 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 5 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 5 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 7 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 7 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 4 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 2 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 9 9 12 10 0 66 Corporate Social Responsibility Reports (2004-2006) Environment Reports (1998-2003, not including 1999) Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP2/CDP1 -- permission declined for public access to CDP3 response) Toshiba Social and Environmental Activities website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Unilever Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 21 38 2 10 71 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 21 4 22 5 3 3 2 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 4 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 4 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 4 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 38 4 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 2 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 4 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 5 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 6 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 4 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 5 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 3 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 3 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 2 2 10 10 0 (up to -10) 10 9 12 10 1 71 2005 Unilever Environmental and Social Report US EPA Climate Leaders corporate summary Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2/CDP1 Ceres 2006 Corporate Climate Change Ranking Unilever Values website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 VF Corporation Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 2 0 0 2 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 2 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 2 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 2 VF Corporation Code of Conduct The North Face company website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Viacom Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 3 0 0 3 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 3 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 3 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 3 Carbon Disclosure Project responses (permission declined for public access to CDP4/CDP3 responses Viacom company website World Resources Institute press release: "MTV Launches Break the Addiction" MTV environmental education website Paramount Pictures website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Climate Counts Scorecard Wendy's International Summary: www.climatecounts.org Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 0 0 0 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Copyright 2007 Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 0 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 0 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 0 Wendy's International Environmental Responsibility Website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Yahoo Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 12 20 0 4 36 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 12 5 22 5 3 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 2 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 1 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 1 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 20 2 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 1 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 1 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 3 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 2 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 6 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 1 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 4 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 4 4 12 10 0 36 Carbon Disclosure Project response (CDP3) Yahoo! Environment website Yahoo! Campaigns for Good website Yahoo! Auto Green Center website Yahoo! Events website Yahoo! Yodel Anecdotal website Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100 Yum! Brands Climate Counts Scorecard www.climatecounts.org Summary: Copyright 2007 Score Highest Possible Score 0 1 0 0 1 22 56 10 12 100 Review Reduce Policy Stance Report TOTAL Full Scorecard: Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Review 1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory (5) Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3) Score Highest Possible Score 0 0 22 5 0 3 0 2 2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? 3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? 4 0 5 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); (e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) portfolio) Is there external, qualified third party verification of emissions data, reductions, and No (0); Yes, verification by a trade association (1); Yes, verification by a qualified, external consultant working on reporting (where applicable)? company's inventory (2); Yes, verification by a qualified, third-party, not involved in developing the inventory (3) Extra point for verification beyond basic inventory (e.g., verification of physical reductions or reporting) 0 Identify and 4 quantify emissions (22) 4 6 Is the inventory an ongoing, regular process accounting for multiple years? One time project (0); Plans for future, annual inventory work (1); At least two inventories completed (2); Multiple inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e., emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4) 0 4 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4) 1 0 56 4 8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in company's size/composition) No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); Baseline over 10 years back (3); When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period or if the company has picked a year with atypically high emissions, as this will affect the appropriateness of the baseline; also adjust scoring if company is new and older baselines are not possible 0 3 9 Magnitude of reduction goal (considering size of reduction and target year) No reduction goal (0); Keep emissions constant (1); Up to 5% reduction (2); 6-10% reduction (3); >10% reduction (4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than small reduction goal set far in the future) 0 10 Have a management plan and organizational structure been established for climate? No plan established (0); General carbon/climate plan established (1); Designation of committee or responsible parties for company climate strategy (2); Designation of key responsible people and a specific plan for climate action (3); Climate strategy incorporated into overall business strategy (4); Extra point for publicly available detailed plan 0 Set goals and 5 establish internal management (19) 5 11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? 0 2 12 Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress No (0); Points awarded for actions such as the following: Programs to improve energy efficiency; Use of on reduction) emissions-reducing technology; Projects to reduce corporate travel; Investments in technology for future reductions; Incentive programs; Purchase of additional, verifiable offsets; etc.; Up to 2 points per action, based on level and depth of actions and company size, for a maximum of 8 points 0 8 13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? 0 10 14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during the time period, as this will affect ease of achieving absolute reductions; Note that absolute reductions can be achieved even if a relative target was set Has the company achieved verified reductions to date (prior to current goal-setting)? No (0); Yes, reductions achieved prior to current goal setting (1-5) (based on magnitude, frequency, etc.) 0 4 0 5 16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? No (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of products/services (1); Conducting full analyses of GHG impacts associated with use of products/services (2); Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services (3-4) 0 4 17 Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives, or philanthropic projects)? No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points 1 4 18 Does the company require suppliers to take climate change action or give preference No (0); Yes, gives preference to suppliers who take action (1); Yes, requires suppliers to take action (2) to those that do? Reduce 7 15 Policy Stance 19 Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (2) No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a timeline to meet significant target in a later year (5-6); Exceeded goal reductions (7-10) Points awarded here for absolute or intensity-based achievements Does the company support public policy that could require mandatory climate change No (0); Yes, on a local level or in a generalized manner (1-3); Yes, on a state or regional scale or in multiple action by business? strong general stances (4-6); Yes, supports non-voluntary federal- or international-level initiatives (7-10); Points awarded within each specified range for demonstrated depth of support in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying 20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change action? No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as displayed in company materials (website, publications), via a public forum (press, speeches, advertising), and active lobbying; Note: negative points will also be awarded if company belongs to trade association seeking to undermine climate change action 21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or 10Ks) Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other meaningful subsegments? Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) Report 22 Total Sources 0 2 0 0 10 10 0 (up to -10) 0 0 12 10 0 1 Yum! Brand Yum! Brand Yum! Brand Energy Star Foods Sustainability website Foods Worldwide Code of Conduct report Foods Supplier Code of Conduct report Success Story: Pizza Hut Published June 2007 Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007 Achieve reductions (take steps, achieve, verify) (27) Encourage reductions by others (10) Support public policy to require reductions (-10, +10) Publicly disclose emissions (inventory), reductions, and 2 related actions (12) 100