Highlights in 2011


climate change is integrated into their business strategy do not have risk management systems in place to assess the risks associated with climate change. Companies responses in relation to incentives and specific management systems suggests that there is room for improvement in the management of climate change, especially since the majority of the responding companies are tackling the issue of climate change the Board level.


The percentage of responding companies that have identified risks and opportunities associated with climate change has grown slightly since 2010. 85% (41) of responding companies have identified at least one type of risk associated with climate change compared to 81% in the previous year2


. Similarly, the


percentage of firms that identify opportunities has increased from 84% to 88% a total of 42 companies in 2011.


This shows that there is an increased focus on climate change as a factor that can influence the future business and performance of companies.


Emissions reduction targets


The percentage of responding firms in the Iberia 125 sample that have emissions reduction targets is 65% (31), this is one of the few areas of management in which there is a slight decrease from the previous year. In 2010, 71% (24) of responding companies in the CDP Spain 85 2010 Report had emissions reduction targets. The decline is explained by the difference in practices between the Spanish and Portuguese companies (71% have reduction targets versus 46% respectively).


Figure 10: Types of emission reduction targets


presents annual targets that would result from a multi-objective linear distribution in each year of the reporting period3


.


Table 1: Magnitude of the absolute annual targets for reducing emissions4


Company


Gas Natural NH Hoteles Bankinter R.E.E.


Acciona Brisa


Repsol YPF


Among the responding companies that have emissions reduction targets there is great diversity both in the type of targets and the scale and timeframe. Of particular interest are the absolute reduction targets which have been established by 32% (15) of the responding companies. The establishment of absolute emissions reduction targets is a good means for evaluating the actual outcome from the management of emissions by the company (compared to intensity targets like emissions per unit of sales or employee, which can vary without having a real reduction in emissions). Absolute targets also make it easier for comparison between companies’ relative efforts in global reduction targets.


Table 1 shows those responding companies that have adopted targets for reducing a significant portion of their Scope 1 and 2 emissions. To facilitate a comparison the table


2 Data from the Spain 85 sample in 2010.


3 The objectives have been scaled down and do not apply to total emissions but rather to only a percentage of emissions For example, an emissions reduction target of 15% over three years that applies to 80% of total emissions would be equivalent to an absolute reduction of 4%.


Annual objective for absolute


emissions reduction 7%


6% 5% 3% 3% 2%


Portugal Telecom 2% Enagás


1% 1%


A second calculation allows us to estimate the total reduction of


emissions (t CO2e), which is translated into absolute reduction targets for the CDP 2011 questionnaire as displayed in Table 2. Again the assumption is that


Table 2: Quantification of absolute targets for reducing emissions


Company Estimated reduction in CDP2011 (t CO2e)


Gas Natural Repsol YPF Ferrovial Acciona


Portugal Telecom NH Hoteles Enagás R.E.E. Brisa


Bankinter Iberdrola


2,506,747 1,561,790 1,411,787 27,861 7,156 2,711 2,423 1,414 476 466 217


4 This table does not include companies that have an absolute emissions reduction target but that have not quantified the percentage of their applied Scope 1 or 2 emissions that this target refers to. Ferrovial and Iberdrola, for example, have absolute targets for some of their business units. Nevertheless the data provided by these two companies allows for an estimation of the total amount of emission reductions and have therefore been included in Table 2.


23


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50