Full Document Text

                
c
CARBON DISCLOSURE PROJECT 
CDP Supply Chain Report 2012
Carbon Disclosure Project
info@cdproject.net
+44 (0) 20 7970 5660
www.cdproject.net
Report written for
Carbon Disclosure Project by:
A New Era: Supplier Management in the Low-Carbon Economy

CDP Supply Chain Member Companies
CDP Supply Chain Program
The CDP Supply Chain Program is designed to promote information sharing and 
innovation between CDP Supply Chain members – companies that have begun 
to integrate carbon management strategy into their supply chains – and the 
companies that provide goods and services to them as we transition to a low-
carbon economy. To learn more about becoming a member, please contact us  
or visit the Members and Signatories section of www.cdproject.net.
i
Corporate Members
Accenture
Acer Inc.
ASUSTeK Computer
AT&T Inc.
Banco Bradesco
British Sky Broadcasting
BT Group
City of Denver
Colgate-Palmolive Company
ConAgra Foods
EADS
Eaton Corporation
Eletropaulo Metropolitana  
Eletricidade de São Paulo
Elopak
Endesa
Enel
eni
Ford Motor Company
Imperial Tobacco Group
IBM
Jaguar Land Rover
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson Controls
KAO Corporation
Kraft Foods
National Australia Bank
National Grid
Nestle
Nokia-Siemens Networks
Oil & Natural Gas
Philips Electronics
Reckitt Benckiser
Rexam
Royal Mail Group
SABESP
Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Tyco International
Unilever
Vodafone Group
Lead Members
Bank of America
Coca-Cola Company
Dell
FIBRIA Celulose
Goldman Sachs Group
Juniper Networks
L’Oreal
PepsiCo
Suzano Pulp and Paper
VALE
Walmart

Climate change has become a 
mainstream business issue, and 
large global corporations are now 
extending their gains in internal carbon 
management to the next opportunity: 
their supply chain. Carbon Disclosure 
Project (CDP) has been collecting data 
on corporate greenhouse-gas (GHG) 
emissions for almost a decade. Global 
companies that have been exposed to 
these information requests for many 
years understand the value of measuring 
and reporting their emissions, and they 
are now pushing their suppliers to report 
more climate change-related information 
and take greater action to reduce their 
emissions. This represents a much larger 
opportunity: indirect emissions (meaning 
those from the supply chain) represent  
as much as 86% of a company’s  
total emissions.1
In 2011, CDP conducted its fourth  
annual information request for member 
companies and their suppliers, and 
describes its findings in this report, 
published in collaboration with 
Accenture.* The results indicate that 
companies are making real changes to 
their operating models, most frequently 
in procurement, resulting in greater 
reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions 
and greater monetary gains across 
the entire supply chain. Of the 49 CDP 
Supply Chain member companies—the 
companies who are requesting climate 
information from their suppliers—90% of 
responding companies have a climate 
change strategy with at least general 
guidelines for procurement, an increase 
from 79% in 2010 and 74% in 2009. 
Some 62% reward suppliers that employ 
good carbon-management practices  
(up from 19% in 2009 and 28% in 
2010), 39% will soon begin deselecting 
suppliers that do not adopt such 
measures (compared to 17% in 2009 
and 23% in 2010), and 30% factor 
climate change into their evaluation 
of suppliers. These have all increased 
significantly over prior years, which 
shows growing momentum for supply-
chain engagement. Monetization of these 
efforts remains a significant challenge: 
only 20% of responding companies  
report an estimated monetary value  
for the supply chain initiatives they  
have undertaken to improve  
carbon management. 
The results also indicate that suppliers 
are becoming more transparent about 
their emissions-related information, 
in part due to growing pressure from 
corporate clients. In 2011, 1,864 
suppliers responded to the information 
request, a substantial increase from prior 
years (1,000 in 2010, and 715 in 2009). 
This parallels the way that sustainability 
measures have become more prevalent 
in the business community at large. 
Over the past decade, major global 
corporations have increasingly taken 
steps to address climate change, partly in 
response to greater awareness of climate 
change among investors and consumers. 
Now, suppliers are realizing the business 
value for emissions information due to 
growing requests for such information 
among their corporate clients. 
The business case is strong and growing: 
suppliers that do not measure, quantify, 
and manage their greenhouse-gas 
emissions will soon see their business 
move to competitors that can provide 
better information and clearer evidence 
of change. At the same time, while 
disclosure is strong among global 
suppliers—67% of suppliers that 
responded to the information request 
report scope 1 and scope 2 emissions—
these companies must build on this 
foundation of communication and begin 
taking meaningful actions to reduce their 
emissions. While 43% of CDP Supply 
Chain member companies have achieved 
reductions in their GHG emissions, only 
28% of their suppliers have. 
Finally, the survey results indicate ways 
in which corporations can serve as a 
catalyst for these changes among their 
suppliers, working to engender sound 
carbon-management practices among 
their suppliers. While the opportunity is 
clear, the precise means of capturing 
these gains are not. Some 39% of 
companies have realized monetary 
savings from their own emissions 
reductions activities and over a third 
(34.5%) have benefited from new revenue 
streams or financial savings as a result 
of their suppliers’ carbon reduction 
activities. However, less than a quarter 
(24%)  help their suppliers to quantify the 
return on their low-carbon investments. 
The next step is to more effectively 
evaluate suppliers, improve performance 
through more effective procurement, 
and improve the tools and metrics used 
to quantify and monetize the gains from 
emissions reductions. Executed correctly, 
supply-chain engagement will not simply 
generate benefits for the environment  
but for the balance sheet as well. 
Executive Summary
ii
* All percentages listed as a percentage of companies able to provide information on this subject.  The number of member companies responding ranged from 29  - 49.
1 Reference: Mathews, H S., C.T. Hendrickson, C.L. Weber. (2008).The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environmental Science and Technology, 42, 5839-5842.

 CDP Supply Chain Member Companies i
 Executive Summary ii
 Introduction 1
 Perspective—Supply Chains and the Sustainability Imperative 2
 About the CDP Supply Chain Report 3
  1 A Changing Business Model 4
Perspective—GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard:  
A Framework for Sustainable Value Chain Management
8
  2 Supplier Performance 9
Perspective—The Commercial Value  
of Carbon Disclosure: Standard Register
11
  3 The Next Challenge 12
 Perspective—Uncharted Territory: Water in the Supply Chain 14
Contents
iii

1
90%89%
2011
 31%59%84% 10%6%
  34% 45% 79%
2010
fig 1
100806040200
  57% 17% 74%
2009
As climate change begins to exert a 
larger impact on business operations, 
reporting on greenhouse-gas emissions 
has become standard practice in the 
world’s major corporations. The mission 
of Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is  
to accelerate solutions to climate 
change and water management  
by putting relevant information at  
the heart of business, policy and  
investment decisions. 
As part of this mission, CDP conducts 
annual surveys among large global 
corporations. In response to a CDP-
facilitated request from 551 institutional 
investors with $71 trillion in assets, 81% 
of the corporations that comprise the 
Global 5002 reported climate-change 
Introduction 
* All percentages listed as a percentage of companies able to provide information on this subject.   
The number of member companies responding ranged from 29  - 49.
2 The Global 500 are the largest companies by market capitalization included in the FTSE Global Equity Index Series
Has corporate climate change strategy that 
specifically addresses procurement
90%89%
2011
 31%59%84% 10%6%
  34% 45% 79%
2010
fig 1
100806040200
  57% 17% 74%
2009
Has corporate climate change strategy with 
some general guidelines for procurement
Specific climate change risk  
management process
No documented processes
Integrated into multi-disciplinary  
company-wide risk management process
Figure 1 – Proportion of members with a climate change risk  
management strategy and upward trend of climate change  
strategies that include procurement.
Climate Change Risk Management 
Approach of Member Companies in 2011
Member Companies in 2011 with Climate 
Change Strategies that Include Procurement
actions and related strategies via 
CDP’s database in 2011. Year-over-
year results point to clear progress 
among these companies. Among these 
responding companies, 93% now report 
their greenhouse-gas emissions, and 
74% have targets in place to reduce 
those emissions. Boards of directors 
and senior executives are increasingly 
involved in this process, helping  
drive company-wide innovation and  
emissions reductions. 
While large, global corporations are 
doing well, members of CDP’s Supply 
Chain program are taking the next step. 
These 50 organizations, listed at the 
beginning of this report, collaborate 
directly with CDP in order to gather 
emissions-related information from 
their suppliers. CDP Supply Chain 
member companies have evolved 
beyond reporting; 94% of them have 
incorporated climate change into 
their company-wide risk management 
process. In addition, 90% now have 
a formal approach to climate change 
in procurement, up from 79% in 2010 
(Figure 1). Leading companies are also 
taking direct action to improve their 
carbon management: 43% of CDP’s 
Supply Chain members report absolute 
scope 1 and 2 emissions reductions, 
and 39% reported monetary savings 
from emissions reduction initiatives.
While this progress is noteworthy—
more large corporations have an overall 
strategy in place to address climate 
change—their suppliers are still  
catching up. Only 28% of suppliers 
reported demonstrable emissions 
reductions in 2011. 
To evaluate the current state of progress 
on such measures across the supply 
chain, CDP conducted an information 
request on behalf of its 50 member 
companies (please see “About the CDP 
Supply Chain program”). The results* 
show that progressive companies are  
uncovering significant opportunities 
to reduce emissions throughout their 
supply chains, leading to reduced  
risks of climate change-related 
disruptions, lower costs, and new 
business opportunities. 

2
Most commonly this collaboration 
happens through procurement: 62% 
of members now reward suppliers 
who employ strong environmental 
practices, up dramatically from 28% 
in 2010 and 19% in 2009. 
At the same time, suppliers are 
becoming more transparent about 
their emissions and related mitigation 
strategies, indicating that they now 
recognize the growing business case 
for disclosure and collaboration. While 
disclosure scores among suppliers 
show improvement, performance 
scores still trail, indicating that these 
companies must now transition from 
communication to taking specific 
steps to drive emissions reductions. 
Among specific sectors, utilities 
scored better than suppliers in other 
sectors, perhaps due to the more 
regulated state of the utility industry. 
Regionally, the disclosure and 
performance scores of Asian-based 
and European-based companies 
exceed the scores of companies from 
North America and the rest of the 
world. Suppliers in Asia and Europe 
have more comprehensive climate 
change strategies in place —and 
have generated better results—than 
their competitors in North America or 
the rest of the world.
Finally, the results point to several 
clear avenues that corporations 
can pursue to further their supply-
chain efforts, including better 
ways to evaluate suppliers, more 
effective procurement strategies, 
and improved measurement tools to 
quantify gains. 
The financial credit crunch that has spawned the global financial crisis is the most 
profound economic shock in over a generation. Economists have to turn back 
to the 1971-73 period to find a parallel that produced anything like this degree 
of change. However, the world is also facing an environmental credit crunch, the 
effects of which are starting to become apparent. 
Credit is simply a means by which we use tomorrow’s standard of living to 
enhance today’s standard of living. To buy a television on credit means owning a 
television today (a higher standard of living), while accepting a lower standard of 
living tomorrow (as the debt is repaid). Environmental credit is the same concept 
– burning a barrel of oil to heat a home today means that the consumers deny 
themselves the ability to burn that barrel of oil to heat their home tomorrow – an 
inter-temporal transfer of environmentally-determined living standards.
A credit crunch is simply when that inter-temporal transfer is made more difficult (or 
in extremis, impossible). The price movements of basic materials and energy today 
indicate just such an environmental credit crunch. We have just had the worst global 
recession in seventy five years, and oil trades at more than $100 per barrel. For 
the first time in modern history, resource constraints act as a brake on economic 
activity. One third of all economic activity today depends on the consumption  
of nonrenewable resources – akin to financing a third of one’s household budget  
on credit cards. 
These twin credit crunches — financial and environmental — influence one another. 
The solution to an environmental credit crunch is simple: we need to do more with 
less. Achieving that efficiency requires better investment in capital and education, 
which in turn requires funding for that investment. However, the financial credit 
crunch limits the availability of funding at exactly the time it is most needed.  
Similarly the political concerns about the constraints imposed by an environmental 
credit crunch may induce governments to direct financing toward certain industries 
(agriculture, for instance), denying capital to other sectors of the economy and 
compounding the impact of financial credit crunch. 
Amidst all of this sit supply chains – stretched across the world, vulnerable to 
disruption, and representing the economic and trading structures of what is  
almost certainly a bygone age. Certain issues, including trade protectionism, limits 
on capital flows (such as foreign direct investment or trade finance), regulation and 
politics all render existing supply chains vulnerable. However, the environmental 
credit crunch factors in as well. Transport expenses and power costs change the 
economics of lengthy supply chains. However, shifts in environmental conditions 
also make supply chains more important (importing food into water deprived  
areas, for example). 
The two credit crunches mean changes for the way we supply our economies 
today. What those changes are, precisely, we cannot know – because we still do 
not know the extent of the twin credit crunches. What should be clear for policy 
makers is that to concentrate on the financial credit crunch in isolation is a highly 
risky strategy. The environmental credit crunch has the potential to be at least 
as economically damaging. This logic also extends to business. The future trend 
level of economic growth will depend on our ability to innovate and become more 
environmentally efficient. It is clear that we are standing at the brink of a new era. 
Paul Donovan, global economist at UBS and the co-author  
of From Red to Green: How the Financial Credit Crunch  
Could Bankrupt the Environment
Supply Chains and the Sustainability Imperative

3
Supply Chains and the Sustainability Imperative
The CDP Supply Chain program 
provides a global system that allows 
companies with vast supply networks to 
collect business-critical climate change 
information from their suppliers. The 
program currently has 50 members 
(including one US city), of which the 
majority are located in North America 
(20) or Europe (19). In 2011, CDP 
collaborated with these members to 
gather information on greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions from 4,234 
of their collective suppliers. 1,864 
global suppliers cooperated with this 
information request, a 44% response 
rate. While that rate was slightly lower 
than in past years (54% in 2010), 
the questionnaires were sent to far 
more companies, leading to a more 
comprehensive picture of supply-chain 
emissions among members. In addition, 
response rates in Europe and Asia 
outpaced the rate for suppliers in  
North America and other regions  
(Figures 2 and 3). 
About the CDP Supply Chain Report
Figure 2 – Supplier participation in CDP Information Request
 5 V Y [ O   ( T L Y P J H
 3% 47%50%
 9 L Z [   V M   > V Y S K
 1% 54%45%
 ( Z P H
 1% 3  %66%
 ; V [ H S   0 U ] P [ H [ P V U Z
1  354
607
3  163
6  1
5  745
 , \ Y V W L
 3%   9%68%
 ; V [ H S  
Figure 3 – Supplier response rate by region.
2009
2011
 ; V [ H S  
 9 L X \ L Z [ Z
 9 L Z W V U Z L  
 9 H [ L
   95       75 4    34 44%
 1  853 54%
 1  40   51%
1  864
  1  000 59 794
2010
fig   
  715 98 589
86     P U J Y L H Z L   P U  
 W H Y [ P J P W H U [ Z   V ] L Y  2010
128     P U J Y L H Z L   P U   Y L X \ L Z [ Z   V ] L Y  2010
Answered Questionnaire
Declined to Participate
No Response
3 For more detailed information, please review the 
2011 scoring methodology document available here: 
https://www.cdproject.net/Documents/Guidance/
CDP-2011-Scoring-Methodology1.1.pdf
In addition, CDP and Accenture 
conducted an in-depth formal survey of 
member companies to better assess the 
current state of supplier engagement on 
climate change. The number of member 
companies responding to each question 
varied from 29 to 49, depending on their 
ability to provide information. Therefore, 
percentages stated relate to the number 
of member companies who answered 
each question. Finally, select members 
were interviewed to draw additional 
qualitative insights. A team of experts 
extensively analyzed all of these sources 
and conducted supporting outside 
research to produce this report.
Scoring Methodology3 
All responses to the 2011 supplier 
information request were scored on 
two factors: 1) transparency, in the form 
of a numeric disclosure score and 2) 
action on climate change, in the form of 
a letter grade performance band. Last 
year, in recognition of a promising trend 
in improved transparency among large 
public companies, CDP introduced a 
performance component to its scoring 
system to recognize companies that are 
taking action on climate change. This 
year, the same performance scoring 
was introduced to the CDP Supply 
Chain program and all suppliers with a 
sufficiently high disclosure score (≥50) 
also received a performance band. 
Disclosure scores under 50 do not 
necessarily indicate poor performance; 
rather, they indicate insufficient 
information to evaluate performance. 
First Carbon Solutions, the CDP Supply 
Chain scoring partner, performed the 
scoring evaluations of the suppliers 
who did not overlap with or were not 
evaluated in the Investor CDP program 
in 2011— a majority of the 1,864 who 
responded to the request. 
Note: A total of 5,745 invitations were sent out to 4,234 suppliers. In many cases, a given 
supplier received more than one request from CDP Supply Chain members to participate. 
In these cases, suppliers only responded one time and their response was then distributed 
to their multiple customers—reducing redundant work for the suppliers.

4
Global corporations that have 
succeeded in managing the carbon 
emissions from their own internal 
operations are now shifting their 
business models to drive strategy, 
innovation and long-term change along 
the entire value chain. While these efforts 
started as an experiment in what was 
broadly termed “greening the supply 
chain,” they have emerged as a serious 
business imperative that is critical to 
the success of global commerce. Why? 
Because companies are now able to 
quantify the benefits in financial terms. 
This has not become commonplace 
just yet, but as information becomes 
more available and companies are able 
to better manage it, these practices will 
become more prevalent. 
To date, the most direct progress 
has come in the form of more 
comprehensive procurement strategies. 
Some 90% of CDP Supply Chain 
members now include procurement in 
their formal climate change strategies 
up from 79% in 2010 and 74% in 2009, 
and 67% state that they now include 
carbon management in their overall 
procurement policy on some level, and 
another 17% are currently developing 
such criteria. Similarly, 30% of these 
companies include carbon management 
criteria in supplier scorecards. 
The CDP Supply Chain members 
also use incentives to encourage their 
suppliers. In 2011, 62% of respondents 
reported having a policy that recognizes 
or rewards suppliers that employ good 
carbon management practices. That is 
up significantly from past years (19% in 
2009, and 28% in 2010). Some 7% of 
companies award preferential status to 
suppliers who show strong sustainability 
measures, 17% recognize them through 
external communications such as 
press releases, and 38% highlight their 
performance in internal documents.
Other member companies apply more 
rigid standards: half of responding 
companies are developing or 
already have in place a contractual 
obligation for suppliers to manage 
greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions and 
include information about emissions 
management in RFPs. Furthermore, 
many large corporations say they 
will soon deselect suppliers who fail 
to implement formal environmental 
criteria. While only 4% of respondents 
say that they routinely do this today, 
39% project that they will soon 
implement this policy in the future, up 
from past survey results (17% in 2009 
and 23% in 2010). In addition, 37%  
of companies are looking to get  
involved in supplier outreach  
and training programs.
Accordingly, the number of companies 
that actively train their procurement 
staff in supply-chain carbon 
management is increasing steadily 
(Figure 4). These do not need to be 
comprehensive or overly technical—
the goal is not to make corporate 
buyers into carbon experts. Instead, 
procurement leaders should  
aim to educate staff about the 
business benefits of working with 
climate-savvy suppliers.
A Changing  
Business Model1
“At the end of the day, it’s 
the responsibility of the 
buyer to really demand 
this – if not, it’s not 
sustainable.”
Fibria
“L’Oréal’s CPO and COO 
have implemented a 
strategy designed to give 
buyers the information 
they need to evaluate 
suppliers on climate 
change action in their 
quarterly business 
reviews. The solution 
starts with a scorecard 
document that is 
effectively a summary 
of suppliers’ CDP 
responses, which the 
sustainability team puts 
together with support 
from CDP. L’Oréal’s plan 
is to make responding 
to CDP mandatory for 
all key suppliers, with 
emphasis on reporting 
scope 1 and 2 emissions 
and a reduction target.” 
L’Oréal
Figure 4 – Companies are  
increasingly training their procurement 
staff in carbon management along the  
supply chain. 
fig 4
63%
2011  
41%
2010  
  6%
2009  
Procurement Staff Training in 
Supply Chain Carbon Management

5
“The worldwide shift to 
give priority attention to 
all things climate related, 
even beyond regulatory 
requirements, creates 
ideas for innovations 
and expanded sales 
opportunities for 
Microchip.  Thousands of 
customers are creating 
new products and new 
uses for microcontrollers, 
analog and Flash IP 
solutions.  Customers 
want devices and 
technology that can do 
more things with less 
power and help them 
create products that  
help reduce the 
emissions of CO2e.”
Microchip Technology
These efforts to collaborate with the 
supply chain and drive greater emissions 
reductions can lead to benefits in four 
key areas: reduced risks, lower costs, 
new revenue opportunities, and better 
brand positioning (Figure 5).
Mitigating: Reduced  
risks and lower costs
In the past year alone, 30% of member 
companies reported supply-chain 
disruptions due to weather-related 
incidents. Climate scientists predict that 
storms will become more frequent and 
more intense in the future,4 leading to 
potentially greater risks for companies 
with extended supply chains or 
agricultural networks (or both). 
For example, the 2011 floods in Thailand 
significantly disrupted the personal 
computer industry. Roughly a quarter of 
all hard drives come from the region of 
Thailand that was most impacted by the 
flood, and the subsequent shortage has 
triggered price increases of as much as 
40%, with effects expected to linger into 
2012. One analyst estimated that a 10% 
rise in the average cost of hard drives 
would cut Dell’s gross margins by 40 
basis points.5
Supply-chain engagement can help 
mitigate these risks and also reduce 
costs throughout the supply chain. A 
recent Gartner survey found that 56% 
of companies name the reduction of 
operational costs as a key supply-chain 
priority.6 Reduced supply-chain  
costs come primarily through energy 
efficiency measures, but also through 
collaborative efforts in packaging, 
logistics, and other functions. 
Figure 5 – Supply-chain engagement leads to new revenue opportunities 
and better brand positioning, as well as reduced risks and costs.
4 Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds). “Contribution of Work-
ing Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;” (2007). Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. 
Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm.
 http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/extreme.html 
5 “Thai Floods an Overhang as Dell Reports Earnings;” Reuters, 
Nov. 15, 2011; http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/15/
thailand-floods-hdd-idUSN1E7AE0BV20111115.
6 “Nine Key Supply Chain Sustainability  
Trends for 2011” (Gartner)
Innovate
Less Certain / Long-termCertain / Short-term
Mitigate
Revenues
 •	 Creating new business models
 •	 Collaborating to develop new markets
 •	 Innovating to develop new products  
and services
Brand
 •	 Focusing on and showcasing innovation
 •	 Collaborating to increase transparency
 •	 Engaging employees and investors
Risk Management
 •	 Protecting License to Operate
 •	 Integrating Sustainability triple  
bottom line consideration with  
corporate risk management. 
 •	 Diversifying business model  
and operations
Cost Reduction
 •	 Improving energy efficiency
 •	 Streamlining supply chain and logistics
 •	 Innovating with suppliers and customers 

6
“If we were to allocate emissions to different  
customers, the challenges would be:
 •	 Lack of specificity of data: manufacturing data 
 is reported at a site level and many of our  
sites manufacture a range of products across  
our categories.
 •	 Integration of different management  
systems: sales and performance reporting.
 •	 Data quality and availability: Scope 1 and 2 is the 
most accurate and is reported annually. Scope 3 
data covering the full lifecycle of our products is of 
more variable quality in terms of specificity and age.
Also data on many ingredients is not available, and it 
requires expert judgment to determine GHG footprints 
across the total lifecycle.” 
Unilever
Innovating: New revenue 
opportunities and better  
brand positioning
Organizations that generate a 
comprehensive business approach to 
climate change will be able to identify 
and tap new revenue opportunities. 
Similarly, a company can burnish 
its brand through more effective 
environmental practices. Many investors 
and financial analysts regard good 
performance on environmental and 
social measures as a proxy for good 
management,7 and companies that 
excel in this area can differentiate 
themselves from competitors. In fact, 
in the 2010 UN Global Compact study, 
72% of CEOs cite “brand, trust and 
reputation” as one of the top three 
factors driving them to take action 
around sustainability.8 Some companies, 
such as Walmart and Unilever, are 
cultivating overarching sustainability 
‘halos’ that suffuse their product brands.
7 International Finance Corporation and World Resources Insti-
tute (2009. “Undisclosed risk: Corporate environmental and 
social reporting in emerging Asia.” Available at: http://www.
wri.org/publication/undisclosed-risk-asia
8 UN Global Compact-Accenture, “A New Era of Sustainability”: 
CEO Study 2010, July 2010

7
Three success stories
To capitalize on these opportunities, 
several companies among CDP’s 
members have launched substantial 
supply chain carbon-management 
programs. For example, PepsiCo 
estimates its total potential exposure to 
ingredients and agriculture from changes 
in the climate at $12 billion per year. 
Accordingly, the company has created 
several programs to improve resource 
conservation and crop yields along its 
supply chain, through more efficient use 
of water and less reliance on synthetic 
fertilizers. In southern Chile, for instance, 
it helped its suppliers upgrade their 
irrigation systems, leading to a 35% 
reduction in water use.
Similarly, Walmart established a goal 
to eliminate 20 million metric tons of 
GHG emissions from its supply chain by 
the end of 2015, in large part through 
collaboration with its suppliers.9 Walmart 
estimated that its 60,000 suppliers 
contributed 72% of the company’s total 
emissions as of 2006.10 As a result, 
Walmart has taken steps to identify 
GHG reduction opportunities in more 
than 20 product categories, working 
with CDP in this effort. The company 
specifically focused on China – setting 
a goal of becoming 20% more energy 
efficient, per unit of production, in 
its top 200 factories. As part of this 
program, Walmart helped several 
apparel mills undergo on-site energy 
assessments. One supplier, Dana 
Undies, subsequently saved 71% from 
its annual energy bill by implementing 
energy efficiency practices identified 
through the assessment. Another, Intex, 
reduced coal consumption by nearly 
12,000 tons, equal to almost 30 million 
metric tons of CO2 emissions. Intex later 
invested another $1.2 million into 16 
energy-saving projects.11 
Vodafone is another example—the 
company assesses its key suppliers 
every six months on a scorecard that 
includes six pillars, one of which is 
focused on sustainability. Vodafone  
is also working closely with 12 of its  
major suppliers, which represent 
22% of relevant procurement spend,  
on CO2-reduction projects,  
primarily to develop more energy 
efficient equipment.12
Overcoming challenges
These companies have managed 
to overcome several significant 
challenges to establish their supply-
chain leadership. The principal theme 
among these is quantification—many 
companies have struggled to determine 
the best means of allocating the costs 
and benefits of new measures to 
individual organizations along the supply 
chain. For example, suppose that a 
large food manufacturing company 
helps its growers reduce their fertilizer 
use and invest in a more fuel-efficient 
fleet of trucks. Those changes will 
clearly lead to emissions reductions, but 
there is no system in place to determine 
how such reductions should be reported 
or accounted for between the supplier 
and the corporate client. To overcome 
this, companies need to adapt existing 
financial evaluation models to accurately 
assess the results of their efforts to 
reduce emissions. 
A related challenge is determining a 
clear return on investment for supply 
chain measures. Some 34.5% of 
responding member companies claim 
to have realized new revenue or savings 
from their suppliers’ carbon-reduction 
activities, but only 24% help suppliers 
identify those factors in their own 
organizations. More fundamentally, only 
20% of companies report an estimated 
monetary value for the supply chain 
initiatives they have undertaken to 
improve carbon management. 
“We must extend beyond 
our own operations 
to promote best 
practices among our 
business partners, in 
order to deliver on our 
commitment to protect 
natural resources and 
mitigate business risks 
through innovation and 
more efficient use of 
land, water, energy, and 
packaging. PepsiCo will 
work with our strategic 
suppliers to ensure 
effective environmental 
sustainability programs in 
their organizations.”
PepsiCo
9 Company website; http://walmartstores.com/Sustainability/8141.aspx
10 Company website; http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_WBSCC_Backgrounder.pdf
11 Company website; http://walmartstores.com/sites/ResponsibilityReport/2011/
12 Vodafone, 2010/2011 Sustainability Report

8
GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard: a framework 
for sustainable value chain management
Scope 1 and scope 2 reporting has become commonplace: 94% of the responding companies in the Global 500 now report 
emissions in the former category, and 93% in the latter. Scope 3 reporting, on the other hand, is incomplete and inconsistent: 
only 72% of the Global 500 current report any scope 3 emissions. But that’s about to change. The GHG Protocol Scope 3 
Standard has just been published, which clearly defines 15 categories of scope 3 emissions and provides detailed guidance on 
how to account for and report those emissions.
Companies that aim to be leaders in GHG management will be expected to make a full accounting of their scope 3 emissions. 
Stakeholders including investors, customers and environmental groups want to know that companies are effectively managing 
climate-related risks and opportunities from their full value chain. The release of the GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard has 
redefined and raised the bar for defining corporate climate leadership. 
We expect companies will start reporting scope 3 emissions more completely and consistently to meet a variety of business 
goals, such as managing risks and opportunities, identifying and reducing impact (both financial and environmental), setting 
targets and tracking performance, engaging suppliers, and enhancing reputation and stakeholder information through 
comprehensive public reporting. Some examples of companies using scope 3 data to manage risks and opportunities include 
substituting GHG-intensive raw materials in purchased goods, developing lighter packaging in sold goods, achieving greater 
efficiencies in the design of sold products, and developing new low-carbon product offerings. 
Ford Motor Company, a global vehicle manufacturer, identified multiple business objectives for measuring its scope 3 
emissions, including mitigating its climate-related risks in the supply chain and identifying opportunities for efficiency 
improvements. Ford determined that it could best manage GHG emissions through direct supplier engagement and 
collaboration. As a result, Ford reached out to 128 of its key suppliers in 2011 – representing nearly 60% of Ford’s $65 billion in 
annual purchases – and requested the suppliers’ scope 1 and scope 2 emissions data, allocated to Ford’s purchases, as well 
as information about the suppliers’ corporate climate strategy; 86% of the suppliers responded. 
Kraft Foods, a global food products company, developed a complete scope 3 inventory to understand and evaluate its value 
chain GHG emissions. In the first year of scope 3 reporting, Kraft Foods used industry-average life cycle inventory data from 
various public and commercial sources to calculate scope 3 emissions. The company found that scope 3 emissions comprise 
more than 90% of the company’s combined scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions. Within scope 3, Kraft Foods found that 
emissions from category 1 (purchased goods and services), including raw materials and its agricultural supply chain, comprised 
70% of its total scope 3 emissions. Kraft Foods plans to continuously improve the quality of its GHG inventory. The company’s 
experience highlights the value of using secondary data to identify where to prioritize GHG reduction efforts and target 
opportunities to collaborate with suppliers in future years to better measure progress and achieve GHG reductions.
Pankaj Bhatia
Director, GHG Protocol
World Resources Institute

9
Supplier Performance2
“Our environmental 
sustainability 
commitments are playing 
an increasingly important 
role in how we’re winning 
business. A growing 
number of existing clients 
and prospects are asking 
sustainability questions 
and inquiring about 
the bank’s operations 
and what it’s doing to 
influence suppliers.”
Bank of America
A necessary first step to supplier 
engagement on climate change is that 
a company’s suppliers must be able 
to measure, quantify, and report their 
greenhouse-gas emissions. Supplier 
engagement is on the rise—67% of 
responding suppliers reported both 
scope 1 and scope 2 emissions , and 
CDP saw an 86% increase in number 
of responses in 2011 compared to 
2010 (1,864 from 1,000). However their 
carbon accounting is not yet at the level 
of their corporate customers, of whom 
98% reported both scope 1 and 2 
emissions in 2011. Overall performance 
among suppliers lags as well: while 43% 
of the CDP Supply Chain members 
have achieved reductions in their GHG 
emissions, only 28% of their suppliers 
have. This follows an established 
pattern. Just as large corporations have 
often developed better environmental 
practices in response to demand from 
retail consumers and investors, suppliers 
are now beginning to improve their own 
practices in response to demand from 
corporate clients.
Relative response rates among the 
suppliers in the CDP supply chain 
information request demonstrate this. 
Suppliers who received two or more 
requests—meaning that they had 
multiple corporate clients who sought 
their emissions information—were 
far more likely to respond. Only 35% 
of suppliers who received a single 
request responded, however, over 
80% of suppliers with more than one 
customer request responded. This was 
especially true regarding Asian suppliers. 
Among responding suppliers, 45% 
of Asian companies received two or 
more requests, while only 37%, 31% 
and 28% of suppliers from Europe, 
North America and ROW, respectively, 
received two or more requests (Figure 
6). Asian suppliers, who responded on 
par with European suppliers and ahead 
of North American suppliers in terms 
of response rates and scores, may be 
outperforming expectations due to this 
apparent increase in business demand 
for emissions-related information.
In addition, the supplier scores reveal 
several interesting trends. First, 
performance scores trail disclosure 
scores overall, which is consistent 
with the broader trend, that reporting 
on corporate climate strategy and 
mitigation initiatives is outpacing actual 
performance. (For details on scoring 
methodology, please see “About the 
CDP Supply Chain program.”) 
Regarding specific sectors, utility 
companies scored better on both 
disclosure and performance than 
companies in other industries, possibly 
due to the more heavily regulated nature 
of utilities. Companies in the consumer 
discretionary sector lag behind those 
from other sectors on both disclosure 
and performance.
Figure 6 – Suppliers who received 
information requests from multiple 
corporate clients were far more 
likely to respond.
 89% 11%
 ; O Y L L    5 $1      
 89% 6%
 - V \ Y   V Y   4 V Y L    5 $1  4  
 35%   %
 6 U L    5 $    480  
 80% 3%
 ; ^ V    5 $46    
fig 6
1%
63%
17%
10%
5%
Answered Questionnaire
No Response
Declined to Participate

10
Finally, the disclosure and performance 
scores of Asian-based and European-
based companies are comparable, and 
exceed the scores of companies from 
North America and the rest of the world 
(Figure 7). A closer look at the results, 
focusing on the 905 suppliers to North 
American Supply Chain members only, 
shows that suppliers in Asia and Europe 
are more likely to have comprehensive 
climate-change strategies in place—and 
have generated better results—than 
their competitors in North America 
or the rest of the world. (Figure 8). 
These strategies could translate into a 
competitive advantage for Asian and 
European suppliers as environmental 
factors begin to play a greater role in  
the business world.
Regarding specific concerns, suppli-
ers overall are increasingly aware of 
the impact of climate change on their 
operations. More than half (53%) of 
respondents expect climate change to 
lead to increased operational costs, and 
74% of those that cited regulation as a 
risk expect increased costs to impact 
their business within the next five years 
(Figures 9 and 10). However only 28% of 
suppliers reported a reduction in overall 
emissions in 2011 compared to 43% of 
their customers.
 , \ Y V W L
 5 V Y [ O   ( T L Y P J H  
 ( Z P H
 *
 *
 +
  5 $113  
  5 $  73  
  5 $4  0  
 9 L Z [   V M   > V Y S K
  +   5 $49  
 4 L H U  
 7 L Y M V Y T H U J L
 ) H U K
  +   5 $885  
 ( S S   : \ W W S P L Y Z
3%
100806040200
100806040200
 , \ Y V W L     488  
 5 V Y [ O   ( T L Y P J H   94      
 9 L Z [   V M   > V Y S K    
 204  
 ( Z P H   204  
 ( S S   : \ W W S P L Y Z   1  84    
5  %
53%
45%
35%
47%
Figure 7 – Carbon Disclosure and Performance Scores for companies 
responding to the 2011 Supplier Information Request.
Figure 8 – A comparison of 905 suppliers to  
North American members of the Supply Chain program. 
 , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U   ; H Y N L [
 4 V U L [ H Y `   : H ] P U N Z
 * V T T \ U P J H [ P V U Z
79%
68%
44%
  4%
3  %
  8%
  1%
66%
78%
54%
37%
51%
E  D C B A
Asia Europe North America ROW
Disclosure Score by Geographic Region
Performance Band by Geographic Region
Only companies with Disclosure scores of 50 
or greater were scored for Performance
More Asian and European suppliers had emission reduction targets in place, accrued 
monetary savings through emission reduction initiatives and communicated on their 
climate change strategy than peers from North America and the Rest of World (ROW). 

11
Standard Register (NYSE: SR) provides market-specific insights and a portfolio of 
solutions to address the changing business landscape in commercial, financial, 
healthcare and industrial markets. It helps companies manage the critical documents 
and processes they need to effectively run their operations, improve the way they 
communicate with and serve their customers, employees, and stakeholders, and 
ultimately thrive in today’s competitive climate.
Challenge: Meeting customer demand
At the request of Bank of America, an important customer, Standard Register 
reported its climate change data to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) through 
the CDP Supply Chain program in 2009. Standard Register did not, however, have 
the necessary processes in place to calculate its carbon footprint and consequently 
scored just 25 out of 100, well below the supply chain respondents’ average that 
year. Although Standard Register understood the benefits of sustainable business 
practice, and had operated waste reduction and paper purchasing initiatives since 
2007, the company had no way of evaluating the impact or success of its programs. 
Participating in the CDP Supply Chain program enabled Standard Register to identify 
the shortfalls and areas for improvement within its sustainable initiatives, thereby 
creating business opportunities that would help to strengthen its environmental 
credentials and improve its prospects as a supplier.
Solution: Improved carbon disclosure score 
To improve its 2009 score with CDP Supply Chain, Standard Register used the CDP 
questionnaire to help devise a strategy to measure and manage carbon emissions. 
Enhancing the company’s ability to track electricity consumption was a key area 
identified as part of the improved approach to emissions management. Existing 
outsourcing arrangements were used to collect new electricity consumption data 
from administrative offices, distribution centers and 25 manufacturing facilities. By the 
following year, Standard Register improved its score more than threefold and jumped 
from 25 to 91, placing the company well above the 2010 average score of 48. 
Results: Financial savings, improved sustainability  
credentials, strengthened position as a supplier
In addition to enabling Standard Register to respond to an important customer’s 
demand, reporting through CDP Supply Chain assisted Standard Register to refine 
its environmental programs and may give it a strategic advantage in competing for 
business. Participation in the program has also helped Standard Register identify 
ways to realize significant energy savings from emissions reduction activities.
Lighting retrofits at Standard Register facilities, saving around $77,000 annually, will 
pay back within three years. A digital printing technology upgrade, which removes 
inefficient printing technology from production, will reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions, 
result in annual savings of $4,200,000 and will also pay back within three years.
Steve McDonell, Vice President of Engineering at Standard Register says: “The largest 
impact or value from the CDP process was the addition of structure and process to 
our sustainability efforts around greenhouse gas emissions. It forced us to have a very 
clear idea and comprehensive measurement system in place and, in turn, detailed 
planning, including goals and objectives for improvements.”
Inspired by this greater understanding of greenhouse gas management,  
Standard Register is now addressing the sustainability of its own supply chain.  
A subcommittee dedicated to sustainability across the supply chain, from extraction 
through to delivery to the consumer, has been formed and will help Standard Register 
to share knowledge and best practice with its suppliers. 
Standard Register learns the  
commercial value of carbon disclosure
 7 O ` Z P J H S   9 P Z R
336
 6 [ O L Y  
 9 P Z R Z
 9 L N \ S H [ V Y `
 9 P Z R Z
18
4
49
    0
63
5  
566
901137
3%
100
80
60
40
20
0
 7 O ` Z P J H S  
 9 P Z R
 6 [ O L Y  
 9 P Z R Z
 9 L N \ S H [ V Y `
 9 P Z R Z
  7%
47%
8%
  %
16%
   5 $901  5 $336  5 $137
  8%
17%
13%
10%
3  %
  9%
34%
8%
3%
  6%
Unknown
>10 years
6-10 years
1-5 years
Current
Figures 9 and 10 – A majority of 
suppliers expect an increase in 
operational costs due to climate 
change within the next five years. 
Timeframe of increased operational cost

12
41
59
 0 U ] L Z [ T L U [ Z   4 H K L   P U   , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U Z
38%
 , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U   ; H Y N L [  Z  
74%
 4 V U L [ H Y `   : H ] P U N Z   M Y V T   , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U   0 U P [ P H [ P ] L Z
38%
 ( U U \ H S   , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U Z
35%
 : J V W L  1   H U K  2   , T P Z Z P V U Z
 , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U   0 U P [ P H [ P ] L  Z  
93%
91%
 9 L W V Y [ P U N   [ Y L U K Z   H T V U N   [ O L   T V Z [   W Y V H J [ P ] L  
 J V T T \ U P J H [ V Y Z   V U   J S P T H [ L   J O H U N L  
41
59
 0 U ] L Z [ T L U [ Z   4 H K L   P U   , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U Z
38%
 , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U   ; H Y N L [  Z  
74%
 4 V U L [ H Y `   : H ] P U N Z   M Y V T   , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U   0 U P [ P H [ P ] L Z
38%
 ( U U \ H S   , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U Z
35%
 : J V W L  1   H U K  2   , T P Z Z P V U Z
 , T P Z Z P V U   9 L K \ J [ P V U   0 U P [ P H [ P ] L  Z  
93%
91%
 9 L W V Y [ P U N   [ Y L U K Z   H T V U N   [ O L   T V Z [   W Y V H J [ P ] L  
 J V T T \ U P J H [ V Y Z   V U   J S P T H [ L   J O H U N L  
Figure 11 – Companies have become adept at communicating their  
carbon management information, but that must lead to improvement.
Performance  Measurement
Communicate climate 
change in public reports
Do not communicate
The Next Challenge3
Given these two trends—strong supply 
chain engagement among a number of 
environmental leaders, and increased 
disclosure among suppliers—the next 
step is to make these practices more 
widespread. Large corporations can 
and should serve as a catalyst in these 
efforts, by motivating suppliers to make 
climate change a key factor in the way 
that they operate. 
This happens through: 1) more 
effectively evaluating suppliers; 
2) building on a foundation of 
communication to reduce emissions; 
and 3) measuring success  
through better information- 
management platforms. 
Evaluate suppliers
For companies to understand the 
full measure of their supply-chain 
emissions, they must develop a 
standard, consistent means to evaluate 
the sustainability efforts of their 
suppliers (not just carbon emissions). 
This is a complex challenge, given that 
suppliers can have widely different 
business models, geographic footprints, 
and other factors that make straight 
comparisons difficult. 
To that end, the CDP Supply Chain 
program’s global reporting platform 
makes it easy for suppliers to respond—
and for corporations to assess their 
efforts using standard metrics. In 
addition, CDP provides robust analysis 
via custom reports and CDP Analytics, 
an online tool that allows CDP Supply 
Chain members to quickly understand 
trends and extract specific details from 
their suppliers’ responses. Suppliers 
are benchmarked and provided 
with feedback to encourage future 
improvement. The platform effectively 
gives companies a set of reliable 
numbers, freeing them to focus  
on identifying opportunities and  
taking action. 
Build upon communication  
to drive performance
There is a growing trend among 
suppliers in reporting on climate change 
externally, but this reporting does not 
necessarily correlate with action to 
reduce emissions. In addition to their 
CDP responses, about 60% of suppliers 
(N=1251) also publish information about 
their climate strategy in annual reports, 
regulatory filings and other voluntary 
reporting outlets.13 Most of the suppliers 
in this group (91%) have been doing so  
for more than one year. These suppliers 
reported having systems in place to 
understand their emissions by disclosing 
scope 1 and 2 emissions (91%) and 
report having reduction initiatives in the 
works (93%) and are reporting reduction 
targets (74%). 
Yet, when it comes to concrete 
results on their actions to mitigate 
climate impact and risk, their overall 
performance lags behind. Only about 
one third of these companies report 
actual performance results from their 
climate-change initiatives: 35% report 
year-over-year emissions reductions, 
38% report monetary savings from 
emissions reductions, and 38% reported 
making monetary investments in these 
initiatives (Figure 11). 

13
13 The 613 companies who identified as Small to Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), were not 
asked this question, reducing the total to 1251 from 1864 responding companies.
Emissions reporting without emissions 
management is insufficient. To really 
move the needle on climate change, 
these companies must build on their 
success in reporting and take stronger 
action to generate better results. We 
have seen this pattern among the larger 
public corporations and expect the 
same trend to develop among suppliers.
Use more sophisticated  
tools to measure success
Given the challenges in measuring and 
allocating gains between companies 
and their suppliers, companies will 
need to use better metrics and more 
sophisticated information management. 
Organizations such as CDP are now 
enabling better communication and 
providing a standardized platform 
for emissions-related information 
from suppliers. This not only reduces 
redundancy (multiple stakeholders 
requesting the same information) and 
provides improved risk management, 
but also paves the way toward strategic 
advantages and cost reduction. There 
is simply more to know about GHG 
emissions—and more to improve—
with each passing year. Companies 
that do not upgrade their information 
management capability will be at a 
serious disadvantage. 
 
A new era: supplier management  
in the low-carbon economy
The opportunities for generating value 
from climate-change initiatives are 
already large and still growing, and the 
supply chain is a key area of growth. 
The most forward-thinking companies 
are taking specific actions today to 
produce real, measurable business 
value, in the form of increased revenue, 
lower costs, mitigated risk, and a 
host of intangibles. These actions will 
only become more valuable—and 
mandatory in some cases—as the 
risks and impacts of climate change 
grow and as sustainability becomes 
increasingly embedded into the core of 
the businesses and governments that 
are part of your supply chain. 
This is an extremely dynamic field, and 
some climate-change initiatives may fall 
short of projections, while others will 
lead to unexpected victories. However 
there is already enough precedent—
supported by the findings in this 
report—to understand what works best. 
More effective evaluation of suppliers, 
better collaboration, and stronger 
procurement functions can all lead to 
markedly improved carbon management 
along the supply chain. In short, waiting 
for the perfect solution is no longer 
an option. There is value on the table 
for companies that can craft the right 
climate-change initiatives. If you don’t, 
your competitors will. 

14
Since CDP launched its first global water report in 2010, water and its 
relationship with business have rarely been out of the news. Water crises from 
Texas to Thailand are hitting companies’ profits, frequently because of shocks 
to their supply chains. Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) reported a surprise 30% fall in 
profits in the first quarter of 2011, largely because the price of cotton doubled in 
the previous 12 months as a result of increased global demand and disruption 
to supplies caused by drought and floods in cotton producing countries like 
Pakistan.14 About one-third of the world’s hard disk drive production is currently 
located in Thailand. The severe floods in this region in October 2011 caused a 
shortage in the supply of hard disks around the world. 
In 2011 the Yangtze delta, which supports 400 million people and 40% of 
China’s economic activity, experienced its worst drought in 50 years. The lack of 
water has damaged agricultural supply chains, led to power cuts that dampened 
manufacturing output, and disrupted distribution channels by closing river 
networks, including hundreds of kilometers of the Yangtze and its tributaries.
Of course, because water is a business issue, it is also an investment issue. 
In only the second year of CDP’s water program, 354 institutional investors 
representing US$43 trillion in assets endorsed CDP’s request to corporations 
for water-related information. Clearly, investors are recognizing the need for 
transparent reporting on water so that they can begin to understand the 
exposure to water risk of the companies in their portfolios.
Responses from Global 500 companies to the 2011 CDP Water Disclosure 
questionnaire reveal that the supply chain is largely uncharted territory when it 
comes to water:
 •	 Only 26% of responding companies require their key suppliers to report 
water use, risks and management plans. Increasing supplier reporting is 
vital because the supply chain often accounts for the largest portion of a 
company’s water use and risk;
 •	 38% of responding companies do not know if their supply chain is exposed 
to water related risk compared to only 7% for direct operations;
 •	 27% of responding companies reported exposure to water risk through their 
supply chain and two-thirds of the identified risks are anticipated within the 
next 1-5 years. 
Such near-term risk suggests an urgent need for companies to address water 
risk in their supply chains. Instead of simply reacting to events by raising prices 
or cutting profits, companies like Puma are thinking strategically and are taking 
steps to reduce their exposure to water risk by setting targets to reduce water 
consumption from their strategic suppliers by 25% preparing them for potential 
future regulations due to increasing water scarcity. Companies that recognize 
that the true value of water is not adequately reflected in its cost will be best 
positioned to thrive in an economy of changing water resources. Those that think 
of water in terms of business continuity, license to operate and brand value will 
stand to gain.
Uncharted Territory: Water in the Supply Chain 
“We are convinced of the link between water scarcity 
and climate change and are further investigating the 
supply chain risks to BT and our stakeholders.” 
BT Group
14 “H&M Hit by Soaring Cotton Prices,” Financial Times, March 31, 2011, www.ft.com.

15
CDP Supply Chain Lead Members
Design and Typesetting
  Report Writer Scoring Partner Thank You
World Resources Institute
Paul Donovan, UBS
Firas Abiad
Bicycle Butter Design
Benjamin Lewis
www.bicyclebutter.com

Carbon Disclosure Project
40 Bowling Green Lane
London, EC1R 0NE
United Kingdom
+44 (0) 20 7970 5660
Carbon Disclosure Project
c/o RPA, 6 W 48th Street
10th Floor
New York, NY 10036
United States of America
+1 212 378 2086
Paul Dickinson
Executive Chairman
Paul Simpson
Chief Executive Officer
Frances Way
Program  Director 
frances.way@cdproject.net
+44 (0) 20 7415 7095
Zoe Tcholak-Antitch
Director, North America
zoe.antitch@cdproject.net
+1 (212) 378 2086
Chrystina Gastelum
Sr. Account Manager – USA
chrystina.gastelum@cdproject.net
+1 (212) 378 2085
Dexter Galvin
Account Director –  
EMEA & Asia
dexter.galvin@cdproject.net
+44 (0) 20 7415 7092
Keith Littlejohns
Sr. Account Manager – Walmart
keith.littlejohns@cdproject.net
+1 (212) 378 2085
Sonya Bhonsle
Sr. Account Manager – Europe 
sonya.bhonsle@cdproject.net
+44 (0) 20 7415 7109
Kirstin Hill
Disclosure Manager
kirstin.hill@cdproject.net
+44 (0) 20 7415 7142
Emma Craig
Project Officer
Emma.craig@cdproject.net
+44 (0) 20 7415 7026 
Accenture
1345 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10105
United States
+1 (917) 452 4400
Gary L. Hanifan
Managing Director, 
Global Sustainable  
Supply Chain Services
gary.l.hanifan@accenture.com
+1 (850) 513 3515
David J. Abood
Managing Director, 
North America Accenture 
Sustainability Services
david.j.abood@accenture.com 
+1 (216) 535 5005
 
Aditya Sharma, MS, PE
Operational Director, 
Global Sustainable  
Supply Chain Services
aditya.e.sharma@accenture.com
+1 (917) 856 9353
Chair: Alan Brown
Schroders
James Cameron
Climate Change Capital
Chris Page 
Rockefeller Philanthropy  
Advisors
Dr. Christoph Schröder
TVM Capital 
Jeremy Smith
Berkeley Energy
Takejiro Sueyoshi
Tessa Tennant
The Ice Organisation
Martin Wise
Chiltern Partners
Accenture Contacts
CDP Board of Trustees
The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to Carbon Disclosure Project. Accenture and CDP prepared the data and analysis 
in this report based on responses to the CDP Supply Chain Program 2009 Information Request. Accenture and CDP do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of 
this information. Accenture and CDP make no representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and 
opinions contained herein. All opinions expressed herein are based on Accenture’s and CDP’s judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice 
due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries or quotations where included in this report reflect the views of their respective authors or 
companies.
Accenture, its logo, and High Performance Delivered are trademarks of Accenture. This document makes reference to trademarks that may be owned by others. The use of 
such trademarks herein is not an assertion of ownership of such trademarks by Accenture and is not intended to represent or imply the existence of an association between 
Accenture and the lawful owners of such trademarks.
?2012 Carbon Disclosure Project. All rights reserved.
‘Carbon Disclosure Project’ and ‘CDP’ refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 
1122330, and CDP North America, registered in the United States as a 501(c)(3) Corporation.
CDP contacts