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 APPAREL/ACCESSORIES Score
that define and produce the styles that keep many consumers
Nike 73
buying comprise a huge manufacturing sector with the
potential to play a significant role in reducing climate change. Gap Inc. 39
That said, the Apparel/Accessories sector’s track record on the Liz Claiborne 15
issue can be characterized as bipolar, with notable leadership Limited Brands 5
on climate issues from some companies, and unimpressive VF Corporation 2
showings from others. The sector has faced and dealt with
Levi Strauss 1
scrutiny on developing-world labor issues for years, but has
yet to collectively give the same attention to climate change— Jones Apparel Group 0
which may explain the scoring divide in the sector.
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 BEVERAGES - BEER Score
it certainly doesn’t mean that beverage and beer companies
SABMiller 48
shouldn’t do more to reduce carbon emissions in their
production processes to affect climate change. Climate Anheuser-Busch 29
Counts scored three of the world’s largest beer producers— Molson Coors Brewing 20
Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors, and SABMiller—to see if
climate-conscious consumers had a clear choice.
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 ELECTRONICS Score
us connected. And the products that keep us connected Canon 77
require a lot of energy to operate. For the most part, the IBM 70
sector has set a high standard for itself in reviewing,
reducing, and reporting to consumers on its climate Toshiba 66
performance. That said, there is still room for improvement. Motorola 60
Hewlett-Packard 59
Climate Counts ranked 12 companies that fall within the
Electronics/Computer sector: Canon, IBM, Toshiba, Motorola, Sony 51
HP, Sony, Dell, Hitachi, Siemens, Samsung, Nokia and Dell 41
Apple. Hitachi 36
Of the companies scored, six of the 12 are hitting their stride Siemens* 34
in addressing the issue, with Canon taking the top spot— Samsung 33
both in the Electronics sector and in the overall scorecard— Nokia 29
and IBM a notable second. Toshiba, Motorola, Hewlett- Apple 2
Packard 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 MEDIA Score
contribute to global warming. But major media companies
General Electric* 61
today are rarely solely in the information business. As some
of the largest corporations in the world, they have tentacles News Corporation 57
that reach across the globe, spanning millions of employees Disney 24
and countless suppliers and distributors—not to mention the Time Warner 10
profound influence they have in shaping public opinion. Viacom 3
CBS 0
Climate Counts ranked six companies that fall within the
Media sector: General Electric, News Corporation, Disney,
Time Warner, Viacom and 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.
FOOD PRODUCTS
The Food Products sector is made up of major companies
FOOD PRODUCTS Score
with tremendous distribution networks, packaging needs, and
consumer demand, resulting in a large baseline climate Unilever 71
footprint. That expansive footprint translates to significant Stonyfield Farm 63
bandwidth for improvements that could have a real impact on The Coca-Cola Company 57
reducing climate change. Groupe Danone 50
Climate Counts scored 11 Food Products companies: The Kraft Foods 43
Coca-Cola Company, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Groupe Nestle 42
Danone, Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Nestle, PepsiCo, Sara Lee, General Mills 37
Stonyfield Farm, and Unilever. PepsiCo 26
Unilever, the maker of everything from Lipton to Slimfast, Kellogg 24
ranks among the top three scored companies not only within ConAgra Foods 6
the food sector but for all sectors reviewed. Unilever was Sara Lee 2
awarded 71 points for its detailed reporting, solid corporate
structure for high-level oversight of climate issues, goal-
setting, 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.
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, FOOD SERVICES Score
thanks to aggressive marketing campaigns that place chains Starbucks 46
in nearly every region in the world. These food-services
McDonald’s 22
companies - including fast-food chains - use vast amounts of
energy and generate an enormous amount of waste. They Yum! Brands 1
employ millions of commuting workers and are connected to Burger King 0
an extensive network of suppliers. Taken together as a Darden Restaurants 0
whole, all of these practices can have a significant impact on Wendy’s International 0
climate change.
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.
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
Most of the necessities of day-to-day life fall within the
Household Products sector—among them, toothpaste, toilet HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS Score
paper, cosmetics, and cleaning supplies. The production of Procter & Gamble 53
basic household goods is resource-intensive; it also has a L'Oreal 45
multi-faceted impact on the environment through packaging, Kimberly-Clark 41
disposal, and more. Colgate-Palmolive 40
Climate Counts evaluated six companies in the Household Avon 11
Products sector: Avon, Clorox, Colgate-Palmolive, Kimberly Clorox 1
Clark, L’Oreal, and Procter & Gamble.
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 INTERNET/SOFTWARE Score
information-based economy. The new media sector employs Yahoo! 36
an ever-growing number of people and reaches more and Microsoft 31
more consumers every day. Ten years ago, no one could Google 17
have anticipated the impact companies in this sector would
eBay 2
have on the way we work and communicate. As those
Amazon.com 0
companies have grown, they have also come to have an
impact on climate change.
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.
 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 negatively. Climate Counts recognizes those

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.
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.

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
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 ever-
evolving 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. 0 to 100, and worked with project staff to
ensure consistency in scoring.
A team of researchers then used these criteria
to rate companies and allocate points for GreenOrder, a leading sustainability strategy
climate-related actions. Project staff made firm, provided strategic guidance on the
multiple efforts to contact each company at Climate Counts program, assisted in the
the start of the scoring process to confirm that development of the scoring system, and
they were basing their research on the most verified the scoring results for accuracy.
accurate and up-to-date data. Researchers GreenOrder’s clients include companies
worked independently and with peers to scored by Climate Counts (see
assess company performance on a scale of www.greenorder.com).
 Board of Directors
Gary Hirshberg, Board Chair
About Climate Counts Stonyfield Farm, President and CEO

Lisa Witter, Board Vice Chair

Climate Counts is a new non-profit organization bringing Fenton Communications, COO and
consumers and companies together in the fight against global Executive Vice President
climate change. It is funded by Stonyfield Farm and launched in
Adam Markham
collaboration with Clean Air-Cool Planet, a leading organization Clean Air-Cool Planet, Executive Director
dedicated to finding and promoting solutions to global warming.
Please visit www.climatecounts.org for more information. 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
wturner@climatecounts.org
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
Climate Counts Scorecard Amazon.com

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 0 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 0 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 0 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 0 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Anheuser-Busch

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 13 22
Reduce 13 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 3 12
TOTAL 29 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 13 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 4 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 1 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 13 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 1 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 8 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 2 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 3 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 3 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 29 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Apple

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 2 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 2 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 2 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 2 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Avon

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 2 22
Reduce 6 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 3 12
TOTAL 11 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 2 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 1 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 1 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 6 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 1 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 2 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 2 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 3 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 3 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 11 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Burger King

Summary: www.climatecounts.org
Score Highest Possible Score Copyright 2007

Review 0 22
Reduce 0 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 0 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 0 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 0 100

Sources No relevant public information available

Published June 2007

Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Climate Counts Scorecard Canon

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 18 22
Reduce 45 56
Policy Stance 3 10
Report 11 12
TOTAL 77 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 18 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 3 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 1 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 45 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 3 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 5 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 8 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 6 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 3 10
19 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 3 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 11 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 9 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 2 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 77 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard CBS

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 0 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 0 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 0 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 0 100

Sources CBS Television 2004 Corporate Social Responsibility Report

Published June 2007

Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Climate Counts Scorecard Clorox

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 0 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 1 12
TOTAL 1 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 0 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 1 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 1 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 1 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard The Coca-Cola
Company

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 20 22
Reduce 26 56
Policy Stance 2 10
Report 9 12
TOTAL 57 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 20 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 2 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 4 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 26 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 2 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 3 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 5 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 4 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 2 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 2 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 2 10
19 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 2 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 9 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 8 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 57 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Colgate-Palmolive

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 12 22
Reduce 24 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 4 12
TOTAL 40 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 12 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 3 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 1 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 1 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 24 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 3 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 1 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 2 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 8 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 3 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 4 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 4 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 40 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard ConAgra Foods

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 5 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 1 12
TOTAL 6 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 5 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 1 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 3 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 1 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 1 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 6 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Darden Restaurants

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 0 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 0 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 0 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 0 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Dell

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 14 22
Reduce 18 56
Policy Stance 1 10
Report 8 12
TOTAL 41 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 14 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 3 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 18 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 4 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 3 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 3 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 1 10
19 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 1 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 8 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 7 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 41 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Disney

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 3 22
Reduce 18 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 3 12
TOTAL 24 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 3 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 1 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 1 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 1 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 18 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 5 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 3 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 3 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 2 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 3 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 3 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 24 100

Sources Disney Enviroports (2001-2006)

Carbon Disclosure Project responses (CDP4/CDP3/CDP2)

Published June 2007

Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Climate Counts Scorecard eBay

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 1 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 1 12
TOTAL 2 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 1 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 1 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 1 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 1 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 2 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Gap Inc.

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 9 22
Reduce 25 56
Policy Stance 1 10
Report 4 12
TOTAL 39 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 9 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 1 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 1 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 25 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 7 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 4 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 1 10
19 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 1 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 4 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 4 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 39 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard General Electric

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 16 22
Reduce 31 56
Policy Stance 7 10
Report 7 12
TOTAL 61 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 16 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 2 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 1 4
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)

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 3 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 31 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 4 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 4 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 5 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 3 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 7 10
19 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 7 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 7 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 7 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 61 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard General Mills

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 13 22
Reduce 19 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 5 12
TOTAL 37 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 13 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 3 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 19 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 2 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 2 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 5 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 5 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 37 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Google

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 14 56
Policy Stance 1 10
Report 2 12
TOTAL 17 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 14 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 2 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 1 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 2 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 1 10
19 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 1 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 2 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 2 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 17 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Groupe Danone

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 18 22
Reduce 25 56
Policy Stance 2 10
Report 5 12
TOTAL 50 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 18 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 4 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 25 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 3 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 3 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 5 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 5 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 2 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 2 10
19 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 2 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 5 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 5 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 50 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Hitachi

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 14 22
Reduce 17 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 5 12
TOTAL 36 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 14 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 2 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 1 4
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)

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 3 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 17 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 2 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 2 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 2 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 3 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 5 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 4 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 36 100

Sources “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
Climate Counts Scorecard HP

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 16 22
Reduce 33 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 10 12
TOTAL 59 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 16 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 3 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 4 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 33 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 3 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 8 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 3 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 2 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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.) 1 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 10 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 8 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 2 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 59 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard IBM

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 17 22
Reduce 43 56
Policy Stance 1 10
Report 9 12
TOTAL 70 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 17 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 3 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 43 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 7 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 7 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 4 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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.) 5 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 1 10
19 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 1 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 9 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 8 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 70 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Jones Apparel Group

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 0 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 0 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 0 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 0 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Kellogg

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 9 22
Reduce 11 56
Policy Stance 1 10
Report 3 12
TOTAL 24 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 9 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 1 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 2 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 11 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 4 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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.) 1 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 1 10
19 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 1 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 3 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 3 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 24 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Kimberly-Clark

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 13 22
Reduce 21 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 7 12
TOTAL 41 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 13 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 2 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 21 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 1 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 3 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 6 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 4 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 2 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 7 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 6 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 41 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Kraft

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 14 22
Reduce 19 56
Policy Stance 3 10
Report 7 12
TOTAL 43 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 14 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 2 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 4 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 19 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 4 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 4 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 3 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 3 10
19 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 3 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 7 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 7 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 43 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Levi Strauss

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 1 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 1 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 1 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 1 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Limited Brands

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 4 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 1 12
TOTAL 5 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 4 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 3 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 1 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 1 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 5 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Liz Claiborne

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 14 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 1 12
TOTAL 15 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 14 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 6 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 3 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 1 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 1 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 15 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard L'Oréal

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 12 22
Reduce 29 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 4 12
TOTAL 45 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 12 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 3 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 1 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 29 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 2 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 3 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 6 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 5 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 2 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 4 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 4 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 45 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard McDonald's

Summary: www.climatecounts.org
Score Highest Possible Score Copyright 2007

Review 8 22
Reduce 6 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 8 12
TOTAL 22 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 8 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 2 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 2 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 6 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 4 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 8 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 7 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 22 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Microsoft

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 13 22
Reduce 15 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 3 12
TOTAL 31 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 13 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 2 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 2 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 2 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 15 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 5 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 1 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 2 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 3 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 3 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 31 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Molson Coors Brewing

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 7 22
Reduce 14 56
Policy Stance -5 10
Report 4 12
TOTAL 20 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 7 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 1 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 2 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 1 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 1 4
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)

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 1 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 14 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 2 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 2 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 1 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 5 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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.) 1 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance -5 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly -5 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 4 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 3 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 20 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Motorola

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 15 22
Reduce 36 56
Policy Stance 2 10
Report 7 12
TOTAL 60 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 15 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 2 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 36 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 3 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 3 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 10 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 4 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 2 10
19 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 2 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 7 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 7 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 60 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Nestlé

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 14 22
Reduce 22 56
Policy Stance -1 10
Report 7 12
TOTAL 42 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 14 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 2 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 3 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 22 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 3 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 5 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 4 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 4 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance -1 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly -1 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 7 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 7 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 42 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard News Corporation

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 13 22
Reduce 31 56
Policy Stance 5 10
Report 8 12
TOTAL 57 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 13 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 3 4
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)

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 1 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 31 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 3 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 4 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 6 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 1 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 3 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 5 10
19 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 5 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 8 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 6 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 2 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 57 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Nike

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 18 22
Reduce 44 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 11 12
TOTAL 73 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 18 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 3 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 4 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 44 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 5 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 8 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 9 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 3 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 3 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 11 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 9 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 2 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 73 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Nokia

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 12 22
Reduce 13 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 4 12
TOTAL 29 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 12 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 13 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 2 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 2 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 2 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 1 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 2 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 4 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 3 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 29 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard PepsiCo

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 1 22
Reduce 16 56
Policy Stance 7 10
Report 2 12
TOTAL 26 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 1 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 1 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 16 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 2 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 7 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 2 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 7 10
19 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 7 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 2 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 2 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 26 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Procter & Gamble

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 12 22
Reduce 28 56
Policy Stance 2 10
Report 11 12
TOTAL 53 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 12 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 28 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 3 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 3 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 4 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 9 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 4 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 2 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 2 10
19 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 2 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 11 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 9 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 2 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 53 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard SAB Miller

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 14 22
Reduce 26 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 8 12
TOTAL 48 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 14 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 26 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 6 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 4 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 8 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 7 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 48 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Samsung

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 2 22
Reduce 28 56
Policy Stance 1 10
Report 2 12
TOTAL 33 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 2 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 2 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 28 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 5 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 5 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 1 10
19 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 1 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 2 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 2 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 33 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Sara Lee

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 2 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 2 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 2 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 2 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Siemens

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 9 22
Reduce 12 56
Policy Stance 8 10
Report 5 12
TOTAL 34 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 9 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 3 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 2 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 12 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 1 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 2 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 2 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 8 10
19 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 8 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 5 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 4 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 34 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Sony

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 16 22
Reduce 25 56
Policy Stance 1 10
Report 9 12
TOTAL 51 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 16 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 1 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 2 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 25 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 3 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 4 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 4 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 1 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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.) 1 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 3 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 1 10
19 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 1 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 9 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 8 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 51 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Starbucks

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 16 22
Reduce 18 56
Policy Stance 5 10
Report 7 12
TOTAL 46 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 16 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 4 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 2 4
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)

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 1 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 18 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 2 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 6 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 5 10
19 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 5 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 7 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 7 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 46 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Stonyfield Farm

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 20 22
Reduce 26 56
Policy Stance 6 10
Report 11 12
TOTAL 63 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 20 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 4 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 2 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 26 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 1 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 4 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 8 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 3 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 2 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 2 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 6 10
19 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 6 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 11 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 10 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 63 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Time Warner

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 8 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 2 12
TOTAL 10 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 8 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 1 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 4 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 1 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 1 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 2 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 2 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 10 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Toshiba

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 18 22
Reduce 39 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 9 12
TOTAL 66 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 18 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 4 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 39 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 3 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 5 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 7 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 7 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 4 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 2 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 9 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 9 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 66 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Unilever

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 21 22
Reduce 38 56
Policy Stance 2 10
Report 10 12
TOTAL 71 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 21 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 4 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 2 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 4 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 4 4
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)

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 4 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 38 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 4 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 2 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 5 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 6 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 4 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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.) 5 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 3 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 3 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 2 10
19 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 2 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 10 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 9 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 1 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 71 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard VF Corporation

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 2 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 2 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 2 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 2 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 2 100

Sources VF Corporation Code of Conduct

The North Face company website

Published June 2007

Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Climate Counts Scorecard Viacom

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 3 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 3 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 3 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 3 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 3 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Wendy's International

Summary: www.climatecounts.org
Score Highest Possible Score Copyright 2007

Review 0 22
Reduce 0 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 0 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 0 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 0 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 0 100

Sources Wendy's International Environmental Responsibility Website

Published June 2007

Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007
Climate Counts Scorecard Yahoo

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 12 22
Reduce 20 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 4 12
TOTAL 36 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 12 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 5 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 3 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 2 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 1 4
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)

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 1 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 20 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 2 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 1 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 1 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 3 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 2 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 6 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 1 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 4 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 4 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 4 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 36 100

Sources 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
Climate Counts Scorecard Yum! Brands

www.climatecounts.org
Summary: Copyright 2007

Score Highest Possible Score

Review 0 22
Reduce 1 56
Policy Stance 0 10
Report 0 12
TOTAL 1 100

Full Scorecard:
Highest
Questions/Criteria Scoring Guideposts (possible points) Score Possible
Score

Review 0 22
1 GHG emissions inventory completed? No (0); Yes, partial inventory only reviewing some of the company's emission sources (1-3, dependent on 0 5
percentage of emitting sectors covered); Yes, almost comprehensive inventory (4); Yes, comprehensive inventory
(5)
2 Rough calculations or standard protocol/calculator? Rough, partial calculations (1); Generalized, but complete calculations (estimates, perhaps using a general 0 3
calculator) (2); Full calculations using a standard protocol/methodology (e.g., WRI) (3)
3 Are Kyoto gases besides CO2 included? Just inventorying CO2 emissions (0); Measuring CO2, CH4, and N2O (1); All relevant, material Kyoto gases 0 2
included (2) If other Kyoto gases are not emitted, full points can be awarded
Identify and
4 Are indirect emissions accounted for? Only accounting for direct and facility energy use emissions (0); Including emissions from one indirect source (1); 0 4 quantify
(e.g., supply chain, travel, commuting, use/disposal of products/services, investment Including emissions from multiple indirect sources (2-4) emissions (22)
5 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 0 4
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)

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 0 4
inventories completed (3); Multiple inventories completed and a time-series of emissions presented (i.e.,
emissions covering beyond the baseline and current year) (4)
Reduce 1 56
7 Has a clear goal been set? No target (0); Loose, undefined goal (1); Defined goal specifying baseline, reduction amount/percentage, or 0 4
timeframe but not all three (2-3); Goal with defined baseline, reduction amount/percentage, and timeframe (4)

8 Strength of baseline year used for the reduction goal (keeping in mind changes in No baseline (0); Using year of inventory or 1-4 years back as baseline (1); Using a baseline 5-10 years back (2); 0 3
company's size/composition) 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
Set goals and
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 0 5 establish internal
(4); Discretionary point based on timeliness of target year (i.e., large goal set for near term scores better than management
small reduction goal set far in the future) (19)
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 0 5
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
11 Is there top-level support for climate change action? No (0); Senior level executive or Board members designated as responsible for climate issues (1); Clear, public 0 2
articulation of company's views on climate by CEO and/or top management (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 0 8
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
13 Has the company achieved emissions reductions? No (0); Partial reduction (below target or in limited sub-sectors) (1-4); Achieved goal reductions or reductions on a 0 10
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 Achieve
reductions (take
14 Absolute or intensity-based reductions? Only intensity-based (relative) reductions (0); Absolute reductions for a sub-unit of the company (1-2); All 0 4
steps, achieve,
absolute reductions (3-4) When scoring, consider if company has significantly changed in size or divested during
verify) (27)
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
15 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 5

16 Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with
the use of its products/services?
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 (0); Conducting partial analyses (e.g., partial LCA, eco-assessment, etc.) of GHG impacts from use of 0 4
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)
No educational efforts (0); Up to 2 points for each of the following categories: Internal employee education, 1 4
Encourage
Incentives that will increase employee awareness (e.g., tax breaks for using mass transit), Education of peer
reductions by
companies within trade association, and customer/general public education, for a maximum of 4 points
others (10)

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) 0 2
to those that do?
Policy Stance 0 10
19 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 0 10
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 Support public
policy to require
20 Does the company oppose public policy on climate change that could require No (0); Yes, opposes local initiative (1-3); Yes, opposes a state or regional scale initiative (4-6); Yes, publicly 0 (up to -10)
reductions
mandatory action by business, or has it made efforts to undermine climate change opposes non-voluntary federal-level initiatives (7-10); Range of negative points awarded for depth of opposition as
(-10, +10)
action? 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
Report 0 12
21 Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks, and actions? How is No information on company climate change actions is available (0); Minimal, general info available through 0 10
information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their website or annual report) or company report or website (1-2); Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., CDP) (3-4); Detailed info
Publicly disclose
through a credible third-party program (e.g., CDP, GRI, etc.)? (emissions, reductions, goals) on company website/reports (5-6); Detailed disclosure through third-party (7-8); an
emissions
extra 1-2 points awarded for time series of emissions and other climate action or risk data (e.g., in SEC filings or
(inventory),
10Ks)
reductions, and
22 Are emissions broken out by facility, business unit, country of operations, or other Only total emissions or one lumped number are presented (0); Some sub-unit emissions broken out (1); 0 2 related actions
meaningful subsegments? Emissions clearly tallied by company-appropriate sub-units (2) (12)
Total 1 100

Sources Yum! Brand Foods Sustainability website

Yum! Brand Foods Worldwide Code of Conduct report
Yum! Brand Foods Supplier Code of Conduct report
Energy Star Success Story: Pizza Hut

Published June 2007

Scores based on public information available through mid-May 2007