Currents of Change: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015

Currents
of change
The KPMG Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting 2015
Welcome to KPMG’s
Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting Adrian King Wim Bartels
In this ninth edition of the report, we We have also continued our quantitative Adrian is the Global Head of Wim is a partner at KPMG in the
reflect the current state of non-financial analysis of CR reporting rates and KPMG’s Sustainability Services Netherlands and Global Head of
reporting worldwide, identify key trends approaches around the world. This year practice and has more than 25 Sustainability Reporting and
and provide KPMG insights. KPMG member firm professionals years’ experience working Assurance. He has been with
analyzed reporting from 4,500 companies with global public and private KPMG for over 25 years and has
We publish this research primarily as across 45 countries, a research base we companies to provide financial and extensive experience in audit and
guidance for professionals who lead the believe makes this one of the most non-financial advisory, reporting forensic services, as well as deep
non-financial reporting process within comprehensive and authoritative reports and assurance services. sector knowledge in financial
large companies, although we recognize available on the topic of non-financial services and industrial markets,
that many other audiences including reporting. Adrian is an expert in non-financial such as energy, chemicals and
investors, regulators, academics and reporting and especially carbon consumer products, across
NGOs also find it useful. We hope you find it an enlightening reporting, having helped many Europe, Asia and Africa.
read and would be delighted to hear clients prepare for the Australian
In 2015, we have published the report in your thoughts. Please feel free to contact carbon pricing system (since Wim delivers assurance to over
the run-up to the 21st annual UN Climate us directly if you have any comments withdrawn). Adrian helps clients 40 multinational companies and
Talks (COP21). or questions. understand how environmental regularly supports KPMG’s global
and social risks and opportunities client engagements as a
For this reason, we have focused our will affect them and represents sustainability reporting and
research in 2015 on the quality of carbon KPMG at the COP21 climate assurance expert. Wim has written
reporting among the world’s 250 largest change meeting and the World extensively on sustainability
companies. We offer advice on what Business Council for Sustainable reporting and assurance and is
KPMG member firms consider to be best Adrian King Wim Bartels Development. the lead author of this survey.
practice in corporate carbon reporting KPMG’s Global Head KPMG’s Global Head
and we explore how these companies of Sustainability Services of Sustainability
measure up against the key criteria. Reporting &
Assurance
avking@kpmg.com.au bartels.wim@kpmg.nl
2 www.kpmg.com/crreporting
© 2015 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”). KPMG International provides no client
services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
Contents
About the survey 4
Executive summary 5
Part 1: Accounting for carbon: a report card 6

How should companies report on carbon? 8
Key findings on carbon reporting 9
Corporate carbon reporting needs an overhaul
KPMG’s Wim Bartels provides an opinion 11
G250 carbon reporting: how countries compare 12
The G250 report card 14
Towards better carbon reporting:
KPMG’s recommendations 21
Part 2: Quality of CR reporting among the G250 22

Quality of CR reporting improves in Asia Pacific 26
Better reporting of trends and risks 27
Part 3: Global trends in CR reporting 28

CR reporting becomes the norm, driven by regulation 30
Asia Pacific steals a lead over the West 31
Emerging economies step up reporting 32
Four sectors lag behind 34
CR data becomes a standard feature in annual reports 36
Uptake of integrated reporting is slow 38
Big players seek the security of independent assurance 40
Global Reporting Initiative could increase
focus on annual reports 42
Methodology 44
How we can help 46
Acknowledgments 47
www.kpmg.com/crreporting
© 2015 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”). KPMG International provides no client
services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
About the survey
This survey is based on several months of research by
professionals at KPMG member firms around the world who
analyzed thousands of company annual financial reports,
corporate responsibility (CR) reports, and websites.
The study is presented in three parts:

n Part 1: Accounting for carbon: a report card
n Part 2: Quality of CR reporting among the G250
n Part 3: Global trends in CR reporting
In Parts 1 and 2, KPMG assessed the quality of CR reporting from
the world’s 250 largest companies by revenue (G250) with a
particular focus on the carbon information these companies
publish in their annual financial and/or CR reports.
Quality was assessed using scoring methodologies based on
KPMG professionals’ view of leading reporting practices.
In Part 3, the study presents global CR reporting trends based on
reports issued by the top 100 companies in each of the
45 countries.
A more detailed methodology is on page 44.
© 2015 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
Executive summary
Part Accounting part
Part Quality of CR
1 for carbon:
a report card 2 reporting among
the G250
n There is a lack of consistency in the n Around half (47 percent) of the world’s n The quality of CR reporting has n Including CR data in annual
carbon information that the world’s largest companies do not publish improved slightly in Asia Pacific since financial reports is now a firmly
largest companies publish in their targets for carbon reduction. European 2013 but has declined slightly elsewhere established global trend. Almost
annual financial and/or CR reports. This companies are the most likely to do so, 3 in 5 companies do this now,
makes it almost impossible to accurately and companies in Asia Pacific are n Companies are getting better at compared with only 1 in 5 in 2011
compare one company’s carbon the least likely reporting the environmental and social
performance with another’s trends and risks that affect their n The number of companies stating
n The average timeframe for corporate businesses that they produce integrated
n1
in 5 large companies in high carbon carbon reduction targets is around 11 reports remains low: around 1 in 10
sectors such as mining and chemicals years, but few companies are aligning
does not report on carbon with the 15+ year targets being set by part
Part Global trends in n Third party independent assurance
2
3 CR reporting
many national governments of CR information is now firmly
nC
ompanies in the US and Asia Pacific established as standard practice
countries including China are the least nO
nly one third (35 percent) of the among the world’s biggest
likely to report on carbon; European companies that publish targets to n Almost three quarters of N100 companies (G250): almost two
companies are the most likely to do so reduce carbon explain in their reports companies now report on CR. The thirds invest in assurance
why they have chosen those targets current rate of CR reporting among the
nE
uropean companies score the highest G250 is over 90 percent nM
ajor accountancy organizations
for their carbon reporting nO
nly half the companies that report on continue to dominate the market
carbon explain how cutting carbon nM
ore companies now report on CR in for third party assurance among
nC
ompanies in the transport & leisure benefits their business Asia Pacific than in any other region. G250 and N100 companies
sector score highest for carbon
reporting among the G250, and oil & gas n J ust over half of companies that report n Four emerging economies have the n The Global Reporting Initiative
companies score lowest, when on carbon include carbon data in their highest CR reporting rates in the world: (GRI) remains the most popular
assessed using KPMG’s methodology annual financial or integrated reports India, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa voluntary reporting guideline
worldwide but use of GRI declined
nL
ess than 1 in 10 companies that report n6
2 percent of carbon reporters invest in nC
ompanies in the retail sector have among the world’s largest
on carbon, report on emissions from the independent assurance, in line with furthest to go, lagging behind all other companies
use or disposal of their products global rates of assurance for other CR sectors
information in reporting
www.kpmg.com/crreporting 5
1Accounting
for carbon:
a report card
Many of the world’s largest companies are under ever-
increasing pressure to cut their carbon emissions, as the
This enables stakeholders to understand key information
on carbon and climate in the same context as other
global economy shifts slowly but steadily towards a material issues disclosed by the company.
low-carbon, and eventually zero-carbon, model.
KPMG has therefore analyzed carbon information
In addition, companies face ever-greater expectations and published by the world’s 250 largest companies (G250)
requirements from stakeholders to provide clear, in their corporate responsibility reports and their annual
consistent and transparent information on their carbon financial reports.
emissions and the actions they are taking to reduce them.
In order to perform the analysis, KPMG researchers
KPMG member firms believe that all stakeholders should developed a qualitative scoring methodology based
be able to access good quality, comparable information on on the principles set out on page 8 of this report.
carbon performance quickly and easily from the company’s Each G250 company was awarded a score out of
annual financial and/or corporate responsibility reports. maximum 100.
Accounting for carbon
How should companies report on carbon?

KPMG member firms believe that companies should use the following basic principles when publishing
carbon information in CR and annual financial reports
Be clear about Show how the Communicate data clearly

1 materiality and data
2 company is performing
against carbon targets 3 and explain how reductions
help the business
nR
eporting should clearly state whether n Reporting should demonstrate that the nC
ompanies should disclose clear carbon n Companies should present carbon data
or not the company identifies climate company measures and monitors its reduction targets with defined baselines in their annual financial or integrated
change and carbon reduction as material carbon emissions on an ongoing basis and end dates. Ideally, targets should be reports as well as in stand-alone CR or
issues and should explain the process set for the entire group, but if that is not sustainability reports
the company used to assess materiality n Reports should give readers confidence the case, the report should set out
that the data is accurate by providing targets at business unit or country level n Reports should explain how the
If the company does identify climate evidence of third party assurance business benefits from cutting carbon
and carbon as material issues, then the nR
eports should explain the rationale emissions, for example, by reducing
following guidelines should be followed: n Where all 3 scopes are considered companies have used to set their costs and risk, or by creating
material, reports should cover all 3 targets. For example, are they in line opportunities such as increased
nC
ompanies should explain which (i.e. the full carbon life cycle) or show with sectoral, national or international/ innovation, research and development
emission scopes they consider that the company is working science-based carbon reduction
material and why: towards doing so targets? n When the company discloses additional
- Scope 1: direct emissions from the carbon information in other sources
company’s owned operations nR
eports should clearly communicate (e.g. CDP) the company’s own CR and
- Scope 2: emissions from purchased the company’s performance and annual report should clearly direct
electricity, heat and steam progress against their carbon reduction readers to those other sources.
- Scope 3: all other emissions produced targets including data on total emissions
in the course of doing business, at the baseline date and in the last
including emissions in the supply chain reporting year
(upstream) and from the use and
disposal of the company’s products and nC
ompanies should demonstrate they
services (downstream) have a long-term commitment to
reducing carbon emissions by setting
targets with a minimum goal period of
5 years and preferably longer
Key findings
1
There is a lack of consistency in Companies in the transport & leisure European companies score
carbon reporting from the world’s largest sector score most highly for the quality of their carbon highest for the quality of their
companies, making it almost impossible to reporting, and oil & gas companies score lowest. carbon reporting.
accurately compare one company’s carbon
3
performance with another.
1
1in 5
Just over half of
Only one third companies that report on
2
(35 percent) of the carbon include carbon data in
companies that publish their annual financial or
High
large companies in high carbon sectors targets to reduce integrated reports.
such as chemicals, mining, industrials, carbon clearly explain
metals & manufacturing and construction why they have chosen
& materials does not report on carbon. those targets.
Only half the companies that
Less
report on carbon explain how cutting
Companies in the US, and Asia carbon benefits their business.
Pacific countries including China, are among those
62%
least likely to report on carbon; European companies
than
are most likely to do so.
11 Low 1 in
The average timeframe for
corporate carbon reduction
targets is around 11 years, but of carbon reporters invest in independent
few companies are aligning with assurance, in line with global rates of
years
10
the 15+ year targets now being assurance of other CR information.
published by many international
governments.
Around half (47 percent) of the
world’s largest companies do not publish targets companies that report
for carbon reduction. European companies are most on carbon, report on
likely to do so, and companies in Asia Pacific are the emissions from the
least likely. use or disposal of
their products.
1 THE REPORT CARD
10 www.KPMG.com/corporateresponsibility
Opinion
“Corporate carbon reporting needs an overhaul”

Wim Bartels KPMG’s Global Head of Sustainability Reporting & Assurance
A
t first glance, KPMG’s analysis reveals a positive picture: increasing, not least because over 150 national governments have
many of the world’s largest companies are already reporting committed to cut their carbon emissions as part of international
on their carbon performance in their corporate responsibility efforts to combat climate change.
reports. Around half of those are also reporting on carbon
reduction in their annual financial or integrated reports. “There is a clear need for improvement
Based on this evidence, it may seem that many of these large and global guidelines could help”
companies are well prepared for a low-carbon global economy and
are ready to respond with clear and consistent information to the Yet KPMG’s research shows that only around half the world’s
increasing scrutiny. largest companies currently publish targets to reduce their carbon
emissions. Among those that do, only a visionary few are aligning
However, if we scratch below the surface we see this is not themselves with world governments by thinking ahead with a 15+
necessarily the case. What actually emerges from KPMG’s year timeframe. And few publish sufficient information for their
analysis is a view of fragmented, inconsistent approaches and progress to be easily tracked.
patchy transparency. Key information is missing from many annual
financial and corporate responsibility reports. The information that There is a clear need for improvement and global reporting guidelines
companies report and how they report it varies widely both within on carbon could help to address this problem. It should not be left
and between different geographies and industry sectors. It is all but to companies alone to figure this out: industry bodies, regulators,
impossible to accurately compare one company’s carbon standard setters, investors and others all have a role to play.
performance with another’s.
There are initiatives underway. For example, the Financial Stability
While some companies and sectors should be congratulated for the Board has proposed a task-force to develop consistent climate-
quality of their carbon reporting, few are yet exhibiting all the related disclosures for companies. The Climate Standards
hallmarks of best practice. For me, what really stands out in our Disclosure Board (CDSB) has also introduced a voluntary framework.
analysis is the vast room for improvement in publishing targets for
corporate carbon reduction. Clear global guidelines will help to address the problem of
inconsistent approaches. In the meantime, I believe the foundation
The world’s largest companies must play a leading role in cutting of best practice is for companies to publish key carbon information
man-made carbon emissions because it is business that generates of the type we have set out in this study in their corporate
the bulk of those emissions. The pressure for companies to do so is responsibility and annual financial reports.
G250 carbon reporting: how countries compare

Six countries have 10 or more companies in the G250: China, France, Germany, Japan, UK and the US.
KPMG member firms analyzed the carbon reporting data from the G250 to draw some comparisons between them
Rate of reporting on carbon emissions Assurance rates for carbon data

German and British companies have the highest All French and British companies in the G250 invest in independent third
rate of reporting on carbon emissions. party assurance for their carbon data. Assurance rates are lowest in China.
100% 100%
89%
82% 82% 62% 100% 100% 89% 65% 41% 9%
79%
56% Global France UK Germany Japan US China

average
Base: G250 companies that report on carbon, Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015
Timeframes of carbon targets Quality of carbon reporting

Global Germany UK France Japan US China
average Japanese G250 companies are the most German companies score
Base: G250 companies. Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015 likely to publish carbon reduction targets highest for quality of carbon Global
with long term timeframes of 15 years or reporting among the six average
Reporting on downstream emissions more. Around one quarter (27 percent) do 14% countries. Chinese companies 51%
so – about twice the global average. score the lowest.
Japanese companies Global
Global average 7% average
lead the field in
reporting on carbon Japan 17% Germany UK Japan
emissions from the use
75% 70% 58%
and disposal of their
products and services.
Germany 11% 27% 18% 17%
17 percent of Japanese US 7% Japan Germany US
companies that report
on carbon report on France 6% France US China
Scope 3 downstream
emissions – more than China 0% 17% 10% 0% 57% 51% 10%
twice the global
average of 7 percent. UK 0% France UK China
Base: G250 companies that report on carbon Base: G250 companies that report on carbon Base: G250 companies that report on carbon
Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015 Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015 Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015
Reporting on benefits of cutting carbon
Global average 51%
Germany 94%
UK 83%
France 71%
Japan 61%
US 43%
China 23%
In the US, less than half the G250 companies that report
on carbon explain how reducing carbon emissions
benefits the business.
Base: G250 companies that report on carbon
Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015
Publishing of carbon targets
53% Global average
94% Germany
83% UK
63% France
59% US
54% Japan
3% China
Chinese companies are the least likely to publish targets

to reduce their carbon emissions. Only one of the 39
G250 companies in China publishes any targets.
Base: All G250 companies
www.kpmg.com/crreporting 13 10
www.KPMG.com/corporateresponsibility
The report card
Which companies report on carbon?

Rate of carbon
4 Achievements ✘ Room for improvement
KPMG view reporting by region
4 out of 5 G250 companies identify It is surprising that in sectors known for
Companies in the However, financial
climate change and carbon as material high emissions, some major companies
personal & household services firms should 93%
issues and report on their carbon do not identify carbon and climate
goods sector are the also consider the carbon
emissions. This appears, on the surface, change as material issues and do not
least likely to report on impact of the businesses
report on their carbon impact.
to be a relatively high rate. carbon. Yet they have they fund or invest in, 80%
significant opportunities and the carbon-related
Rate of carbon reporting by sector For example, around 1 in 5 companies
does not report on carbon in the mining;
to reduce emissions risks in their loan and 74%
100% Food & beverage chemicals; industrials, manufacturing &
through the value chain,
by working with
investment portfolios.
metals; and construction & materials
92% Utilities sectors.
suppliers, reducing It is interesting to see
emissions in the that US and Chinese
90% Oil & gas production process and companies, based in
By contrast, all G250 companies in the
87% Technology, media & telecoms food & beverage sector do report.
designing products with
a lower climate change
the highest emitting
countries in the world,
83% Retail Most (around 85 percent) of the
impact in use and are amongst the least
disposal. likely to report.
82% Healthcare companies that do not report on carbon
are based in the US or Asia Pacific
80% Chemicals nations including China.
The fact that financial
services companies have
Government action may
be needed to stimulate
80% Construction & materials a low rate of reporting on carbon reporting in these
carbon suggests that countries.
80% Mining they are looking only
79% Automotive at the direct carbon
emissions of their own
77% Financial services operations which are
small when compared
75% Transport & leisure with other industries
73% Industrials, manufacturing & metals such as oil & gas.
Europe Americas Asia
67% Personal & household goods Pacific
Base: 250 G250 companies Base: 250 G250 companies

Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting 2015 Responsibility Reporting 2015
The report card
What is the quality of carbon reporting?

KPMG view
European companies score highest for Companies in the Americas and Asia It is to be expected that South Korea brought in a
the quality of their carbon reporting. Pacific lag behind Europe with average European companies will carbon trading system in 2015
Their reporting scores an average of scores of 49 and 40 respectively. lead in the quality of carbon and China will do so in 2017.
62 out of a possible 100. reporting as they are most
Companies in China have significantly experienced, although Many companies in high
European companies have higher scores low scores, at an average of 10 out reporting in this region could carbon sectors do not report
for reporting more data on carbon of 100. be further improved. The EU targets for carbon reduction or
emissions than companies in other Emissions Trading System was report on their performance
regions. They also report more Oil & gas companies have the lowest launched in 2005 and requires against targets.
information on their progress against sectoral quality of carbon reporting with heavy emitters of carbon to
carbon reduction targets. an average score of 35 out of 100. measure, monitor and manage Companies in the industrials,
their carbon emissions. manufacturing & metals;
Australian companies lead in Asia Pacific construction & materials;
for carbon reporting quality, with an It is likely that the quality of and oil & gas sectors have
average score of 65. Companies in South carbon reporting will increase particularly low scores for
Korea and Japan also have relatively high rapidly in Asia Pacific as carbon target setting and
scores at 60 and 58 respectively. pricing and trading is introduced. performance.
Quality of carbon reporting by sector (scores out of 100)

68
63 61 61 60 58 56 54 52 49 48 45 43
35
Transport Chemicals Automotive Technology Personal & Utilities Mining Healthcare Retail Food & Financial Industrials, Construction Oil & gas
& leisure media & household beverage services manufacturing & materials
telecoms goods & metals
Base: 205 G250 companies, Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015
The report card
What emissions do companies report on?

KPMG view
3/4
Far fewer companies report on the Analyzing the full carbon However, assessing the
emissions in their value chains (Scope lifecycle of products and full carbon impact of a
3). Half report on emissions in their services can be a company is becoming
supply chain (Scope 3 upstream) but complex and time more achievable as
less than one in ten (7 percent) reports consuming process. It carbon analysis tools,
on the carbon impact of using or can be especially methodologies and data
disposing of their products and challenging for retailers sources improve.
services (Scope 3 downstream). that sell thousands of
different products. So it
More than 75 percent of companies that
is not surprising that so
report on carbon report on their direct
few companies are
emissions (Scope 1) and emissions from
currently reporting on
purchased electricity, heat and steam
downstream emissions.
(Scope 2).
Emission scopes reported
Scope 1 84%
Scope 2 79%
Scope 3 upstream 50%
Scope 3 downstream 7%
Base: 205 G250 companies that report on carbon
The report card
How many companies publish targets?

Rate of target publishing by sector
Transport & leisure 75%
Around half of the world’s largest Close to half of the world’s largest Companies in the oil & gas; construction
companies (53 percent) publish targets companies (47 percent) publish no & materials and industrials, metals & Utilities 75%
to reduce their carbon emissions. targets to reduce their carbon emissions. mining sectors are the least likely to
Companies in Europe are the most likely Companies in Asia Pacific, are the least
publish targets for carbon reduction. Technology, media & telecoms 73%
to publish targets to reduce their carbon likely to do so, with only 33 percent of
emissions. companies in this region publishing targets,
Food & beverage 70%
compared with 55 percent of companies in
Worldwide, companies in the transport the Americas and 72 percent of companies Personal & household goods 67%
& leisure, utilities, technology, media & in Europe.
telecoms, and food & beverage sectors Healthcare 64%
are the most likely to publish targets for
reducing carbon. Automotive 63%
Chemicals 60%
KPMG view Mining 60%
It is notable that some of the reduce carbon can therefore be provision of low-carbon energy
heaviest emitters of carbon, construed as setting targets to and away from high-carbon Retail 54%
such as the oil and gas sector, limit the growth of the business. fossil fuels.
are the least likely to publish
targets to reduce their That said, there are signs that This shift will take time to
Financial services 43%
carbon emissions. strategic shifts are starting to gather pace but as it does we
take place even within these are likely to see greater
Industrials, manufacturing
& metals 41%
The challenge for these industries. For example, several willingness among companies
companies is that their European oil majors have openly in these sectors to report on Construction & materials 40%
traditional business models are called for global carbon pricing targets for reducing carbon.
inextricably linked to emitting and some are steering their Oil & gas 29%
carbon. Publishling targets to companies towards the
Base: All G250 companies
75%
The report card
What timeframes are chosen for targets?

Long-term goals for carbon reduction

can help shape business strategy.
Very few companies are publishing
carbon reduction targets beyond 2020.
Many companies report targets that expire
in the short term (2015) or medium term
KPMG view
(2020). Companies should set new In the run-up to the 2015
It is encouraging to see that, of the Companies in the financial services long-term targets for carbon reduction well UN Climate Talks in Paris,
G250 companies that publish carbon sector have the shortest timeframes before current targets terminate and publish many nations with high
reduction targets, most (over 80 per for targets, with many companies in long-term targets that give stakeholders emissions submitted
cent) are publishing targets of more this sector publishing targets of six a clear picture of future carbon reduction carbon reduction
than five years. years or less. programs. commitments looking
ahead to the year 2030.
The average target period identified is
just under 11 years. Given that nations are
planning on a 15-year
Automotive companies tend to publish timeframe, it makes sense
the longest term targets, with three for major companies to
companies in this sector publishing Timeframes for carbon targets align with national and
targets with timeframes of 25 or international norms and
50 years. adopt a similar timeframe.
30%
25% However, of the
companies that publish
targets to reduce their
15% carbon, less than one in
five is currently looking as
11% far ahead as 15 years.
5%
4% 5%
1-2 3-5 6-9 10-12 13-15 16-20 20+
years years years years years years years
Base: 132 G250 companies that publish carbon targets and report clear start and end dates. Timeframe unclear
for 5 percent of target setters. Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015
The report card
How well do companies report their carbon reduction?

KPMG view
Rationale for targets Data in the annual report Most companies (64 percent) that It is difficult to understand In order to communicate
One third of companies (36 percent) that Just over half (52 percent) of companies report targets to reduce their carbon do the strategy behind a clearly to all stakeholders,
disclose carbon reduction targets provide that report on carbon emissions, include not provide a clear explanation of the company’s carbon reduction more companies need to
a clear explanation of why they have carbon data in their annual financial or thinking behind those targets. targets, or to assess include more information
selected that target. integrated reports. The rest include it only whether the company’s in their annual financial
in their non-financial (corporate Similarly, around half (49 percent) of carbon ambitions are or integrated reports.
Benefits to the business responsibility or sustainability) reports. G250 companies that report on carbon, reasonable unless the
Around half (51 percent) of the do not explain how cutting carbon can company provides Without this information,
companies that report on carbon, also Progress against targets benefit their business. an explanation. targets to reduce carbon
explain how reducing carbon emissions Around half (51 percent) of companies lack meaning for investors
benefits the business. that publish data on their progress have There is a general lack of transparency The research suggests and other stakeholders,
either already met, or are tracking ahead in reporting of progress against carbon that companies need to and could be seen as
A quarter cite cost reduction, and one in of, their carbon reduction targets. This reduction targets because only a small provide greater transparency arbitrary and lacking
five says that cutting carbon increases equates to around one in eight G250 number of companies are reporting around their carbon strategic thought.
efficiency. Around 15 per cent say that companies. enough data for their progress to reduction ambitions.
reducing carbon emissions helps to spur be tracked.
innovation within the company. However, this seemingly positive
result needs to be put into context,
Companies in the automotive and given that only a minority of companies
industrials, manufacturing & metals are currently publishing data on
sectors are the most likely to identify their progress against carbon
innovation as a benefit of carbon reduction targets.
reduction activities.
Companies reporting benefits of carbon reduction activities by sector
73% 67% 65% 56% 56% 55% 50% 50% 50% 50% 46% 43% 41% 0%
Automotive Transport Retail Industrials, Healthcare Utilities Mining Food & Construction Chemicals Technology, Oil & gas Financial Personal &
& leisure manufacturing beverage & materials media & services household
& metals telecoms goods
Base: 205 G250 companies that report on carbon
The report card
How many companies assure their carbon data?

Close to two thirds (62 percent) of 36 percent of the companies that

companies that report on carbon, invest report on carbon do not invest in any
in third-party independent assurance of verification of the data – either
their carbon data. internal or external.
The rate of third-party assurance of

carbon data among G250 companies
reflects the rate of assurance across
CR reporting in general (63 percent),
which is unsurprising given that carbon
data is the most common CR topic
to be assured.
KPMG view
Obtaining external assurance
demonstrates a commitment
to providing stakeholders
with confidence in the quality
of externally reported carbon
information. Assurance of
carbon data can also assist
companies in embedding
good reporting practices and
driving internal performance
improvements.
Towards better carbon reporting:

KPMG’s recommendations
1 3 5 7
It is important to identify all the The data that a company collects and The monitoring process for carbon Provide engaging and detailed explanations
carbon emission scopes in which reports should be aligned with the scope performance should be implemented of the action your company is taking to
the company has a material of carbon reduction targets that it sets. down to the entity or business unit level. reduce carbon and contribute to addressing
impact. While some companies KPMG’s research shows that, surprisingly In KPMG member firms’ experience, too climate change – don’t limit your reporting
are making progress in reporting often, the performance reported does not often group targets are not sufficiently to targets and performance. Narrative
on Scope 3 emissions, many are relate directly to the type or scope of cascaded within the group, which can describing your carbon reduction strategy
not reporting on all the relevant targets the company declares. In these result in targets being missed due to and initiatives helps to increase
scopes. cases, companies need to review their insufficient oversight or management. transparency and create positive
data collection processes. perceptions.
Ambitions should be bold, without being
2
Companies need to define a road
map to develop a broader scope Companies should set new long-term
6 unrealistic. Companies that commit to bold
carbon reduction targets without a precise
of reporting, if applicable. This
is especially true for Scope 3
emissions which are more
complex to report on. This
4 targets for carbon reduction well before
the current targets terminate. In our review
of G250 reporting, KPMG member firm
professionals found that many companies
underlying calculation of how it can be
achieved tend to state that stretch targets
help to increase innovation and catalyze
new thinking. Companies should be aware
reporting requires new processes report targets that expire in 2015, without they are likely to come under less scrutiny
to be designed and significant setting out new mid-term targets. This can for missing a target than they will for not
input from third parties such create uncertainty for stakeholders on setting a target at all, or for setting a target
as suppliers. where the company is at in terms of its with a low level of ambition.
carbon reduction strategy.
2Quality of CR
reporting among
the G250 In 2013, KPMG analyzed the quality of CR reporting
among the world’s largest companies using a
n The quality of CR reporting has improved slightly
in Asia Pacific but declined slightly elsewhere
proprietary assessment and scoring methodology
n Companies are getting better at reporting the
(see page 24).
environmental and social trends and risks that
We have repeated this analysis in 2015 and identified affect their businesses
the following key developments over the intervening
two years:
www.KPMG.com/corporateresponsibility 10
Quality of reporting
KPMG’s scoring methodology

KPMG’s methodology to assess the quality of CR reporting is based on 7 criteria that we believe are hallmarks of industry best practice:
Stakeholder Transparency
1 engagement
The report should explain how the
1
5 and balance
The report should be open about the CR
Key findings
T
company identifies and engages its challenges the company faces, as well as
stakeholders and how their views its achievements, and should communicate here has not been an overall Asia Pacific is the only region to improve
inform CR strategy. both effectively. improvement in the quality of its average quality score since 2013 and
reporting among the world’s this is commendable given the high
largest companies – except on number of companies in the region that
Materiality Suppliers and
2 6
the topic of CR trends and risks – are new to CR reporting. Companies in
The report should demonstrate a clear,
value chain since 2013. This is disappointing given Asia Pacific are making rapid progress
on-going process to identify the issues that most companies showed room for and it appears are strongly embracing
The report should show how the
that are most significant to the company improvement in our previous research the need for reporting on CR and the
company’s CR strategy and targets
and its stakeholders. and continuous improvement could be value it brings to companies, as well
address the material social and
expected from the world’s largest as to their stakeholders. Asia Pacific
environmental impacts of its suppliers,
products and services. companies. At KPMG, member firms companies’ improvement in the quality
Risk,
3
encourage companies to critically review of reporting on stakeholder engagement
opportunity their reporting and define clear steps suggests that companies in the region
and strategy Corporate to continuously improve quality; this are further opening up in an increasingly
The report should identify environmental

and social risks and opportunities, and
explain the company’s strategic response.
7 responsibility
governance
seems a logical approach one year on
from the introduction of the GRI’s G4
framework which puts a focus on the
quality of reporting.
globalized and interconnected world.
Given that there is progress in the

quality, as well as quantity, of reporting
The report should detail how CR is in Asia Pacific, it is possible that we
governed within the organization, who
The quality of reporting is also an could see a next generation of CR
has responsibility for it and how CR
Targets and
4
opportunity for leading companies to reporting leaders coming from this
performance is linked to remuneration.
indicators distinguish themselves from the pack: region rather than Europe, which has
the highest scoring 25 companies in the traditionally led the field.
The report should declare time-bound G250 score an average of 84 out of 100
and measurable targets. using KPMG’s methodology, whereas
the global average is only 57.
www.kpmg.com/crreporting 25 27
Quality of CR reporting
improves in Asia Pacific
C
ompanies in Asia Pacific have Overall quality scores by
improved the quality of their CR region 2013 vs 2015
reporting; their average quality
score is now 52 out of a possible
100, rising from 50 in 2013. The
71 68
quality of CR reporting in Asia Pacific is, on
average, now higher than in the Americas.
54
In particular, Asia Pacific companies have
50 50 52
improved their reporting on stakeholder
engagement. More companies in Asia
Pacific now clearly identify their
stakeholders in their reporting as well as
explaining how they engage with those
stakeholders and what action they take in
response to stakeholder views.
On a global level, however, average

reporting quality remains broadly stable
Americas Europe Asia
with a decline of two percentage points to Pacific
57 in 2015 versus 59 in 2013. 2013 ■ 2015 ■
Base: 230 G250 companies that report on CR
Better reporting of trends and risks
L
arge companies are getting better at Number of companies that
identifying the environmental and report trends and risks
social trends and risks that affect
their business, such as resource
scarcity, energy and climate change. 2013 2015
The number of companies that clearly
define and discuss trends, risks and
strategic responses (as opposed to simply Clearly
making some mention of them) is growing,
although it is still a minority that does so.
define
trends 34% 44%
Almost all those that clearly identify risks
also communicate the action the company
is taking in response to that risk.
Clearly
identify 36%
risks 25%
Clearly
communicate
response to risks 23%
34%
Base: 230 G250 companies that report on CR
3Global
trends in
CR reporting The research from 45 countries shows continued, if slower, growth in corporate
responsibility reporting. Though some nations and sectors lag behind, progress
continues and it is now standard practice to include CR information in annual reports.
Integrated reporting is the exception rather than the rule, and most of the world’s
largest companies now have their data independently assured.
Global trends
CR reporting becomes the norm, KPMG view

“Over time, it’s likely N100
driven by regulation
reporting rates will reach the
90-95 percent levels currently
seen among the G250. What
will change the game is the
introduction of more regulation
requiring companies to report
Corporate responsibility (CR) reporting is standard practice and growth has non-financial information. I expect
continued between 2013 and 2015, although the rate of growth has slowed down to see a proliferation of such
legislation over the next five
years. Non-financial reporting
will become required business
N100 G250
Around three quarters The current rate of CR The main driver for CR reporting continues practice. Companies now need to
(73 percent) of N100 reporting among the G250 to be legislative: there is a growing trend of focus on what they will report
companies now report on is 92 percent. Over the last regulations requiring companies to publish and how best to integrate their
CR, a small rise from 2013 (71 percent). This four years the G250 reporting rate has non-financial information. financial and non-financial
stabilization suggests that future growth in fluctuated between 90 and 95 percent, information.”
CR reporting is likely to occur in smaller primarily due to the changing composition
increments unless driven by mandatory of the G250 list.
Adrian King,
reporting legislation. Low reporting rates
KPMG’s Global
in four countries new to the survey in 2015 KPMG expects G250 CR reporting rates to
Head of
(Czech Republic, Ireland, Oman and Peru) remain at this level for the foreseeable future.
Sustainability
slowed the growth trend slightly.
Services
CR reporting stabilizes at a high level
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2013 2015
35% 45%
64% 83% 95% 93% 92%
12% 18% 24%
28%
41%
53%
■ N100 CR reporting rate
64% 71%
■ G250 CR reporting rate 73%
Base: N100/G250 companies
Global trends
Asia Pacific steals a lead over the West

F
rom a position lagging behind other
regions with a 2011 reporting rate Asia Pacific 71% 73% 74%
below 50 percent, Asia Pacific has
raises its 76% 77%
risen to become the leading region for 69%
CR reporting over the last four years. game
This growth has been driven by a surge in
79%
reporting in countries such as India, Taiwan
and South Korea, where mandatory and
71%
voluntary reporting requirements
have been introduced (although specific 49%
requirements differ by country). More
companies (79 percent) now report on CR
61% Europe
54% 53%
in Asia Pacific than in any other region,
followed by the Americas and then Europe. Americas
2011 ■
Europe’s ranking (3rd) is due to a significant
difference in reporting rates between 2013 ■ Asia
Western European (79 percent) and Eastern Pacific
2015 ■
European companies (61 percent). The low
rate of reporting in Eastern Europe reduces Middle
Base: 4,500 N100 companies
the average European CR reporting rate to Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015
East
74 percent. This is set to change however, Africa
following the European Directive on
Non-Financial Reporting.
Asia Pacific leads European reporting rate will rise
Lag in Eastern Europe affects reporting rates “The divergence in reporting rates across Europe will not last.
The European Directive on Non-Financial Reporting was introduced
the continent’s average “Reporting requirements are on the increase in December 2014 and EU Member States have two years to
in Asia Pacific. Specific requirements in each implement it. Around 6,000 of the largest companies across
country differ, but reports in this region tend Europe are expected to report on environmental, social, human
Europe average 74% to focus on demonstrating compliance and rights, employee, anti-bribery and anti-corruption
managing risks, particularly in matters. I expect to see more European companies
Western Europe 79% relation to supply chain, community than ever reporting in this survey in 2017 as this
and human rights issues.” comes into force.”
Eastern Europe 61% Sung Woo Kim, Partner, Jose Luis Blasco Vazquez,
KPMG in South Korea Partner, KPMG in Spain
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Global trends
Social responsibility
requirement: India
Emerging economies “The Indian government has

encouraged companies to invest
in and report on social activities.
Since 2013, it has been mandatory
step up reporting
for large companies to report on
CR projects undertaken and to
disclose details including spending
on these projects in their annual
report. Along with a requirement
for the top 100 listed entities
to report, India now
has the highest CR
F
reporting rate
our developing countries have the Regulatory pressure is worldwide.”
highest CR reporting rates in the the common denominator
Santhosh
world: India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Mandatory reporting requirements are
Jayaram, Director,
South Africa. The greatest increases prompting the highest CR reporting rates
KPMG in India
in country CR reporting rates since worldwide. In some countries, reporting
2013 have been seen in India (+27 legislation has been introduced by
percentage points), Norway (+17), South governments (including France, Indonesia,
Korea (+25) and Taiwan (+21). In three of and South Africa) and in others by stock
these four countries (India, Norway and exchanges (such as in Brazil, Malaysia and Board of directors’ Stock exchange
Taiwan), the growth has been fueled by Singapore). Requirements may cover a requirement: Norway listing requirement:
the introduction of mandatory reporting broad range of social, environmental and
requirements. governance areas (as in Denmark, France and
“In Norway, 90 percent of Taiwan
companies now report on CR,
South Africa), or have a specific target such “In 2014, the Taiwan Stock
compared to 73 percent only two
Eight countries with a CR reporting rate as GHG emissions (the UK), conflict minerals Exchange required the largest
years ago. This is primarily due to
of 90 percent or above have mandatory (the US), or social responsibility (India). chemical, food, finance and
new CR reporting requirements
reporting requirements: India, Indonesia, insurance companies to publish
introduced in 2013. Boards of all
Malaysia, South Africa, UK, France, When regulation is introduced, companies an annual CR report. This has
public limited and listed companies
Denmark and Norway. tend to respond and CR reporting rates are affected around 200 companies
must explain how they integrate
seen to increase rapidly. In KPMG’s view, it and the Taiwan CR reporting rate
CR into their business strategy.
is unlikely that rates of over 90 percent will has increased dramatically since
However, we see considerable
be achieved in any country without some 2011. From 2016 heavy industry
variation in the depth of reporting,
legislative driver. and smaller companies will
and some companies have a way
also be required
to go to fully comply
to report so
with regulations.”
the rate will
increase further.”
Mona Irene Niven Huang,
Larsen, Partner, General Manager
KPMG in Norway KPMG in Taiwan
Global trends
Formal requirements drive high growth in CR reporting 2013 ■ 2015 ■
73%
27 17 21 25
average CR reporting
+ + + + rate across the globe
2/3
percentage point percentage point percentage point percentage point
increase in India increase in Norway increase in Taiwan increase in South Korea
Countries have a
100% higher than average
reporting rate
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
COLOMBIA
INDIA
INDONESIA
MALAYSIA
SOUTH AFRICA
UK
FRANCE
JAPAN
DENMARK
NORWAY
SWEDEN
US
BRAZIL
NIGERIA
HUNGARY
SINGAPORE
SPAIN
AUSTRALIA
CANADA
PORTUGAL
CHILE
NETHERLANDS
ITALY
CHINA
TAIWAN
SWITZERLAND
FINLAND
SOUTH KOREA
IRELAND
GERMANY
PERU
ROMANIA
RUSSIA
BELGIUM
MEXICO
*POLAND
NEW ZEALAND
SLOVAKIA
GREECE
CZECH REPUBLIC
OMAN
UAE
*ANGOLA
ISRAEL
KAZAKHSTAN
Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015 *2013 CR reporting rate restated for Angola and Poland
Global trends
Four sectors lag behind
N
ine of the 15 sectors surveyed CR reporting rates by sector 2013 ■
have global CR reporting rates of 2015 ■
75 percent or higher. The sectors
leading the way with CR 100%
reporting continue to be the
heavy and traditionally polluting 90 Mining Utilities TMT Automotive Oil Food & Personal Financial Chemicals Forestry Construction Healthcare Transport Industrials, Retail
& gas beverage & household services & paper & materials & leisure manufacturing
industries, including mining and utilities. goods & metals
80
Retail has furthest to go; the sector 70
trails behind all other sectors, with
a global CR reporting rate of just 58 60
percent. The scale of impact is no less
significant in this sector, but boundaries 50
are blurred and retailers lack control
over factors upstream and downstream 40
of their own operations.
30
20
10

Room for improvement in retail

Vincent
“In the UK, CR reporting is now standard practice the significant and direct impact they have on the Consumer Goods Forum have an important role
Neate,
in most sectors, with heavy industry and resource- environment and communities where they operate. to play in encouraging members to measure and
Partner,
based companies continuing to lead on the quantity For retail however, CR issues can be more difficult report on their CR performance and providing
KPMG
of CR reports published. This is not surprising given to manage. Industry organizations like the them with the necessary tools.”
in the UK
Global trends
CR data becomes a standard

feature in annual reports
I
ncluding CR data in annual financial Rate of inclusion in annual
reports is now a firmly established
reports rises KPMG view
global trend, making it easier for
investors to access non-financial
information. In 2011, just 20 percent
60% 56% The trend for companies to include
more CR information in annual
of N100 companies included CR financial reports is driven by two
information in their annual reports; 51% factors: firstly, CR information
is increasingly perceived by
now the rate is almost triple that,
50 shareholders as relevant for their
at 56 percent.
understanding of a company’s risks
and opportunities, and secondly,
This is being driven by regulation in
stock exchanges and governments
many countries. The eight countries
40 are issuing requirements for
with the highest rates of CR
companies to report on CR data in
disclosure in financial reports all
annual reports. To keep ahead of
have legislation that requires it. these trends, reporters should
30
ensure they focus on the CR
The greatest increases in reporting CR issues that affect business value
in the annual financial report between most, and report on progress in
2013 and 2015 were in Taiwan (+64 their annual accounts.
percentage points), South Korea (+43) 20%
and Norway (+31). 20
Wim Bartels, KPMG’s Global
Head of Sustainability Reporting
& Assurance
10
4%
0
2008 2011 2013 2015

Global trends
Countries with the highest rate of CR in annual reports

UK Norway India
The Companies Act Since 2013, publicly owned The Securities Exchange
requires quoted and listed companies must Board and the Companies
companies to report 86% explain how CR issues are Act require companies to
GHG emissions in the managed in the Board of report on CR activities in
annual report. Directors’ section of the the annual report.
90% 82% annual financial report, or

explain where this
information can be found
in a separate report.
93%
France Denmark 100%

The Grenelle II Act requires 1,100 of the largest
listed and large companies companies in Denmark are
to report on CR in the required to report on CR, 99%
annual management report and more specifically on
and from 2016 further climate and human rights
disclosures on climate in the annual report. Malaysia 99%
change will be mandated.
It is mandatory for publicly
South Africa owned companies to Indonesia
All companies in South publish CR information Reporting on CR in the
Africa are encouraged to in the annual report. The annual company report
apply the King III Code of Malaysian stock exchange is mandatory for publicly
Governance Principles. 99% requires listed companies listed and limited
Listed companies are to describe how material liability companies.
required to apply King III economic, environmental and
or disclose why they do social risks and opportunities
not, and there are certain are managed.
mandatory disclosure
requirements in terms of
the JSE listing rules.

Global trends
Uptake of integrated reporting is slow

KPMG view
T
he total number of reports that Do reports Actual number of integrated
“While more than half of the
state they are integrated and refer state they are reports: top countries companies surveyed now include
to the IIRC has more than doubled integrated?
since 2013. However, there has CR information in their annual
been no significant growth in the financial reports, only 11 percent
overall proportion of companies having Yes, report states refer to their reports as integrated.
moved to integrated reporting (as it is integrated 91 The remainder appear to consider
self-declared). It is now 11 percent in
but no reference the inclusion of selected CR
to IIRC information in the financial report
this research versus 10 percent in 2013.
as adequate disclosure for
investors, without moving towards
The rate of integrated reporting continues to
be by far highest in South Africa where the
2013 2015 a convergence of their annual and
practice is mandatory. CR reports.
7% 5%
A high rate of CR information in the The IIRC organization has made
annual financial report does not significant efforts to define and
Yes, report states it
necessarily equate to high rates of promote a framework for
is integrated and
integrated reporting. In the UK, the rate refers to IIRC integrated reporting worldwide,
of inclusion of CR information in the which is still at an early stage of
annual report is very high at 90 percent, 27 27 uptake. The ultimate path towards
yet only 9 percent of companies say these 3% 6% 21 global adoption of integrated
reports are integrated. reporting remains unclear,
although there is no doubt that
In Malaysia the contrast is even greater:
No 13 companies will continue to expand
99 percent include CR information in their the strategic use
of non-financial
annual reports, yet none of the top 100
companies in Malaysia refers to its report
90% 89% indicators in their
as integrated. annual reports.”
South Netherlands Spain Japan Sweden
Africa
Base: 3,267 N100 companies Bill Murphy, Partner,
that report on CR in 2015.
2,884 N100 companies that Base: N100 companies
KPMG in Canada
report on CR in 2013. Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015
Global trends
Big players seek the security

of independent assurance
T
hird party assurance of CR The scope of assurance remained stable 100%
Growth in independent assurance of CR information
information is now firmly between 2013 and 2015, with half of
established as standard practice companies with external assurance opting N100 ■
among the world’s biggest to have the whole report assured, one third 90 G250 ■
companies (G250). Almost two (34 percent) choosing to have specific
thirds (63 percent) of the G250 now have indicators assured and the remainder
their CR information independently having specific chapters (5 percent), or 80
assured. Assurance is also growing among a combination of chapters and indicators
N100 companies after remaining level assured (11 percent).
between 2011 and 2013. 70
63%
Major accountancy organizations continue The greatest growth 59%
to dominate the market for third party in assurance of CR 60
assurance among G250 and N100
companies, although market share
information has been in
decreased in both groups since 2013. The the annual report, rather 50 46%
use of other assurance providers increased than in stand-alone 40%
by between 3 and 5 percentage points
among N100 and G250 companies. CR reports 40
30%
Scope of CR
Since 2013, assurance of CR information 42%
in the annual report has increased by 30 39% 38% 38%
assurance 8 percentage points compared with
a 2 percentage point decrease where 33%
50% Whole report assurance companies publish CR information in 20
a separate report only.
34% Specific CR indicators
10
11% Combination of chapters Base: 3,267 N100 companies that report on
CR, 230 G250 companies that report on CR
and CR indicators
Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting 2015
5% CR chapter only 0
2005 2008 2011 2013 2015

Base: 1,359 N100 companies with assurance of CR information
Countries where companies are most likely to seek
independent assurance of CR information:
96%
86%
70% 70%
61%
Percentage of CR reports with assurance
France Taiwan UK
South Korea Greece
The French government The Financial Supervisory Requirements that companies
requires listed, and as of In South Korea assurance Greece has a relatively low Commission encourages publish data on greenhouse
FY2013, some non-listed is not required, but many rate of CR reporting, but companies to improve gas emissions in annual
companies to publish large companies seek of the companies that do corporate governance by financial reports is leading
third-party verified CR greater credibility for CR publish CR reports (45 reporting CR indicators, them to consider independent
information in the annual information and choose percent), many choose including third-party verified third-party assurance of key
directors’ report. limited assurance. external assurance. information. CR indicators.
Base: N100 companies that report on CR
Assurance providers N100 G250

Major
accountancy
organisations
33% 30%
Other providers 36% 35%
67% 64% 65%
Base: Total number of assurance
70%
reports for N100/G250 companies
Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate
Responsibility Reporting 2015 2013 2015 2013 2015
Global trends
GRI could increase focus KPMG view
on annual reports
Use of the GRI framework continues
to be very common among
companies that publish stand-alone
CR reports. It is less commonly
used, however, when companies
report CR information only in their
K
annual financial reports, for example
PMG’s research shows that the GRI in reports by region in countries where mandatory CR
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting legislation has prompted
2013 2015
remains the most popular an increase in CR information in
voluntary reporting guideline annual reports. The lower application
80%
worldwide, with 60 percent of all rate is perhaps not surprising given
CR reporters in the 45 countries surveyed 74% that GRI is designed historically for
referencing the GRI. This is roughly stable
with the 2013 rate (61 percent). For 70 69% stand-alone sustainability reporting.
This trend suggests that the GRI
stand-alone CR reports the GRI application could continue and strengthen its
rate is at 72 percent (2013: 74 percent).1 62% 61% 61% advocacy work to increase the use
60 of GRI principles for CR information
Increasing use of the framework in Asia 56% in annual financial reports, as well
Pacific, including countries such as Taiwan, 52% 50% as stand-alone CR reports.
China, India and Indonesia, has offset a 50
slight decline in other regions. 14 countries CR information continues to often
now show GRI application of over 75 be given limited space in annual
percent, whilst 5 countries show very low reports, in the absence of the
40
GRI rates below 30 percent. consistent application of relevant CR
principles such as the materiality of
GRI also remains widely used by the world’s issues included. Further guidance
30
largest companies, with three quarters from the Global Sustainability
(74 percent) of the G250 using the GRI Standards Board (the standard
framework, a decline from 81 percent in setting arm of the Global Reporting
2013.2 It is possible that this decline follows 20 Initiative) would enable greater
the introduction of the GRI G4 framework consistency in CR reporting within
which could be considered more complex annual reports, pending a broader
than the previous GRI framework, or it could 10 take-up of integrated reporting.
be due to companies moving away from
applying GRI as they report CR information Wim Bartels, KPMG’s Global Head
in the annual or integrated report. 0 of Sustainability Reporting and
Americas Europe Asia Pacific Middle East & Africa Assurance
1, 2
GRI reporting rates restated for 2013 to include as the denominator
all CR reporters, regardless of the format of CR information published Base: 3,267 N100 companies that report on CR
(in stand-alone, annual or combined reports, or a combination of formats). Source: KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015
Methodology G250 companies
KPMG professionals in 45 countries carried out G250 companies operate in 15 industry sectors
hundreds of hours of research into company CR
reporting for this survey. First, KPMG
and are headquartered in 31 countries:
professionals reviewed publicly available
information in annual financial reports, stand- China Japan
alone CR reports and on company websites. In Germany
Part 1 (Accounting for carbon), third-party
France
7% Russia 16% 11%
sources such as CDP reports were considered US 7% 2%
in cases where the company’s own reporting
contains no information on carbon and directs
28% South
Korea
UK
readers to those sources instead. Second,
reports were assessed against KPMG’s key
5% 3%
quality criteria for reporting, based on our Switzer-
professionals’ view of leading reporting Brazil land Australia
Mexico
practices (for Parts 1 and 2 only).
1% 2% 2% 2%
The sources for the research included
information in PDF and printed reports, as well
as web-only content. Reports published between Italy
mid-2014 and mid-2015 were used, or if a
company did not report in this period, information 2%
India
from 2013 was used. Information published Spain
prior to July 2013 was not included in this survey. 2% 1%
The findings are based on analysis of publicly
available information only, and not on information Nether-
lands
submitted by companies to KPMG member firms.
2% Other
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
The results in Part 1 (Accounting for carbon) and France, Indonesia, Luxembourg, Malaysia,
Part 2 (Quality of reporting among the G250) 6% Norway, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan,
Thailand, UAE, Venezuela
relate to the world’s largest 250 companies.
These were identified as the top 250 companies
listed in the Fortune Global 500 ranking for 2014 G250 companies by region G250 companies by industry sector
(the ‘G250’ companies).1
The results in Part 3 (Global trends in CR 35% 33% 24% Financial services 4% Construction & materials
reporting) relate to the largest 100 companies in 32% 12% Oil & gas 4% Food & beverage
45 countries: 4,500 companies in total (the ‘N100’
companies). KPMG member firms identified the 12% Technology, media & telecoms 2% Chemicals
N100 in their country by revenue based on a
recognized national source, or where a ranking 10% Retail 2% Mining
was not available or was incomplete, by market
capitalization or another appropriate measure.
9% Industrials, manufacturing & metals 2% Personal & household goods
8% Automotive 2% Transport & leisure

All company ownership structures were
included in the research: publicly-listed and Asia
Pacific
Americas Europe 5% Utilities 2% Other
state, private and family owned.
1
www.fortune.com/global500/2014/ 4% Healthcare
Sector percentages do not equal 100 percent due to rounding
8
N100 companies Industry sector classification
Companies were classified into industry sectors in line with
the International Classification Benchmark (ICB) system:
N100 companies operate in 16 industry sectors KPMG sector Explanation

and are headquartered in 45 countries: Automotive Automobiles, Parts and Tires
Chemicals Commodity Chemicals, Specialty Chemicals
1 Angola 12 France 23 Malaysia 34 Singapore
2 Australia 13 Germany 24 Mexico 35 Slovakia Construction & Building Materials & Fixtures, Heavy Construction
3 Belgium 14 Greece 25 New Zealand 36 South Africa materials
4 Brazil 15 Hungary 26 Nigeria 37 South Korea Financial services Banks, Non-life Insurance, Life Insurance, Real Estate Investment & Services, Real
5 Canada 16 India 27 Norway 38 Spain Estate Investment Trusts, Financial Services, Equity Investment Instruments,
6 Chile 17 Indonesia 28 Oman 39 Sweden Non-equity Investment Instruments
7 China 18 Ireland 29 Peru 40 Switzerland
8 Colombia 19 Israel 30 Poland 41 Taiwan Food & beverages Beverages (Brewers, Distillers & Vintners, Soft Drinks), Food producers (Farming,
9 Czech Republic 20 Italy 31 Portugal 42 Netherlands Fishing & Plantations, Food Products), Tobacco
10 Denmark 21 Japan 32 Romania 43 UK Forestry & paper Forestry and Paper
11 Finland 22 Kazakhstan 33 Russia 44 UAE
45 US Healthcare Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology, Health Care Equipment & Services (Health Care
Providers, Medical , Equipment, Medical Supplies)
N100 companies by region Industrials, Industrial Metals & Mining (Aluminium, Non-ferrous Metals, Iron & Steel),
manufacturing & Aerospace & Defence, General Industrials (Containers & Packaging, Diversified
Europe 47% metals Industrials), Industrial Engineering (Commercial Vehicles & Trucks, Industrial
Machinery), Oil Equipment, Services & Distribution (including Pipelines), Alternative
Energy (Renewable Energy Equipment, Alternative Fuels)
Asia Pacific 24% Mining Coal, Diamonds & Gemstones, General Mining, Gold Mining, Platinum & Precious
Metals
America 16%
Oil & gas Oil & Gas Producers, Exploration & Production, Integrated Oil & Gas
Middle East
& Africa 13% Personal & household Household Goods & Home Construction (Durable Household Products, Non-durable
goods Household Products, Furnishings, Home Construction), Leisure Goods (Consumer
Electronics, Recreational Products, Toys), Personal Goods (Clothing & Accessories,
Footwear, Personal Products)
N100 companies by industry sector
Retail General Retailers (Apparel Retailers, Broadline Retailers, Home Improvement
17% Financial services 6% Oil & gas
Retailers, Specialized Consumer Services, Specialty Retailers), Food & Drug
Retailers (and Wholesalers),
10% Technology, media & telecoms 6% Utilities Technology, media & Fixed Line Telecommunications, Mobile Telecommunications, Software & Computer
telecommunications Services (and Internet), Technology Hardware & Equipment (Computer Hardware,
9% Retail 4% Healthcare (TMT) Electronic Office Equipment, Semiconductors, Telecommunications Equipment),
11% Industrials, manufacturing & metals 3% Personal & household goods

Electronic & Electrical Equipment, Media (Broadcasting & Entertainment, Media
Agencies, Publishing)
8% Food & beverage 3% Chemicals Transport & leisure Travel & Leisure (Airlines, Gambling, Hotels, Recreational Services, Restaurants &
Bars, Travel & Tourism), Industrial Transportation (Delivery Services, Marine
7% Transport & leisure 2% Mining Transportation, Railroads, Transportation Services, Trucking)
6% Automotive 1% Forestry & paper

Utilities Electricity, Gas, Water & Multi-utilities
Other Support services (Business Support Services, Business Training & Employment
6% Construction & materials 2% Other Agencies, Financial Administration, Industrial Suppliers, Waste & Disposal Services)
Sector percentages do not equal 100 percent due to rounding
© 2015 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”). KPMG International provides no client services and is a Swiss
entity with which the independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated.
KPMG services
How we can help
K
PMG is one of the pioneers of Sustainability Plus
sustainability consulting – some We don’t work in a sustainability vacuum. Specialists in Specialists in carbon reporting
KPMG member firms first offered We work side-by-side with KPMG member CR reporting and assurance and climate change consulting
sustainability services over 20 years firm professionals from tax, audit and
ago – which gives KPMG’s network advisory including sector specialists,
a level of experience few can match. Today, management consultants, tax accountants
our member firms employ several hundred and experts in IT, supply chain, KPMG member firms can help your We can support you in the following ways:
sustainability professionals located in infrastructure, international development organization to:
around 60 countries. and more. You won’t receive generic advice
and one-size-fits all solutions, instead you n Understand what nB
enchmark the quality nH
elp you understand n Provide independent
Local knowledge, can benefit from a hand-picked multi- environmental and of your reporting and comply with third party assurance
global experience disciplinary team. social information against industry peers carbon-reduction and of your carbon data
Our global network means KPMG member you should report carbon reporting
firm professionals have in-depth understanding Results-driven nP
rovide independent legislation worldwide n Identify and reduce
of the economic, political, environmental KPMG firms help clients to develop future-fit n Choose the right assurance for your climate-related risk in
and social landscapes wherever your business strategies based on solid reporting approach internal and external n Advise you on best your supply chain
organization may operate. At the same time, understanding of the issues. We strive to and frameworks for reporting systems practice carbon
our member firms are closely connected think big and challenge convention, but also your business reporting and
through our global Center of Excellence. This to find practical solutions that can create nP
rovide independent benchmark your
means that, whatever challenge you face, success and growth through change. n Integrate financial assurance of your carbon reporting
we can put together a team with and non-financial sustainability against peers
international experience to help you. Foresight needs insight information in your performance
Our global Center of Excellence focuses reporting reporting nR
eport information to
on thought-provoking research, analyzing the CDP
drivers of global change and developing n Report information n Verify the
Contact practical business responses that you can for specific purposes, sustainability
KPMG’s Global Center apply within your own organization. such as sustainability performance of
of Excellence for Climate Change indices your suppliers
& Sustainability
sustainabilityservices@kpmg.com
Our team
Acknowledgments
Lead authors Co-authors Global project team:
KPMG in Canada: KPMG in the The project team would also like to thank:
Bill Murphy Netherlands: Sophie Bailey, Shirit Brandwijk, Lucy Byrne, Maria Cheng, Mayuresh Deshkar, Chantal
Partner Karlijn Steinbusch Gommers, Louise Hansen, Jessie Heemskerk, Arjan Heleenders, Andrea Hsu, Michiel
Huijgen, Catalina Iorga, Sander Jansen, Imran Jiwa, Madhura Kimbahune, Novneet Kumar,
Manager Richart Van Der Merwe, Eddie Ng, Shari Peters, Kshitija Rangnekar, Thea Renner, Martin
KPMG in France: Rogez, Dania Sauza, Marina Schurr, Vera Tolkach, Duygu Türkmen, Nandita Upadhyay, Julie
Vasadi, Marijke Vermaak, Hanife Ymer.
Philippe Arnaud KPMG in the UK:
Partner Paul Holland
Adrian King Wim Bartels Mark McKenzie Eleanor Austin Director Researchers:
KPMG’s Global KPMG’s Global Global Director Global Thought Brice Javaux Dimitris Apostolidis, Carmen Auer, Anna Aulakoski, Ivan Barsola, Raajeev Batra, Joanne
Beatty, Katherine Blue, Edris Boey, Mike Boonen, Giovanna Caipo, Paul Callaghan,
Head of Head of Marketing, Leadership Manager Madeleine Karn Kirk-Patrick Caron, David Cevela, James Cheng, Nathalie Clement, Marta Contreras
Sustainability Sustainability Communications Manager Associate Hernandez, Santy Dermawai, Gheorghita Diaconu, Arnaud van Dijk, Jessica Dominguez,
Lucie Douma, Asa Ekberg, Miguel Fernandez, Jenny Fransson, Hilda Garza, Kevin Giersch,
Services Reporting & & Thought Leo-Paul Karle Olga Glushkovskaya, Isabelle Hirs Schaller, Didi Hoezen, Andrea Hsu, Cilia Holmes Indahl,
Assurance Leadership Supervisor Louise Spelmann Iversen, Ivana Jezkova, Ricardo Jimenez, Viliam Kaceriak, Lars Konggaard,
Martina Kopsova, Radoslaw Kowalski, Ciara Larsen, Kyu Min Lee, Francesca Lifrieri, Lloyd
McAllister, Alicia Moreno, Gregor Mowat, Steven Mulkens, Sarah Newman, Gloria Ojo,
KPMG in India: Justyna Piekarska, Dagmara Podziemska, Caroline Pope, Sara Ramirez, George Raounas,
Filipa Rodrigues, Anette Ronnov, Roopa Davé, Rony Shalit, Ang-Ting Shih, Kori Silva,
Santhosh Jayaram Dagmar Stastna, Ana Stivanin, Lorenzo Solimene, Naomi Sugo, Istvan Szabo, Adrian Tan,
Director Alin Tiplic, Ekaterina Trutneva, Louise Venables, Hwa Young Woo, Gabrielle Wyborn, Takeshi
Yamamoto.
Prathmesh Raichura
Pictures:
Associate Director
Getty Images, Corbis
Gargi Dhongde
Manager
Harsh Vasoya
Analyst
Local contacts
Argentina Colombia Indonesia Mexico Russia, Ukraine, Taiwan
Martin Mendivelzua Maria Teresa Agudelo Iwan Atmawidjaja Jesus Gonzalez Georgia & Armenia Niven Huang
mmendivelzua@kpmg.com.ar magudelo@kpmg.com iwan.atmawidjaja@kpmg.co.id jesusgonzalez@kpmg.com.mx Igor Korotetskiy nivenhuang@kpmg.com.tw
Ikorotetskiy@kpmg.ru
Australia Cyprus Ireland Netherlands Charles Chen
Adrian V. King Iacovos Ghalanos Eoin O’lideadha Bernd Hendriksen Singapore charleschen@kpmg.com.tw
Global Head, KPMG iacovos.ghalanos@kpmg.com.cy eoin.olideadha@kpmg.ie hendriksen.bernd@kpmg.nl Sharad Somani
Sustainability Services sharadsomani@kpmg.com.sg Thailand
avking@kpmg.com.au Czech Republic Caroline Pope New Zealand Paul Flipse
Milan Flosman caroline.pope@kpmg.ie Gabrielle Wyborn Slovakia pflipse@kpmg.com.th
Austria mflosman@kpmg.cz gwyborn@kpmg.co.nz Quentin Crossley
Peter Ertl Israel qcrossley@kpmg.sk UAE
pertl@kpmg.at Denmark Oren Grupi Nigeria Sudhir Arvind
Tina Obel Lope ogrupi@kpmg.com Tomi Adepoju South Africa sarvind@kpmg.com
Azerbaijan tolope@kpmg.com Tomi.adepoju@ng.kpmg.com Shireen Naidoo
Vugar Aliyev Italy shireen.naidoo@kpmg.co.za UAE & Oman (Lower Gulf)
valiyev@kpmg.az Finland PierMario Barzaghi Norway Paul Callaghan
Tomas Otterström pbarzaghi@kpmg.it Anette Ronnov South Korea pcallaghan@kpmg.com
Baltics tomas.otterstrom@kpmg.fi anette.ronnov@kpmg.no Sungwoo Kim
Marko Siller Japan Regional Leader, Asia Pacific UK
msiller@kpmg.com France Kazuhiko Saito Peru KPMG Sustainability Services Vincent Neate
Philippe Arnaud kazuhiko.saito@jp.kpmg.com Rosario Calderon sungwookim@kr.kpmg.com vincent.neate@kpmg.co.uk
Belgium parnaud@kpmg.fr rccalderon@kpmg.com
Mike Boonen Yoshitake Funakoshi Spain Paul Holland
mboonen@kpmg.com Germany Yoshitake.Funakoshi@jp.kpmg.com Philippines Jose Luis Blasco Vazquez paul.holland@kpmg.co.uk
Simone Fischer Henry D. Antonio Regional Leader, Europe,
Brazil simonefischer@kpmg.com Kazakhstan hantonio@kpmg.com Middle East & Africa, KPMG US
Ricardo Zibas Gregor Mowat Sustainability Services Katherine Blue
rzibas@kpmg.com.br Greece gmowat@kpmg.ru Poland jblasco@kpmg.es kblue@kpmg.com
George Raounas Krzysztof Radziwon
Canada graounas@kpmg.gr Luxembourg kradziwon@kpmg.pl Sweden Uruguay
Bill J. Murphy Jane Wilkinson Daniel Dellham Martin Clerino
billmurphy@kpmg.ca Hungary jane.wilkinson@kpmg.lu Portugal daniel.dellham@kpmg.se martinclerino@kpmg.com
István Szabó Filipa Rodrigues
Chile istvan.szabo@kpmg.hu Malaysia filiparodrigues@kpmg.com Jenny Fransson Venezuela
Luis Felipe Encina Kasturi Paramanathan jenny.fransson@kpmg.se Jose O. Rodrigues
lencina@kpmg.com India kparamanathan@kpmg.com.my Romania jrodrigues@kpmg.com
Santhosh Jayaram Gheorghita Diaconu Switzerland
China santhoshj@kpmg.com gdiaconu@kpmg.com Arjan de Draaijer Vietnam & Cambodia
Maria Cheng arjandedraaijer@kpmg.com Anh Xuan Trang Nguyen
maria.cheng@kpmg.com tnguyen45@kpmg.com.vn
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular Publication name: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015 kpmg.com/socialmedia
individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such Publication number: 132962
information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on Publication date: November 2015
such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. Printed in the Netherlands
Published by Haymarket Network Ltd
© 2015 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of
independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm
has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG
International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and
are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

Currents of Change: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Currents of Change: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2015

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Currents

Part 1: Accounting for carbon: a report card 6

Part 2: Quality of CR reporting among the G250 22

Part 3: Global trends in CR reporting 28

The study is presented in three parts:

How should companies report on carbon?

Be clear about Show how the Communicate data clearly

“Corporate carbon reporting needs an overhaul”

G250 carbon reporting: how countries compare

Rate of reporting on carbon emissions Assurance rates for carbon data

56% Global France UK Germany Japan US China

Timeframes of carbon targets Quality of carbon reporting

Publishing of carbon targets

53% Global average

Chinese companies are the least likely to publish targets

Which companies report on carbon?

Base: 250 G250 companies Base: 250 G250 companies

What is the quality of carbon reporting?

Quality of carbon reporting by sector (scores out of 100)

What emissions do companies report on?

Emission scopes reported

How many companies publish targets?

What timeframes are chosen for targets?

Long-term goals for carbon reduction

How well do companies report their carbon reduction?

Companies reporting benefits of carbon reduction activities by sector

The report card

How many companies assure their carbon data?

Close to two thirds (62 percent) of 36 percent of the companies that

The rate of third-party assurance of

Towards better carbon reporting:

KPMG’s scoring methodology

The report should identify environmental

Given that there is progress in the

On a global level, however, average

Better reporting of trends and risks

CR reporting becomes the norm, KPMG view

CR reporting stabilizes at a high level

1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2013 2015

Asia Pacific steals a lead over the West

Emerging economies “The Indian government has

Formal requirements drive high growth in CR reporting 2013 ■ 2015 ■

+ + + + rate across the globe

Four sectors lag behind

Base: 4,500 N100 companies

Room for improvement in retail

CR data becomes a standard

2008 2011 2013 2015

Countries with the highest rate of CR in annual reports

90% 82% annual financial report, or

France Denmark 100%

Base: 4,500 N100 companies

Uptake of integrated reporting is slow

Big players seek the security

2005 2008 2011 2013 2015

Assurance providers N100 G250

GRI could increase focus KPMG view

8% Automotive 2% Transport & leisure

N100 companies operate in 16 industry sectors KPMG sector Explanation

11% Industrials, manufacturing & metals 3% Personal & household goods

6% Automotive 1% Forestry & paper

How we can help

Вам также может понравиться

“Corporate carbon reporting needs an overhaul”