let’s talk: sustainability - building a better working...

Let’s talk: sustainabilityA new point of view for business leadersJune 2015 | Issue 5

Responsible and resilient supply chains A commercial imperative for large organisations

Designing businesses’ emissions intensity metrics Meeting internal and external stakeholder expectations

Tomorrow’s investment rules How global institutional investors are using ESG to inform decision-making in 2015

Identifying material sustainability risks — Part 2 Realising the benefits within your organisation

An effective sustainability strategy needs to look at all of the components that can affect your business. In Let’s talk: sustainability, we help you demystify the highly complex world of sustainability, and assist you in taking concrete actions to identify competitive advantages, increase operational efficiency and mitigate risk. EY has identified nine key elements that frame the discussion:

Join the conversation.

Continue the dialogueFor more insights or to browse our archive of webcasts and videos, visit ey.com/au/sustainability.

Reporting

Social impact

Supply chain

Tax implications Climate

change

Beyond compliance

Emissions

Energy agenda

Innovation

Sustainability

ey.com/au/sustainability 1

Responsible and resilient supply chains

A commercial imperative for large organisations

Supply chain | Beyond compliance

The last decade has seen an increase in external scrutiny over how large corporations engage with their supply chains. While the origins of this stem from the well-known ‘sweat shop’ exposés of the 90’s, the scope of issues has evolved considerably in recent years. A long list of disasters and shocks from the collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh, appalling tin mines in Indonesia and the horsemeat scandal in Europe has exposed the inadequacy of traditional supply chain governance.

While many international companies have been working to implement and improve their supply chain management approaches since the 90’s or early 2000’s, Australian companies have lagged behind. However this inertia is set to change, with many companies facing a variety of imperatives to act, including:

• Risk avoidance

• First mover advantage

• Cost reduction

• Meeting organisational objectives

• Reporting requirements

First mover advantage

New regulations and activist campaigns are keeping companies on their toes. Governments in the US, UK and Europe have led the way in regulating conflict minerals and illegal timber, while Australia has followed in the latter. Greenpeace and other campaigners have made similar achievements by pressuring individual companies with high-profile campaigns to make commitments ending the use of unsustainable palm oil or soya entirely, or at least from certain suppliers.

Companies who were not prepared for these regulations and demands scrambled to respond and develop transparency in the supply of those products. Taking this reactive approach can be far more expensive, with the need to invest significantly in auditing and setting up systems at short notice rather than working with suppliers over years to improve their practices and shift away from certain products or sources of concern.

Risk avoidance

Issues in the supply chain such as underage labour, mistreatment of workers, corruption and environmental damage can have significant impacts on an organisation’s reputation, undoing years of work by the sustainability, marketing and public relations teams in one blow. Social media campaigns have also raised awareness among customers who expect companies to take responsibility for the activities of their suppliers and their suppliers’ suppliers all the way up the chain.

Australia’s revised ASX Corporate Governance Principles have additionally placed the responsibility on the board to manage and disclose exposure to non-financial and sustainability-related risks including in the supply chain.

Lack of transparency around the conditions in which materials are sourced and manufactured, leaves many global companies exposed.

Sara [email protected]

Mark [email protected]

Companies who fail to understand and disclose issues in their supply chains risk significant damage to their reputations, often undoing years of hard work.

Proactive first-movers have the advantage of keeping ahead of regulations and consumer demand, gaining exclusive access to the responsible suppliers who will become highly sought after.

Let’s talk: sustainability Issue 52

Cost reduction

Sustainability initiatives are often aligned with cost savings. One of the key principles of sustainability is efficiency. Reducing packaging, improving durability, and increasing energy efficiency all generate significant cost savings either directly for the buyer or passed on from the supplier. While this may require some additional up-front investment — either in higher quality materials or assisting the supplier to build its technological or intellectual capability — the return on investment is often substantial.

Meeting organisational objectives

Any organisation committed to sustainability objectives cannot ignore the importance of their goods and services procurement, with many key performance indicators affected by processes along the supply chain.1 For example, as much as 86% of a company’s total greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to indirect emissions in the supply chain. The most recent CDP Supply Chain Report suggests a similar trend in water usage, citing the examples of Nike and MolsonCoors, for whom 94% and 98% of their respective total water footprints are in the companies’ supply chains.

1 Mathews, H S., C.T. Hendrickson, C.L. Weber, 2008

Reporting requirements

In recent years, a number of reporting frameworks have introduced requirements on disclosing information about supply chain and management activities. When the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) introduced new criteria regarding supply chain management, many companies experienced a decline in their ratings, and are still struggling to catch up. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has also introduced supply chain and procurement disclosures in its new G4 Guidelines, which companies are currently working to address.

For organisations who have objectives around local economic development or increasing training and employment, purchasing from and growing local businesses and social enterprises can achieve the same outcomes in a more sustainable, empowering way, rather than through charity.

As organisations require increased disclosure around sustainable practices, it is more important than ever for companies to address risks in their supply chains, or risk consequences down the line.

Supply chain initiatives can help improve efficiency and cut costs in the long run, a reward well worth the initial investment.

While international companies have had a head start in addressing these risks and requirements, Australian companies can benefit by learning from their leading practices. Many international guidelines and case studies are available for reference, including the British Standard BS8903:2010 principles and framework for procuring sustainably, which will inform a new ISO standard expected to come out next year.

Sustainable procurement is no longer about the feel-good purchasing of the ‘green’ stationery range. It has become a business imperative, addressing real risks to the organisation and protecting the brand and reputation. By following the example of overseas leaders, Australian companies can develop a more responsible and resilient supply chain strategy to reduce their costs and achieve bigger market share.

To assist clients to navigate this increasingly complex area, EY has launched a new Global Responsible & Resilient Supply Chain Management centre of excellence that brings together leading teams in Sustainability and Supply Chain Advisory in Asia-Pacific, backed by global capabilities in the US and the EU. Areas of focus include: 1) Sustainable procurement and raw

materials sourcing 2) Sustainable supplier management3) Cost of compliance 4) Measurement and valuation


Designing businesses’ emissions intensity metrics

Meeting internal and external stakeholder expectations

Climate change | Emissions

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity metrics have become a focus for an increasing number of external stakeholders. Investors, shareholders, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), regulators and individuals use GHG emissions intensity data to compare the performance of companies, to assess the exposure of companies to a carbon price, and to understand the potential impact on the fossil fuel supply chain over the medium to long-term.

In the future, emissions intensity may become a consideration for exporters seeking access to carbon-constrained international markets. This poses new complexity for companies reporting on emissions intensity metrics given the absence of an established industry method, the inherent complexities of intensity metrics, the limited disclosures made by reporters, and the limited availability of benchmark measures.

This article provides an overview of the GHG emissions intensity metrics reported in 2013 and 2014 by the ASX top 20 companies, including the emerging financed emissions reporting adopted by Australian banks. It outlines key elements that users should consider when performing their analysis of emissions intensities, and provides recommendations for businesses on meeting stakeholder expectations when reporting emissions intensity metrics.

State of the emissions intensity metrics reporting

Emissions intensity (or carbon intensity) represents the GHG emissions relative to a measurement of business activity, such as revenue, profit, service, or product produced.

In FY14, 55% of the ASX top 20 companies reported some form of emissions intensity. These metrics are presented in Table 1 per industry sector, type of intensity denominator, and scope of emissions (e.g., scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3). Companies operating in non-financial industry sectors including BHP Billiton, CSL Limited, Origin Energy, Telstra, Wesfarmers, Woodside Petroleum, and Woolworths have traditionally reported the emissions intensity of their operations and services using financial or production-based units, or terabytes of data in the case of Telstra. More recently, the banking sector, led by ANZ, CBA, and Westpac, has adopted new emissions intensity metrics in relation to the emissions intensity of their investment portfolios.

Table 1 — Emissions intensity reporting practices by ASX top 20 companies (based on 2014 and 2013 public reports)

Aluminium, chemicals, financial services, pharmaceutical, power generation, mining and minerals, oil and gas, telecommunication

Emissions scope1 1&2 3 1&3 1,2&3

Financial metricCSL Limited (tCO2-e per million of revenue) P PWesfarmers (tCO2-e per million of revenue) PWoolworths (tCO2-e per $M EBIT) POther business metricBHP Billiton (tCO2-e per tonne of copper equivalent production)* PCBA (tCO2-e per FTE) PCSL Limited (greenhouse gas emissions intensity index per type of production (plasma) relative to 2004/2005)

P

CSL Limited (greenhouse gas emissions intensity index per type of production (vaccine) relative to 2004/2005)

P

NAB (tCO2-e /work use vehicle) POrigin Energy (tCO2-e per MWh of electrical energy production)** POrigin Energy (tCO2-e per TJ of oil and gas production)** PRio Tinto (greenhouse gas emissions intensity index relative to 2008) PTelstra (tCO2-e per terabyte of data) PWoodside Petroleum (tCO2-e per kt of hydrocarbon production)*** P

Financed emissions Emissions scope

1 1&2 3 1&3 1,2&3Financed emissions metricsANZElectricity generation (tCO2-2/MWh) in Australia and outside Australia***

P

CBA • Electricity generation (tCO2.-e/MWh) in Australia and in USA*** P • Coal operations (tCO2-e/t coal extracted, and tCO2/$m debt finance) P • Indirect coal combustion (tCO2-e/$m debt finance) P • Oil & gas operations (tCO2-e/$m debt finance) P

Westpac • Infrastructure and utilities portfolio electricity generation (tCO2-e/

MWh) in Australia***P

* As per the requirements of the UK Companies Act 2006. ** Intensity metrics are reported on an operational control basis and an equity basis. *** Where possible these metrics are sourced from the AEMO, or NGERS data which may include other immaterial emissions sources

(e.g., scope 3 fugitives emissions). Information on scope of emissions for investments outside Australia is not disclosed and has been assumed to be scope 1 emissions. Calculation method for emissions intensity of debt exposure to the electricity sector is not identical across all three banks.

Pip [email protected]

Frederic [email protected]

Graham [email protected]


Inherent complexities associated with emissions intensity metricsEmissions intensity metrics carry inherent complexities that might impact on the ability to compare emissions intensities of different companies. From reviewing the intensity metrics reported by the ASX top 20 companies (see Table 1), we have identified five elements to consider in assessing the intensity metrics, including:

• Emissions scope — A majority of companies report on their scope 1 and scope 2 emissions. However by limiting coverage to only scope 1 & 2 emissions, the metrics may not reflect how reliant a company or product is on GHG emissions. Outside of power generation and emissions intensive manufacturing, scope 3 emissions are most likely to make up the bulk of a company’s or product’s carbon footprint.

• Calculation method — Origin Energy refers to the Australian National Electricity Market’s emissions intensity for its electricity generation asset, while other companies refer to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standards for scope 3 emissions calculation. However in the absence of an internationally accepted method for emissions intensity metrics calculation, some companies have developed their own methods.

• Level of aggregation — For multinational companies operating across different industry sectors, reporting on emissions intensity in an aggregated manner across a non-uniform product mix may not allow for meaningful comparisons. To address this issue, companies report on an index-based intensity and/or emissions intensity metrics that are disaggregated at the product level.

• Index-based metrics — Two companies including CSL Limited and Rio Tinto report on an index-based intensity that allows for direct measurement of the change against a baseline year, however it does not provide the actual emissions intensity of their operations.

• Equity share vs. operational control — Two companies, including Origin Energy and Woodside Petroleum, report their emissions intensity on an operational control and equity share-basis. The equity share-basis approach is required to measure the company’s exposure to a carbon price.


Recommendations for businesses reporting on emissions intensity to meet stakeholder’s expectationsManaging the quality of different reporting lines is becoming more complex for companies, who face a growing number of requests and the reputational risk arising from misinterpretation and/or increased inconsistency of the information being disclosed. To mitigate these risks, companies will have to:

• Understand stakeholders’ needs in relation to emissions intensity metrics (e.g., scope of emissions, alignment to industry leaders, operational boundaries, level of disaggregation, calculation method)

• Ensure the emissions intensity data reported through different lines of reporting and communication are consistent (e.g., corporate reporting, investor relations, operational reporting, Emissions Reduction Fund reporting, new entrants reporting under the Safeguarding Mechanism)

• Ensure the impact of the factors beyond the company’s immediate control on emissions intensity are well understood and disclosed (e.g., natural gas well lifecycle emissions, natural gas carbon dioxide content, natural resource grade or depth)

• Disclose sufficient information to allow stakeholders to gain a detailed understanding of the calculation methods, key assumptions and inherent limitations associated with the emissions intensity metric

• Ensure the accuracy and quality of the emissions intensity metrics are checked and independently assured on a regular basis

Stakeholders using the emissions intensity as part of their decision-making process

With the development of climate policies across geographies, including Australia’s Carbon Price Mechanism (now repealed), Emissions Reduction Fund and Safeguarding Mechanism, and Emissions Trading Schemes in China, South Korea and Japan, stakeholders need to better understand the potential for significant cash flow impacts on companies resulting from these schemes and the potential for a significant decrease in the demand for fossil fuels over the medium to long-term. An increasing number of stakeholders perform reviews and compare the emissions intensity data of companies as part of their own decision making process. These include investors, shareholders, regulators, NGOs and individuals (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 — Overview of stakeholders using emissions intensity

Emissionsintensity

RegulatorLicence to operate

ERF projects(transport, facility)

SafeguardingMechanism

Companycorporate

ReportingInvestment/Divestment

InvestorsAsset exposure

Investment/Divestment

IndividualProduct

performanceConsumerbehaviour

Companyoperation

Plant performanceComparison

vs. peers

NGOsMedia campaignIndustry ranking

and listing

Investors use emissions intensity metrics to assist in determining investment decisions relating to industry sectors, companies or products. In this capacity they require comparability between peer’s emissions intensity metrics. As there are no standard disclosures (except in the electricity generation sector), this can lead to inappropriate comparisons being made if the calculation methods are not documented or where investors extract publically available information to design their own metrics.


For the second year, EY sought the assistance of the Institutional Investor Research custom research group to analyse the ‘future of non-financial performance and investment decision making’. The findings showed that more investors than ever were factoring ESG into their decisions, and that there exists a great opportunity for early report issuers to set the standard and tone for future non-financial reporting.

The survey included the involvement of a number of high-level decision-makers from an array of global third-party investment management firms, over half of whom had portfolios of more than US$50 billion.

Four clear messages emerged from the analysis of non-financial performance reporting and investment decision making:

1. Investors are concerned with the risk of stranded assets, which is closely linked to ESG (environment, social and governance) factors.

2. Investors are adopting more structured, measurement-oriented approaches to non-financial/ESG information.

3. Investors face an information deficit — they do not receive enough accurate, standardised information relevant to risk and performance assessment.

4. Specifically, investors want non-financial/ESG information that allows the comparison of sector peers.

Investor concern over risk of stranded assets

This year’s research found that in the last year, more than a third of respondents cut their holdings due to the risk of stranded assets, with another 27% planning to monitor this risk closely in the future. While 30% of respondents hadn’t cut their holdings, 8% were unsure if this risk motivated cuts in their fund.

Moreover, the research identified that, unlike last year, investors are factoring ESG risk into all industry sectors, not just energy and extractives.

Adoption of more structured and measurement-oriented approachesWhen asked how they evaluate non-financial disclosures relating to the environmental and social aspects of their company’s performance, 37% of respondents claim to conduct a structured, methodical evaluation of environmental and social impact statements and disclosures. About 16% stated that they rely on guidelines or information from third parties, such as the UN Principles for Responsible Investments, with a further 27%.

Informally evaluating environmental and social impact statements the proportion of respondents claiming to conduct little or no review of environmental and social aspects of their company’s performance was down to just 21%.

Somewhat surprisingly then despite an increasingly structured approach to analysis, ESG factors had not driven more investment decisions in the last year, with 48% of respondents stating that such factors seldom or never played a pivotal role, an increase from 42% in 2013. Of these individuals, 46% informed us that disclosures were insufficient to know ESG issues’ material impact’ with 29% finding company disclosures inconsistent, unavailable or unverified.

While some progress has been made, these findings indicate that more education is required on the material impacts of non-financial information, and that there is further work to be done in ensuring that this information is consistent and easily available to investors.

Jonathan [email protected]

Matthew [email protected]

Tomorrow’s investment rules

How global institutional investors are using ESG to inform decision-making in 2015

Beyond compliance | Reporting


From a variety of non-financial issues, respondents identified the impacts of regulation and the necessity to minimise risk as the most important issues as an investor, followed by their use as evidence of improved future valuation with business forecasts.

A common theme among investor decisions is the ability to measure risks to performance. 76% of respondents would reconsider their investment in an entity which presented risks of poor environmental performance, 73% would reconsider due to unaddressed risks in the supply chain, and 69% would reconsider based on the risk of resource scarcity. These figures have remained consistent from the previous period.

Investors facing an information deficit When gathering non-financial information, respondents overwhelmingly preferred information directly from the issuers, naming annual and integrated reports, corporate websites and press coverage most useful.

However, nearly two thirds of those surveyed believe that companies do not adequately disclose ESG risks in this information. When adequate ESG information is gathered, 80% find mandatory board oversight of the information essential or important, followed by 78% who would expect audit committee oversight and independent verification.

In terms of motivations, 64% of investors believe that companies report their impact on non-financial issues to build their corporate reputation with customers, while 59% believe they are motivated by the necessity to comply with regulatory requirements.

Desire for comparison of sector peersIt is clear from this year’s survey results that investors are eager for non-financial/ESG information that allows the comparison of sector peers. When questioned, 74% of investors said that industry-specific reporting criteria and KPIs would be very or somewhat beneficial, while 65% saw the benefits of separate sustainability and financial reporting.

EY’s 2nd survey on the future of non-financial performance and investment decisions will be launched in the coming months, and will be available on our website.

Meeting investor demandFor companies to keep ahead of global investor demand for non-financial disclosures that help them value long-term resilience, EY suggests:

• Undertaking meaningful materiality assessments to determine the most important aspects of performance to disclose

• Engaging investors and other stakeholders to determine what risks and opportunities they feel should be considered in corporate strategy

• Applying the same rigour to financial and non-financial disclosures, for example by seeing independent assurance over non-financial disclosures

• Considering developing frameworks, such as, GRI G4, SASB and IIRC’s <IR> Reporting Framework to help guide future reporting.


Identifying material sustainability risks — Part 2

Realising the benefits within your organisation Meg Fricke

[email protected]

Kathryn [email protected]

In the last edition of Let’s talk: sustainability we looked at the regulatory requirements driving sustainability disclosure and detailed the importance of undertaking a robust assessment to understand the key sustainability aspects to support that disclosure.

In this edition we examine how you can use information from sustainability materiality assessments and sustainability reports to drive improvements within your organisation.

For many organisations, sustainability reporting is an annual cycle of reviewing material aspects, gathering performance data relative to those aspects and preparing the associated public disclosures.

Reporting (or disclosure) allows companies to fulfil regulatory requirements and meet the expectations of key stakeholders, particularly external stakeholders such as investors, who want to see that organisations understand and are managing their key sustainability aspects.

But for strategic companies, a sustainability report is just one deliverable resulting from the reporting process. These companies look for opportunities to use the report, and the key components that make up the report, to drive internal improvement, maximise efficiencies and reduce risk.

There are three primary ways in which the sustainability materiality assessment and the sustainability report can internally benefit an organisation:

1. Enhanced risk management

2. Strengthening the corporate strategy

3. Supporting operational plans and activities

Enhanced risk management

High quality sustainability reports are based on robust and transparent assessments of material aspects which provide the foundation for the report and its key disclosures. The assessment of material sustainability aspects (which can be either risks or opportunities) is based on understanding the environmental, social and economic aspects of most importance to the business and of most interest to its stakeholders.

Strategic companies understand the benefits of linking their sustainability assessment with their business risk assessment. While the sustainability aspects determined to be high priority may not meet the material exposure thresholds of the business risk assessment, they provide a flag to organisations. This flag indicates that, while the aspects may not meet the business risk criteria, it is an aspect that needs to be managed, with stakeholders expecting the organisation to consider and establish appropriate monitoring and reporting mechanisms.

There is perhaps no better example than that of the retail sector, where customers’ interest in ethical sourcing in the supply chain has become a major issue of concern and is being raised as a material aspect in sustainability assessments. But for many companies this has not been factored into the business risk assessment with some almost blind-sided by the issue and with no or limited capacity to manage the fall out and associated reputational and financial damage. Such a scenario could potentially have been averted if material sustainability aspects had been considered in the broader risk management approach.

By aligning the sustainability materiality assessment with the business risk process, companies are better placed to understand and manage the suite of issues important to the company and also to its stakeholders.

Reporting | Beyond compliance


Strengthening corporate strategy

The corporate strategy underpins the direction a company or organisation will take to achieve its goals and deliver on its promise to stakeholders (including investors, customers, governments or the community more broadly).

In developing the corporate strategy, companies look externally at the overall environment in which they are operating, as well as considering the external issues specific to their industry. They also look internally to assess their strengths, weaknesses and capacity to deliver on their goals.

For many companies this work involves engaging with key managers across the business to gather their perspective and input.

Strategic companies are also using the results of the sustainability materiality assessment to understand the broader aspects of importance to their stakeholders and to ensure they are factored into the development of the corporate strategy, ensuring these aspects are given the profile that stakeholders expect.

Improving operational plans

The corporate strategy provides the overall umbrella from which supporting operational plans are established, usually by operating division or business unit. It is in this space that the sustainability report and its support mechanisms can play a key role.

In many organisations, business unit operational plans are developed in relative isolation reflecting key issues from the perspective of business unit management. Aligning the issues of importance to the business unit with the outcomes of the assessment of material sustainability aspects provides an opportunity to target and concentrate effort in areas that have been identified as a top priority.

The outcomes of the sustainability materiality assessment can also be used to review existing activities to ensure they target those areas of importance to the organisation and to its stakeholders.

Data gathering and measurement, used to record and report performance against material sustainable aspects, can also be used to support operational plans. For example, a business unit may identify employee engagement as a key issue and introduce opportunities for employees to engage in the community. Community partnership may also be identified as a material sustainability aspect, with measures established to improve performance in this area. In this situation the information to be used in the sustainability report could also be used to support operational business plans.

Thus there is a clear opportunity to align the results of materiality assessments, the sustainability report and the information used to track performance with broader business strategy and operational plans. Such alignment allows an organisation to consistently drive performance improvements within itself.

By demonstrating the link between sustainability materiality assessment and corporate strategy, companies are better placed to identify with, and respond to, the needs of their stakeholders.

The materiality assessment can provide insights into areas where companies may need to focus or realign their efforts, and drive continuous performance improvements.

Sustainability materiality assessments, the sustainability report and the information used to track performance around material sustainability aspects can all add to the strategic and operational plans of organisations. Looking beyond the annual reporting cycle can lead to realisation of many benefits.


EY | Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About EY EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.

EY refers to the global organisation, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organisation, please visit ey.com.

About EY’s Climate Change and Sustainability Services Climate change and sustainability continue to rise on the agendas of governments and organisations around the world with rapidly evolving drivers and expectations. Your business faces regulatory requirements and the need to meet stakeholder expectations as well as respond to the opportunities presented for revenue generation and cost reduction. This means a fundamental and complex transformation for many organisations and the embedding of climate change and sustainability into core business activities to achieve short term objectives and create long-term shareholder value. The industry and countries in which you operate as well as your extended business relationships introduce additional complexity, challenges, responsibilities and opportunities. Our global, multidisciplinary team combines our core experience in assurance, tax, transactions and advisory with climate change and sustainability skills and deep industry knowledge. You’ll receive a tailored service supported by global methodologies to address issues relating to your specific needs. Wherever you are in the world, EY can provide the right professionals to support you in achieving your potential. It’s how we make a difference.

Ernst & Young ABC Pty Limited (ABN: 12 003 794 296); Australian Financial Services Licence No: 238167

© 2015 Ernst & Young, Australia. All Rights Reserved. APAC no. AUNZ00000530

M1527860 ED NoneThis communication provides general information which is current at the time of production. The information contained in this communication does not constitute advice and should not be relied on as such. Professional advice should be sought prior to any action being taken in reliance on any of the information. Ernst & Young disclaims all responsibility and liability (including, without limitation, for any direct or indirect or consequential costs, loss or damage or loss of profits) arising from anything done or omitted to be done by any party in reliance, whether wholly or partially, on any of the information. Any party that relies on the information does so at its own risk. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

ey.com

Let’s continue the conversation. Find out how we can help you tackle your sustainability challenges at ey.com/au/sustainability.

Sustainability on the goAccess our thought leadership anywhere with EY Insights, our new mobile app. Visit eyinsights.com.

Mathew NelsonAsia-Pacific Managing PartnerClimate Change and Sustainability Services +61 3 9288 8121 [email protected]

Terence Jeyaretnam PartnerClimate Change and Sustainability Services +61 3 9288 [email protected]

Matthew Bell PartnerClimate Change and Sustainability Services +61 2 9248 [email protected]

Michele VillaPartnerClimate Change and Sustainability Services+61 8 9429 [email protected]

Susan KoremanDirector Climate Change and Sustainability Services+61 7 3011 [email protected]

let’s talk: sustainability - building a better working...

Documents