Climate risks: in-depth analysis and disclousure
Climate risks, classified by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as physical and transition risks, fall within the scope of the risks assessed by Acea (see also the chapter on Corporate Governance and Management Systems for further information) and reported in the CDP international questionnaire.
As every year – and for more than ten years now – the company participated in the international CDP project (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project), considered from the outset to be an important driver at an international level on the subject of emission reduction/ mitigation actions.
Acea not only continues to implement a policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions and participates in the CDP, but in 2018 it organised some internal initiatives to raise awareness on Climate Change
and Carbon Disclosure. In particular, three meetings were held in September 2018:
- a session on “Climate Change: risks and tools”, conducted with the help of external professionals including a group of 12 people, managers and company representatives, on the topics of Energy/Environment and Risks. Among the aspects discussed: the international and national debate on climate change; the interest shown by investors in companies’ abilities to manage the issue; the potential and related impacts, risks and opportunities for a company like Acea;
- a presentation of the “CDP Questionnaire: activities and areas for improvement” with the support of specialised consultants, addressed to the Energy Managers (EM) and other company CDP specialists;
- a meeting led by specialists on the subject of “carbon pricing” and the possibility of using this variable among the elements used to assess the feasibility/convenience of a project: “Carbon Pricing: a strategic tool for enterprises”. The meeting was attended by the Energy Managers (EM) of the Group Companies and other persons responsible for relevant issues, for a total of 15 people.
As mentioned above, this year’s CDP score for the company – a B, “Management” level – is slightly lower than in 2017, although higher than the industry average (C). This slight regression, which also occurred for the majority of the Italian Utilities participating in the initiative, is partly due to the evolution of the assessment method, which is becoming more challenging year after year, with the aim of encouraging companies to continuously improve.
In fact, the Organisation is pushing towards the implementation of increasingly effective measures to reduce emissions of climatechanging gases (GHG), first and foremost CO2, so as to increase the effectiveness of the fight against climate change and its global consequences (see also the website https://www.cdp.net). Acea took the opportunity to share the CDP results internally in January 2019 102, with colleagues who worked on the questionnaire.
Acea has been conducting a survey on emissions along the supply chain for some years now, with the aim of raising suppliers’ awareness of the issue. In 2018 a questionnaire was administered to a panel of 114 suppliers 103 of “goods and services” and “works”, asking them, among other things, quantitative environmental information: fuels consumed for any ordinary processes and uses, energy consumed in offices, fuels consumed for transport (see the sections on Energy consumption outside the Group and Greenhouse gas emissions and also the chapter on Suppliers).
Over the last ten years, thanks to the commitment already described and to targeted initiatives like the increase in production from renewable energy sources, the increase in efficiency in the final internal use of energy and in process uses, the Group has achieved carbon intensity values (gCO2/kWh produced) that are among the lowest in Italy in the Utilities sector (see Table no. 60 on energy intensity indices).
 The results of the CDP 2018 scoring were made public on the web on 22 January 2019.
 The suppliers to whom the form was sent requesting data concerning the consumption of electricity and CO2 emissions (in order to quantify the Group’s Scope 3 type emissions) were identified, as was already done for 2016, among the most relevant in terms of turnover.