CDP is an environmental information disclosure system. Companies may be invited to fill in responses due to investor, customer or supply chain requirements, or they may evaluate voluntary disclosures. The questionnaire will be updated every year, and answers from last year cannot be copied directly to the new year.
CDP doesn’t just ask about carbon emission numbers
The corporate questionnaire will focus on governance, strategy, environmental risks and opportunities, policy participation, emissions inventory, goals, actions and value chain management. Corporate disclosures in 2026 will also continue to be aligned with frameworks such as ISSB, ESRS and TNFD. Companies should support different disclosures based on a common data base.
Please confirm the boundary before filling in the answer
The reporting period, organizational scope, financial information and emissions boundaries should be consistent. If CDP, sustainability reports and financial reports use different scopes, the differences must be explained, otherwise multiple versions of the same indicator may easily appear.
Common sources of information
- Board and management oversight and accountability.
- Identification, assessment and financial impacts of climate and environmental risks.
- Scope 1, 2, 3 emissions and calculation methods.
- Reduction goals, progress and transformation plan.
- Energy use, renewable energy and reduction projects.
- Supplier negotiations, customer needs and value chain information.
- Applicable issues such as water, forests, biodiversity and plastics.
Don’t leave the answer task to one person
The sustainability team can be responsible for overall coordination, but governance, finance, procurement, factory affairs, human resources and risk departments all need to provide information. It is recommended to establish the person responsible for the topic, data sources, reviewers and deadlines, and save each modification and supporting evidence.
Rating is not the only purpose
Companies should confirm whether disclosures are true, consistent and provable before discussing scores. If there is no institutional support for commitment in order to increase scores, it will be more difficult to answer progress questions in subsequent years.
Suggested preparation methods
First download the current year’s questionnaire and scoring method, and compare the answers with last year to make an inventory of differences; then map the questions to the company’s existing policies, data and evidence, identify gaps and arrange for reinforcements. After completing the first draft, also check whether the boundaries, numbers and narrative of different chapters are consistent.
If CDP responses can share data with sustainability reports, IFRS S2 and internal carbon management, it can transform from annual form completion to a continuous environmental management and decision-making process.
What should companies prepare before importing or adopting?
Enterprises should not start directly from the articles or questionnaires, but should first confirm the purpose of introduction, scope of application, expected deliverables and external deadlines. Then take stock of the existing systems, data sources, responsible departments and review processes to find out the current capabilities and real gaps. If you face customers, regulations, disclosure and verification requirements at the same time, you must first confirm whether the boundaries and nouns used by them are consistent.
It is recommended to complete at least the following preparations:
- Designate project leaders and cross-department windows.
- Confirm applicable companies, sites, products or scope of activities.
- Establish a list of necessary information, documents and evidence.
- Inventory of existing policies, procedures, forms and information systems.
- Confirm external validation, evaluation or customer delivery deadlines.
- Design version, permissions, review and exception handling methods.
How to arrange cross-department division of labor?
The sustainability or management system team can be responsible for standard interpretation and overall coordination, but cannot provide information for all departments. Senior managers are responsible for direction and resources; operating units confirm processes and actual controls; finance provides cost and organizational information; procurement and supply chain management external information; information units maintain authority and systems; internal audit or legal affairs assists in checking systems and regulatory risks.
In addition to listing the person in charge, the division of labor table should also include delivery content, frequency, reviewers, and overdue processing. This prevents the project from relying on the memories of a small number of contractors.
Common import errors
Only to obtain certificates or complete customer requirements
If the system does not include procurement, operations, investment and personnel management, documents will still be temporarily added before the audit, and it will be difficult to continue to improve after the results are obtained.
Move existing forms online intact
Before digitization, fields, definitions, responsibilities and review rules must be unified, otherwise it will just turn scattered chaos into online chaos.
All data require the highest accuracy
Resources should be allocated based on materiality and risk. Key projects use more rigorous primary data and review, while low-risk projects adopt reasonable methods and explain limitations.
The file is written completely, but I don’t know how to execute it on site.
Procedures should respond to actual work, and the effectiveness of the system should be confirmed through training, trials, internal audits and management reviews.
Which enterprises or usage scenarios is it suitable for?
- An explicit request has been received from the customer, the group or the competent authority.
- Multi-site or cross-department data lacks unified caliber for a long time.
- The existing system relies on Excel, Email and personal experience.
- Be prepared to undergo third-party verification, evaluation or audit.
- Looking to transition annual delivery work into day-to-day management.
- The need for consistent data to support decision-making and continuous improvement.
How to check the import effect?
In addition to whether the verification is completed, the data punctuality rate, missing rate, number of returns, abnormal improvement time, review preparation time, and management decision-making usage should also be observed. Whether the system can continue to operate in the next year usually reflects the quality of the introduction better than whether the first delivery went smoothly.
From understanding the requirements to actual implementation, it can be divided into four stages.
The first stage is to define the purpose. Enterprises must first confirm whether the introduction of this standard is to respond to customer requirements, establish internal management systems, prepare for third-party verification, or support sustainability reporting and reduction decisions. Depending on the purpose, the depth of data, participating departments, and schedule will also be different. If the goal is only written as “obtaining certificates” at the beginning, the implementation process will easily focus on documents and ignore whether the system can continue to operate.
The second stage is to take stock of the current situation. In addition to confirming the existing forms and operating procedures, it is also necessary to find out who generated the data, at what point in time it was obtained, who reviewed it, and what current gaps there are. Many companies do not have no data at all, but the data is scattered in different departments, and the definitions and versions are inconsistent. Drawing the current situation into a process first can help you better identify areas that really need improvement than adding a large number of forms at once.
The third stage is to establish the system and pilot it. Enterprises can first select a factory, product or management unit to test to confirm whether the rights and responsibilities, calculation logic and document hierarchy are reasonable, and then gradually expand. The discovery of problems during the pilot does not mean that the system has failed, but it can prevent errors from being replicated throughout the organization. At this time, the basis for judgment, exception handling and change records should also be kept simultaneously so that subsequent audits can be traced.
The fourth stage is regular review. Standardized management is not a one-time project. Enterprises still need to continuously confirm whether the system is effective through internal audits, management reviews, performance indicators and corrective measures. When organizational boundaries, equipment, suppliers or regulatory requirements change, information and procedures must be updated in a timely manner so that the system can keep up with actual operations.
Frequently asked questions when importing
Do I have to create all files from scratch?
Usually not required. Most of the existing procurement, equipment, quality, financial or environmental safety and health processes already contain data and control points that can be used. A more pragmatic approach is to first identify the gaps between the existing system and standard requirements, and then strengthen the missing rights and responsibilities, evidence and tracking methods. This not only reduces the import burden, but also makes it easier for colleagues to accept it.
Does having a system mean it can meet the standards?
The system can assist in centralizing data, controlling versions, retaining tracks, and producing reports, but it cannot determine management boundaries, materiality judgments, or division of responsibilities for the enterprise. Systems, talents, and tools need to be designed together so that there will not be a situation where “the system has data, but the site doesn’t know why it needs to be filled in.”
How complete should the first import be?
The point is not to make all the details the most complicated at once, but to first establish a basic structure that is executable, reviewable, and sustainable for improvement. Enterprises can prioritize areas with greater impact, more mature data, or higher external attention, and then deepen them year by year based on risks and resources.