Standards and reporting
CDP Reporting
CDP reporting works best as a controlled response to a defined request, with the questionnaire edition, answer coverage and supporting evidence kept visible.
What does CDP reporting involve?
Organisations disclose through CDP’s portal in response to a request or through self-disclosure, using the relevant questionnaire and cycle guidance CDP Disclosure 2026 CDP how to disclose.
Module 01 / 03
Requester
Understand who is asking for information.
Module 02 / 03
Response
Identify the relevant organisation and questionnaire.
Module 03 / 03
Evidence
Prepare supported answers and a review record.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
A CDP response is a defined disclosure task rather than a synonym for the organisation’s entire sustainability report.
CDP describes requests from customers, capital markets signatories, banks or initiatives, and also a self-selected route for organisations that have not received a request CDP disclosure routes.
An editorial project brief should identify the request and responsible team before assigning every environmental question to the carbon-accounting owner.
Use the sustainability reporting standards hub to keep the CDP submission alongside, rather than silently in place of, any separate reporting requirements.
What should the initial response brief record?
This editorial brief prevents the team from answering for the wrong organisation, period or purpose.
| Evidence question | Review approach | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Request | Named requester and intended response | Assuming every customer needs the same output |
| Organisation | Entity or group being represented | Using a subsidiary record as a group-wide answer |
| Cycle | Questionnaire edition and current guidance | Reusing an old workbook without review |
| Ownership | Contributor, reviewer and submission lead | Treating portal access as evidence approval |
Which questionnaire and version should be used?
CDP publishes full corporate and SME materials and a version-control table recording revisions during the cycle, so edition control belongs in the evidence file CDP Question Bank CDP 2026 version-control table.
Module 01 / 03
Route
Confirm the relevant questionnaire.
Module 02 / 03
Revision
Record the guidance version used.
Module 03 / 03
Change
Review copied answers against current wording.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The 2026 key-changes document identifies changes across environmental issues and questionnaire setup, which makes a prior-year answer an input to review rather than an automatically valid response CDP Key Changes 2026.
A useful response register includes the question reference, requested period, relevant definition and source record behind the answer.
Do not copy question numbers from a different questionnaire route and assume that the conditional questions or required explanations are identical.
Keep the decision about the relevant route and edition visible so a later reviewer can distinguish an outdated response from an unsupported one.
How should a copied answer be reviewed?
These editorial checks test whether the old answer still addresses the current request.
| Evidence question | Review approach | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Compare wording and relevant guidance | Matching only the old question number |
| Period | Check the date and reporting-year basis | Changing the year label without changing the evidence |
| Coverage | Confirm entity and environmental scope | Assuming a prior-year boundary remains valid |
| Explanation | Review limitations and changes | Carrying forward an obsolete improvement promise |
Why is the reporting boundary important?
CDP’s questionnaire separates organisational context, consolidation approach and environmental information, making coverage and definitions necessary to interpreting the answer CDP 2026 full corporate module structure.
Module 01 / 03
Entity
Name the reporting organisation.
Module 02 / 03
Period
Identify the information’s dates.
Module 03 / 03
Basis
Explain relevant consolidation and method choices.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
In an original fictional case, a media-services group receives environmental records from its permanent offices and from temporary production activities managed through different teams.
Its coordinator finds that an answer described as group-wide actually reflects only permanent-office information and asks for the scope to be corrected before review.
The example is about response coverage and does not assume that all temporary activities have the same accounting treatment.
A reviewer needs enough information to understand what an answer includes and excludes rather than inferring completeness from a polished total.
What does the fictional coverage review change?
This editorial case distinguishes a supported narrow answer from an unsupported broad claim.
| Evidence question | Review approach | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Original wording | We cover all group activities | The evidence only covers permanent offices |
| Evidence check | Identify what each contributor supplied | Temporary activity records remain a separate gap |
| Revision | State the supported coverage and limitation | Do not invent a complete total |
| Follow-up | Assign the unresolved boundary review | Do not silently treat missing information as zero |
What belongs behind each submitted answer?
CDP’s scoring process considers information in the response, with the stated exception of the SBTi target database, so an external report link cannot replace a complete answer CDP 2026 scoring principles.
Module 01 / 03
Source
Retain the original record.
Module 02 / 03
Interpretation
Explain the answer’s basis and limitations.
Module 03 / 03
Review
Keep the accepted version and reviewer.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The fictional group links each drafted answer to the evidence used, including approved narrative, relevant calculations and the decision about scope.
The working evidence file can be more detailed than the submitted response, but the response still needs to contain the information requested by the applicable question.
An editorial reviewer tests whether a sentence describes an approved policy, an implemented action or a measured result, because these are different evidential stages.
A CDP reporting software brief can request answer-version history and evidence exports, without assuming that a product guarantees a complete or scored response.
Which answer problems should be challenged?
This editorial review tests clarity and support rather than predicting a CDP score.
| Evidence question | Review approach | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Policy statement | Identify the approved scope and current version | A draft described as implemented |
| Quantitative answer | Trace period, coverage and calculation | An unexplained number copied from a slide |
| Progress claim | Identify the actual result and limitation | A planned action presented as completed |
| Referenced evidence | Ensure the answer itself contains required information | Only linking to a long external report |
What can a CDP score establish?
CDP assesses responses against its scoring methodology but states that neither CDP nor its scoring partners verify the information in an individual response CDP 2026 scoring principles.
Module 01 / 03
Methodology
Read the relevant scoring basis.
Module 02 / 03
Status
Distinguish submission from a released score.
Module 03 / 03
Limits
Do not describe a score as verification.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
CDP scores are not a statutory reporting approval or an assurance conclusion, and the score should not be presented as proof that every underlying figure is correct.
The 2026 scores page distinguishes the SME climate A score from the full corporate A score and says they are not equivalent CDP scores, SME comparison.
As at 26 October 2026, avoid presenting a predicted 2026 score as an already released result, and check the current cycle information before making a dated claim CDP 2026 cycle information.
No score bands, target score or promised uplift are supplied in this guide, because the task is to improve the supported response rather than market a guaranteed outcome.
How should response and score language differ?
This editorial wording review prevents submission activity from being mistaken for verified performance.
| Evidence question | Review approach | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Response prepared | A draft has been assembled | We have achieved a CDP rating |
| Response submitted | A specified cycle response was submitted | Our data has been independently verified |
| Score released | Use the actual theme, cycle and relevant score basis | An undated company-wide sustainability certification |
| Improvement planned | Describe the planned evidence or process change | A guaranteed next-cycle score |
Who should approve the actual portal response?
CDP’s disclosure process distinguishes preparing answers from the submission step, so an editorial sign-off should inspect the actual response rather than only a parallel working document CDP how to disclose.
Module 01 / 03
Draft
Review the accepted answer wording.
Module 02 / 03
Settings
Check the relevant response choices.
Module 03 / 03
Record
Retain what was actually submitted.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
In the fictional group, the reporting coordinator compares the accepted narrative with the portal version before submission so a late copy-and-paste change does not remove an important qualification.
The team records who accepted any remaining limitation and preserves the submitted version for later comparison, without claiming that sign-off independently verifies the underlying data.
What should the final comparison inspect?
This editorial submission check makes the accepted response distinct from a working draft.
| Evidence question | Review approach | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative | Does the portal retain the accepted qualification? | A shorter answer that silently expands coverage |
| Numbers | Do values match the approved version? | An unreviewed late replacement |
| Choices | Were the relevant settings reviewed? | Assuming a previous cycle’s choices carry forward |
Does CDP alignment replace another reporting standard?
CDP describes IFRS S2 as its climate-disclosure baseline, while IFRS S2 contains its own requirements, so alignment should not be turned into an automatic compliance claim CDP framework alignment IFRS S2, objective and requirements.
Module 01 / 03
Common evidence
Identify reusable environmental records.
Module 02 / 03
Different output
Apply the destination’s own requirements.
Module 03 / 03
Clear statement
Use only the claim the actual report supports.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The fictional media-services group may reuse checked information in a corporate report, but it keeps the CDP answer and any investor-reporting disclosure as separately reviewed outputs.
A framework label in the portal does not establish that the group has met every requirement of UK SRS, IFRS S2 or another reporting basis.
CDP’s FAQs also address response choices and disclosure arrangements, so review the relevant settings and terms before submission rather than assuming every working attachment is intended for public release CDP disclosure FAQs.
Read ESG standards for the distinction between a reporting basis, a questionnaire and a claim before reusing the submission in a broader corporate statement.
How can the team prepare a controlled response?
This is an editorial preparation sequence rather than a prescribed assessment method or a conformity checklist.
- 101
Identify the request
Confirm requester, organisation and intended disclosure route. - 202
Record the edition
Use the relevant questionnaire and current version guidance. - 303
Assign the questions
Name contributors and reviewers according to the information needed. - 404
Define the basis
Record reporting period, coverage, consolidation and relevant definitions. - 505
Collect supported answers
Link narrative and numbers to the evidence actually available. - 606
Review the gaps
Explain limitations and assign unresolved questions without inventing zeroes. - 707
Check the response
Test that required information is in the answer rather than only an external link. - 808
Approve the submission
Review wording, settings and the accepted response version. - 909
Preserve the record
Keep the submitted answer, evidence references and follow-up actions for the next cycle.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask
What is CDP reporting?
It is disclosure through CDP’s system using the relevant questionnaire, whether responding to a request or using a self-selected route.
Is the SME A score equivalent to the full corporate A score?
No, CDP expressly says its SME A score is not equivalent to the full corporate questionnaire A score.
Can we copy last year’s response?
Use it as a reviewed starting point, because questionnaire and guidance revisions are recorded during the cycle.
Will a sustainability-report link provide the answer for scoring?
CDP states that outside information is not considered for scoring apart from its stated SBTi database exception, so provide the requested information in the response.
Does a CDP score verify our data?
No, CDP says neither it nor its scoring partners verify the information in an individual response.
Does CDP alignment establish IFRS S2 compliance?
No, compare the actual disclosures against IFRS S2’s own requirements rather than treating alignment as automatic compliance.
Sources
Primary sources
Primary provisions and official owner guidance checked on 26 October 2026; historical and draft resources are labelled in the guide.
- CDPCDP Disclosure 2026
- CDPHow to disclose
- CDPOur Question Bank
- CDPCorporate Questionnaire Version Control Table 2026 V 1.2
- CDPKey Changes 2026 Questionnaire
- CDPFull Corporate Scoring Introduction 2026 V 1.2
- CDPScores and scoring limitations
- CDPFramework alignment
- CDPDisclosure FAQs
- IFRS FoundationIFRS S2 issued text,2025 edition
Continue reading
Read next
CDP reporting software
Test answer control and evidence exports.
ESG questionnaires
Define recipient requests and supported answers.
ESG standards
Keep reporting bases and claims distinct.
Sustainability software
Assess the wider reporting workflow.
IFRS S2
Read the separate climate-disclosure requirements.