Carbon transparency in practice: how to approach CDP in 2026

5. 5. 2026

CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) reporting is no longer the domain of only the largest corporations. In the past year alone, more than 23,000 companies worldwide used it, collectively representing nearly two-thirds of global market capitalization. The reason is simple: investors, customers, and other stakeholders are increasingly monitoring how companies approach environmental risks and opportunities. CDP provides a transparent tool that allows them to do so easily and in one place.

At the same time, it doesn’t have to be only about external pressure on companies. A CDP report also helps organizations better understand their own carbon footprint, set meaningful targets, and communicate them more effectively with partners.

Author: Richard Fleischhans

Our experience

CI3, s.r.o. still holds the title of the only accredited CDP partner for the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We have been supporting CDP reporting itself for six years, and we have more than a decade of experience in carbon footprint calculation. We are certainly not newcomers in this field, and we are glad this is also one of the reasons clients regularly turn to us.

The Czech and Slovak companies we supported in completing their CDP reports last year achieved the highest ranking levels, all reaching at least a B rating. We know not only how to correctly complete the questionnaire, but also how to get the most value out of it—whether you are just starting with CDP or filling it out for the second or third time.

What to expect from the questionnaire

The CDP questionnaire consists of several sections: an introductory company profile, governance and management approach, risk and opportunity analysis, business strategy, value chain engagement, and reporting on carbon footprint, energy consumption, and decarbonization targets, followed by a final section.

Companies with fewer than 1,000 employees and annual revenue below 200 million USD can use a simplified version of the questionnaire. It covers all key areas, just in a more accessible format. This means that even smaller companies have a fully viable opportunity to participate.

CDP questionnaires cover multiple environmental areas—meaning all the sections mentioned can be completed from the perspective of climate change, water, and “forests” (which includes agricultural commodities, timber, coffee, rubber). Each of these perspectives has its own separate scoring. Which one you are expected to report on is determined either by your materiality assessment, CDP requirements (some sectors have certain themes pre-defined as material), or by the requirements of your business partner requesting the CDP disclosure.

Within CDP reporting, three types of companies can be distinguished.

The first group consists of companies that have been asked by one of their customers to complete the CDP questionnaire.

The carbon footprint of suppliers feeds into the indirect (Scope 3) emissions of their customers, while at the same time customers are exposed to climate-related risks within their supply chains. Large companies therefore often cooperate with CDP and require their suppliers to complete the questionnaire. The requesting company then gains access to the suppliers’ responses and results, allowing them to better manage or respond to climate risks and track emissions developments across their supply chain. The advantage for suppliers is that they do not have to pay to complete the questionnaire. Around 270 large companies cooperate with CDP in this way (e.g. Microsoft, L’Oréal, Walmart).

The second group includes large companies—often those active on financial markets—that are requested by “the market” to complete the CDP questionnaire.

CDP works with approximately 600 financial institutions, which each spring submit lists of companies they would like to see respond to the CDP questionnaire.

The list is anonymized, so it is not possible to see which specific institution has requested the disclosure. Companies should be informed of this request by CDP, but in practice this does not always work reliably. The list of companies that have been approached is public. If a company does not respond and does not participate in CDP reporting, it will not be scored. If it does participate, it must pay for access to the questionnaire (with a base fee of around 3,000 EUR), and its results and responses are then shared with the financial institutions, which typically use them for internal assessments.

The final—but no less important—group consists of voluntary participants.

CDP has a strong reputation, and achieving a good score already carries weight, as shown by the growing number of participating companies and financial institutions involved. Although participation is voluntary, these companies also pay for access to the questionnaire under the same conditions as market-requested entities. Participation is often seen as an opportunity to increase visibility and demonstrate that the company is preparing for future climate-related impacts and the expected transition away from fossil-fuel-based technologies.

Scoring within Climate Change

CDP scoring is relatively strict. It is based on four levels: disclosure (D score), awareness (C score), management (B score), and leadership (A score). Based on our experience with CDP reporting, the typical state of companies achieving each score can be described as follows:

Disclosure score (D score)
The company is able to complete most basic data fields. It either does not have a defined carbon footprint or only a partial one. There is no established carbon management system and no initiatives in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, achieving a D score (not D-) means the company has responsibly completed the questionnaire.

Awareness score (C score)
The company has a basic overview of its carbon footprint and is able to describe it. It has partially established processes or is in the early stages of setting them up for future carbon management. In its risk analysis, it begins to consider risks related to climate change.

Management score (B score)
The company has well-established processes for both carbon footprint calculation and its management. Top management is actively involved in decision-making and regularly evaluates emissions development. Climate-related risks and dependencies are fully integrated into risk analysis. The company also looks beyond its own operations, assessing suppliers and value chain risks. It can identify opportunities such as cost savings or new low-carbon products. The company has set sufficient emission reduction targets and is actively working on them.

Leadership score (A score)
The company has a carbon footprint verified by an independent auditor, or its entire sustainability report is externally verified. Climate change is a standard agenda item at board level. The company has ambitious emission reduction targets and a defined transition plan, and management compensation is linked to these targets. A significant share of its energy comes from renewable sources, and the company continuously implements measures to reduce emissions. It works closely with both suppliers and customers, requiring them not only to report emissions but also to demonstrate how they plan to reduce them in the future.

This description reflects an ideal situation in which a company has completed the questionnaire correctly and in full. However, due to its complexity—and unfortunately also its difficulty—it often happens that companies do not sufficiently describe the measures they have implemented or the internal policies they already have in place. As a result, they may fail to achieve a higher score, even if they have zero emissions and source all their energy from renewable sources.

Interlinkages with other sustainability reporting frameworks

CDP is connected to, or significantly overlaps with, other reporting frameworks, and in order to simplify the process for companies, it partially aligns itself with them and provides guidance on the extent of this overlap. Specifically, CDP is aligned with IFRS S2 and the TCFD recommendations, and it largely corresponds with the new European ESRS standards in the E1 section. It also partially overlaps with TCFD and GRI.

One of CDP’s key advantages is its stability. Year-on-year changes in questions or scoring are relatively small, making the questionnaire quite predictable. Once a company completes it, it can typically reuse around 60% of its responses the following year. At the same time, CDP aims to act as a pioneer among reporting platforms by incorporating emerging topics related to environmental dependencies and impacts. For this reason, the questionnaire also includes voluntary, non-scored sections on biodiversity, plastics, and—newly in 2026—oceans.

What’s new in 2026?

In 2025, there were minimal changes within CDP, as its main focus was “stability.” This applied both to the rollout of its new platform and likely also reflected broader international shifts in environmental policy. However, in 2026, we can expect more substantial changes.

A new section of questions focused on oceans will be added. As with biodiversity and plastics, this section is expected to remain voluntary and non-scored. CDP views these voluntary modules as preparation for companies for broader environmental topics beyond the currently dominant focus on climate change. The voluntary plastics section will also be expanded with additional questions.

Newly, commodities such as coffee, cocoa, and natural rubber will become scored elements, whereas last year they were only voluntary within the natural resources section. There will also be an expansion of questions addressing adaptation and resilience—meaning how companies are able to adapt to and manage the impacts of climate change.

For simplified questionnaires designed for smaller companies, the scope of questions related to water and natural resources will be expanded. At the same time, it will become possible to achieve an A rating even within this simplified version (previously, the highest possible score was B).

CDP will also aim to strengthen alignment with other frameworks, particularly TNFD and IFRS. In parallel, it is preparing for upcoming updates to the GHG Protocol, which are expected in the coming years. Once the GHG Protocol methodology is revised, CDP will adjust its questions accordingly, as they are closely tied to this methodology.

At the same time, a new GHG methodology for the agricultural sector and for carbon removal calculations is expected to be published this year. As a result, CDP will adjust related questions to reflect the updated methodology. These questions will, however, remain non-scored for a transitional period to allow companies time to familiarize themselves with the changes.

The CDP questionnaire is not something that can be completed in an afternoon. Its complexity lies not only in the number of questions, but primarily in the fact that achieving a good score requires clearly and accurately describing what the company actually does—in a way that the scoring system can properly recognize. Many companies lose points not because they are inactive in sustainability, but because they fail to express their actions in the required format.

At the same time, CDP integrates all relevant climate-related topics within a company into a single framework. Companies that participate gain a comprehensive overview of their climate-related impacts and risks, are better able to communicate them externally, and simplify reporting under other frameworks.

If you are approaching CDP for the first time or want to improve your score, we are happy to discuss it. The reporting window opens on June 15.