CDP scores more than 24,800 companies every year on their environmental transparency and action. That score, a letter grade from D- to A, shapes how investors evaluate your climate commitments, whether you qualify for supply chain contracts, and where you stand against competitors. Yet most companies submitting to CDP have no clear picture of how the CDP scoring methodology actually works.
This guide breaks down the four scoring levels, the essential criteria that cap your score at each stage, and the physical risk disclosure section (question 3.1.1, formerly C2.3a) where many organizations lose the most points. Whether you scored a D last year or you are pushing toward the A-List, understanding the scoring mechanics is the first step toward a better result.
What Is a CDP Score?
A CDP score is a letter grade from D- to A assigned by the Carbon Disclosure Project, the world’s largest environmental disclosure platform. The score measures how completely and effectively an organization reports on climate change, forests, or water security. CDP assigns separate scores for each environmental issue, so a company can hold a B for climate change and a C for water security.
In 2024, more than 24,800 companies disclosed through CDP. Of those, roughly 400 earned a place on the A-List, CDP’s recognition for top-performing organizations. The remaining companies fall somewhere between F (failed to respond) and A- (Leadership level, but below the A-List threshold). See the CDP 2026 report findings for a deeper look at global disclosure trends.
CDP Disclosure Score vs A-List Rating
The CDP disclosure score and the A-List rating are related but distinct. Your disclosure score is the letter grade itself, ranging from D- through A, based on how you perform across four progressive levels. Every company that responds to the CDP questionnaire receives a disclosure score.
The A-List is a separate recognition. To qualify, a company must first reach the A band (80% or higher at the Leadership level) and then pass additional A-List checks that CDP introduced in 2024. These checks test for transition plans, verified emissions data, and supply chain engagement. In 2024, 416 of 24,800 disclosing companies (1.7%) earned A-List recognition according to CDP’s published results.
| Score | Level | What It Measures | Calculation Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| D- | Disclosure | Reporting completeness (1-49%) | Simple percentage |
| D | Disclosure | Reporting completeness (50-79%) | Simple percentage |
| C- | Awareness | Evaluation breadth (1-44%) | Simple percentage |
| C | Awareness | Evaluation breadth (45-79%) | Simple percentage |
| B- | Management | Environmental management (1-44%) | Weighted percentage |
| B | Management | Environmental management (45-79%) | Weighted percentage |
| A- | Leadership | Best practice (1-79%) | Weighted percentage |
| A | Leadership | Best practice (80-100%) | Weighted percentage |
| F | Failure | Failed to respond or insufficient data | N/A |
Sample Climate Risk Assessment
See a full climate risk assessment, end to end
We’ll email you a complete worked example for a manufacturing site: 12 hazards, multiple scenarios, and value-at-risk out to 2050. It shows what a full climate risk assessment output looks like.
CDP Scoring Methodology: Four Levels Explained
CDP uses a progressive four-level system. Each level assesses a different dimension of environmental performance, and you must reach a minimum threshold at one level before CDP evaluates you at the next. A company cannot skip ahead to Leadership without first demonstrating Disclosure, Awareness, and Management.
Level 1: Disclosure (D-/D)
The Disclosure level measures completeness. CDP checks whether you answered the questions and provided the requested data points. Scoring is straightforward: points awarded divided by points available, expressed as a percentage. Nearly every question in the questionnaire is scored for Disclosure.
Score a percentage between 1% and 49%, and you receive a D-. Reach 50% to 79%, and your Disclosure grade moves to D. Hitting 80% or above at Disclosure opens the gate to the next level.
Level 2: Awareness (C-/C)
Awareness measures whether you understand how climate issues intersect with your business. CDP looks for evidence that you have identified risks and opportunities, mapped them to your value chain, and assessed their relevance.
Scoring here is still a simple percentage, but the questions are different. A C- requires 1% to 44% at the Awareness level; a C requires 45% to 79%. Reaching 80% or higher at Awareness moves you into Management territory. One critical distinction: an Awareness score does not mean you have taken action. It only shows that you have evaluated the landscape.
Level 3: Management (B-/B)
Management is where CDP starts looking for evidence of action. Scoring shifts from simple percentages to weighted percentages, with different weightings by sector. CDP assesses whether you have implemented processes to manage the risks and opportunities you identified at the Awareness level.
For physical risk specifically, the Management tier scores your assessment on the breadth of coverage. Each populated element, meaning all three time horizons (short, medium, and long-term) and at least three distinct risk types spanning both acute and chronic categories, earns points under question 3.1.1. Thin coverage does not trip a hard gate, but it lowers your Management-level percentage.
A B- requires 1% to 44%, and a B requires 45% to 79%.
Level 4: Leadership (A-/A)
Leadership assesses best practice. CDP evaluates whether your strategies and actions go beyond standard management and align with what leading organizations are doing. Scoring remains weighted.
An A- covers 1% to 79% at this level. Reaching 80% or above earns an A, qualifying you for potential A-List recognition, provided you also pass CDP’s additional A-List checks.
Essential Criteria: The Gates That Cap Your Score
Starting in 2024, CDP introduced essential criteria at the Awareness, Management, and Leadership levels. These act as hard gates: if you fail to meet the essential criteria at a given level, your final score is capped at the level below, regardless of how well you performed on other questions. CDP’s 2026 essential criteria document states the cap rule directly:
“If a criterion is applied to Awareness level and the check is not met, this will limit an organization’s final score to a D. Similarly, if the Awareness essential criteria are met and the Management level criteria are not met, the final score will be capped at a C.”
In plain terms, each level has its own pass/fail checks, and failing one caps your final grade at the level below, no matter how well you scored elsewhere.
The logic behind this system is straightforward: CDP wants to prevent organizations from scoring well in isolated areas while leaving critical gaps in their disclosure. A company with detailed emissions data but no climate risk assessment cannot progress past a D.
| Level | If Criteria NOT Met | Score Capped At | Practical Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Missing climate risk evaluation or identification process | D | Cannot reach C- or higher |
| Management | Missing board or management oversight of climate issues (EC-CC3) | C | Cannot reach B- or higher |
| Leadership | Missing best practice evidence (transition plan, verified emissions, engagement) | A- | Cannot reach A |
| A-List | Missing A-List checks (new in 2024) | A | A score but no A-List recognition |
The Awareness essential criteria, for example, require that you have a process for identifying and assessing environmental risks (question 2.2.1) and that you have disclosed at least one climate-related risk or opportunity. Without these two elements, CDP caps you at D.
For the 2026 cycle, CDP relaxed this gate. The requirement to have a process for identifying, assessing, and managing climate risks (EC-CC1 for most sectors, EC-CC2 for financial institutions) now applies at Awareness only, not at Management or Leadership. The surviving essential criterion at Management is board or management oversight of climate issues (EC-CC3). Leadership then adds third-party emissions verification (EC-CC17) and a public questionnaire response (EC-CC32). The CDP reporting requirements guide covers the full questionnaire structure and submission process.
Physical Risk Disclosure (Question 3.1.1): Where Most Points Are Won or Lost
Question 3.1.1 is the detailed per-risk disclosure table, and it is one of the most data-intensive parts of the CDP questionnaire. For every physical climate risk you identify, CDP asks for ten specific data points. Incomplete entries directly lower your score at the Awareness and Management levels.
| # | Data Point | What CDP Expects | Scoring Tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Risk identifier | Unique label (Risk1 through Risk100) | Disclosure |
| 2 | Value chain location | Direct operations, upstream, downstream, or financial portfolio | Awareness |
| 3 | Risk categorization | Acute physical or chronic physical | Awareness |
| 4 | Primary climate risk driver | Selection from 29-hazard dropdown | Awareness |
| 5 | Potential financial impact | Revenue, costs, assets, or capital expenditure | Management |
| 6 | Time horizons | Short-term, medium-term, and/or long-term | Management |
| 7 | Likelihood | 6-level scale: Virtually certain to Exceptionally unlikely | Management |
| 8 | Impact magnitude | High, Medium-high, Medium, Medium-low, or Low | Management |
| 9 | Financial quantification | Dollar figures where calculable | Leadership |
| 10 | Response cost and strategy | Description of mitigation or adaptation actions | Leadership |
The “primary climate risk driver” field (data point #4) pulls from a dropdown of 29 physical climate hazards, split between 16 acute and 13 chronic types. Selecting the correct hazard for each risk entry is critical for Awareness-level scoring. The table below lists all 29 options and identifies which ones can be populated using automated physical risk assessment platforms.
| Type | CDP Hazard | Auto-Assessed? | Matching Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acute | Avalanche | ||
| Acute | Cold wave/frost | Yes | Cold Stress |
| Acute | Cyclone, hurricane, typhoon | ||
| Acute | Drought | Yes | Drought |
| Acute | Flood (coastal) | Yes | Sea Level Rise |
| Acute | Flood (fluvial/riverine) | Yes | River Flood |
| Acute | Flood (pluvial/surface water) | ||
| Acute | Flood (groundwater) | ||
| Acute | Glacial lake outburst flood | ||
| Acute | Heat wave | Yes | Heat Wave |
| Acute | Heavy precipitation (rain, hail, snow/ice) | Yes | Extreme Rainfall |
| Acute | Landslide | Yes | Landslide |
| Acute | Storm (incl. blizzards, dust, sandstorms) | Yes | Severe Storm |
| Acute | Subsidence | ||
| Acute | Tornado | ||
| Acute | Wildfire | Yes | Wildfire |
| Chronic | Changing precipitation patterns | Yes | Precipitation Change |
| Chronic | Changing temperature (air, freshwater, marine) | Yes | Temperature Change |
| Chronic | Changing wind patterns | ||
| Chronic | Coastal erosion | ||
| Chronic | Heat stress | Yes | Heat Wave |
| Chronic | Ocean acidification | ||
| Chronic | Permafrost thawing | ||
| Chronic | Sea level rise | Yes | Sea Level Rise |
| Chronic | Soil degradation | ||
| Chronic | Soil erosion | ||
| Chronic | Solifluction | ||
| Chronic | Water scarcity | Yes | Drought |
| Chronic | Water stress | Yes | Water Stress |
Leading climate risk assessment platforms cover 12 to 15 of these 29 physical hazards, mapping to 18 dropdown options (62%). The remaining 11 hazards (avalanche, cyclone, pluvial flooding, groundwater flooding, glacial lake outburst, subsidence, tornado, wind pattern changes, coastal erosion, ocean acidification, permafrost thawing, soil degradation, soil erosion, and solifluction) tend to affect a narrower set of industries and geographies.
How Physical Risk Data Maps to CDP Scores
Physical risk disclosure touches multiple scoring tiers. At Disclosure, CDP simply checks whether you listed your risks. At Awareness, CDP evaluates whether you categorized each risk as acute or chronic and selected the correct hazard driver from the dropdown. At Management, the bar rises considerably.
| Scoring Tier | Physical Risk Requirement | Data You Need |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosure | List identified physical risks | Hazard names |
| Awareness | Categorize as acute/chronic, select hazard driver | Hazard classification + question 3.1.1 dropdown selection |
| Management | Cover 3+ risk types, both acute and chronic, all 3 time horizons, value chain mapping | Multi-hazard, multi-horizon site-level assessment |
| Leadership | Financial quantification, response strategy, scenario integration (question 5.1) | Monetary damage estimates + adaptation action plans |
The Management tier is where most organizations get stuck. CDP requires your risk assessment to span short, medium, and long-term time horizons and cover at least three distinct risk types that include both acute and chronic hazards. A single-hazard assessment or one that only looks at the next five years will not pass.
Platforms like Continuuiti assess 12 physical climate hazards across SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios with three time horizons (2030, 2040, 2050), covering both acute events (floods, heat waves, wildfires, storms) and chronic shifts (temperature change, precipitation change, water stress). That output maps directly to CDP’s question 3.1.1 “primary climate risk driver” dropdown, satisfying the Management-tier requirement for multi-hazard, multi-horizon coverage across the value chain.
For Leadership, CDP expects financial quantification where possible. Flood damage estimates, for example, can populate the financial impact fields in question 3.1.1. Scenario analysis under the scenario analysis question (5.1) connects your physical risk data to TCFD-aligned scenarios, which CDP accepts when based on IPCC SSP pathways.
Within question 3.1.1, the Management-tier financial-quantification point is awarded only when the company meets all of the following: it selects “Yes” to being able to quantify the financial effect of the risk, provides minimum figures for each applicable time horizon (short, medium, and long-term), and enters a figure greater than zero in the reporting-year and maximum columns. A separate point is available for a cost-of-response figure. In plain terms, a qualitative-only risk row forfeits the Management financial-quantification points, even when every other cell is filled. These per-point mechanics carry forward from CDP’s 2025 scoring methodology pending release of the full 2026 scoring methodology.
What Changed for the 2026 Cycle
CDP released the provisional Climate Change Scoring Essential Criteria 2026 on 30 April 2026 (v1.0). Three changes affect how scores are calculated this cycle.
The risks-and-opportunities gate softened. CDP removed the EC-CC1 and EC-CC2 essential criteria, which cover whether an organization has a process to identify, assess, and manage climate risks, at the Management and Leadership levels. They now apply at Awareness only. CDP describes the change in its own words:
“The most significant change to the 2026 Climate Change essential criteria is the removal of EC-CC1 and EC-CC2 at both the Management and Leadership level. These essential criteria were removed after an annual review of all of CDP’s essential criteria ahead of the 2026 cycle… There are otherwise minimal changes to the content of the 2026 CDP essential criteria for Climate Change.”
In plain terms, simply having a risk-identification process now counts only as an Awareness-level check. Physical-risk depth still earns its points at Management and Leadership. The floor moved; the differentiator did not.
The criteria now name specific response options. Where the 2025 essential criteria described the actions each scoring level rewarded, the 2026 criteria specify the exact response options that must be selected within each named question, and CDP added tags to the 2026 Full Corporate questionnaire to signpost which questions carry essential criteria. The pass/fail checks are now mechanically auditable, field by field.
The 2026 criteria are provisional. The April 2026 release is labelled v1.0 and may revise before the response window opens. The full 2026 scoring methodology has not been released, so the per-point mechanics on this page carry 2025 continuity pending that release.
The questionnaire continues to align closely with IFRS S2 physical risk requirements, so companies preparing for ISSB compliance will find significant overlap in the data they need for CDP. For physical risk disclosure, the question 3.1.1 structure carries forward: the 29-hazard dropdown, the 10 data points per risk, and the Management-tier thresholds remain in place pending the 2026 full scoring methodology, so organizations can reuse the physical risk data pipeline they built for last year’s submission.
Common Mistakes That Lower CDP Scores
Five errors show up repeatedly in CDP submissions that fall short of Management level, based on CDP’s scoring guidance and common question 3.1.1 failure patterns.
1. Incomplete question 3.1.1 tables. Leaving time horizons blank or skipping the value chain location field means your risk entry scores zero at the Management level. Every row in question 3.1.1 needs all ten data points to earn full credit.
2. Mixing up likelihood and magnitude. CDP treats these as two separate scales. Likelihood runs from “Virtually certain” to “Exceptionally unlikely.” Magnitude runs from “High” to “Low.” Organizations that report a single combined risk rating without separating these dimensions lose Management-level points.
3. No financial quantification. Many organizations stop at qualitative risk descriptions. Without dollar figures in the financial quantification field, you cannot progress from Management to Leadership. Even rough estimates with disclosed methodology score better than blank fields.
4. Skipping scenario analysis. The scenario analysis question (5.1) asks for scenario analysis aligned with TCFD recommendations. Leaving this section blank removes a key pathway to Leadership scoring. CDP accepts IPCC SSP scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP5-8.5) for physical risk analysis.
5. Generic risk descriptions. Writing “flood risk affects our operations” without specifying which locations, which type of flooding (coastal, riverine, pluvial), or which time horizon tells CDP nothing actionable. Location-specific, hazard-specific data scores higher at every tier.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a CDP score?
A CDP score is a letter grade from D- to A assigned by the Carbon Disclosure Project based on your environmental disclosure. CDP evaluates climate change, forests, and water security separately, so organizations receive a distinct score for each environmental issue they report on. An F means the organization failed to respond.
What is a good CDP score?
A B or higher indicates active environmental management. A- and A signal leadership-level performance. Only about 1.7% of disclosing organizations reach the A-List, which requires an A score (80% or higher at Leadership level) plus additional A-List checks introduced in 2024.
How is the CDP score calculated?
CDP uses a progressive four-level system. Disclosure and Awareness levels use simple percentage scoring (points awarded divided by points available). Management and Leadership levels use weighted percentages with sector-specific weightings. You must pass minimum thresholds at each level before advancing to the next.
What are the CDP scoring levels?
CDP has four scoring levels: Disclosure (D-/D) measures reporting completeness, Awareness (C-/C) measures evaluation breadth, Management (B-/B) measures environmental management actions, and Leadership (A-/A) measures best practice alignment. Essential criteria gates at each level can cap your score if critical data points are missing.
What is the difference between a CDP score and the CDP A-List?
The CDP score is the letter grade every responding organization receives. The A-List is a separate recognition tier for organizations that score A (80% or higher at Leadership level) and pass additional A-List checks covering transition plans, verified emissions, and supply chain engagement.
How often does CDP update its scoring methodology?
CDP updates its scoring methodology annually. The 2025 version introduced a fully integrated questionnaire combining climate change, forests, and water security into a single submission. The 2024 version introduced essential criteria across all scoring levels for the first time. The provisional 2026 cycle removed the EC-CC1 and EC-CC2 risk-and-opportunity criteria at Management and Leadership, leaving them at Awareness only, and shifted the criteria toward naming the specific response options that must be selected. Core scoring logic (four progressive tiers with weighted percentages) has remained consistent since 2019.
Free Climate Risk Report
Run a free climate risk assessment for your location
12 hazards across multiple emission scenarios and four time horizons, for any site. Start free, no call required.
Key Takeaways
CDP scoring methodology rewards structured, data-driven environmental disclosure. The four-tier progression from Disclosure to Leadership tests completeness first, then understanding, then action, then best practice. Essential criteria gates introduced in 2024 mean that failing a level’s specific checks can cap your entire score; for 2026, the risk-and-opportunity process check applies at Awareness only.
For physical risk, the risk-row question (3.1.1) is where most organizations lose ground. Covering at least three hazard types across both acute and chronic categories, spanning all three time horizons, and providing financial quantification where possible will move you from Awareness through Management toward Leadership. Start there.
