CDP Full Corporate Scoring Introduction 2024

CDP Full Corporate Scoring Introduction 2024 - Version
Control
VersionnumberRelease/revision date

Revision summary

1.0

14/06/2024

First version

1.1

08/08/2024

Correction to section ‘Calculation of a final score’: Management
scoring thresholds for Forests corrected to align acrossenvironmental issues

Contents
CDP Full Corporate Scoring Introduction 2024 ............................................................................... 1
CDP Full Corporate Scoring Introduction 2024 - Version Control ................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
Principles of scoring .................................................................................................................... 5
Scoring of responses................................................................................................................... 5
Other scoring resources .............................................................................................................. 5
Scoring of the full corporate questionnaire .................................................................................... 6
Scoring an integrated questionnaire ............................................................................................ 6
Forests scoring ....................................................................................................................6
Full and SME corporate questionnaires ....................................................................................... 7
CDP questionnaire sectors and scoring ....................................................................................... 7
Approach to scoring ....................................................................................................................... 8
Scoring levels .............................................................................................................................. 8
Disclosure ............................................................................................................................8
Awareness ...........................................................................................................................8
Management........................................................................................................................8
Leadership ...........................................................................................................................8
Final score allocation .................................................................................................................. 8
Calculation of scores per scoring level .................................................................................8
Calculation of a final score...................................................................................................9
Failure to disclose and late responders ..............................................................................10
Essential criteria ................................................................................................................10
Understanding the scoring methodology ...................................................................................... 11
Methodology structure .............................................................................................................. 11
Scoring approaches................................................................................................................... 11
Proportional scoring ..........................................................................................................12
Best row scoring ................................................................................................................12
Integrated scoring approaches ..........................................................................................12
Scoring routes....................................................................................................................13
Cross-checking ..................................................................................................................13
Assessment of open text answers ............................................................................................. 13
Clear Rationale ..................................................................................................................14
Explanations ......................................................................................................................14

Page 3 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Examples including timelines .............................................................................................14
Disclaimer surrounding scores ..................................................................................................... 15
Feedback and support .................................................................................................................. 15
Annex I - Conflict of interest policy .............................................................................................. 16
Policy on conflicts of interest relating to the scoring of responses ............................................ 16
Development of scoring methodologies .............................................................................16
Scoring process .................................................................................................................16
Restrictions on funding and attempts to influence scores..................................................17

Page 4 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Introduction
Principles of scoring
Scoring is closely aligned with CDP’s mission – CDP works with market forces to motivatecompanies to disclose their impacts on the environment and natural resources and take action to
reduce negative impacts, highlighting the business case to do so. Ultimately, scoring serves toincentivize companies to measure and manage environmental impacts through disclosing to CDP.
CDP undertakes scoring by assessing responders against a scoring methodology, which details
how each question in the questionnaire will be scored, evaluating the responder’s progress
towards environmental stewardship. The scoring methodology provides a roadmap to companies
to on how to achieve best practice, and by developing the scoring methodology each year to alignwith best practice, CDP aims to drive changes in corporate behavior to improve environmental
performance.
The scoring methodology assesses the level of detail and comprehensiveness in a response, as
well as the organization's awareness of environmental issues, its management methods, andprogress towards environmental stewardship. CDP is committed to transparency and, as such,provides the full scoring methodology online.

Scoring of responses
The scoring of CDP’s questionnaires is conducted by an accredited scoring partner trained by CDP.
CDP’s internal scoring team coordinate and collate all scores and run data quality checks andquality assurance processes to ensure that scoring standards are aligned between samples andscoring partners.
CDP produces scores based on the data in company responses provided to CDP by thosecompanies. Neither CDP nor CDP’s scoring partners verify the information in any individualcompany response. Information outside of the CDP response is not considered as part of thescoring process, unless specified in the scoring methodology. References to external sources of
information, for example websites or sustainability reports, will not be considered as part of thescoring process. Any weblinks or attachments provided in the CDP response will also not be
considered for scoring, unless specifically requested in the scoring methodology.
Responders are reminded that information in the CDP response is shared with requesting
authorities, irrespective of whether the response is made publicly available. As such, responders
are advised to provide information that is as complete, accurate and as reflective of the company’s
current situation as possible.
In 2024, responses will be scored if they are submitted in English, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish andPortuguese. Responses not submitted in these languages will not be eligible for scoring.

Other scoring resources
This document should be utilised in conjunction with the CDP’s 2024 Full Corporate Scoring
Methodology, CDP’s 2024 Essential Criteria documents, CDP’s 2024 Full Corporate Questionnaire
overview, and CDP’s 2024 Full Corporate Reporting Guidance. The reporting guidance explains theelements covered in answering the questionnaires. It is important to report data in line with the
instructions provided in the reporting guidance, as the scoring methodology functions based on
responders providing response data in line with this guidance.

Page 5 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Scoring of the full corporate questionnaire
Scoring an integrated questionnaire
In 2024, the CDP corporate questionnaires on climate change, forests and water security havebeen integrated into one corporate questionnaire. Through this questionnaire, organizations canprovide data on multiple environmental issues in a single disclosure, encouraging more holistic
and balanced reporting.
While the previously separate questionnaires have now been integrated, CDP will continue toaward separate climate change, forests and water security scores in 2024. Each environmental
issue area has its own separate methodology. There are 13 modules in the full corporate
questionnaire. Modules 1 to 6, 12 and 13 are integrated, which means that questions in thesemodules cover more than one environmental issue area. As such, questions in these modules will
be scored for multiple environmental issue areas, with a separate methodology for climate change,
forests and water security. Conversely, modules 7-9 are specific to an environmental issue area, so
will only be scored for one environmental issue. Modules 10 and 11 are specific to plastics andbiodiversity issue areas, which are not scored in 2024.
All disclosers will be presented with data points on climate change, and will receive a score forclimate change. Supplementary datapoints on plastics and biodiversity will also be presented to all
disclosers, but these questions will not be scored in 2024. Datapoints on forests and water
security will only be presented if a discloser has been requested to report or has opted in toreporting on these environmental issues. If these datapoints are presented to the discloser, thenthey will receive a score for forests and/or water security.
Forests scoring
Organizations that are not in the financial services sector and that are disclosing to forests arerequested to report on seven forest risk commodities, of which four are considered in scoring(timber products, palm oil, cattle products, and soy). Organizations are expected to disclose on allcommodities they source or produce.
In 2024, CDP has introduced a single Forests score, which replaces the individual commodity
scores awarded in previous years. In some questions, the data that is requested is general to all
forests-related issues. In other questions, organizations must provide data that is specific to theforest risk commodities that they are disclosing on. The scoring of commodity-specific questions
makes up a combined commodity score, which in turn feeds into the single Forests score.

Page 6 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

As for all environmental issue areas, the forests-related questions are divided into scoring
categories. All commodity-specific questions are allocated into commodity-specific scoring
categories (‘Commodity Visibility and Reporting’, ‘DCF Status’, and ‘Targets’). The points awardedin these categories make up the combined commodity score for Forests. In 2024, the points
awarded for each disclosed commodity (of timber products, palm oil, cattle products and soy) willcontribute equally to the combined commodity score (e.g. if an organization is disclosing on palm
oil and soy, then the points awarded for each commodity comprise 50% of the combinedcommodity score). For more information on the category weightings for Forests scoring
categories, please refer to CDP’s 2024 Forests Scoring Category Weightings document.

Full and SME corporate questionnaires
CDP recognizes that Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) may have different reporting
capabilities and requirements compared to larger organizations. For this reason, CDP has two
corporate questionnaires: the full questionnaire and the SME questionnaire.
The full corporate questionnaire is suitable for large organizations and includes sector-specificdatapoints. Meanwhile, the SME questionnaire is tailored to the needs of SMEs and contains fewer
and simplified datapoints. Only organizations that meet CDP’s SME eligibility thresholds will havethe option to complete the SME questionnaire.
This document provides an overview of scoring for the full corporate questionnaire only. Pleaserefer to the SME scoring introduction for information on scoring for SMEs.

CDP questionnaire sectors and scoring
Organizations in high-impact sectors will be presented with data points and questions specific tothat sector in addition to the general questions. The scoring approach and criteria may also vary
according to the data points that are relevant to each sector and environmental issue area.
The sector-specific questions allocated to organizations are defined by CDP's Activity
Classification System (CDP-ACS). This system categorizes organizations by focusing on theactivities from which they derive revenue and associating these with potential effects on theirorganization regarding climate change, deforestation, and water security.
An organization may be allocated up to four questionnaire sectors (including ‘General’). However, if
an organization is eligible for CDP scoring, they will only be scored on their primary questionnaire
sector.
Organizations in the financial services sector will be presented with Module 12, an integrated
questionnaire module that is specific to this sector. In 2024, organizations in the financial services
sector will be scored for water security for the first time, alongside climate change and forests.
Both forests and water security scores for financial services organizations will be private andshared only with the disclosing organization.
Organizations who have mining projects will be presented with additional questions anddatapoints on biodiversity in relation to their mining projects. These datapoints are not scored in
2024, as with all other biodiversity and plastics datapoints in the full corporate questionnaire.

Page 7 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Approach to scoring
Scoring levels
Responding organizations are assessed and scored across four consecutive levels which
represent the steps an organization moves through as it progresses towards environmental
stewardship. These four levels are Disclosure, Awareness, Management and Leadership.
Disclosure
Nearly every question in the questionnaire is scored for Disclosure (with the exception of
biodiversity and plastics questions). The Disclosure score measures the completeness of anorganization’s reporting. The number of points allocated to each question depends on both theamount of data requested and their relative importance to data users.
Awareness
The Awareness score measures the comprehensiveness of an organization’s evaluation of how
environmental issues intersect with their business. The awareness score does not indicate that anorganization has taken any actions to address environmental issues beyond initial screenings orassessments.
Management
Management points are awarded for answers that provide evidence of undertaking actions
associated with good environmental management, based on awareness of the organization’s
impact on the environmental issue. The Management score measures whether organizations aremanaging their environmental impact, but does indicate whether they are undertaking actions thatmark them out as a leader in their field.
LeadershipTo earn leadership status, organizations must demonstrate best practice in the strategies theyutilize and the actions they undertake. These actions represent best practice as formulated byorganizations working with CDP to advance environmental stewardship and, in many cases, arealready embodied by organizations leading in environmental policy and practice.

Final score allocation
Calculation of scores per scoring level
Once a responder has been assessed against the scoring methodology for a given environmental
issue area, a final percentage score will be calculated for each scoring level. For the Disclosureand Awareness scoring levels, a simple percentage of the number of points awarded out of thenumber of points available is calculated. For Management and Leadership scoring levels, aweighted percentage is calculated.
CDP recognizes that organizations operating in different primary sectors are affected by andmanage environmental issues in alternate ways. To capture this sectoral specificity in thecalculation of the final score, CDP utilizes a weighting system during score calculation at theManagement and Leadership levels.
All scored questions in the questionnaire are allocated to a scoring category for each scoredenvironmental issue area. The weighting of each category reflects its relative importance for thesector in the overall score.

Page 8 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Weightings are applied by calculating the Management and Leadership score per scoring category:Numerator/Denominator * 100. These percentage-based scores are then translated into a category
score per level by calculating the proportion of points achieved relative to the category weighting:
Category weighting (%) / 100 * Management/Leadership score (%). The category scores for eachlevel are then summed together to calculate the overall final score per level.
For more information on CDPs categories and weightings for each environmental issue area,
please refer to the 2024 Categories and Weightings documents.
Calculation of a final score
Responders are allocated a final letter score for each environmental issue area on which they havebeen scored, ranging from A to D-. Within each level, two separate scores are available, allocatedbased on the percentage of points achieved within the scoring level.
To incentivize complete reporting and consistent progress across all areas of the questionnaire,
minimum requirements must be met at one scoring level before a responder can be given credit
for the next scoring level. This is achieved through a system of thresholds, in which a minimumscore is required in one level to move to the next scoring level above it. If the minimum scorethreshold is not achieved, the organization’s final score will remain at the previous level. Isolatedareas of excellence with poor performance in other areas are disincentivized through thisapproach.
CDP provisionally sets the thresholds required to move between scoring levels, and thesethresholds are reviewed during the scoring period to ensure that the distribution of responses
among scoring levels is representative of the current level of progress in the responding
population. CDP reserves the right to adjust these thresholds at any point prior to the release ofscores.

Level

Climate Change

Forests

Water Security

Disclosure

1-49%
50-79%
1-44%
45-79%
1-44%
45-79%
1-79%
80-100%1-49%
50-79%
1-44%
45-79%
1-44%
45-79%
1-79%
80-100%1-49%
50-79%
1-44%
45-79%
1-44%
45-79%
1-79%
80-100%

Awareness
Management
Leadership

Page 9 of 17

Score
band
DD
CC
BB
AA

@cdp | www.cdp.net

Failure to disclose and late responders
Not all organizations requested to respond to CDP do so. Organizations who are requested todisclose their data and fail to do so will be allocated a score of F, indicating they have failed toprovide sufficient information with which to be evaluated by CDP. Companies who respond to CDP
after the deadline for being scored has passed will not be scored and will be allocated a status of‘not scored’.
Essential criteria
As well as achieving a minimum score in a level to be able to move to the next level, CDP alsoutilizes a system of essential criteria. To be able to achieve a score within a given score level,
these criteria must be met within the response. Even if a responder has passed the threshold to bescored within a scoring level, they will not be eligible to be scored for that level if they do not pass
all of the essential criteria associated with it.
In previous years, CDP has only applied essential criteria for achieving an ‘A’ score – criteria thatmust be met for organizations to be able to progress to CDP’s A List. In 2024, CDP has introduced
essential criteria for Climate change scoring at Awareness, Management and Leadership levels, aswell as new requirements to be included in the A List. This will set a consistent baseline ofreporting at each level for CDP Climate change scores, ensuring that critical gaps necessary for allorganizations to reach a suitable disclosure baseline are filled. It will also ensure thatorganizations include key datapoints that are critical to understanding how they are assessing andresponding to environmental issues. Full details of the 2024 essential criteria for climate change
can be found in the 2024 Climate Change Essential Criteria document.
Essential criteria for Forests and Water scores are only applied for eligibility at the Leadershiplevel. However, new criteria have been introduced for both environmental issue areas, reflecting
the need for transformational urgent and collaborative change in the face of ever-increasing
environmental concerns across the world. CDP expects to expand the essential criteria for theseenvironmental issue areas in future years. Full details of the 2024 essential criteria for Forests andWater can be found in the 2024 Essential Criteria documents for Forests and Water security.

Page 10 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Understanding the scoring methodology
Methodology structure
The scoring methodology provides the specific scoring criteria for each question at each of thefour scoring levels, and a table that details the point allocation for the question. The scoring
criteria detail what conditions must be met to achieve points within a scoring level. The point
allocation table indicates the maximum number of points that is attainable for each scoring level.
The point allocation tables have separate ‘numerator’ and ‘denominator’ columns for each level.
The numerator column indicates the number of points that can be attained out of the number ofpoints available at each scoring level. The numerator and denominator are usually identical, except
in some instances where the numerator is lower than the denominator, indicating that it is notpossible for a responder to achieve all the points available even if they meet all the criteria
stipulated for that level. In some cases, the numerator and denominator columns containvariations in the points that are available, indicating that the number of points that can be attained
differs depending on the scoring route applied within the criteria.
Only information provided in response to a given question will be utilized for scoring eachquestion. References made to answers provided in other questions will not be considered as partof the scoring process, except where specified in the scoring methodology.
Unanswered questions will be scored zero out of the maximum available points for that questionor set of questions. In the instance of certain key data points, an unanswered question will bescored zero out of a denominator that is greater than the maximum available points for thatquestion. These key data points will be highlighted in specific scoring routes in the methodology(labelled ‘Non-disclosure routes’).

Scoring approaches
Not all responders to a given environmental issue area will see the same questions, as CDP’s full
corporate questionnaire contains multiple routes. Selecting question routes impacts the number ofquestions presented to a responding organization, and therefore the denominator of their score.
Organizations that respond ‘Yes’ to most questions will generally have a higher denominatorcompared to those selecting ‘No’. Scores are calculated as a percentage to normalize the effect ofdifferent question routes. The final score is the number of points awarded divided by the total
number of points available to the organization for the question routes selected. If an organization
answers fewer questions because they are not relevant to that company, they are not penalized.
The approach by which points are awarded varies on a question-by-question basis, and responders
are advised to check the scoring methodology closely when preparing responses to understandhow points will be allocated.
For some questions, points or fractions of points are awarded cumulatively – per each data point
provided – up to the maximum points available for that question. Other questions require all data
points requested to be provided for any points to be awarded. For the latter, leaving information
blank or failing to provide a required data point will lead to zero points being awarded for thatquestion.
In instances where multiple datasets are required (such as multiple rows of data in a table), a
variety of approaches to scoring are employed. All of the data provided may be scored, only certain
rows may be scored, or only the best scoring row(s) may be scored.
Page 11 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Proportional scoring
In some instances, responses are scored in proportion to the amount of data that is disclosed.
This scoring approach is used in questions in which the amount of information reported may vary
between responders. Proportional scoring incentivizes complete reporting on all rows disclosed,by awarding points in proportion to the amount of information provided in a table. Points may beawarded in proportion to the number of individual cells complete within a table, or in proportion to
the number of complete rows within a table.
A variety of types of proportional scoring (both by cell and by complete row) are found in thescoring methodology and are summarised in the table below.

Type of proportional scoring

Scoring criteria

Proportional scoring by the number of cells
completed in a table. Only one row might
be scored, or multiple rows might bescored.

Points will be awarded per completed cell in proportion to
the number of cells displayed.

Proportional scoring by the number of cells
completed, against the number of rows
disclosed. If a row is not complete, it will
not score full points.

Points will be awarded per completed cell in proportion to
the number of rows disclosed. Partially completed rows will
not receive full points.

Proportional scoring by rows, against the
number of rows disclosed. If a row is notcomplete, it will not score any points.

A maximum of X points is available for this question.

A maximum of X points is available for this question.
Points will be awarded per completed row in proportion to
the number of rows disclosed. Partially completed rows will
not receive points.
A maximum of X points is available for this question.

Best row scoring
In some instances, only one row of data from an organization’s response is considered in thescore. This scoring approach enables organizations to provide comprehensive responses to aquestion, even if their response is incomplete or if all actions detailed by the company do not meet
the best practice as set out in the scoring criteria. As such, best row scoring is typically used inquestions where a single description of an action, process or target is sufficient to be assessed.
The best row scoring approach is denoted in the scoring criteria as ‘One row scored’. In thesequestions, points are awarded in accordance with the points achieved in the row that achieves thehighest score across all scoring levels. Each scoring level is assessed consecutively – forexample, a row that achieves full Disclosure and Awareness points but zero Management points is
considered to have a better score than a row that achieves partial Disclosure points and fullAwareness points.
Integrated scoring approaches
Although organizations can now provide data on multiple environmental issues within a single
disclosure, each environmental issue area continues to be scored separately and has its own
separate scoring methodology. The approach to disclosing and scoring data on multiple
environmental issues differs depending on the structure of each question and the requested data.
Many questions within integrated modules require organizations to disclose data for eachenvironmental issue area in separate rows. Unless otherwise specified, only the data provided in
the relevant row is scored in these cases (for example, only data provided in the ‘Climate change’
row is assessed in the scoring criteria for Climate change).
Page 12 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

In some questions, organizations must specify which rows of data are relevant to eachenvironmental issue area by selecting the relevant environmental issues in a defined column. As
above, only the data provided in the relevant rows is scored unless otherwise specified. If
organizations fail to select the relevant environmental issue in the column, then their response
may not be considered in scoring and they may receive a penalty for non-disclosure in thequestion.
In other questions within integrated modules, all of the data provided is assessed for allenvironmental issue areas that are being disclosed on. These are questions where anorganization’s response is likely to be consistent for all environmental issue areas, and therefore
reduces the reporting burden from reporting to multiple issue areas simultaneously. The scoring
criteria for these questions may be the same for all environmental issues, or they may differ
depending on the data points that are most relevant to each environmental issue. Organizations
are recommended to check CDP’s Full Corporate Reporting Guidance carefully whether a questionis scored for all environmental issue areas that they are disclosing on, or whether it only applies toa specific environmental issue.
The scoring approach that applies to each integrated question is specified within the scoring
criteria for each question and scoring level.
Scoring routes
In some cases, the scoring criteria for a question are organized into separate scoring routes.
These routes detail the different ways that an organization can be scored for a question,
depending on ther response and the subsequent data points that are relevant to their response.
For instance, different scoring routes may be applied if an organization answers ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to aquestion. Within integrated questions, scoring routes may also be used to denote how eachenvironmental issue is treated if the question is only responded to for certain environmental issue
areas.
Cross-checking
Throughout the methodologies, scoring criteria will link back to the organization’s score/response
in related questions. In some instances, the achievement of points in a question will be a prerequisite to be awarded any points in another question; whilst in other instances the achievementof points in a question will be worth a point(s) in another question. Cross-checking is used as ascoring mechanism to ensure consistency in an organization’s response.

Assessment of open text answers
At the Management and Leadership scoring levels, some questions are assessed through thecontent of an open text answer provided by a responder. There are three key ways in which open
text answers may be assessed: providing a clear rationale, providing an explanation, and providing
an example with an accompanying timeline.
As a rule, open text answers will only be considered to meet the scoring criteria if they are clearly
relevant to the environmental issue area(s) that is being assessed. Text answers that are
duplicated (e.g. copied and pasted between questions or environmental issue areas) will only be
eligible for points if they make sense in the context of each specific case, and provide the specificdetails requested in the scoring methodology. In general, responders should tailor text responses
to fit each question, environmental issue area or row they are disclosing on and exercise caution
when copying text to avoid losing points unnecessarily.

Page 13 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Clear Rationale
In some questions, points are awarded for providing a ‘clear rationale’. These are defined asstatements which provide logical reasoning for methodologies, descriptions, decisions and actions
made by the responding organization.
Explanations
In some questions, points are awarded for providing an explanation surrounding a specific topic.
Explanations should clearly explain ‘why’ an answer to a question has been provided. A statement
such as “This is not relevant for our business” will not be considered an explanation since it does
not explain why or how the topic is not relevant. A better example is: “As a mining company,
municipal water withdrawals are only relevant to Company ABC’s office locations. These withdrawals
are minimal compared to the direct abstraction in our mining operations and are not reported since
they are not considered material.”
Examples including timelines
In some questions, points are awarded for providing an example of an action taken, including
timelines. This provides data users with confidence that a described process, commitment or
strategy is reflected in actions taken by the organization.
Examples should provide a detailed description of an action or decision made in the context of thequestion topic. Actions can include decisions made, projects or activities that have been carriedout, targets and commitments that have been set. The example must also include details on thetimeframe for the action: e.g. the year in which it occurred or, if the action is still ongoing, the startdate on which it commenced.

Page 14 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Disclaimer surrounding scores
The CDP score is based on activities and positions disclosed in the CDP response. The score is not
a comprehensive metric of an organization’s level of sustainability or 'green-ness', or a specificmetric on the environmental footprint, but rather an indication of the level of action taken by theorganization to assess and manage its impacts on, and from, environmental related issues during
the reporting year.
CDP's 2024 scoring methodologies are still evolving. The methodologies have been published toindicate to responding organizations how scores will be awarded this year. CDP reserves the rightto make adjustments to the criteria or weighting of questions before and throughout the scoring
period, based on emerging risk management strategies and best practice, quality of response dataor scoring outcomes.

Feedback and support
If you would like information about receiving feedback on your score, make suggestions about
CDP’s scoring methodologies, or ask a general question, please contact the CDP Help Center.

Page 15 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

Annex I - Conflict of interest policy
Policy on conflicts of interest relating to the scoring of responses
Maintaining CDP’s reputation as an independent and unbiased provider of high quality information
is of paramount importance. Accordingly, CDP has adopted this policy to minimize the risk of
conflicts of interest that might affect the accuracy of the scores we award to companies that
respond to our questionnaires.
Development of scoring methodologies
1.
CDP’s Scoring Team is responsible for developing CDP’s scoring methodologies in a way
which furthers CDP’s mission, takes into account scientific knowledge on environmental
issues, and treats responding companies fairly. The Scoring Team must balance thesefactors and make an independent decision on them, and to minimize the potential for
conflicts of interest none of the team members are responsible for any on-going
relationships with companies.
Scoring process2.
CDP’s Scoring Team oversees implementation of the scoring process, training Scoring
partners (as defined in paragraph 4 below) and validating scores before their release. The
Scoring Team may request input from other CDP staff (e.g. to translate an attachment tocheck whether it meets specific criteria) but such staff are not granted access to
unpublished responses or scores and all staff remain subject to the prohibition in paragraph
7 below at all times.
3.

Questionnaire responses submitted by respondents may only be amended by them, or totheir instruction by CDP staff.

4.

Organizations scoring responses on behalf of CDP (“Scoring partners”) must be approved by
CDP, and must successfully complete CDP’s training programme, put in place an internal
quality assurance process to ensure CDP’s scoring methodology is applied consistently, andsubmit scores to CDP for final quality assurance before publication.

5.

Scoring partners must treat all responders equally, irrespective of whether a responder istheir funder, client or competitor. Accordingly:a.

Before commencing scoring, Scoring partners must disclose to CDP if any clients,
funders or competitors are included within the sample of companies they have beenasked to score and if they have provided any companies in the sample with response
preparation or ‘response check’ services.

b.

Where a Scoring partner has assisted a responding company in preparing its responseor has provided it a ‘response check’ service, such company will be scored by adifferent Scoring partner.

c.

Where a Scoring partner is working with responding companies in any other capacitythat could influence its objectivity, CDP will quality assure all or a proportion of such
responses.

d.

If there is any concern about a Scoring partner’s impartiality, CDP will either apply
additional quality assurance checks to such Scoring partner’s scores, or arrange forany affected companies to be scored by a different Scoring partner.

Page 16 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net

e.

If CDP discovers that a Scoring partner is not being even-handed in its approach toscoring, CDP will immediately terminate its relationship with that Scoring partner andcheck and correct any affected scores.

Restrictions on funding and attempts to influence scores
6.
Neither CDP nor its Scoring partners will accept funding where an objective of such funding
is to influence any scoring decisions. This applies equally to grants, sponsorship, sales ofservices or any other income.
7.

Any attempt by any member of CDP’s staff or board of Trustees to amend responses or
influence scoring methodologies or scoring results or assist any other party in doing so for
personal gain, will be regarded as gross misconduct and will result in instant dismissal
without compensation.

Page 17 of 17@cdp | www.cdp.net