CDP essential criteria: The hidden gatekeeper to your score
As CDP disclosure season approaches again, many organisations are reviewing last year’s performance and looking for ways to improve their score. During this time, effort typically focuses on strengthening responses and expanding disclosure. However, one of the most influential drivers of scoring outcomes often receives less attention: CDP’s Essential Criteria.
Why scores don’t move the way you expect
Most organisations can explain what they disclosed in CDP. Far fewer can clearly articulate why they received the score they did. That gap matters because it shapes how internal teams prioritise time and resource. Significant effort is invested in improving narrative and completeness, yet year-on-year score improvements often remain limited.
CDP scoring broadly reflects increasing levels of maturity, progressing from Disclosure (D) through Awareness (C) and Management (B) to Leadership (A), with additional requirements applied for A List recognition. Movement between these levels depends not only on overall scoring performance, but also on meeting specific minimum requirements at each stage. These requirements are defined through the Essential Criteria.
What the essential criteria actually do
Essential Criteria define the baseline requirements organisations must meet to progress through CDP’s scoring levels (Disclosure, Awareness, Management, Leadership and A List). In simple terms, they act as checkpoints between each level of scoring.
These criteria are made up of specific data points and disclosures within the questionnaire. This includes requirements such as reporting emissions, demonstrating a risk assessment process, setting targets, and evidencing governance and oversight. Each criterion is tied to one or more questions and must be met for progression.
Even where a response performs strongly overall, gaps against these criteria can restrict progression. Organisations may still achieve a grade within a given level, but movement beyond that level is limited where key requirements are not met. This is often reflected in outcomes such as C- or B-, despite otherwise strong disclosures. At higher levels, similar gaps can limit access to the A List.
Many organisations receive their CDP scores and don’t fully understand why they haven’t moved to the next grade. In many cases, the answer isn’t hidden, it sits within CDP’s Essential Criteria. The problem is, most people overlook this when preparing their disclosure. Understanding them changes how you interpret your score and how you plan for the next one”.Cameron WilsonSolutions Manager Reporting
What actually unlocks higher scores
Here’s what actually unlocks higher scores across CDP’s key questionnaires:
Climate Change
As the most established CDP questionnaire, Climate Change provides clear examples of how Essential Criteria influence scoring outcomes.
A publicly available, 1.5°C-aligned transition plan is required for A List eligibility. Near-term emissions targets also become a gating requirement at Leadership level and for A List recognition, either through SBTi validation or alignment with CDP’s 1.5°C pathway. Verification is another common constraint. Leadership-level scoring requires at least 95% verification of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, while A List requires full (100%) verification alongside thresholds for Scope 3 assurance. Scope 3 disclosure itself is a pre-requisite for verification.
At earlier stages, gaps can restrict progression to Management or Leadership. Where risk identification processes do not demonstrate coverage beyond direct operations, or where risks and opportunities are not clearly disclosed, organisations may struggle to progress despite otherwise complete responses.
In practice, we often see mature organisations fall short of A List not because of overall disclosure quality, but because specific thresholds are not met. This can include transition plans that are not fully aligned or publicly available, targets that do not meet required criteria, incomplete verification coverage, or gaps in Scope 3 disclosure. Missing a single requirement in these areas can limit access to the A List.
Forests
Forests reinforces the same principle, but with more explicit scoring ceilings. If Leadership-level criteria are not met, the final score is capped at B. If any A List criterion is not met, the score is capped at A-.
Requirements focus on completeness and traceability. Organisations must disclose all relevant commodities or provide acceptable justification for exclusions. Traceability must reach 70% for each disclosed commodity, origin data must be complete, and no-deforestation or no-conversion targets must include defined cut-off and target dates. Even where overall disclosure is strong, gaps in these areas directly limit progression.
Water Security
Water Security follows a similar structure. Missed Leadership criteria cap scores at B, while gaps at A List level restrict progression to A-. Risk processes must cover both direct operations and upstream value chain. Exclusions are assessed in detail, with CDP considering factors such as water volume, basin context and environmental impact rather than relying on a single threshold.
As with forests and climate, incomplete coverage or poorly justified exclusions can constrain scoring outcomes even where the broader response is well developed.
Why this matters in 2026
Reviewing the Essential Criteria should form a core part of CDP preparation, rather than a final validation step. These criteria determine whether progression is achievable and highlight structural gaps well before scoring is complete.
CDP published Essential Criteria on April 30th, however in 2025 it followed up with further clarification in June. With 2026 updates expected to remain limited, the previous year’s criteria provide a reliable basis for early preparation.
This creates a clear advantage. Organisations that align early to known requirements are better positioned to avoid late-stage constraints on scoring. Those that wait for final confirmation risk identifying gaps too late to address them effectively, limiting their ability to improve outcomes within the reporting cycle.
What to do next
If the objective is to achieve the next CDP grade, understanding Essential Criteria is one of the most effective ways to focus effort where it will have the greatest impact – and where structured reporting support can help translate insight into measurable score improvement.
In practice, this means identifying where current disclosures fall short of the specific requirements that determine progression, rather than continuing to refine areas that are already sufficient.
Our CDP Diagnostic Tool supports this process by identifying gaps against Essential Criteria, highlighting where scores are being constrained, and providing a clear view of the actions required to unlock progression for the 2026 cycle.
Do you know your gaps?
We’re here to support you strengthen your submission, ensure you meet the essential criteria and identify gaps and areas for improvement. Feel free to get in touch, without any obligations where we explain more.
Cameron Wilson
Solutions Manager – Reporting
Read bio
Cameron joined our graduate cohort in 2021 after completing his law degree and a year in the sustainability industry. Now, with over five years of experience, Cameron has utilised both his legal education and sustainability experience to specialise in sustainability risk management and reporting in line with ESG-related company law at both the local and international level. Cameron is very detail-oriented and analytical in understanding compliance requirements for laws, international standards and frameworks and helps our clients in breaking these requirements down, to produce a simple yet effective reporting solution for them for all aspects of sustainability.
Cameron now leads our Reporting Solutions team, helping an array of clients across a multitude of sectors on subjects such as sustainability report writing, understanding legislative changes, climate risk assessments and resilience. Cameron is incredibly passionate about helping businesses become more resilient, primarily by identifying and managing sustainability-related risks and opportunities, specifically climate risk, whilst showcasing progress through transparent disclosures.
