Blog

CDP Scoring 2025: Essential Criteria as the Key to the A-List

back

DATE

1.9.2025

AUTHORS

Kevin Möller

TOPICS

Best Practices

Climate management

Ratings & certifications

Introduction

September 17, 2025, is fast approaching—the final submission deadline for the CDP Climate Change Questionnaire. For many companies in the DACH region, this is the decisive moment: months of work on data, narratives, and governance structures culminate in the final assessment by CDP. But even in the final stretch, companies can significantly influence their results. The focus here is on an often overlooked but crucial component of the CDP 2025 scoring: the Essential Criteria.

These criteria are not merely a list of formal minimum requirements; rather, they serve as strategic gatekeepers—they determine whether a company can advance to higher rating tiers or even secure a coveted spot on the CDP A-List 2025. Competitive analyses often take the form of tabular overviews. For companies, however, understanding the strategic dimension is critical to success:

Why are the Essential Criteria so important, and how can they be optimized in the final stages?

Background – CDP Scoring and the Role of Essential Criteria

The CDP rates companies on a scale from D to A. The methodology is based on the official CDP Climate Change Scoring Methodology 2025 and follows a clear progression: Disclosure → Awareness → Management → Leadership.

Within this structure, the Essential Criteria act as a kind of “gatekeeper mechanism”: only those who meet certain minimum criteria can advance to the next evaluation stage—regardless of the quality of other responses.

The official overview of the CDP Essential Criteria 2025 (PDF) shows that these requirements cover key areas such as governance, targets, transition plans, Scope 3 reporting, and risk management. They ensure that companies claiming high scores can demonstrate a robust underlying strategy and governance structure.

The Role of Essential Criteria in Scoring

The Essential Criteria should not be viewed as “bonus points,” but rather as basic requirements for advancing in the scoring system. They function like score gates: If you do not meet certain criteria, you cannot advance to the next level, even if you perform well in other areas.

Here’s an example: A company may have excellent emissions data, ambitious reduction targets, and a strong governance board. However, if it has not submitted a formal transition plan or valid Scope 3 reporting, its score will remain below the leadership level. This means that essential criteria set the ceiling, not the floor.

Overview: Essential Criteria 2025 by Topic Area & Score Relevance

Subject area	Key Message (Essential Criterion)	Score Relevance (Gate)	Link in the questionnaire
GovernanceBoard Accountability & Incentives	Formal assignment of climate responsibility at the executive board level, including management incentives linked to GHG performance.	Path to Management (B) Without formal recognition, there is no advancement in leadership.	CC0.x, CC1.x (Governance), reference to CDP Guidance
GoalsShort-term & Long-term	Quantified, time-bound emissions targets (Scope 1+2 and relevant Scope 3), consistent with industry best practices.	Gateway to Management/Leadership (B/A) Lack of Scope 3 coverage caps the score.	CC4.x (Targets), Methodology: Scoring Methodology 2025
Transition PlanInvestment & Action Plan	A detailed, funded transformation plan that includes CapEx/OpEx figures, milestones, and responsibilities.	Gateway to Leadership (A)	CC13.x (Transition Plan), see Essential Criteria 2025
Emissions & Scope 3Coverage & Quality	Full reporting on Scope 1–3; key categories in Scope 3 are quantified and explained in terms of methodology.	Gate to Leadership (A) Exclusion from the A-List if incomplete	CC7–CC9 (Emissions Data)
Risks & OpportunitiesTCFD-compliant	A systematic process for climate risks and opportunities, including scenario analysis and financial assessment.	Gateway to Management (B)	CC2.x (Risks/Opportunities), TCFD Alignment in CDP Guidance
VerificationData Quality	External verification of key emissions data (at least Scope 1 and 2; growing expectation for Scope 3).	Gate Strengthening to A Without assurance, the A risk increases.	CC10.x (Verification)

Gate = a necessary requirement for advancing to the next higher score level (see CDP Scoring Methodology 2025 & Essential Criteria 2025).

Changes for 2025 – Updates to Essential Criteria and A-List Criteria

In 2025, CDP further refined the Essential Criteria and A-List criteria. Compared to 2024, the following stands out:

Greater alignment between transition plans and A-List requirements: Companies must not only define goals but also present concrete, investment-relevant plans.
Stricter governance requirements: A clear allocation of climate-related responsibilities at the executive board level is essential for achieving high scores.
Consistency Check for Scope 3: Without reliable Scope 3 data, a spot on the A-list is impossible.

These changes show that, by 2025, companies will need to take a more systemic approach to their CDP strategy than ever before. Individual achievements in specific categories are no longer sufficient—companies must demonstrate a consistent and integrated climate strategy.

Comparison of 2024 vs. 2025 – Changes & Implications for the A-List

Area	2024	2025	Implications for Score/A-List
Governance	Responsibility of the Executive Board (recommended/expected).	Formal assignment and incentive linkage as a de facto gateway to the B/A level.	Gate↑ No leadership level without board representation. Source: Scoring Methodology 2025
Transition Plan	Plan described; financing is partially optional.	Capital expenditures (CapEx/OpEx), milestones, and responsibilities must be clearly defined.	Leadership Gate A-List is only realistic with a viable investment plan. See Essential Criteria 2025
Scope 3 coverage	Key categories covered, diverse quality.	Clearer expectations regarding completeness and methodological transparency; stricter score caps for missing data.	A-List Requirement: An incomplete Scope 3 prevents A-List status.
Assurance	Assurance, primarily for Scope 1 and 2.	Growing pressure to expand, including relevant Scope 3 categories.	Score Stability: Greater credibility; reduced risk in reviews.
Risks & Scenarios	Scenario work is common, but the depth varies.	Greater emphasis on financial assessment and governance accountability.	B-Gate Without a rigorous TCFD framework, progress on awareness and management will stall.

Strategic relevance for businesses

The Essential Criteria are more than just a formal benchmark—they are a strategic lever. A company that meets them opens the door to higher valuation levels while signaling to investors, stakeholders, and partners: “We have embedded our climate strategy into the very fabric of our company.”

Practical tips for the "final stretch":

Governance Check: Is responsibility for climate issues clearly assigned and documented within the board of directors?
Transition Plans: Are there concrete action plans involving investments, or are they merely statements of intent?
Scope 3 validation: Are the data sources used transparent and auditable?
Objectives: Are the short-term and long-term emissions targets consistent and SBTi-compatible?

Pitfalls often arise when companies present ambitious narratives but fail to meet the formal essential criteria. As a result, despite substantial effort, the score ends up being lower than expected.

Common Pitfalls & Quick Wins Just Before Submission

A common pitfall	Impact (Score/Gate)	Quick Win (can be implemented now)
Unclear board responsibilities – climate issues are not explicitly assigned to a specific committee or member.	Caps growth toward B/A; undermines the credibility of the overall strategy.	Attach the resolution/minutes + update the governance responses (references/links).
Transition plan without financial details – measures described, but no link to CapEx/OpEx.	Fails to meet leadership requirements; A-list out of reach.	Brief addendum including budget ranges, responsibilities, and milestones; document internal approval.
Gaps in Scope 3 – key categories are missing or the methodology has not been disclosed.	Score caps and exclusion from the A-list are possible.	Include a methodology note (data sources, assumptions, limitations); provide a prior estimate for missing categories.
Goals without milestones —no near-term milestones or KPI tracking.	Lower management scores; leadership is out of reach.	Create and enter the Milestone Set (annual reduction targets) and status update.
Lack of assurance – no external verification of relevant emissions data.	Increased uncertainty; risk during review/challenge.	Note the LoA/Engagement Letter; document the partial assurance (e.g., Scope 1+2) and outline the Scope 3 plan.

Implications for the A-List 2025

The 2025 A-List is getting more selective:

New hurdles: Without a transition plan, Scope 3 coverage, and clear governance, the A-List remains out of reach.
Opportunities: Companies that already have structured climate strategies in place can benefit from the stricter regulations, as they clearly stand out from their competitors.
Focus on a systematic approach: Ad hoc measures are no longer sufficient—what is needed are integrated strategies that demonstrate the connection between governance, objectives, and implementation.

Climate transition plans, in particular, are gaining importance: they are not only part of the Essential Criteria but are also increasingly expected by investors, regulators (e.g., the EU Taxonomy, ESRS), and stakeholders. For companies, this means that those aiming for the A-List in 2025 must embed transition plans as an integral part of their climate strategy.

What are the key CDP scoring documents?

Scoring Introduction – an overview of how scoring works at CDP, including the evaluation process, principles, and guidelines.
Scoring Methodology – describes how each individual question is scored at the various scoring levels (i.e., how many points are awarded).
Essential Criteria – the specific minimum requirements that must be met at each scoring level for the climate category.
Scoring Category Weightings – contains the various scoring categories and the weightings applied when assigning points.
Scoring Changes – An overview of the most significant changes to the scoring methodology compared to 2024.

All CDP scoring documents are available in the CDP Document Library.

Conclusion & Outlook

The Essential Criteria 2025 serve as both a lever and a barrier for companies: they determine whether progress in CDP scoring is possible or whether ambitious goals will fizzle out without effect. In the days remaining until September 17, 2025, companies should specifically assess where quick wins are still possible—whether by refining governance structures, supplementing transition plans, or validating Scope 3 data.

Those who view the Essential Criteria as a strategic tool not only gain an advantage in CDP climate change reporting but also strengthen their position in broader sustainability assessments. Whether it’s the CSRD, ESRS, or SBTi —these criteria are not isolated but reflect a global expectation for credible, robust climate strategies.

Five Glaciers Consulting supports companies on this journey as a strategic partner —from analyzing the CDP scoring methodology to the operational implementation of governance, targets, and transition plans. Our goal is not merely to meet the formal criteria, but to use the process to strengthen the company’s climate strategy for the long term.