CDP is an international disclosure framework that asks companies how they are addressing climate change. Its assessment goes beyond emissions data alone, covering strategy, governance, and how companies think about the future.
In practice, however, many people involved in CDP responses find themselves thinking:
“What should we start with?”
“I’ve read the questions, but I’m not sure what they’re really asking.”
Behind this confusion is often the assumption that CDP is simply a task of answering questions.
In reality, CDP is not evaluating response techniques, but rather the overall picture of a company’s climate strategy.
Before starting to answer the questionnaire, it matters whether a company has clarified where it stands, where it is heading, and how it plans to get there.
Whether this “map” is in place can significantly affect how smoothly the CDP response progresses and how complete it becomes.
In this article, we revisit the essence of CDP as a “stocktake of your climate strategy,” and offer gentle guidance on how to reframe CDP responses—not as a confusing task, but as an opportunity to move forward.
The First Step Is Drawing a “Map”: Organizing the Big Picture of Climate Action
Current state (Where we are)
CDP is not merely a questionnaire, but a framework designed to assess, from multiple perspectives, how a company’s climate strategy is structured and implemented.
Targets (Where we’re going)
Have emissions reduction targets been set? Are they aligned with international standards such as SBT (Science Based Targets: science-based emissions reduction targets)? Do you have a medium- to long-term roadmap?
Pathway (How we get there)
What measures will you implement to achieve those targets? Where will you invest? What does your governance structure look like?
Roles and responsibilities (Who does what)
Who is accountable, who executes the work, and who makes decisions? How are executives involved, and how do operational teams move forward? Are roles clearly defined?
Evidence (How we prove it)
How is data managed? Has third-party assurance been conducted? Is the information in a state that can be disclosed publicly?
By organizing these elements in advance, it becomes easier to respond to CDP questions more smoothly. On the other hand, trying to take on CDP without a clear “map” of the overall picture can sometimes feel like getting lost without direction.
For example, it may become difficult to interpret what the questions are really asking, to determine which department to consult for specific information, or to maintain consistency across the full set of responses. These stumbling points are often linked to the lack of a map prepared beforehand.
Common CDP Pain Points Often Come from Not Having a Map
Let’s take a look at some typical patterns where companies tend to struggle with CDP responses year after year. Do any of these sound familiar?
Information is scattered across departments
“Emissions data is held by the sustainability team,” “reduction initiatives are managed by manufacturing,” “investment decisions are handled by corporate planning”—information is dispersed, and it becomes unclear where everything is. As a result, the person in charge often ends up running around gathering data.
Emissions data lacks consistency
Data granularity differs by site, calculation methods are not standardized, or continuity from the previous year cannot be confirmed. In such cases, companies may have to respond while still feeling uncertain about the reliability of their data.
Misalignment between executives and frontline teams
Executives may say “climate action is important,” but concrete policies or targets may not be fully communicated to the frontline. As a result, teams may struggle to understand what to prioritize, and initiatives may not translate into effective action.
Progress stalls due to dependency on individuals
When the previous person in charge transfers roles, it becomes unclear how the response was prepared. Without sufficient handover documentation, companies may find themselves rebuilding the process from scratch every year.
The company lacks an overall climate “big picture”
Targets may exist, but the plan for achieving them may remain unclear. Individual initiatives may be running, yet the overall direction can be difficult to see.
These challenges are not necessarily the result of “lack of effort” by the person in charge. In many cases, they reflect a broader issue: the map has not been fully established. And when structural issues must be compensated for by individual effort alone, it can quickly become difficult to sustain.
The Core of Taking Stock Can Be Simplified into Three Perspectives: Strategy / Governance / Data
So how can you actually draw that “map”? In practice, the shortest approach to taking stock can often be organized into three main perspectives.
1) Strategy
First, organize your company’s climate strategy.
- Have emissions reduction targets been set (and are they aligned with international standards such as SBT)?
- Do you have a transition plan, and how are investment decisions made?
- How are risks and opportunities identified and reflected in management decisions?
Once this perspective is clarified, it becomes easier to respond to CDP questions such as C2: Risks and Opportunities and C3: Business Strategy more smoothly.
2) Governance
Next, clarify who drives climate action and how it is governed.
- Are roles clearly defined (responsible departments, accountable owners, executive involvement)?
- What does the decision-making process look like (board discussions, reporting lines)?
- To what extent are executives involved (oversight responsibilities, linkage to KPIs)?
When this perspective is organized, responding to C1: Governance becomes much more straightforward and confident.
3) Data
Finally, strengthen how emissions data is managed.
- Are Scope 1–3 calculations accurate, and is consistency maintained?
- How is data managed and verified?
- Is there a system that allows sustainable annual updates?
With this perspective in place, it becomes easier to respond accurately to C5: Emissions and C6: Emissions Data, and the credibility of your data is more likely to be communicated effectively.
When these three areas are reasonably organized, much of the CDP response process begins to take shape naturally. Once the map is in place, answering CDP questions becomes closer to “putting that map into words.”
Companies with a Clear “Map” Tend to Maintain More Stable CDP Scores
Companies that have completed a climate strategy stocktake often share several common characteristics.
CDP responses are more consistent year to year
With a map in place, responses are less likely to shift even when the 담당者 changes. Consistency with the previous year is easier to maintain, and the overall approach may be perceived as more reliable by evaluators.
Less dependence on individuals
When strategy, governance, and data are documented, handovers become smoother. New 담당者 can understand the full picture more quickly, which helps reduce the burden of rebuilding from scratch.
Stronger data foundation supports broader external assessments
A strong data base supports not only CDP but also EcoVadis, integrated reporting, and investor questions. With a shared foundation, companies can respond across multiple frameworks more efficiently.
Executive communication becomes clearer
When the overall picture is organized, reporting to management becomes easier to structure. For example, it becomes possible to have strategic discussions such as: “This year’s CDP score is B, and to aim for A- next year, we will strengthen X.”
Supply chain dialogue moves forward more effectively
When a company’s climate strategy is clear, requests and discussions with suppliers tend to become more persuasive. It becomes easier to say, “This is the direction we are taking, and we would like your cooperation.”
In fact, some companies supported by Neuromagic through this kind of stocktake have seen their CDP score improve from B to A-. Gaining a “map” through stocktaking is not only about responding to CDP—it can also serve as a way to strengthen the company’s overall climate strategy.
Create a “Map” Before You Answer—And CDP Becomes Much More Manageable
What CDP often requires is not simply “answering技巧,” but taking the time to reorganize and clarify your climate strategy first.
When you can draw the overall picture, the intent behind each question becomes easier to understand. You can see what is being asked, why the information matters, and what may still be missing.
For example:
- “Targets exist, but the pathway to achieve them is still unclear.”
- “Data exists, but verification processes are not strong enough.”
- “Executive involvement remains more formal than practical.”
When these issues become visible, it becomes easier to connect them to improvements for the following year.
Over time, this may also lead to stronger CDP outcomes, because CDP is designed to assess the maturity of a company’s climate strategy—not just the ability to provide a one-time response.
Creating a map before you answer can make CDP significantly easier to manage. And that map can become a foundation not only for CDP, but for the company’s broader climate action as well.
For Companies Struggling with CDP Responses
If you are experiencing challenges such as the following, why not start by taking stock of your climate strategy?
- “We don’t know where to start preparing.”
- “We don’t want another hectic year.”
- “We’re not confident in the consistency of our emissions data.”
- “We want to organize the overall picture of our climate strategy.”
At Neuromagic, we support companies in drawing their climate “map” through three perspectives: Strategy, Governance, and Data. Please feel free to contact us for an initial consultation.
For inquiries related to this topic, please select “Disclosure Support” in the form above.