What happened to the CDP 2024 scores?

This year’s CDP results hit differently.

Across sectors, even among historically strong performers, sustainability teams found themselves staring at unexpected “C” or “D” scores. In many cases, nothing material changed in their programs, but something had clearly shifted in the system.

So what happened?

2024 brought a quiet but significant methodology update. And with it came new challenges, rising expectations, and a serious rethink of how companies approach disclosure.

What changed in the scores?

Leaders we speak to across mining, metals, industrials, and manufacturing are describing three main shifts:

• Score declines across the board. Even companies with mature reporting structures and year-over-year improvements dropped from A/B to C/D.
• Heavier penalties for gaps. Blank sections, partial disclosures, or missing supplier data now result in bigger score drops.

Earlier submission bottlenecks. Those who waited to submit closer to the deadline ran into more technical issues, and often had less support.

Why it matters

A CDP score isn’t just a vanity metric. It impacts:

• Financing terms (green loans, ESG-linked credit lines)
• Procurement eligibility (customer platforms increasingly require it)
• Internal trust (boards and executives want to see progress)

So when a team that’s worked hard all year sees a lower score with no clear explanation, the damage isn’t just reputational, but it’s both personal and strategic.

What sustainability leaders are telling us

Across industries, CSOs and ESG leads are raising concerns. Not about disclosure itself, but about the usability, clarity, and return on effort.

Here’s what we’re hearing:

“We spent 2.5 months preparing, only to get a lower score than when we submitted a quick draft three years ago.”

“No one explained what actually changed. We just got a lower grade and a bill.”

“The system feels built for consultants, not companies. If you don’t outsource, you’re at a disadvantage.”

“We’d keep doing CDP, but only if it serves a bigger purpose, like investor confidence or strategic benchmarking. Right now, it’s just draining.”

There’s a sense of fatigue. It’s not about climate action, but about reporting that doesn’t translate into insight, finance, or competitive advantage.

The real tension

What’s happening is a classic maturity shift:

• CDP is trying to increase rigor and relevance.
• Companies are trying to balance budgets, deadlines, and strategic value.
• The gap between what’s asked and what’s rewarded has grown too wide.

Many CSOs describe CDP as “still valuable in theory”, but increasingly disconnected from the business cases they need to make internally.

Where do we go from here?

The shift in scores isn’t the end of CDP, but it is a wake-up call. If the platform wants to remain relevant (especially to industrial players) it needs to:

• Provide clearer guidance before score changes happen
• Show real value beyond ratings, such as links to financing or customer wins
• Embrace automation partners to reduce the burden on already stretched teams

And for sustainability teams: it’s time to ask where your effort is going, and what systems actually help you operate faster, smarter, and with greater strategic impact.

To handle exactly this shift, we built a CDP module that cuts prep time by 50% and helps you avoid the usual web portal traps. Save months of work with beSirius and let your team focus on strategic decisions.

button "Book a demo" - https://www.besirius.io/request-demo - #5F5DDF

‍

👉 Read: Understanding the 2024 changes and how they affect 2025 submissions‍

📘 Download our Success Toolkit to navigate the updated CDP questionnaire