7 Deadly Mistakes in CDP Reports That Kill Your Score (And How to Fix Them)

Hey everyone! Welcome back to GLEC's sustainability corner.

"We spent 6 months preparing our CDP report and got a D grade." I got this call from a logistics company last month. You could feel their disappointment through the phone. After working day and night for half a year, a D grade? That's heartbreaking.

That moment made me realize how many logistics companies are repeating the same mistakes. With CDP 2025 mandating 70% verification of Scope 3 emissions, knowing the correct approach is more crucial than ever.

Let me share the 7 most common mistakes I've seen and how to avoid them.

Quick Check: CDP 2025 Major Changes

Complete Integration of Questionnaire System

CDP 2025 integrates all areas - climate change, water, forests, plastics, and biodiversity - into one platform. Logistics companies must mandatorily report on climate change, plastics, and biodiversity, with water and forests potentially added depending on the sector.

Mandatory Alignment of Reporting Boundaries with Financial Statements

If CDP reporting boundaries don't align with financial statement consolidation standards, you'll face Management deductions. Companies with overseas subsidiaries or joint ventures need to pay special attention to this.

Mandatory Currency Unit Reporting

Currency unit specification becomes mandatory from 2025. This is part of standardization efforts for global comparison.

The 7 Deadly Mistakes (And Their Fixes)

Mistake 1: Scope Classification Confusion

The most common mistake is incorrectly classifying Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Logistics companies frequently experience these confusions:

Wrong Examples:

Classifying leased vehicle fuel use as Scope 3
Classifying logistics center electricity use as Scope 1
Classifying subcontractor transportation as Scope 2

Correct Classification:

Scope 1: Direct fuel combustion from company-owned vehicles
Scope 2: Purchased electricity, steam, heating/cooling for logistics centers and offices
Scope 3: Subcontractor transportation, leased vehicles, employee business travel, waste disposal

The Fix: Master the GHG Protocol's Scope 3 Technical Guidance and check annually updated guidelines. When uncertain, consult professional institutions - it's safer than guessing.

Mistake 2: Incomplete Activity Data Collection

Many logistics companies collect data from only some locations or vehicles and estimate the rest. CDP's structure lowers scores as estimation ratios increase.

Wrong Approaches:

Measuring only 30% of total vehicles and estimating the rest
Measuring only a few major logistics centers
Simply extending quarterly data to annual

Right Approaches:

Secure at least 90% actual data
Build IoT-based real-time monitoring systems
Collect detailed monthly/quarterly data

The Fix: Build automated data collection systems using digital truck logs, fuel management systems, and smart meters. Initial investment costs exist, but they dramatically improve accuracy and efficiency long-term.

Mistake 3: Emission Factor Application Errors

Incorrectly applying emission factors by country, fuel type, and electricity type is common. International logistics companies especially face errors when mixing emission factors from multiple countries.

Wrong Applications:

Using domestic emission factors for overseas transportation
Using outdated emission factor versions
Confusing Location-based and Market-based approaches

Correct Applications:

Use latest emission factors published by each government
Utilize internationally recognized factors from IEA, IPCC
Distinguish between Location-based and Market-based for electricity

The Fix: Establish annual emission factor update schedules and regularly monitor changes in major operating countries.

Mistake 4: Third-Party Verification Target Selection Errors

From 2025, 100% verification of Scope 1 and 2 and 70%+ verification of Scope 3 becomes mandatory, but many don't know which data to select for verification.

Wrong Selections:

Verifying only low-importance Scope 3 categories
Verifying only the easiest-to-measure data
Selecting based on verification costs alone

Right Selections:

Major emission sources covering 70%+ of total emissions
Priority categories important for logistics industry characteristics
Emission sources with superior data quality first

The Fix: Create emission source importance matrices considering both emission volume and data quality for verification planning.

Mistake 5: Unrealistic Target Setting

Setting excessively high or low reduction targets loses credibility. CDP strongly recommends science-based target setting.

Unrealistic Targets:

"100% carbon emission reduction by 2030" (impossible)
"1% annual reduction" (too passive)
Declarative targets without specific implementation plans

Realistic Targets:

Reduction pathways meeting SBTi standards
Appropriate levels compared to industry averages
Targets linked to specific implementation plans

The Fix: Reference SBTi guidelines to set reduction pathways aligned with 1.5-degree scenarios.

Mistake 6: Superficial Risk Assessment

Simply listing climate change risks and opportunities without quantitative analysis is common. CDP requires quantification of financial impacts.

Superficial Analysis:

"Possibility of transportation delays due to climate change"
"Fuel price increase risks"
Descriptions without specific amounts or probabilities

In-Depth Analysis:

Specify financial impact scale (e.g., potential annual loss of 1 billion won)
Predict occurrence probability and timing
Specific costs and effects of response strategies

The Fix: Use scenario analysis methodologies to analyze impacts under 1.5, 2, and 4-degree scenarios.

Mistake 7: Formalistic Governance Structure

Building carbon management governance only formally without substantial decision-making structures is common.

Formalistic Structure:

Committees with only CEO's name listed
Quarterly formal meetings
Plans without execution power

Substantial Structure:

Actual participation of CEO or top management
Monthly monitoring systems
Performance-linked incentive systems

The Fix: Build substantial governance through board-level climate change response strategies and reflecting ESG indicators in executive performance evaluations.

Module-by-Module Writing Tips

Module 1 (Introduction): Basic Company Information

Currency unit reporting is mandatory, so clearly indicate currency units for all financial data. Reporting boundaries must align with financial statement consolidation standards.

Module 2 (Dependencies, Impacts, Risks, Opportunities): Double Materiality Assessment

Specifically describe environmental dependencies and impacts reflecting logistics industry characteristics:

Dependencies: Road infrastructure, port facilities, fuel supply chains
Impacts: Air pollution, noise, traffic congestion, ecosystem destruction

Module 7 (Climate Change): Core Performance Data

Accuracy of emission data is most important. Accurately calculate emissions by each Scope and clearly explain year-over-year increase/decrease reasons.

Building Data Collection Systems

Step 1: Define Data Collection Scope

Clearly set organizational and operational boundaries. Especially decide inclusion of overseas subsidiaries, joint ventures, and subcontractors.

Step 2: Build Automation Systems

Real-time data collection using digital technology is essential:

IoT Sensors: Real-time monitoring of fuel consumption and electricity usage
GPS Systems: Accurate mileage measurement
Integrated Management Platform: Centralized management of all data

Step 3: Build Quality Management Systems

Multi-stage review processes for data quality verification:

1st: Automated system anomaly detection
2nd: Field staff data review
3rd: Headquarters team final verification

Third-Party Verification Preparation Checklist

Pre-Verification Preparations

Complete Supporting Documents:

Fuel purchase receipts, electricity usage bills
Driving logs, vehicle registration certificates
Subcontractor contracts and emission data

Document Calculation Processes:

Emission factor application basis
Data processing and estimation methodologies
Quality management procedures

Staff Training:

Understanding verification processes
Q&A preparation
Document management methods

Verification Process Precautions

Smooth communication with verification institutions is important. Prepare to answer data questions immediately and provide additional evidence quickly when needed.

My Experience and Advice

I've been helping logistics companies with CDP reporting for years, and I've seen the same mistakes repeated over and over. But I've also seen companies that started with D grades eventually achieve A grades through systematic improvement.

CDP report writing isn't just paperwork - it's a comprehensive evaluation of your company's carbon management level. It might seem difficult and complex at first, but with systematic preparation, you can definitely achieve good results.

Most importantly, don't give up. Just because you didn't get a good grade on your first try doesn't mean you should be discouraged. Gradual annual improvements will eventually get you to your desired goal.

Remember, every A-grade company started somewhere. The key is learning from mistakes and continuously improving.

In the next post, I'll share strategies for using excellent CDP grades to create actual business opportunities. I'll show you how carbon neutrality can become a profitable business model with specific examples.

Homepage

For carbon emission measurement consultation and inquiries, please visit the GLEC homepage.

#CDPReporting #ThirdPartyVerification #CarbonEmissionMeasurement #Scope3 #DataCollection #EmissionFactors #LogisticsCDP #EnvironmentalReporting #ESGReporting #CarbonManagementSystem

Welcome our blog