The CDP Dividend: Why Companies Still Report (and Why Physical Risk is actually Opportunity)

Enjoyed being back at Nossa’s old stomping ground at Barclays Eagle Labs (back when it was Barclays Rise). I was there for coffee this morning and to head from speakers from CDP, the Green Alliance, and Compare Ethics, and to compare notes on what’s actually driving disclosure..

A few highlights / insights that stuck with me incoming...

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻’𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱:

1) 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹: CDP is now backed by 640 investors. CDP’s CEO Sherry Madera shared this as an increase this year. This figure accounts for $127M (USD) in AUM.

2) 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆: Having customer/supplier data ready, knowing what’s in the supply chain, and being able to respond fast, is key to have ready before you need to close a sale. If you haven’t been asked for data by a business partner yet… it’s coming.

3) 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: Still a drumbeat in the background, even when timelines and politics get messy with scope creeping back. Still it is directionally on track

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴?

CDP shared that companies disclosing through CDP reduce their direct emissions by 7–10% on average within two years of disclosing, essentially finding the “low-hanging fruit” to solve for once measured. It's no different than what I was told when entering sales for the first time, “What doesn't get measured, doesn’t get acted on.”

𝗕𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆?

Understanding and managing the trillions of dollars of physical risk companies are sitting with and the upside from acting on it. There were various metrics during the panel and keynote, but having forgotten exact figures, I tracked down a CDP study released late last year stating an average of $33.1M in environmental opportunities per company vs. $4.6m in costs to realise them, representing a 7x return.

Source: https://www.cdp.net/en/press-releases/unlocking-the-disclosure-dividend 

𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴?

It came up again today, and it still matches what I’ve been thinking: overstated.

Are companies marketing sustainability less? Yes.

Are they, on average, reporting on fewer datapoints as a result? Not really, it’s more of a shift in messaging than a collapse in disclosure, but we will see less companies bragging about positive moves being made.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗼f “𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝗵𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴”:

More than one speaker highlighted the importance of growth and jobs in the eyes of most governments. One speaker made the point that governments are optimising for growth and jobs, which is not independent from sustainability, even if the language shifts. The Planning and Infrastructure Act of 2025 was presented as an example of a reading that is steeped in concepts you’d absolutely file under ESG… but without the “ESG/DEI” labels.

I got curious and did a quick Ctrl+F once I got back to my desk with too much coffee in me. I found language around climate change, biodiversity, community, sustainable development (and more), but I couldn’t find “ESG”, “DEI”, or even the word “sustainability” in this form. Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/34/enacted

‍